1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 STATE PLANS...................................................................................................... 2

6.1 Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 2

6.1.1 Performance demonstrations.............................................................................................. 3

6.1.2 Timing of emission reductions............................................................................................ 3

6.1.3 Start date for performance period for interim goal ..................................................... 103

6.1.4 Duration of performance periods for final and interim goals ..................................... 173

6.1.5 Program implementation milestones, tracking of emission performance, and 

corrective measures ...................................................................................................... 254

6.1.6 Consequences if actual emission performance of a state plan does not meet state goal

......................................................................................................................................... 297

6.1.7 Out-year requirements.................................................................................................... 306
2

CHAPTER 6 STATE PLANS

This chapter addresses comments received on the EPA’s proposed guidelines for state plans. 

Comments received on the following topics are covered in this chapter: timing related to the 

interim performance periods and overall compliance deadline, tracking of performance, out-year 

requirements, state flexibility, and planning approach for alternative state goals; criteria for 

approving state plans including issues related to enforcement, quantifying and verifying 

performance, reporting, and corrective actions; components of state plans such as identification 

of affected entities, geographic scope, state emission performance level, demonstrations that 

plans will achieve state’s emission performance level and that plan is quantifiable, nonduplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable, milestones and reporting, and plan 

certification; and the process for state plan submittal and review covering approvability criteria, 

process for EPA review of state plans, making modifications to state plans, and issues 

concerning regional/multi-jurisdictional plans.

Commenters also raised issues on topics that are not covered by this chapter. Please refer to the 

following chapters for responses specific to those issues:

• Chapter 1: Legal

• Chapter 2: Applicability

• Chapter 3: GHG Mitigation Measures

• Chapter 4: State Goal Computation

• Chapter 5: State Plan Considerations

• Chapter 7: Interactions With Other EPA Programs and Rules

• Chapter 8: Impacts and Cost Analysis

• Chapter 9: Statutory and Executive Orders

• Chapter 10: Rule Language Corrections

6.1 TIMING

This section addresses comments on Timing related to CPP state plans and compliance. We have 

organized the comments in the section under ten subsections, 6.1.1 to 6.1.10. Responses to the 

comment topics of these subsections are discussed below along with summaries of the specific 

public comments.
3

6.1.1 Performance demonstrations

[See RTC chapters 6.1. 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 for comments related to this topic.]

6.1.2 Timing of emission reductions

This section discusses the timeframe for achieving emission reductions, and specifically the 

compliance deadline of 2030. Some commenters agreed with the proposal, while others either 

felt that proposed timeframe was too short or too long. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 

Comment 1: Comments agreeing with the proposed timeframe for achieving emission 

reductions, and that the EPA refrain from extending its compliance timeline.

Response 1: The EPA thanks these commenters for their support of the CPP. See sections 

V.A.3.g and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that there is a 15-year period between the time the rule is expected to be 

finalized and its final compliance date, adequate time for the modest transition to cleaner 

generation sources required by the rule especially in light of the rapid market changes already 

underway that favor such a transition. The commenters also indicated that dramatically falling 

costs of renewable energy resources like wind and solar energy and the eroding economics of 

coal-fired power are among the reasons the CPP goals are eminently achievable and affordable.

Commenters stated that EPA should hold to the timelines proposed in the draft rule. The 

commenters said it will be difficult for EPA to issue the final rule by the date it has proposed but 

it should hold to that schedule, promising to issue corrective rule modifications at a later date 

rather than re-proposing the rule and sliding the dates. The commenters stated that it is important 

for this rule to be in place prior to further international negotiations.

Commenters agreed that Option 1, carbon reductions over a 10-year horizon, is preferable over 

Option 2, a lower carbon target achieved in half the time. The commenters reasoned that 

deploying BSER in Option 1 will provide the state and its utilities the needed time to deploy 

cost-effective technologies and programs necessary to reduce the state's carbon emissions.
4

Commenters expressed optimism that implementation of the EPA Clean energy plan can be 

accomplished successfully by the proposed deadline (if not before) in Colorado.

Commenters stated that EPA should do everything possible to avoid any delays in issuance and 

enforcement of the final rules. The commenters said delay will only contribute to further buildup 

of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Commenters urged EPA to hold firm with its proposed timeline for compliance, including the 

2012 baseline, the 2020-2030 interim deadline, and the final 2030 deadline for compliance. The 

commenters strongly opposed any efforts to extend the compliance timeline, as well as any 

efforts to reduce or weaken Missouri's carbon reduction target. The commenters noted that, on 

November 21, 2014, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon submitted comments to EPA, advocating for 

an extension to the carbon reduction timeline. The commenters pointed out that this extension 

mirrors the position that has been put forth by Missouri's largest and most polluting utility, 

Ameren Missouri. The commenters noted that Renew Missouri strongly objects to any extension 

to EPA's proposed compliance timeline, with respect to both the interim and the final compliance 

targets. The commenters noted that Missouri is well on its way to achieve its needed 21% 

reductions simply by relying on already-announced plant retirements and policies currently in 

place. The commenters contended that giving in to a timeline extension would severely 

undermine EPA's authority, and would only give further reason for Missouri utilities to fail to 

achieve compliance with their legal responsibilities in the state.

According to the commenters, the reasons why Missouri does not require a delayed compliance 

timeline can perhaps be seen most clearly in the example of Ameren Missouri. The commenters 

noted that, in its most recent integrated resource plan (IRP), Ameren Missouri's preferred 

resource scenario would not have the utility achieving compliance with its required reductions 

until 2034. The commenters contended that Ameren Missouri's preferred scenario shows not 

only a flagrant disregard for federal authority, but also envisions renewable and efficiency 

investments that will cause the utility to fall short of the targets in Missouri law. The commenters 

particularly noted that Ameren Missouri has severely underestimated its energy efficiency 

potential, according to several national, regional, and statewide energy efficiency experts. 

According to the commenters, the reasons why Ameren Missouri has underestimated its potential 

are too numerous to fully cover here. The commenters offered one example below of why EPA 

should reject Ameren Missouri's position that Missouri requires a delayed compliance timeline.

The commenters noted that Ameren Missouri's 2013 Market Potential Study identified a 

maximum achievable potential (MAP) efficiency portfolio of 3.7% savings by 2018 and 15.9% 

savings by 2030. By contrast, the commenters pointed out that Illinois utility ComEd estimated a 

MAP scenario of 10% savings by 2018 in its potential study (conducted the same year as 

Ameren Missouri's). The commenters noted that the American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE) recently ranked Missouri 44th in energy efficiency, while Illinois ranks 11th. 

According to the commenters, one would expect Missouri to contain far more potential and lowhanging fruit than Illinois, having not implemented such mature and long-running programs, yet 

Illinois' largest utility identifies nearly three times the amount of efficiency potential as 

Missouri's. The commenters also noted that a 2011 ACEEE report estimated a 17% savings 

potential by 2025 for Missouri. 
5

Even with its drastically-underestimated MAP scenario of 15.9% savings by 2030, the 

commenters contended that Ameren Missouri would easily be able to comply with its needed 

reductions in the time allowed by EPA. However, the commenters noted that the utility has 

selected an even lower efficiency portfolio in its IRP: the so-called "realistic achievable 

potential" (RAP) portfolio identifies 11.7% savings by 2030, a level which several utilities have 

already achieved in the U.S. According to the commenters, Ameren Missouri selected the RAP 

scenario despite the fact that the MAP scenario actually scored the highest according to the 

utility's own scenario scoring methodology. At a minimum, the commenters believed that 

Ameren Missouri's MAP portfolio represents what is realistically achievable by a utility in 

Missouri. The commenters indicated that the difference between MAP and RAP is enough to 

close the gap between Ameren Missouri's compliance in 2030 as opposed to 2034.

Accordingly, the commenters recommended that EPA reject the request of the Governor and 

Ameren Missouri and refrain from extending the compliance timeline.

Comment 2: Comments asserting that the proposed timeframe for achieving emission reductions 

is too long, and arguing that the EPA should set more aggressive targets for CO2 reduction for 

the nation to meet and set more aggressive compliance dates without reducing targets. 

Response 2: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the CPP, and for reasons 

discussed in the preamble to the final rule we are finalizing this rule with the requirement that 

States demonstrate emissions reductions in a progressive manner to year 2030 and thereafter. 

While the final rule outlines the goals that States must meet by that time and maintain afterward,

we allow individual States the flexibility to create their own plans and establish their own 

emissions reduction goals. While this rule publishes a minimum achievement value for any State 

to achieve by 2030, many States are likely to not only meet but exceed these minimums and that 

the overall impact of the CPP will result in substantially lower CO2 emissions when compared to 

an extrapolation that assumes all States achieve only minimum reductions. See sections V.A.3.g,

VIII.B and VIII.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

We are not finalizing any position with respect to the implications of the 8-year review of the 

NSPS with respect to possible future revision of this guideline; it is unnecessary to address this 

issue at this point in time. Therefore, these comments are generally moot.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the Proposed Rule allows up to 15 years for full implementation of the 

emission reduction measures after the proposal is finalized. The commenters stated that scientists 

agree that emission levels this decade will determine our fate and may push beyond tipping 

points from which we cannot return. The commenters questioned how this delay will affect our 

nation's response to the urgency of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions at sufficient levels 

to avoid unsafe levels of heating and further acidification of our oceans. 

Commenters urged EPA to shorten the time for putting the measures in place, but did not support 

setting weaker standards to accommodate that shorter time frame. The commenters stated that 
6

five years would be reasonable and provide more time to implement than other large measures 

adopted by EPA in the past, including the NOx SIP Call.

Commenters argued that, just at face value, the Clean Power Plan fails to act quickly enough or 

decisively enough. The commenters stated that, by giving energy companies so much time to 

come into compliance and presenting a number of ways that they can safeguard old, inefficient 

modes of energy production, the plan serves primarily to kick the problem further down the 

road.

Commenters argued that the new rule does not require the nearly one thousand coal-fired power 

plants, more than 60 percent of which are over 40 years old, to actually clean up their pollution, 

but have states develop their own plans that would not be implemented until at least 2016.

Commenters stated that substantial reduction should be required sooner than 2030 (i.e., by 2020) 

with even much greater reductions required in the future. The commenters stated that GHG

remain in the atmosphere from decades to centuries after they are released, so they have a strong 

and persistent cumulative effect. The commenters argued that because emissions must peak 

within the next few years and decline sharply thereafter to be successful in this endeavor, waiting 

15 years for meaningful reductions is an unacceptable, indefensible, and irresponsible delay.

Commenters stated that EPA should not delay full implementation of the rule until 2030. The 

commenters argued that when states (such as Colorado) get serious about increasing clean 

energy and decreasing reliance on dirty fossil fuels, they can quickly ramp up renewable energy 

generation. The commenters stated that there is no need to wait over 15 years for full 

implementation of this rule.

Commenters stated that the proposed goal is too conservative and allows far too much time for 

compliance. Commenters urged EPA to shorten the time frame for compliance to 5 years, 

without setting weaker standards to accommodate the shorter time frame. Commenters supported 

the President's plan, but expressed concern that it is not fast enough to protect those who are

most vulnerable. 

Commenters argued that EPA must have stronger and faster pollution reduction targets. The 

commenters noted that the proposed targets give states 15 years to achieve reductions in carbon 

pollution from 2005 levels that we are already halfway to achieving. The commenters stated that

both the science and the President's pledge to reduce overall U.S. carbon pollution by 2020 

requires far more from the Clean Power Plan. The commenters urged that reductions of 35 to 40 

percent from the energy sector below 2005 levels be required by 2020, and greater reductions by 

2030. Commenters stated that the proposed 10-year averaging period for compliance needs to be 

broken down into more than one compliance schedule so short term gains are realized and the 

program stays on track to meet its goals.

Commenters stated that the proposed goal is too conservative and allows far too much time for 

compliance. Commenters urged EPA to shorten the time frame for compliance to five years, 

without setting weaker standards to accommodate the shorter time frame. Commenters supported 

the President's plan, but expressed concern that it is not fast enough to protect those who are 

most vulnerable.
7

Commenters noted that, as proposed, the Clean Power Plan will only result in a 30 percent 

reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels. Commenters pointed to the President's 

November 11th announcement of a commitment to reduce the nation's net greenhouse gas 

emissions up to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and said that, to accomplish that goal, this 

plan must require more reductions from the existing electric sector. Commenters urged the EPA 

to set targets that will secure at least 35 percent to 40 percent reductions from the 2005 levels. 

Commenters acknowledged that states do need time to phase in some measures. However, 

commenters contended that the EPA proposal offers an excessively long period for phase in 

compared to other similar major rules. Commenters urged EPA to shorten the time for putting 

these measures in place, but without reducing the required reductions as the EPA suggested as an 

option.

Noting that all state plans must be complete by 2018, commenters stated that the states would 

have twelve years to meet their goals in 2030. The commenters argued that five years would be 

reasonable and provide more time to implement than other large measures adopted by the EPA in 

the past, including the NOx SIP call and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. However,

commenters stated that EPA should not weaken the standards to accommodate that shorter 

timeframe. Commenters recommended that EPA revise the compliance schedule to ensure states 

start reducing emissions as soon as possible, and move the completion date to no later than 2025 

without reducing the targets. Commenters also said that EPA must require regular review of the 

implementation and these guidelines no less frequently than once every 8 years.

Comment 3: Comments arguing for immediate action to reduce GHG emissions. 

Response 3: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the CPP and acknowledges 

that timing is important and in the final rule we retain the proposed goals, though are allowing 

additional time for States to formulate their plans and begin meeting the first interim goal. To 

the point that the commenters state that accelerated emissions reductions are achievable, the 

commenters did not acknowledge that there are already projects underway that will aid in 

meeting this first goal. See sections I.A and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for 

EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued for immediate action to reduce GHG emissions. Commenters noted that 

greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon concentrations have continued to rise in the 

years since EPA made its endangerment finding. For instance, commenters stated that global 

greenhouse gas emissions are now rising faster than the IPCC's highest emissions scenario from 

2007, as illustrated in a figure compiled by the European Environment Agency, comparing six 

IPCC emission scenarios with actual atmospheric carbon measurements from two sources.

Commenters stated that, in the last decade, global emissions have rapidly increased to match, or 

even slightly outpace, the most aggressive IPCC scenario, which assumes a "world of very rapid 

economic growth" with "fossil-intensive" energy systems.
8

Commenters indicated that domestic action to combat climate change will have benefits that 

extend far beyond our borders. Commenters noted that, as of 2012, the United States was 

responsible for approximately 13.4 percent of global anthropogenic GHG emissions and 15 

percent of CO2 emissions). According to the commenters, the U.S. power sector alone 

contributed approximately 4.5 percent of worldwide GHG emissions and over 6 percent of all 

CO2 emissions. Commenters contended that steep cuts from large sources like the U.S. power 

sector are therefore critical to prevent truly disastrous climate impacts. Commenters referred to 

the NRC's 2011 report on climate stabilization, which emphasized that worldwide emissions 

reductions on the order of 80 percent by the century's end are necessary to prevent temperatures 

from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. According to the commenters, the 

IPCC has determined with "high confidence" that "[d]elaying mitigation efforts beyond those in 

place today through 2030 is estimated to substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to 

low longer-term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining 

temperature change below 2 degrees C relative to pre-industrial levels." Without swift and 

significant emissions controls for the U.S. power sector, the commenters argued that the odds of 

preventing the most extreme effects of climate change are virtually nil. According to the 

commenters, the IPCC, in its 2014 synthesis report, warned that without immediate action to 

curb GHG emissions, climate change will have dire and irreversible impacts worldwide 

Commenters argued that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but is being felt around the 

globe, and immediate and significant carbon emission reductions are needed to curtail warming 

of the planet. Commenters cited the U.N. secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who, at the report's 

launch, said "Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message. Leaders must act. Time 

is not on our side." 

Commenters also referred to the United Nations Environment Programme's 2014 Emissions Gap 

Report, which stated that, even with the U.S., China, and EU's recent pledges to limit GHG 

pollution, the world is not on track to achieving the emissions reductions needed to keep global 

temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100 and avoid the 

worst impacts of a changing climate. Commenters argued that further immediate action, such as 

heavy investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, is needed to keep global average 

temperature rise below the internationally agreed 2 degrees Celsius goal to avoid the most 

devastating consequences of climate change. Commenters also argued that a strong Clean Power 

Plan alone would not be enough to achieve the reductions set out in the U.S.' pledge; 

Commenters indicated that other federal regulatory standards being implemented under the 

Obama Administration would play an important role in significantly reducing GHG pollution. 

According to the commenters, the proposed regulations limiting carbon emissions from new and 

existing power plants, combined with other regulatory actions, such as the new fuel economy 

standards for vehicles, mercury and air toxics standards, ozone standards, initiatives to reduce 

methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, and efforts to boost energy efficiency and 

renewable energy standards at the state level, would all be needed to achieve the Obama 

administration's pledge, cement US leadership, and help keep global temperature rise below the 

internationally agreed 2 degree Celsius goal. Commenters argued that the greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions required to meet the more stringent 2025 targets are achievable with the 

implementation of a stringent Clean Power Plan in combination with other critical federal 

regulatory actions.
9

Comment 4: Comment agreeing that utility system changes are achievable in the time allotted 

by the CPP, or sooner.

Response 4: The EPA acknowledges both the severity of delay, and the timing balances 

necessary to maintain the electrical grid stability and capability of serving America’s energy 

needs. In this final version the EPA is adding flexibility to States to aid in managing their 

programs across the various regions and power grid service areas of the Country. For instance, 

States now have additional time to finalize their plans, along with credit for early action. In their 

plans, states will be able to choose either to impose federally enforceable emission standards that 

fully meet the emission guidelines directly on affected EGUs (the “emission standards” 

approach) or to use a “state measures" approach, which would be composed, at least in part, of 

measures implemented by the state that are not included as federally enforceable components of 

the plan but result in the affected EGUs meeting the requirements of the emission guidelines. 

The additional flexibility in this final rule is intended to provide States the ability to determine, 

effect, and manage their reduction plans on schedule, without a negative infrastructure and 

reliability impact. See sections V.A.3.g., VIII.B and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that in response to perceived reliability concerns, NERC has called on EPA 

to "consider a more timely approach" to implementation of the CPP. Commenters stated that this 

call mirrors similar requests from SPP, which explicitly asks EPA to extend its proposed 

compliance schedule, and several other utilities and grid operators, including PJM. Commenters 

noted that it is to be expected that grid operators and especially utilities would want more time to 

adapt, but any needed system changes anticipated by EPA's rule are achievable in the time 

allotted, and in fact are probably possible on a faster timeframe. Commenters stated that grid 

operators have already begun the process of integrating higher levels of renewable energy and 

responding to coal plant retirements caused by the worsening economics of coal. Commenters

stated that the CPP provides sufficient flexibility and lead time for utilities and grid operators to 

adapt. Commenters stated that there are no targets that need to be met in 2020, nor are any 

sources specifically subject to continuous emission rate requirements. Commenters stated that 

this absence of hard mandates early in the compliance period alleviates the need for the 

requested delays in implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Finally, commenters noted that 

unlike other EPA rules, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), that impose 

continuous emission rate requirements on coal plants, the Clean Power Plan imposes only annual 

emission rate constraints (see below for a more comprehensive comparison of CPP and MATS 

requirements). Commenters stated that the danger climate change poses to our society is too 

great to be held hostage to the apparent reluctance of grid operators to update their policies and 

infrastructure to accommodate clean electricity sources. Commenters stated that President 

Obama's international commitments, especially the recent U.S. - China agreement, require that 

we achieve greenhouse gas reductions at least equal to those required by the CPP from the power 

sector; failing to meet those objectives would set back global efforts to mitigate climate change 

significantly, when time is already of the essence. 
10

Comment 5: Comments arguing that the proposed timeframe for achieving emission reductions 

is too short.

Response 5: For the reasons submitted by the commenters, as well as other reasons, the EPA has 

extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim 

period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g, VIII.B, VIII.E, and VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended a delay in the implementation of the Clean Power Plan to give states 

and utilities adequate time to implement compliance strategies, and share those strategies with 

the public for comment. Commenters argued that state permitting agencies are currently not 

staffed or funded to meet the aggressive schedule established by the CPP. 

Commenters requested that EPA extend the compliance schedule to allow a reasonable time for 

states and utilities to comply. Commenters stated that the proposal appears to be based on 

assumptions that are unrealistic and will have a damaging effect on the nation's business and 

economy.

Commenters requested that EPA extend the timing and reduce the stringency of state goals to 

fully consider practical constraints. Commenters recommended that EPA allow additional time to 

create and implement plans to avoid disruption to supply and limit the exorbitant costs imposed 

on consumers. Commenters supported a smooth transition to a lower carbon future, provide 

states and impacted utilities with a more realistic timeframe in order to conduct reliability 

assessments and prepare for initial compliance with CO2 reduction goals.

Commenters stated that the proposal assumes renewable power and energy efficiency goals that 

are well above achievable levels in the given compliance timeframe. Commenters contended the

compliance timeline to meet the stringent 2020 goals is unreasonable considering that state 

implementation plans will not be finalized and approved until 2018 or 2019.

Commenters suggested that EPA extend the compliance date of 2030 by five years to allow the 

orderly transition to cleaner energy in a responsible way. Commenters also argued that the target 

compliance date should not be set in stone in 2030. Commenters stated rather, states should be 

given the flexibility to extend the date in order to allow the orderly transition of generation fleets. 

Commenters stated that this will help mitigate the potential for liability concerns and rate shock 

which would be particularly harmful to our fixed and low income customers.

Commenters similarly requested cross-the-board extensions of five years for 

proposed timeframes on affected coal-fired EGUs, in the event their state was not granted an 

exemption from the rule. Commenters argued that their state does not have the infrastructure, 

interconnectedness, transmission capacity, or population to offset losses associated with any 

environmental gains envisioned by the EPA. Commenters sought to focus on the ability of their 

state's coal-fired EGUs to address proposed standards in the rule and to educate EPA as to 

measures already taken.
11

Commenters noted that, up to four years ago, 60 percent of the power at GreyStone Power was 

coming from coal-burning power plants, but in 2013, that had fallen to 9 percent of 

coal. Commenters noted that most of that was filled in with a large amount of natural gas, but 

also nuclear and hydro assets. Commenters urged the EPA to go slowly on this proposal because 

coal is still going to be part of the equation. Commenters noted that, as professionals, they 

understand that it takes careful planning and time to phase out older technology and replace it 

with newer technology, especially if newer technology is not quite where it needs to be to 

replace the old technology. To illustrate the kind of scenario commenters feel they are in right 

now, commenters stated that, if you're waiting on a liver transplant, you don't unplug your life 

support machine, hoping the donor organ will get to you more quickly.

Commenters described the diversity in size, geography, access to transmission facilities, 

ownership, and power supply arrangements for Iowa's municipal electric utilities and expressed 

concern about the challenging timeframe states have been given to comply.

Commenters argued that the four building blocks are not achievable within the proposed 

timeframe and requested that EPA withdraw or amend the rule and its timeline. Commenters

similarly stated that even if the proposed goals were attainable, they could not be attained within 

the timeframes proposed by EPA. Commenters argued that the interim and final goals for 

Arizona cannot be achieved within the proposed timeframes. Commenters noted that application 

of the four building blocks for Arizona resulted in a 52 percent reduction in the CO2 emission 

rate (from a 2012 baseline), which commenters said is arguably the most aggressive reduction 

requirement in the nation. Commenters said most of that reduction occurs as a result of the 

second building block.

Commenters indicated that time is needed for retirement of existing plants. Commenters

suggested that states should be given the flexibility to extend the compliance date to allow the 

orderly retirement of coal plants as states implement their transition plans.

Commenters stated that EPA's analysis assumes retirement of large amounts of 24/7 generating 

capacity in such a short period -- with insufficient time to provide replacement power plants or 

transmission lines -- that reliable electric service is placed at risk. Commenters stated that this is 

especially true for AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company's East Texas region within the 

Southwest Power Pool, where EPA envisions all of the company's base load capacity to be 

retired by 2020.

Commenters asked the EPA to modify the proposed unrealistic assumptions, extend the schedule 

to allow a reasonable opportunity for compliance, and allow flexibility for the continued 

operation of base load generation where it is needed to support reliability.

Commenters asked that the EPA rework the proposal to include more realistic targets and 

timelines. Commenters stated that electric utilities need more time to build replacement 

generation and make significant investments in transmission and other mitigation to maintain 

reliability.

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposals to regulate carbon emissions from existing, 

modified, and reconstructed power plants threaten to increase electricity costs for their members. 
12

Commenters stated that a longer ramping up phase would allow electricity cooperatives to better 

prepare for fuel and technology developments necessary to meet these standards, provide greater 

economic recovery, and would help members better prepare to manage the unavoidable electric 

cost increases.

Commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan creates a de facto ban on older coal fired power 

plants while not allowing for new technologies to become on line to reduce 

emissions. Considering that coal currently accounts for 20 percent of the power in America's 

electricity generation, commenters questioned what will make up the megawatt difference as 

existing power plants are retired.

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow Pennsylvania and other states to set less stringent 

performance standards and longer compliance schedules for power plants within their 

jurisdiction, and Pennsylvania and other states should be given maximum flexibility by the EPA 

to implement carbon dioxide performance standards for fossil-fueled power plants within their 

jurisdiction. Commenters stated that the are a number of key considerations that are critical to 

ensuring a national program supports individual states' progress, including allowing sufficient 

time for states to transition to a cleaner utility sector with the ultimate goal of decreasing the 

average emission rate, and total emissions, of the fossil generating fleet on a national basis and 

bringing higher carbon states in line with more proactive states, such as California.

Commenters stated that the rule is unworkable given the timeframes that EPA has set for 

compliance. Commenters said that EPA should allow the states to adopt compliance deadlines

that are based on the remaining useful lives of each of the designated existing facilities. The 

commenters also argued that, given the extensive legal, regulatory, and physical changes that 

must occur first, EPA should give the states until 2035 to achieve compliance with any emission 

reduction targets.

Commenters stated that the compliance timeline should be extended to allow recent investments 

in other emission control technologies to be amortized over their useful lives. Otherwise,

commenters noted the inevitable result will be premature closings and stranded assets.

Commenters stated that the time frames for compliance with State goals are too short due to the 

difficulty States will face in reaching them. Commenters noted that the complexities of 

organizing a regional plan among multiple States will require additional time to build and 

implement. Commenters recommended extending the compliance dates.

Commenters contended that many states highly dependent on coal-based generation have already 

achieved significant emission reductions, noting that since 2005 CO2 emissions from the fossil 

fuel plants have decreased by 13 percent, but commenters stated they still face the additional 

burden of further reducing their CO2 emissions on the short time table set by the EPA's rules.

Commenters stated that the rule requires a complex and aggressive air, climate, clean tech, utility 

and electric market policy reform for the states to carry out, that will in many cases require 

contentious state legislation, in a very short time. Commenters noted that the possibility of legal 

review will make early action to comply with the rule less likely. 
13

Commenters contend that the timeframe allotted for this formation and development of a 

regional structure is inadequate.

Commenters said the emission rate goals in the proposed rule are front-loaded, meaning that the 

reduction required to get on EPA's path in 2020 is daunting, and there is insufficient time to 

achieve the proposed emission rate by 2020 due to the State planning and subsequent actions that 

must take place between now and 2020.

Comment 6: Comments supporting less stringent interim goal requirements and timelines to 

accommodate challenges faced by smaller utilities, and arguing that states should have the 

discretion to adjust the compliance schedule for certain small utilities that have a single 

jurisdictional asset in order to moderate the adverse impacts the proposed rule will have.

Response 6: The final guidelines provide states with additional flexibility in developing their 

state plans to give states the ability to determine, effect, and manage their reduction plans on 

schedule. This rule includes options that provide states flexibility in assembling state plans 

through the use of emission rate plans, state measures plans, or as part of a larger regional plan. 

Within these plans, states have the ability to set their own glide path slopes to meet interim 

compliance targets, and decisions that will be made at the state or regional planning level.

Additionally, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has 

moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022See sections V.A, VIII.B, and XII.D of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters indicated that EPA seeks comment on whether there are special considerations 

affecting small rural cooperative or municipal utilities that might merit adjustments to the BSER 

proposal, and, if so, possible adjustments that should be considered. According to commenters, 

Iowa Agencies noted some unique challenges that may confront smaller utilities in developing 

the compliance building blocks within the proposed interim and final compliance timeframes. 

Commenters referred to Iowa Agencies' proposal of less stringent interim goal requirements and 

timelines. Commenters were supportive of the Iowa Agency request, not to delay implementation 

of sensible, cost-effective CO2 reduction strategies, but to ensure that Iowa stakeholders have 

adequate time to develop an optimal and cost-effective compliance plan. Commenters said the 

allowance of additional time to meet interim goals will help accommodate the challenges faced 

by smaller utilities and assist them in designing strategies to develop certain building blocks 

approaches, possibly through trading or a multi-state approach.

Commenters noted that the proposed rule established a compliance implementation schedule 

from 2020 through 2029, with full compliance required by 2029. Commenters recommended that 

EPA grant states the flexibility through the SIP process, to permit a small utility with a minority 

ownership in a single jurisdictional EGU, to delay the compliance implementation schedule by 

five years, beginning in 2025. The commenters indicated that EPA need not alter the actual 

emissions reduction requirements, but delay their total effective date to 2034. By this state 

discretion, the commenters indicated SIPs could be drafted with stakeholder input to ensure that 
14

the total emission reductions of a small utility's share from a jointly owned jurisdiction EGU 

result in the overall level of emissions levels during the 15 year period 2020 to 2034. The 

commenters contended that permitting the small utilities to have five extra years to achieve 

compliance would help to balance out the inherent inequities that small utilities would otherwise 

face in implementing the proposed rule. According to the commenters, states are best positioned, 

and have the expertise and familiarity with their state-specific resources to craft SIPs in a 

manner, through reasonable implementation of the proposed rule, while considering the unique 

circumstances of each individual state.

Comment 7: Comments requesting that the CPP be modified to allow more time for compliance, 

and stating that targets and timelines in the CPP are unrealistic and unreasonable.

Response 7: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g and

VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

In the event that the EPA does not withdraw the proposed rule, commenters requested that the 

EPA modify the proposed rule to provide sufficient time for states and affected entities to (1) 

adopt necessary laws and regulations, (2) evaluate electric system options and efficiency 

opportunities, (3) coordinate interstate activities, (4) assess the system for reliability issues, (5) 

reduce economic impact on end users, and (6) implement plans that reflect the best interests of 

the citizens of the state.

Commenters argued that the proposed rule is not necessary in Oklahoma given the state's 

documented success in reducing CO2 emissions on its own initiative. According to the 

commenters, even if federal regulation were appropriate, the targets and timelines set by the CPP 

are unrealistic and unreasonable. The commenters noted that they have preliminarily reviewed 

the NODA which was recently released and stated that the NODA, which proposes alternative 

methods of determining a State's target, still relies on the same legally and technically flawed 

basis and in many regards, creates more uncertainty and more stringent targets.

Comment 8: Comments arguing that the rule is unworkable, given the timeframe EPA proposes, 

and says that compliance date should be based on “remaining useful life,” and that the proposed 

rule shows a lack of consideration for the useful life of existing coal assets. 

Response 8: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022 and has added flexibility 

to allow State programs to include considerations for Emissions Performance Rates as well. The 

final rule includes this additional time and flexibility due to reasons the commenters specifically 

mention, among others. Where a newer unit provides for more efficient operations we believe 
15

these facilities will find their place in such plans. See sections VIII.B and VIII.G.1 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for further response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters proposed that EPA abandon the proposed rule's interim emission reduction targets 

and abandon its requirement of a definite, one-size-fits-all final compliance date. The 

commenters contended that the final compliance date should instead be based on the end of the 

useful life of a facility as demonstrated in loan document filings on record with various loan 

institutions as of January 1, 2014. The commenters indicated this unit-specific final compliance 

date would itself comply with the Clean Air Act's express requirement that remaining useful life 

of each facility be factored into State plans. The commenters also indicated it would eliminate 

the overwhelming financial burden many cooperatives face in complying with the proposed rule. 

Finally, the commenters indicated a staggered compliance date would allow for staggered 

retirement of facilities, which would ensure that the resources and services necessary to 

restructure the American energy industry (i.e., engineering, design and permitting, transmission 

and generation asset manufacturing, and construction and labor) will be available when needed at 

a reasonable cost. If EPA insists on its arbitrary final compliance date in violation of the Act's 

instruction that state plans be based on the remaining useful lives of existing facilities, the 

commenters contended that EPA must then establish 2035 as the earliest date with which any 

standards of performance must be complied.

Commenters noted that Arizona has a relativity young coal fleet. According to the commenters, 

closing a significant portion of these plants would not only burden ratepayers with billions of 

dollars in stranded costs, but it would also require expensive new infrastructure. In addition, the 

commenters noted that these coal plants have been retrofitted with billions of dollars' worth of 

emission equipment stemming from other EPA rules. Therefore, the commenters concluded it 

would be socially and economically suboptimal to close a majority of these plants before their 

useful life. The commenters noted that the interim goal and the re-dispatch assumptions combine 

to guarantee a wide scale shutdown of these plants. Moreover, the commenters noted that the 

shutdown would occur within five years--preventing rate gradualism and not allowing a proper 

transition for communities reliant on coal related economic activity.

Comment 9: Comment saying that the suggestion that states should begin legislative changes 

based on the proposed (not final) CPP is not reasonable, reinforcing the fact that the EPA has not 

allowed enough time to develop a state plan.

Response 9: The EPA recognizes that many decisions will remain to be made until the final rule 

is published and clarity about the proposed goals and timelines is made public; and yet the EPA 

also expects that States are having conversations about how programs may be structured, who 

may oversee those programs, and what agencies and logistics will be involved such that by that 

time these crucial early discussions have been had and States will be able to ‘hit the ground 

running’. See sections VIII.E and XI.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response 

to this comment.
16

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters noted EPA's suggestion that in order for states to have an opportunity to meet the 

timeframes proposed in this rule, states should not wait until the final rules are issued but start to 

prepare for this rule based on the proposal. The commenters argued that this approach is 

impractical and unreasonable. The commenters stated that it is not possible for states to discuss 

legislative changes based on a proposal; the commenters argued that there must be a final goal or 

target promulgated. According to the commenters, these statements also imply that EPA does not 

intend to carefully consider and modify the proposal based on comments. The commenters 

contended that this reinforces the fact that EPA has not allowed sufficient time to develop the 

state plan for such a sweeping requirement that completely modifies the manner that electricity is 

produced and generated in the United States.

Comment 10: Comment arguing that the EPA has set arbitrary and capricious deadlines related 

to its rulemaking schedule, state plan development, and source compliance.

Response 10: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See section V.A.3.g. and 

VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal is one component of "The President's Climate 

Action Plan," which directed EPA to propose emission guidelines for existing sources by June 1, 

2014, and to finalize them by June 1, 2015. The commenters noted that as part of the President's 

Plan, and as EPA has proposed, states must then develop and submit their state plans, or at least 

a firm commitment regarding the content of the state plan, by June 30, 2016. If a state needs 

more time, the commenters noted that the EPA has provided an option for a two-step process for 

submitting a final plan. The commenters noted that states that opt for this approach would need 

to submit an initial plan by June 30, 2016, that documents the state's progress in preparing a 

complete plan and that both: (1) demonstrates the state is on track, and (2) includes meaningful 

steps that clearly commit the state to complete an approvable plan. The commenters noted that if 

the state is developing an individual state plan, the final plan is then due by June 30, 2017, and if 

the state is working with other states to develop a multi-state plan, a second progress report is

due by June 30, 2017, with the final plan due on June 30, 2018. The commenters noted that 

sources must then act immediately to meet their obligations under the interim compliance period 

beginning in 2020. The commenters argued that these arbitrary and capricious deadlines do not 

provide an adequate opportunity for public comment or for EPA or states to respond thereto, do 

not provide adequate time for state plan development, and do not provide adequate time for 

sources to comply. 

Comment 11: Comment asserting that EPA's own compliance modeling results detail the 

unworkable nature of this proposal.
17

Response 11: For this and other reasons the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A 

discussion of this is included in section VIII.D.2.b of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that based on EPA's proposed regulatory timeline, guidelines are anticipated 

to be finalized by June 2015 and state plans must be submitted to EPA between June 2016 and 

June 2018 and EPA has 1 year to approve a state plan after its submittal. Assuming that EPA's 

proposed schedule does not shift, the commenters noted that state plans will be approved no 

earlier than June 2017 and no later than June 2019. The commenters stated that EPA's IPM 

compliance results, however, depict that significant compliance actions will be made in 2016, 

2018, and 2020. According to the commenters, these compliance actions for Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, and Mississippi include: fossil fuel-fired unit retirements, NGCC new builds, coal-fired 

unit heat rate improvements, and demand-side energy efficiency deployment. Even after 

complying with all proposed regulatory timelines, the commenters stated that according to EPA's 

IPM compliance results, states must then implement a collection of impossible to achieve 

measures to comply by 2020. The commenters asserted that EPA's own compliance modeling 

results detail the unworkable nature of this proposal.

Comment 12: Comment stating that implementation time is too short.

Response 12: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g., 

VIII.B and VIII.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that even if the Building Blocks were technically feasible to implement, the 

short amount of time that EPA has provided for compliance will make implementation 

impossible. The commenters stated that to meet required interim 2020-2030 emission targets, 

facilities would have to begin compliance by 2020. 

The commenters noted assuming that state plans will not be approved until 2017 at the earliest, 

provides just 3 years to design, specify, contract, build, install, and test hundreds of millions of 

dollars' worth of facilities and equipment, much of which has manufacturing lead-time in excess 

of 12 months.

The commenters stated further that the compliance time periods mandated by the CPP fail to 

account for the complicated jurisdictional issues that exist between FERC and the States. The 

commenters noted that given the narrow jurisdictional divide between FERC and the States, it is 

unreasonable for the CPP to expect States to devise a state plan within such a short period of 

time. The commenters noted that in many instances, States will be required to obtain FERC 

approval of their proposed plans.
18

Comment 13: Comment stating that two conditions are necessary for a more efficient approach 

in reducing emissions--gradual reductions and time for state and other key stakeholder policies 

and practices to evolve.

Response 13: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g., 

and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

The commenters stating that two conditions (gradual reductions and more time for stakeholder 

policies to evolve) are needed. Regarding the first condition, the commenters stated that dramatic 

shocks to the power system that require substituting combined-cycle plants for coal plants need 

to be avoided. The commenters indicated that a suitable "glide path" with a gradual emission 

reduction trajectory, tailored by each state to meet its unique circumstances, is necessary to 

achieve greater overall emission reductions at a lower cost. Regarding the second, and equally 

important, condition, the commenters noted that states, power plant owners, renewable energy 

developers and other stakeholders--including the many who determine the rules and capabilities 

of FERC-regulated wholesale electricity markets and gas pipelines--need time to develop the 

innovative policies and business models that will support lower carbon, equally reliable solutions 

to the BES' complex constraints. According to the commenters, many of these policies will need 

to evolve iteratively over the coming decades to keep pace with changing technologies and 

business models in the power sector.

Comment 14: Comment stating that given the sheer regulatory reach of the proposed rule, and 

the coordination that will be required for implementation, the EPA needs to allow for a longer 

compliance.

Response 14: The EPA is finalizing this rule to include Emissions Performance Rate regulatory 

options for States that make “inside the fence” options available for inclusion in State programs. 

As described in the preamble to the final rule, this is done to provide enhanced flexibility to State 

plans in glide path projection toward interim and final goal achievability. See sections V.A.3.g., ,

VIII.B, VIII.E, and XII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this 

comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that EPA's interpretation of section 111 sets goals for states that they can 

only achieve through "outside-the-fence" (beyond the infrastructure and equipment of individual 

electric generating units/plants) actions. The commenters indicated this will require extensive 

legislative and regulatory actions at the state level. The commenters noted that the time to take 

these actions is not built into the rule. According to the commenters, in many states, no single 

state agency has the authority required to implement EPA's outside-the-fence measures, meaning 

state legislation would be necessary to fill those authority gaps. The commenters noted that, with 

some state legislatures meeting only once per year, even states that are eager to comply may end 

up being unable to adopt or approve the necessary legislation. The commenters further noted that 
19

these administrative changes will create a domino effect that will result in complicated and timeintensive issues for individual business owners, particularly their members, such as applying for 

permit revisions based on new operating restrictions. 

The commenters stated that many states will not even be able to submit summary plans within 

one year, let alone submit full plans within two years. The commenters noted that under other 

CAA programs, states are typically given up to three years to submit implementation plans to 

EPA. The commenters further noted that the extensions currently contained in the plan are 

illusory because a majority of the state's commitments must be agreed to early on in order to 

figure out the details. According to the commenters, while EPA's proposal gives states the option 

of taking two years to submit a plan under certain circumstances, states must still submit an 

"interim" plan within one year in which they make the critical decisions. The commenters noted 

that the proposal also allows a third year for plan submission, but only if a state opts into a 

regional plan, which the commenters indicated will be even more difficult to negotiate given the 

inevitable interstate bureaucracies that will be encountered. By rushing the states through the 

planning process, the commenters argued that EPA is undermining the very work they are trying 

achieve. The commenters indicated that states should at least be given an appropriate amount of 

time in which to formulate a plan that is both legal and well researched.

Comment 15: Comments stating that the ambitious compliance deadlines within the CPP do not 

account for the multiple layers of structural changes that would have to take place prior to 

developing an implementation plan.

Response 15: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A discussion of this is 

included in the preamble to the final rule, and includes addressing the issue(s) raised above in 

regard to forward capacity marketing. See sections V.A.3.g., VIII.B and VIII.D of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comments:

Commenters argued that the CPP's timing and implementation schedule is neither credible nor 

viable. (The commenters provided a list CPP deadlines on page 23 of their comments.) 

According to the commenters, it would take at least several years for state legislatures and 

administrative agencies to amend and revise their respective statutes and administrative rules. 

Even if the CPP could be established on a more aggressive timeline, the commenters indicated 

that the earliest possible date for performance to start based on the proposed plan would be 2022. 

The commenters also noted that the timeline ignores necessary planning that must occur within 

the RTO construct as well as reliability planning that must occur with NERC. The commenters

made the following three arguments: 

First, the commenters argued that the proposed schedule does not provide adequate time for 

changes in state law. Under the current proposal, the commenters said their state (Ohio) would 

be given at most two years to not only develop and create an implementation plan, but to 

implement necessary legislative revisions through the Ohio General Assembly and subsequent 
20

rulemaking through state agencies. As the commenters set forth within their comments, 

significant time would be necessary to draft legislation and engage in the implementation 

process. The commenters indicated a minimum of six months would typically be required to 

draft all necessary legislative changes to Ohio's current competitive retail electric service laws.

The commenters noted that this legislation would then need to be introduced before the Ohio 

General Assembly, hearings held and the statutory language vetted and eventually adopted. The 

commenters indicated that the Ohio General Assembly would likely need to devote several years 

to implementing the extensive overhaul necessary to meet the path charted in the CPP. After the 

Ohio General Assembly takes action, the commenters indicated the burden would shift to state 

regulatory agencies like the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and Ohio EPA to 

update and amend administrative rules. The commenters noted that PUCO is familiar with this 

process, and it could take anywhere from 18 to 24 months to complete. According to the 

commenters, the PUCO is specifically required by law to conduct an initial workshop on any 

proposed rule revisions, open a docket for that rule and solicit feedback from stakeholders. Once 

the PUCO approves new or amended rules after allowing an open and participatory process, the 

commenters indicated the rules remain subject to a rehearing process. The commenters stated 

that this rehearing process typically takes at least six months to complete. In light of these two 

processes, the commenters said that Ohio legislative and rulemaking proceedings would likely 

require extensive time beyond the CPP's overly ambitious timeline.

Second, the commenters argued that, because the CPP changes the treatment of generation 

resources, additional time must be allocated for the regional transmission organization to amend 

its tariffs and update its structure. The commenters noted that there are 14 jurisdictions that are 

members of PJM, each with their own policy objectives and generation resource mix. The 

commenters stated that it would take an extensive amount of time for each state to develop an 

implementation plan in order to meet the CPP's stringent timeframe. The commenters indicated 

that PJM would need to review each of these plans in order to determine how to structure the 

current marketplace, determine any reliability implications and update its tariffs.

Third, the commenters argued that the proposed schedule does not contemplate the intricacies of 

a forward capacity market. The commenters reiterated that PJM's RPM capacity construct is 

based on making capacity commitments three years ahead of the actual electricity delivery year. 

According to the commenters, the rationale behind a forward capacity market, as opposed to a 

short-term capacity market, is to stimulate investment in new generation and maintain existing 

generation by creating long-term price signals. In order to participate in the RPM process, the 

commenters noted that generators are required to meet "must offer requirements" during the 

actual delivery year. The commenters stated that PJM depends upon these generation units to 

offer their resources into energy markets during the actual delivery day. By the time the final rule 

is issued in June 2015, the commenters indicated that PJM would have already conducted its 

capacity auction for the 2018/2019 delivery year. The commenters argued that the CPP appears 

to be unfamiliar with this concept. The commenters noted that RTOs depend upon all existing 

generation units and plan ahead for future years in order to ensure there is sufficient generation 

to meet demand. At a minimum, the commenters contended that the availability of certain 

generation units that have already been earmarked to produce energy would be placed in doubt, 

causing uncertainty for PJM, states, markets, the economy and all energy consumers. The 

commenters indicated that it would be unclear whether units that have already committed to 

produce energy in the forward capacity market would be able to perform as originally 
21

contemplated. The commenters argued that the CPP does not address impacts on forward 

capacity markets or provide additional time for implementation in light of forward capacity 

markets. The commenters contended that it would be impossible for state plans to be 

implemented by the latest possible deadline of 2018, particularly when capacity generation 

resources will have already been procured through 2021/2022. Assuming there are no 

administrative challenges or burdens, the commenters said the earliest possible compliance year 

for all states in the PJM footprint would be 2022.

Commenters stated that the EPA acknowledges in its July 2012 Roadmap Guidance that a "high 

level of coordination among multiple government agencies" and "early coordination" between 

responsible agencies will be needed in developing strategies, determining their effectiveness and 

understanding each agencies role in the process. Commenters said the short timeframe provided 

in this proposal to design a state plan does not provide states enough time to work across state 

agencies and sort out complex legal and logistical issues. Commenters stated not to mention, 

from a practical matter, to have multiple agencies legally responsible for different elements of a 

CAA requirement will become highly complex and under current resource constraints, virtually 

impossible.

Commenters said that the Florida Legislature would need to act before EPA's building blocks 

could be enforced in Florida. Commenters said, Florida's Legislature meets for two months every 

year in March and April, and most bills have to be filed many months in advance. Commenters

said if EPA has an effective date of June 30, 2015, Florida will have approximately six months to 

determine what legislative actions may be needed in the 2016 and 2017 Sessions. Commenters

said that this can only occur after it undertakes the enormous task of understanding what the final 

guidelines require, deciding which measures could achieve the state goal, determining the costs 

of each of these measures on the affected parties and Florida's economy, so as to minimize the 

economic impacts, and coordinating with the FPSC to ensure that there are no adverse impacts 

on the reliability of Florida's electric grid. Commenters said EPA's timeframe of a SIP completed 

by June 30, 2016 cannot be met.

Commenters said that the CCP requires the decision on the options to be made within a 13-

month deadline. Commenters said that establishing energy policy is a complex undertaking 

involving balancing a multitude of factors, primarily affordability and the ability to produce 

enough energy to keep our electrical grid stable and reliable. Commenters said that CPP requires 

a reduction of all electricity use by 1.5 percent per year until demand is reduced by almost 10 

percent, increase natural gas combined cycle capacity factors by over 40 percent, increase 

electricity from renewable energy sources by 300 percent, and gain efficiency at coal-fired units 

by 6 percent. Commenters said that changes to the state's energy policy of this enormous 

magnitude would take considerable time and planning. Commenters said that regulators should 

not have to push aside the many important issues so that resources are directed to meet EPA's

onerous and arbitrary deadline.

Comment 16: Comments implying that compliance deadlines are too tight for utilities to 

comply, preferring a compliance date of 2030, and claiming that time frame in CPP eliminates 

the potential to do retrofits using advanced carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
22

Response 16: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. With the added time to 

finalize State plans and demonstrate interim goal compliance, as well as proving options for 

States to set Emissions Performance Rate standards to help meet those goals, we expect that this 

may incentivize Carbon Capture and Storage options, making them more realistic and attractive 

options to help meet these goals. The EPA is promulgating a final rule with interim goals that 

together form a glide path toward a final goal in 2030. See sections VIII.B and VIII.I of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that several EPA regulations will cause utilities to retrofit existing generation 

plants, close older coal-fired electric generation plants and develop new supply and/or demandside resources over the next 3 to 5 years (e.g., MATS, a CWA rule, coal combustion residuals 

rule, NAAQS, regional haze SIPs, and potential GHG reduction requirements). The commenters

stated that development of demand-side resources, building new generation and/or making 

extensive upgrades to existing coal plants requires adequate lead time for engineering, 

procurement, construction and regulatory review, and impacts rate payers. The commenters

stated that insufficient compliance timelines could unnecessarily raise prices. For these reasons, 

commenters urged the EPA and other relevant policy makers to implement environmental 

regulations taking into account the following considerations: 

• Compliance timelines must make reasonable allowance for the physical, financial, and 

regulatory challenges associated with the engineering, procurement, construction, and 

regulatory review of new demand-side resources, supply-side resources and/or upgrades 

at existing electric generation plants;

• Compliance timelines must allow state regulators sufficient time to fully evaluate utility 

compliance proposals in evidentiary hearings;

• Compliance timelines must provide sufficient time and flexibility to maintain the 

integrity and reliability of the existing electric system; and

• Compliance timelines must take into account the impact of rate increases that can result 

as utilities seek recovery from customers.

Commenters preferred a compliance date of 2030 for all of the reductions because the utilities in 

Florida must add zero-carbon electrical generating capacity to achieve the proposed reductions.

According to the commenters, conversions from coal to gas, energy efficiency, heat rate 

improvements, and demand-side management are insufficient to achieve EPA's targeted 

reductions. The commenters stated that adding that zero-carbon capacity will take many years to 

license and construct, and some existing generating capacity must continue operating through at 

least 2030 to allow a reasonable return on prior investments. Otherwise, the commenters noted, 

those assets become stranded and the utilities in Florida, including the commenters', would incur 

significant losses.
23

Commenters argued that the time frame provided in the Clean Power Plan effectively eliminates 

the potential to do retrofits using advanced carbon capture and sequestration technologies 

because these measures remain in the early stage of commercial development, thus are 

prohibitively high-cost options. The commenters noted that FutureGen2.0 will not be operational 

before the completion of the state plans or by dates generators will need to make compliance 

decisions. 

According to the commenters, no incentives are provided in the Clean Power Plan to promote the 

retrofit of carbon capture and sequestration technology on the existing coal fleet, despite the size 

and importance of this in-place coal fleet. The commenters said incentives such as flexibility in 

compliance dates, tax credits, and/or incentive credits for this compliance approach could create 

a more favorable investment environment. The commenters also stated that the ultimate costs of 

the Clean Power Plan within each state do not reflect the costs associated with the premature loss 

of coal generating capacity and reductions in coal production.

Comment 17: Comment stating that EPA can extend the time frame for rule compliance.

Response 17: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g., 

VIII.B and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters’ Comment stating that the EPA has within its power the authority to extend the 

time frame of the 111(d) rule to a more reasonable time frame that gives both states and 

regulated industry a chance to plan and make changes in a safe, reasonable, and cost effective 

manner. The commenters noted that state statutes and the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 60.24 

allow states and the EPA to set less stringent standards or longer compliance schedules for 

existing sources when warranted, considering cost of control, remaining useful life of the 

facilities, location or process design at a particular facility, physical impossibility of installing 

necessary control equipment, or other factors making less stringent limits or longer compliance 

schedules appropriate. 

Comment 18: Comments stating the compliance deadline of 2030 is not reasonable and 

unworkable because it does not allow enough time for affected sources to comply before states 

finalize their CPPs and EPA approves the plans, and does not allow enough time to: plan, permit, 

and construct new transmission systems; accommodate reliability enhancements; and, undertake 

compliance measures or bring new sources online. Comments also request a compliance deadline 

of 2035 or later.

Response 18: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The EPA agrees with the 

commenters in that state legislative and review processes require extended time for States to 

finalize their plans. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility for States in 
24

constructing their plans and adjusting their legislative requirements to manage the complexities 

that commenters mention, among others. 

The EPA disagrees that an additional five years is required for assembly of state planning efforts, 

but agrees with the commenters that additional time is required both for plan assembly and for 

meeting the first interim goal. Discussion of these details is included in the preamble to the final 

rule.

See sections V.A.3.g., V.D., VIII.B, VIII.C, VIII.G, and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters expressed concern regarding EPA's proposal creating final state-specific goals that 

must be met by 2030, and interim goals that must be met on a 10-year average from 2020 to 

2029. The commenters noted, as EPA has acknowledged, that leaves states with only 1.5 to 3.5 

years between the state plan submittal deadline and the start of the interim compliance period. 

The commenters stated that the compliance timeframe is further reduced as states must begin 

taking action to reduce emissions before 2020 in order to achieve their interim emission rate 

goals. According to the commenters, such actions include implementing end-use energy 

efficiency programs as early as 2017 and increasing utilization of NGCC units prior to 2020. The 

commenters noted that EPA rationalizes such a short compliance timeframe by pointing out that 

affected sources "will have knowledge of state requirements as they are adopted" and thus will 

have more time to act. The commenters argued that it is unreasonable for EPA to expect affected 

sources to undertake expensive compliance measures before states finalize their plans and before 

EPA has approved the plans. The commenters stated that, given the amount of time it takes to 

site, permit, and construct new pipelines, transmission lines, and EGUs, it is impossible for states 

to begin implementing their plans as early as would be necessary to comply with EPA's proposed 

goals. For example, the commenters noted that once EPA approves a state's plan, it will take 

approximately 2 years for generation and transmission entities to analyze the potential 

requirements of their systems. According to the commenters, plans for additional electric 

generation and transmission must then be developed and analyzed in an open regional planning 

process, which usually takes at least another 2 years. The commenters stated that additional time 

is required to permit and construct new units and transmission lines so the result is a 6 to 7-year 

timeframe before necessary new facilities and transmission lines can be built. The commenters

noted that this timeframe is optimistic, and yet, would be inadequate for a state to meet EPA's 

proposed goals. The commenters concluded that EPA's timeframe for compliance is thus 

arbitrary and unworkable.

Commenters stated that more time for CPP implementation may be needed to accommodate 

reliability enhancements: State and regional plans must be approved by the EPA, which is 

anticipated to require up to 1 year, leaving as little as 6 months to 2 years to implement the 

approved plan. The commenters noted that areas that experience a large shift in their resource 

mix are expected to require transmission enhancements to maintain reliability. The commenters

noted that constructing the resource additions, as well as the expected transmission 

enhancements, may represent a significant reliability challenge given the constrained time period 

for implementation. The commenters stated that while the EPA provides flexibility for meeting 
25

compliance requirements within the proposed time frame, there appears to be less flexibility in 

providing reliability assurance beyond the compliance period. 

According to commenters, given the system requirements that must be met in order to maintain 

reliability, even the seemingly simple decision to close a single fossil base load unit and replace 

it with a renewable generator requires consideration of, at least, the availability of sufficient 

generation to meet demand, the need for ramping and back-up power, the availability of natural 

gas supplies and the infrastructure to deliver it, the impact on the transmission system and the 

need to maintain inertia, frequency and voltage control. The commenters stated that choosing to 

increase the generation at an existing unit that already is interconnected to the transmission 

system requires consideration of similar issues. The commenters noted that managing these 

considerations requires a significant amount of rigorous and time-intensive study and 

coordination. The commenters noted that any addition or change to the transmission system has 

to go through the interconnection study and analysis process. The commenters stated this is true 

whether the change is to the capacity of an existing generator or a new generator is proposed. 

The commenters stated that the purpose of these studies is to assess the impact of a new 

generating unit (or increase in generation from an existing unit) on the existing transmission 

system. The commenters stated that the required studies consist of thermal analyses, stability 

studies and assessments of possible faults in the system that could result in cascading failure of 

the transmission system. The commenters stated that no generator can be attached to the 

transmission network unless and until these studies show that the system can withstand the 

injection of energy at that particular point.

Commenters noted that EPA assumes that the proposed guidelines provide sufficient time and 

flexibility for states to manage the accelerated transition of the existing generating fleet that the 

rules envision. The commenters stated that this assumption is predicated on the idea that 

implementing the proposed Building Blocks will not require changes to the existing 

interconnected power system which is simply not true. The commenters stated that a change to 

any part of the interconnected power system - even one that appears relatively minor, such as 

increasing the generation produced by an existing unit - requires an analysis of the potential 

impacts on the rest of the system. The commenters stated that the multiple, larger changes 

proposed by EPA certainly require such analysis under NERC's reliability standards. The 

commenters stated that in addition to new resources, changes in how the generation fleet is 

dispatched may cause significant changes in how power flows across the grid. The commenters

stated that to meet NERC standards, new transmission infrastructure may be required, which is 

not possible by 2020 because of the numerous transmission studies, planning and construction 

required to reliably integrate the changed system conditions. 

Commenters stated that once the required studies are completed, actually building new 

generation, new natural gas delivery infrastructure and new transmission lines can also take years 

to complete, especially when involving rights-of-way crossing federal or tribal lands. The 

commenters stated that as the Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized: Infrastructure 

projects - such as high voltage, long distance, electric transmission facilities - often involve 

multiple Federal, State, local and Tribal authorizations and are subject to a wide array of 

processes and procedural requirements in order to obtain all necessary permits and other 

authorizations. Delays in securing required statutory reviews, permits, and consultations can 

threaten the completion projects of national and regional significance. The commenters stated 
26

that the RRTT was created in response to a Presidential Memorandum recognizing the critical 

need to expedite the review and permitting of major electric transmission infrastructure projects. 

See Presidential Memorandum, Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficiency 

and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review (Aug. 31, 2011). The commenters stated

that the RRTT recognized that "[a]t least three problems may arise when trying to develop this 

type of infrastructure: (1) Non-synchronous evaluations by all governmental entities with 

jurisdiction; (2) uncertainty about whether all necessary permits and approvals will be received; 

and (3) significantly different development times for generation and transmission."

However, the commenters noted that EPA does not propose to wait until these studies are 

complete or until needed system changes are effectuated to finalize the proposed guidelines or 

require states to submit compliance plans. The commenters stated therefore, the final proposed 

section 111(d) guidelines can and should recognize the complexity of what the Agency is asking 

states, electric utilities, system operators and other regulators to do in order to achieve the 2030 

goals. The commenters stated that to the extent possible, EPA's final state goals should reflect 

the operational reliability needs of the interconnected power system as they currently are 

understood. The commenters stated that in addition, the final guidelines should include a

compliance timeline that provides states with sufficient time to analyze the impacts of their 

proposed plans on the interconnected power system and ensure that the power sector has 

sufficient time to implement the required changes to the entire interconnected power system.

Commenters stated that EPA has grossly overestimated the ability of new units to come online 

quickly. The commenters noted that EPA proposed creating final state-specific goals, which 

must be met by 2030, and interim goals that must be met on a 10-year average from 2020 to 

2029. The commenters noted EPA's acknowledgement that this leaves states with only 1.5 to 3.5 

years between the state plan submittal deadline and the start of the interim compliance period. 

The commenters noted that this compliance timeframe is further reduced, as states must begin 

taking action to reduce emissions before 2020 in order to achieve their interim emission rate 

goals. According to the commenters, such actions include implementing end-use energy 

efficiency programs as early as 2017, and increasing utilization of NGCC units prior to 2020. 

The commenters stated that EPA rationalized such a short compliance timeframe by pointing out 

that affected sources "will have knowledge of state requirements as they are adopted" and thus 

will have more time to act.. The commenters contended that it is unreasonable, however, for 

EPA to expect affected sources to undertake expensive compliance measures before states 

finalize their plans and before EPA has approved the plans; and, given the amount of time it 

takes to site, permit and construct new pipelines, transmission lines, and EGUs, it is impossible 

for states to begin implementing their plans as early as would be necessary to comply with EPA's 

proposed goals. As an example, the commenters pointed out that once EPA approves a state's 

plan, it will take about two years for generation and transmission entities to analyze the potential 

requirements of their systems. The commenters also noted that plans for additional electric 

generation and transmission must then be developed and analyzed in an open regional planning 

process, which usually takes at least another two years. The commenters further noted that 

additional time is required to permit and construct new units and transmission lines. According 

to the commenters, the result is a six- to seven-year timeframe before necessary new facilities 

and transmission lines can be built. The commenters stated that this timeframe is optimistic, as it 

does not account for any significant delays in permitting, design, or construction, and yet would 

be inadequate for a state to meet EPA's proposed goals. The commenters also noted that NERC 
27

has also expressed concern with the timing constraints EPA's proposal ignores, pointing out that 

siting, permitting, and governmental approvals for new transmission lines "often take much 

longer than five years," in addition to the time required to design, engineer, and construct them. 

The commenters therefore concluded that EPA's timeframe for compliance is thus arbitrary and 

unworkable. 

Commenters expressed concerns with the compliance timelines in the proposed rule, compared 

to the amount of time needed to plan, permit, and construct new transmission systems. The 

commenters provided a map of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) 

transmission paths. The commenters noted that the WECC, anticipating additional changes to the 

electric grid in the West (beyond the WECC portion), initiated a study of the grid reliability 

issues that are likely to occur as WECC states proceed with integration of renewable energy (RE) 

sources on public and private lands that are suitable for intermittent solar and wind generation 

resources. The commenters noted the following observation from WECC staff: 

• Many existing WECC transmission path ratings are dependent on the location, size and 

type of nearby generation. If these generation resources are changed (or removed), path 

ratings could be impacted, and studies would be necessary to re-evaluate the individual 

path ratings. Several path ratings depend on the ability to trip large amounts of generation 

to maintain reliability of the system. If this generation was removed due to 

implementation of the CPP, the path rating could be impacted.

The commenters stated that the above-referenced WECC study must be completed prior to states' 

filing CPP compliance plans. Furthermore, as individual projects are planned, the commenters

said they must be studied for impact on the WECC grid. The commenters noted that changes in 

generation resources, dispatch, and delivery require comprehensive local and regional reliability 

assessments. The commenters stated that these assessments are needed to identify necessary 

transmission system enhancements to provide for reliable delivery, system stability, voltage 

support, and other system reliability needs. Accordingly, the commenters indicated 

that the resulting reliability challenges warrant further consideration by policy makers. The 

commenters noted that reliability assessments will be coupled with extensive work to permit and 

construct new energy infrastructure. According to the commenters, the timeline from the start of 

planning to startup will likely range from 5 to 10 or more years or more in the western states (the 

WECC grid area). The commenters also cited a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) 

study in 2010, which found that new transmission requires 7-10 years or even longer to plan, 

permit, and construct and that, once built, its economic life can span multiple decades. The 

commenters also cited a 2010 Western Governors' Association study, which reported and 

illustrated that timelines for new electric transmission--from conception and study phase through 

permitting, environmental and public review time periods through engineering and construction--

take at least 7 years to complete.

Commenters expressed concern that the time set aside from proposal to compliance is overly 

ambitious. The commenters acknowledged that the timeline the EPA is following is the result of 

a Presidential Memorandum, but stated that President Obama's timeline may not adequately 

account for the magnitude of this rule. The commenters noted that the complexity of the Rule has 

required considerable analysis and even with the 165 days allowed for comment, significant 

uncertainty remains as to the real impact of the proposal on the electric sector given the inability 
28

to fully analyze how individual states may act under the rule. The commenters noted that the 

electric utility sector has had a myriad of considerations to evaluate prior to submitting 

comments, including: 

• EPA concedes its projected coal unit retirement estimates will impact reliability, but 

how? Generators and system operators must examine the retirements that might result 

and how they could impact system reliability. Such an exercise isn't completed in 165 

days in most areas and in areas with organized markets, the analysis can take far longer.

• EPA assumes that by 2020, the electric grid will transition from economic dispatch to 

environmental dispatch with a notable emphasis on dispatching natural gas plants ahead 

of coal plants. Generators must analyze whether they have access to adequate gas 

pipeline infrastructure, the delivered cost of the fuel, whether there are permit constraints 

or other operational constraints in order to verify EPA's assumptions regarding natural 

gas.

• In RTO regions, entire multistate dispatch models must be analyzed and modeled for 

potential modification based on plausible state actions to understand the impact on the 

electric markets.

• States with utilities with multiple jurisdictional models (cooperative, public power, 

merchant power, federal utility and investor utility) must determine which regulatory 

agency has the appropriate jurisdictional authority to establish and enforce compliance 

with the BB approach. 

• States seeking to deploy more variable wind generation and distributed generation (DG) -

such as solar PV, and CHP - will need to understand the impacts of high penetration on 

the transmission grid and the distribution grid. 

• EPA asserts states will be responsible for intra-state activities, but energy is more 

complex than EPA proposes. Before states and utilities can substantively comment, they 

will need to understand how states will apportion multi-state projects like wind farms 

built subject to purchase power contracts for load located in another state. How states 

agree to address these issues directly impacts the utility sector.

EPA leaves up to the states how to apportion actions like energy efficiency improvements taken 

by third parties. Unfortunately, because energy efficiency is such a large part of the overall 

compliance regime, leaving this for resolution until after the state goal is set virtually assures that 

affected entities cannot adequately comment on EPA's proposed goals.

The commenters noted that utilities, regulators and states continue to grapple with these and a 

host of other considerations and FERC is just beginning to assess the reliability impacts of the 

rule on the electric grid. The commenters stated that a North American Electric Reliability 

Coordinating Council (NERC) report is being examined by industry.

The commenters expressed concern that the EPA will have insufficient time to analyze and 

synthesize the comments it receives into a cohesive final rule prior to needing to provide a final 
29

draft of the rule for interagency review. The commenters noted that if EPA maintains the current 

schedule to finalize the rule in June 2015, the EPA will allow itself slightly more than 6 months 

to analyze the comments received, weigh the merits of both legal and technical matters raised, 

revise the rule in a manner consistent with the CAA that can be attained without jeopardizing the 

economy, submit the proposal to OMB for inter-agency review, and release the rule by the 

proposed deadline of June 2015. The commenters noted that given that this proposal anticipates 

incorporating the application of CAA authorities over large segments of the economy heretofore 

never regulated, this is no small endeavor. 

The commenters asserted that the state process is compressed to a degree as to virtually assure 

regulatory and compliance mayhem. The commenters noted that under the proposal, a state 

which requires sufficient time to develop multi-state compliance options may require until June 

of 2018 to submit a final plan to the EPA. The commenters noted that this allows a very short 18 

months for "affected entities" (which constitute a very broad segment of the economy) to 

understand their obligations under the state plan and to react accordingly. The commenters stated 

that while some actions can certainly be taken by "affected entities" in advance of submission of 

a final rule, major investments may not be prudently undertaken until such time as the State Plan 

is complete and approved by EPA. The commenters stated that for electric utilities, whose 

investments generally require significant planning, design, engineering and permitting even 

before construction begins, 18 months is a blink of an eye.

The commenters stated that the rule is unrealistic and unworkable, based on timelines for both 

state plan development and compliance that are totally unrealistic, and likely to introduce far 

greater uncertainty into forward utility and state planning. The commenters stated that EPA has 

asked for comment on a multitude of fundamental issues of rule design that this Proposed Rule 

should have been put forward as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Commenters stated that the proposed guidelines do not provide states with sufficient time to 

comply as noted in public comments provided by MISO, SPP, and NERC. The commenters

noted that specifically, MISO stated in comments to the Louisiana Public Service Commission 

on October 2, 2014 that "the compliance timeline challenges resource adequacy." The 

commenters noted that likewise, Southwest Power Pool also stated in comments to EPA on 

October 2, 2014 that "the timing proposed by EPA for compliance is infeasible." The 

commenters noted that in November, NERC released a report on the Potential Reliability 

Impacts of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan, stating that "developing suitable replacement 

generation resources to maintain adequate reserve margin levels may represent a significant 

reliability challenge, given the constrained time period for implementation." 

The commenters stated that to continue to satisfy existing NERC standards, new transmission 

infrastructure may be required to support the changes to the bulk power system that EPA's 

proposal would require. However, the commenters stated that the proposal's compliance schedule 

does not allow adequate time for the needed reliability assessments and system changes to be 

accomplished before the compliance obligations begin in 2020. The commenters stated that such 

studies can take years to complete. According to the commenters, building new generation, new 

natural gas delivery infrastructure, and new transmission lines will also take many more years to 

complete. 
30

The commenters stated that the EPA has also failed to allow states sufficient time to develop 

their state-specific plans or sufficient time for EPA to review and approve (or disapprove and 

revise) those plans. The commenters stated that typically, state implementation plans require 3 

years to prepare and 2 years for EPA to approve, based on provisions in Section 110 that often 

apply to much less complex planning requirements. Because the Section 111(d) planning 

procedures must be "similar" to those found in Section 110, the commenters stated that the EPA 

should employ at least the same 5-year planning period under its Section 111(d) Clean Power 

Plan, given that it is perhaps one of the most complex rules ever proposed. Of course, after 

allowing an appropriate period of time for planning, the commenters stated that the EPA must 

also adjust the compliance timeframes accordingly. As such, the commenters recommended that 

EPA allow an additional 5 years for both planning and compliance purposes, with the final 

compliance goal set for 2035 or later.

Comment 19: Comment expressing concern that the proposed implementation timeframe 

unnecessarily increases the reliability risk through over-reliance on natural gas in Florida, 

reduced fuel diversity, and reduced operational flexibility.

Response 19: The EPA recognizes the contingencies and complexities that must be considered 

and accounted for when assembling State plans to meet the interim and final goals. In the final 

rule we allow additional time for development of these plans, as well as moving back the initial 

interim goal to 2022, to provide for the additional considerations necessary to resolve these and 

similar concerns. See sections VIII.B and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s 

response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters expressed concern that the proposed implementation timeframe unnecessarily 

increases the reliability risk through over-reliance on natural gas in Florida, reduced fuel 

diversity, and reduced operational flexibility. The commenters stated that approximately half of 

their company's generation capacity is coal-based, a higher fraction than the State in general. The 

commenters noted that they were only able to meet load demand during the January 2010 

extended cold snap in Florida by utilizing stockpiled coal and oil supplies (because natural gas 

demand was high). The commenters noted that similar supply curtailment is experienced during 

storms affecting transportation of fuel across the Gulf of Mexico, impacting not only coal 

shipments, but also natural gas production and distribution to the two pipelines serving 

peninsular Florida consumers.

Comment 20: Comments expressing concern that the CPP does not address the time required for 

transmission system upgrades or gas delivery infrastructure, and stating that the EPA's 

assumptions that transmission infrastructure can be implemented by 2020 are not supportable 

and that the time required to receive state authorizations, build new assets, and new/upgraded 

transmission lines will go beyond the mid-2020s. Also, comments recommending the EPA allow 

more time to adequately develop and implement necessary controls and infrastructure to ensure 

the delivery or reliable, economic and clean power, and more time to develop effective demand-
31

side EE programs, and recommending specific changes in timeline based on strong industry 

concerns about timetables and impacts of SIPs on the nation's bulk electric system reliability.

Response 20: The EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has 

moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this additional 

time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage the complexities that 

commenters mention, including infrastructure needs among others. The EPA disagrees comment 

that the final rule should be delayed, and that interim goals should be eliminated in the final rule.

Given the increased flexibility added to the final rule, the EPA has not extended the time allowed 

to meet the ultimate compliance deadline as we believe the added flexibility allows states and 

regional planning efforts the ability to balance the complexities necessary and develop a glide 

path that meets the ultimate goal. The EPA is extending the time provided for States and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the requirements of the first interim goal. See 

sections V.A.3.g., V.D, VIII.B, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional

EPA response to these and similar comments.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters expressed concern that the CPP does not address the time required for transmission 

system upgrades or gas delivery infrastructure. 

Commenters expressed concern that no consideration was given to transmission and pipeline 

construction. The commenters stated that expanded use of natural gas and renewables prescribed 

in the proposed rule would require the addition of thousands of miles of transmission lines and 

pipelines. The commenters stated that they, and most utilities in the west have found it 

challenging to gain approval and construct new transmission lines. The commenters' experience 

has been that it can take 8 to 10 years to get a transmission line permitted, and in some cases they 

are denied permits. 

As part of their request for more time, commenters stated that the CPP has not provided enough 

lead time for the new infrastructure that the increased utilization of NGCC and RE mandated by 

the CPP requires. The commenters noted that States will need to work with energy companies, 

investors and energy regulators to finance, permit and build new pipelines, new transmission 

lines and new RE generators.

Commenters stated that compliance with the proposal's interim and final goals will result in 

changes to the sources and location of generation resources, requiring sufficient time to plan and 

build the necessary infrastructure. The commenters believe that the EPA's schedule for achieving 

these goals is unrealistic and will result in serious risks to the electric system reliability.

Commenters also expressed concern that EPA has considered neither the cost nor the time 

required to plan and construct electric transmission facilities. The commenters stated that, in 

their region, as much as 8.5 years to study, plan for and construct new transmission facilities has 

been required. The commenters argued that compliance with the proposed CPP is impossible due 

to the transmission expansion that will be required and the time it takes to complete the required 

transmission expansion.
32

Commenters were concerned that the priority of operating power plants could be, or will be, 

dictated by environmental outcomes and will over shadow the requirements for reliability and 

compliance with reliability standards established by FERC. The commenters noted that the CPP 

calls for more renewable resources and natural gas plants to be added to the grid. The 

commenters said these resources will likely result in transmission constraints on the bulk electric 

system without the proper planning and construction. The commenters asked EPA to allow for 

sufficient time for the planning and construction of the necessary electric and gas infrastructure 

in order to maintain the reliable electric system. Commenters similarly urged the EPA to extend 

the compliance timelines to ensure that the reliability and infrastructure concerns can be 

adequately evaluated and addressed.

Commenters stated that the kind of generation (traditional vs. variable renewable) and where it is 

located matters when it comes to grid stability and reliable electric service. The commenters

stated that utilities may be able to reduce the risk of service disruptions through transmission 

system upgrades, but these can take 8 to 10 years to implement, while EPA's timeline allows 

only 2 to 4 years from state plan approval to 2020 when compliance requirements begin. The 

commenters stated that this is not enough time to determine what transmission line upgrades may 

be necessary and then to implement them. The commenters stated that, if EPA persists in its 

proposed approach, it should eliminate the initial 2020-2029 compliance period and begin 

compliance in 2030.

Commenters stated that long lead times for transmission development and construction require 

long-term system planning - typically a 10 to 15-year outlook. The commenters stated that in 

addition to designing, engineering, and contracting transmission lines, siting, permitting, and 

various federal, state, provincial, and municipal approvals often take much longer than 5 years to 

complete. The commenters stated that the CPP analysis assumes that adequate transmission 

capacity is available to deliver any resources located in, or transferred to, the region. The 

commenters noted that given the significant changes and locations anticipated to occur in the 

resource mix, it is likely that additional new transmission, or transmission enhancements, will be 

necessary in some areas. The commenters stated that new transmission lines will be required to 

transport the amount of renewable generation coming online, particularly in remote areas, and 

that creates additional timing considerations. The commenters noted further, as replacement 

generation is constructed, new transmission may be needed to interconnect new generation. The

commenters noted that mitigating transmission constraints identified from the proposed EPA 

regulations in a timely way, consistent with CPP targets, presents a potential reliability concern. 

The commenters stated that construction of new interstate high-voltage lines would require 

transmission owners to confer to state and federal laws with respect to environment impacts, 

siting, and permitting. The commenters stated that a construction timeline for a new high-voltage 

line can range from 5 to 15 years depending on the voltage class, location, and availability of 

highly skilled construction crews. The commenters stated that the construction of transmission 

assets is a very lengthy process starting from planning to the actual physical construction. The 

commenters recommended that any policies that could potentially impact the reliable operation 

of the transmission system also consider the associated timeline for implementing plans.

Commenters stated that location of additional transmission resources will be informed by the 

outcome of the transmission planning studies. The commenters stated that the transmission 

planning process will not be able to fully incorporate the impacts of potential retirements until 
33

those resource addition requirements are made known to the system operator. The commenters

stated that for ISO/RTOs, this will likely not happen until the final state plans are developed.

According to commenters, to support variable generating capacity increases, the power industry 

would need to invest heavily to expand transmission capacity to access more remote areas with 

high-quality wind resources. The commenters stated that developing a resource mix that has 

sufficient ERSs to support integration and reliable BPS operation is also a consideration. The 

commenters noted that given the natural wind variability in these locations, incremental wind 

project resources would have relatively low capacity factors (20-35 percent) that would require 

complex financial decisions to support transmission capacity.

Commenters stated that NERC anticipates that after the CPP guidelines are finalized in 2015, 

and SIPs are developed and approved by the EPA in 2016/2017, entities will work with their 

state utility commissions or other appropriate governing entities to assess resource and system 

options. The commenters noted that extensive transmission reliability screening assessments will 

be performed to support these decisions and will include comprehensive local and regional 

reliability analyses, which must be coordinated with states and neighboring entities. The 

commenters stated that as resource decisions are made, reliability screening will transition into 

the established NERC reliability assessment processes. The commenters stated that consistent 

with the NERC Reliability Standards, transmission enhancements to address reliability 

constraints will be identified, incorporated into transmission expansion plans, and coordinated 

with other projects locally and regionally. The commenters noted that because committed 

transmission projects typically require three to five years to be completed, and often longer for 

major projects with significant right-of-way needs, NERC is concerned that reliability-related 

enhancements may not be able to be completed for a 2020 implementation. The commenters

submitted a NERC report (Appendix A to comment 23224) entitled Potential Reliability Impacts 

of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan: Initial Reliability Review (Nov. 2014).

Commenters also referred to the NERC reliability report and NERC's claim that EPA 

underestimated the amount of time required for the construction of infrastructure needed to 

comply with building blocks 2, 3 and 4. The commenters stated that before new generation 

resources can be built, the necessary transmission and distribution infrastructure must be in place 

to support system reliability. This type of system planning takes 10-15 years, according to the 

NERC report. In addition to designing, engineering, and constructing transmission lines, federal 

permitting can take much longer than 5 years to complete. The commenters stated that EPA's 

aggressive schedule of the interim goals would not provide enough time to build the necessary 

infrastructure needed to ensure grid stability and reliability to support the amount of renewable 

generation required to meet state targets over the next 5-15 years while continuing to provide 

safe and reliable electric service.

Commenters noted that under Building Block 2, the bulk of the CO2 reductions result from the 

retirement of coal-fueled generation. Because these reductions are front-loaded, the commenters

indicated most of this generation will need to be replaced by either existing gas units, new gas 

units, or the development of additional renewable generation sources in this same short 

timeframe. The commenters cited the NERC reliability report, which stated that "the EPA and 

policy makers should recognize the complexity of the reliability challenges posed by the rule and 
34

ensure the rule provides sufficient time for the industry to take the steps needed to significantly 

change the country's resource mix and operations without negatively affecting BPS reliability."

Commenters argued that the lack of sufficient time to implement EPA's aggressive proposal may 

present a risk to reliable electricity service. The commenters said that, without more time to 

implement the shift in energy resources needed to meet EPA's goals, significant risks to the 

reliability of the bulk power system could develop. The commenters noted that energy regulators 

have recently warned that EPA's proposal appears to require too much change too fast to ensure 

the electric power system will remain sufficiently reliable.

Commenters recognized that providing time for careful study and deployment of new gas 

infrastructure development is an important and necessary part of any CPP provision that would 

seek to advance deployment or operation of new or expanded natural gas generation. The 

commenters argued that EPA should establish 2030 as the earliest CPP compliance date, 

eliminating the interim targets between 2020 and 2029. The commenters stated that EPA should 

not compel states to study their natural gas infrastructure needs on a "hurry up" basis in order to 

receive potential relief that might compensate for the many shortcomings in EPA's proposed 

2020 interim target date. The commenters noted that siting of natural gas pipeline infrastructure 

is done on a national level by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and that 

development requires cooperation between multiple states and across large regions that require 

considerations beyond the boundaries of energy decisions being addressed within a single state's 

planning. 

Commenters argued that the currently-proposed EPA timeline is too aggressive and will likely 

lead to reliability-related challenges in the very near future. According to the commenters, the 

bulk power system infrastructure is currently insufficient to meet the current EPA CPP timeline. 

The commenters further argued that the proposed rule provides little insight into whether or not 

there is enough natural gas infrastructure to support some of the dramatic wholesale power 

generation market changes anticipated by the CPP. The commenters indicated that additional 

time for implementation would assist in minimizing these potential negative market outcomes.

Commenters stated that the transmission grid will need to be expanded to accommodate the 

increased generation and movement of renewable energy between and throughout states. The 

commenters stated that the Regional Transmission Organizations' (RTOs') planning and the 

resulting construction processes currently take between 5 and 10 years for grid expansion. The 

commenters stated that with new transmission lines crossing multiple states and jurisdictions, 

issues involving route selection, cost allocation, and construction could lengthen this process 

even more. Under the proposed rule, the commenters noted that the interim compliance begins in 

2020. The commenters stated that the rule will leave insufficient time for any new transmission 

lines to be built to support compliance in the early 2020s, which would have to be energized in 

2019 for compliance in 2020. The commenters stated that would be 4 years after the rule is 

finalized and only 3 years after compliance plans are to be submitted to the EPA. The 

commenters stated that there is simply not enough time to complete any new projects not already 

in the RTO planning process. Also, the commenters noted that the RTOs use different calculation 

methodologies (e.g., for resource adequacy and transmission system capabilities) and capacity 

market constructs. The commenters stated that these differences will have to be resolved to 

ensure effective regional compliance. The commenters stated that the tariff changes will likely be 
35

needed, which will require approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

The commenters stated that resolution of these differences and changes will take a significant 

amount of time and more time than allotted for by the proposed rule.

According to commenters, the biggest driver of many state GHG reductions is the potential for 

increased utilization of existing NGCC units or renewable energy, which mainly occurs before 

2025 under EPA's assumptions. The commenters cited EPA's own analysis, which indicates that 

most of this shift occurs before 2020, including 46-49 GWs of coal-based unit closures in 

addition to closures that have already been announced, in part due to compliance with the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The commenters also cited EPA's assumption that adequate 

infrastructure to support coal-based unit closures and increased utilization of NGCC units can be 

put in place in as little as two or three years, but said this is not realistic given the time needed 

for both permitting and construction. With respect to importing energy from other state's NGCC 

resources, the commenters indicated transmission congestion may develop, which would 

necessitate the construction of high voltage transmission lines. The commenters cited the 

analysis by Southwest Power Pool's "Grid Reliability and Build-out Issues," issued October 1, 

2014, which indicated this process can take 8 to 10 years and add significant cost. The 

commenters noted that NERC also raised the same concerns in the November 2014 study 

"Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan," stating on page 20: 

"...Mitigating transmission constraints identified from the proposed EPA 

regulations in a timely way, consistent with CPP targets, presents a potential 

reliability concern. Construction of new interstate high-voltage line can range 

from 5 to 15 years depending on the voltage class, location, and availability of 

highly skilled construction crews..."

Commenters stated that it is wholly possible, and we are seeing this now, that utilities will invest 

in newer, cleaner electric generating assets such as NGCCs, wind power and the like. The 

commenters said most utilities plan to invest in new cleaner technologies; however, the time 

needed to obtain the required monies, permits, authorizations from state and federal agencies, 

physical asset structures and manpower to build the assets and build new or upgrade existing 

transmissions lines necessary to meet the energy needs will likely go beyond the mid-2020s.

Commenters stated that a major portion of the country's power grid is operated and/or dispatched 

by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) or Independent System Operators (ISOs) which 

are entities that often encompass very large regions and cover multiple states. The commenters 

stated that EPA's plan will introduce significant challenges as these organizations strive to ensure 

reliability and the delivery of economic power, which is their responsibility. Therefore, the 

commenters recommended the EPA allow more time to adequately develop and implement 

necessary controls and infrastructure to ensure the delivery or reliable, economic and clean 

power. The commenters also recommended that EPA provide more time for the states to develop 

demand-side energy efficiency programs that will be effective.

Commenters specifically recommended that the EPA: 

• Provide operators of coal-fired EGUs the time necessary to conduct site-specific 

engineering analyses to determine if there are remaining opportunities for heat rate 
36

improvements through implementation of operational best practices or capital 

investments.

• Allow the state the time to conduct a review of its NGCC fleet to determine if they have 

the operational capability to operate at a 70% capacity factor.

• Allow the states adequate time to conduct a rate impact analysis of the proposed CPP.

• Provide adequate time to construct replacement capacity for the 108 to 134 GW of 

capacity lost as a result of the CPP.

• Provide adequate time to construct gas pipeline infrastructure necessary to meet demands 

of growing NGCC and CT generation.

• Provide adequate time to construct electric transmission to meet growing RE generation 

and to accommodate changes in power flow as a result of the CPP.

• Allow ISO/RTOs and system operators time to develop reliability assessments based on 

power grid changes as a result of the CPP.

• Allow ISO/RTOs and system operators time to develop appropriate processes, tools, and 

operating practices to adequately address operational changes on the system.

Specifically, commenters proposed the following recommendations:

• require states to consult with ISOs/RTOs during the development of their SIPs,

• allow 5 to 10 years of additional time for state SIP development, including more time to 

consider regional responses,

• delay final rule until the completion of NERC/FERC and ISO/RTO reliability studies 

based on state plans,

• delay final rule until completion of the EIPC study, and

• eliminate interim goals within the final rule.

Commenters noted that in their recent November 2014 report, Potential Reliability Impacts of 

EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan, NERC did not agree with EPA's assessment that there would 

be no impact on electric system reliability. The commenters stated that EPA must coordinate 

with FERC and NERC on making fundamental changes in the electric system to provide 

sufficient time to allow markets to develop actionable plans. As a result, the commenters 

indicated more time for Clean Power Plan implementation may also be needed to accommodate 

reliability enhancements. The commenters noted that state and regional plans must be approved 

by the EPA, which is anticipated to require up to one year, leaving as little as six months to two 

years to implement the approved plan.
37

Commenters stated that geographic diversity and a complex regulatory environment present 

challenges to the development of electric power infrastructure. The commenters stated that the 

time required for these facilities to be developed and placed in service may exceed the proposed 

Clean Power Plan's compliance timelines. In addition, the commenters stated that all regions 

throughout the United States will be implementing their plans simultaneously. Therefore, the 

commenters stated that it is uncertain whether adequate equipment (e.g., turbines, conductor) and 

resources (e.g., engineering, procurement, construction) will be available.

Comment 21: Comment arguing that NSR permitting will add time to the capital improvement 

process, contradicting the EPA’s suggestion that capital improvement can be undertaken 

promptly.

Response 21: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A discussion of this is 

included in the preamble to the final rule. See sections X.A, V.A.3.g., VIII.B and VIII.G of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters disagreed with EPA's suggestion that capital improvements are effective in meeting 

front-loaded compliance requirements because they can be undertaken promptly. The 

commenters noted that their own experience indicates that efficiency improvements require a 

planning to execution period of nearly three years. The commenters said this is understandable 

when considering the enormous costs associated with power generation projects. Following 

approval, the commenters said each project must undergo New Source Review permit screening 

and, if necessary, the permitting process. The commenters said this step is required even if the 

change is merely operational, as opposed to physical, and, by itself, will add months and may 

add years to a project timeline.

Comment 22: Comment arguing that state and regional power redesign will require more time 

than allowed by compliance timeline.

Response 22: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g. 

and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that EPA should recognize that such a coordinated state and regional power 

market redesign would be significantly complex and would require materially more time than the 

agency affords in the proposed compliance timeline.
38

Comment 23: Comments that based upon a NERC Reliability Study, the CPP and its ambitious 

implementation timeframe could inflict serious harm by jeopardizing reliability, and arguing that 

more time for CPP implementation may be needed to accommodate reliability enhancements.

Response 23: The EPA is finalizing this rule to include additional time for States and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 

2022. Additionally, the EPA will work in concert with these planners and other Federal agencies 

to review the plans prior to finalizing and make certain that reliability concerns such as those 

expressed by commenters here, are adequately addressed prior to plan approval. A discussion of 

this is included in sections V.A.3.g., VIII.B and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

addresses the reliability concerns expressed by the commenter.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters argued that EPA, through the CPP, takes an approach whereby it seeks to act in the 

energy industry without the requisite knowledge or understanding of the plan's far-reaching 

impacts. The commenters referred to a study by NERC, entitled "Potential Reliability Impacts of 

EPA's Clean Power Plan" (NERC Reliability Study) which expresses concern that the schedule 

proposed by EPA is too ambitious, stating that "[s]tate and regional plans must be approved by 

the EPA, which is anticipated to require up to one year, leaving as little as six months to two 

years to implement the approved plan. Areas that experience a large shift in their resource mix 

are expected to require transmission enhancements to maintain reliability. Constructing the 

resource additions, as well as the expected transmission enhancements, may represent a 

significant reliability challenge given the constrained time period for implementation. While the 

EPA provides flexibility for meeting compliance requirements within the proposed time frame, 

there appears to be less flexibility in providing reliability assurance beyond the compliance 

period."1 According to the commenters, the NERC Reliability Study goes on to expound upon 

transmission development and construction, stating that "long lead times for transmission 

development and construction require long-term system planning--typically a 10-15 year 

outlook."2 The commenters said the NERC Reliability Study highlights that the risks to 

reliability are legitimate. The commenters argued that the reliability of the electric grid cannot be 

compromised, as the health of this nation's economy and populous depends on the delivery of 

reliable energy. Based upon the NERC Reliability Study, the commenters said it appears that the 

CPP and its ambitious implementation timeframe could inflict serious harm by jeopardizing 

reliability.

Commenters argued that the lack of sufficient time to implement EPA's aggressive proposal may 

present a risk to reliable electricity service, and that essential reliability services may be strained 

by the proposed Clean Power Plan. The commenters stated that more time for Clean Power Plan 

implementation may be needed to accommodate reliability enhancements.

Without more time to implement the shift in energy resources needed to meet EPA's goals, 

Commenters indicated significant risks to the reliability of the bulk power system could develop. 

The commenters noted that energy regulators have recently warned that EPA's proposal appears 

to require too much change too fast to ensure the electric power system will remain sufficiently 

reliable. For example, the commenters noted that the North American Reliability Corporation 

(NERC) recently completed a study intended to "identify the reliability implications and 
39

potential consequences from the implementation of the proposed Clean Power Plan and its 

underlying assumptions." The commenters referred to the final report documenting the results of 

its study, in which NERC warns that the proposed Clean Power Plan could present a threat to 

reliability because it will not allow enough time to replace "essential reliability services" 

provided by fossil fuel -fired generating units that renewable energy resources will need and do 

not provide. The commenters cited the executive summary of the final report, which explains:

• The anticipated changes in the resource mix and new dispatching protocols will require 

comprehensive reliability assessments to identify changes in power flows and [Essential 

Reliability Services]. [Essential Reliability Services] are the key services and 

characteristics that comprise the following basic reliability services needed to maintain 

[Bulk Power System] reliability: (1) load and resource balance; (2) voltage support; and 

(3) frequency support. New reliability challenges may arise with the integration of 

generation resources that have different [Essential Reliability Services] characteristics 

than the units that are projected to retire. The changing resource mix introduces changes 

to operations and expected behaviors of the system; therefore, more transmission and 

new operating procedures may be needed to maintain reliability.

Commenters noted that state and regional plans must be approved by the EPA, which is 

anticipated to require up to one year, leaving as little as six months to two years to implement the 

approved plan. According to the commenters, areas that experience a large shift in their resource 

mix are expected to require transmission enhancements to maintain reliability. The commenters

contended that constructing the resource additions, as well as the expected transmission 

enhancements, may represent a significant reliability challenge given the constrained time period 

for implementation. While the EPA provides flexibility for meeting compliance requirements 

within the proposed time frame, the commenters said there appears to be less flexibility in 

providing reliability assurance beyond the compliance period.

The commenters also referred to a study of EPA's proposal recently conducted by the Electric 

Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which reached similar conclusions. Citing the recently 

released report, the commenters said ERCOT estimates that EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan 

"could result in transmission reliability issues due to the loss of generation resources in and 

around major urban centers, and will strain ERCOT's ability to integrate new intermittent 

renewable generation resources." The commenters quoted the following from ERCOT's report, 

which elaborates on these concerns:

• ERCOT's primary concern with the Clean Power Plan is that, given the ERCOT region's 

market design and existing transmission infrastructure, the timing and scale of the 

expected changes needed to reach the CO2 emission goals could have a harmful impact 

on reliability. Specifically, implementation of the Clean Power Plan in the ERCOT 

region, particularly to meet the Plan's interim goal, is likely to lead to reduced grid 

reliability for certain periods and an increase in localized grid challenges. There is a 

natural pace of change in grid resources due to advancing cost effective technologies and 

changing market conditions. This pace can be accelerated, but there is a limit to how fast 

this change can occur within acceptable reliability constraints.
40

According to the commenters, ERCOT later in the report explains further that the reliability risks 

presented by EPA's Clean Power Plan are attributable to the accelerated retirement of coal-fired 

resources and the associated loss of "essential reliability services, including reactive power and 

voltage support, inertial support, frequency response, and ramping capability."

The commenters noted that NERC and ERCOT are not alone--similar concerns have been 

expressed by numerous other organizations with an interest and expertise in the reliability of the 

bulk power system, including the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and 

numerous state and federal energy regulators. The commenters asked EPA to heed the warnings 

from NERC, ERCOT, and others by, at a minimum, revising the interim goal requirements to 

extend the time allowed for states and the industry to comply.

Comment 24: Comment citing the comments from Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in expressing 

concern with the timing proposed for compliance with the CPP, stating that the timing proposed 

by EPA for implementation of the NOPR is infeasible and exacerbates its reliability and cost 

implications, and suggesting that the EPA should allow considerably more time in which electric 

utilities can meet the goals set in the Carbon Emission Guidelines, as this would protect electric 

consumers and the economy from harm caused by implementing guidelines that lack sufficient 

regard for their effects on reliability or cost.

Response 24: As stated above, for several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as 

timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time 

allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 

to 2022. The final rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, 

among others. See sections V.A.3.g., V.D, VIII.B, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters’ cited the comments from Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in expressing concern with 

the timing proposed for compliance with the CPP: 

• Within the SPP region, the timing associated with CPP compliance is problematic at best. 

Based on SPP's review of the proposed CPP, EPA has considered neither the cost nor the 

time required to plan and construct electric transmission facilities. In the SPP region, as 

much as eight and a half years to study, plan for and construct new transmission facilities 

has been required. Compliance with the proposed CPP is impossible due to the 

transmission expansion that will be required and the time it takes to complete the required 

transmission expansion. In addition to more time being needed to develop plans for and 

construction of necessary infrastructure, a "reliability safety valve", as suggested by the 

ISO/RTO Council prior to release of the proposed CPP, should be incorporated into the 

final rule. Such an approach would require that state plans include a process to evaluate 

electric system reliability issues resulting from implementation of the state plan and 

require mitigation when needed. 
41

• Furthermore, while the proposed CPP provides states with significant flexibility for 

compliance, EPA has not provided state air quality and economic regulators with 

sufficient time to take advantage of this flexibility. As a consequence, SPP anticipates 

there will be few, if any, submitted compliance plans that reflect the regional nature of 

transmission planning, wholesale energy markets or, in the SPP region, transmission cost 

allocation. None of these issues are currently addressed on a state-specific basis within 

SPP, but rather are addressed regionally in a transparent environment where state 

boundaries are not acknowledged since the grid crosses city, county and state boundaries.

Commenters argued that the NOPR fails to adequately address the adverse effect of the rule on 

electricity reliability. According to the commenters, an overarching concern was the NOPR's 

wholly unrealistic and arbitrary compliance deadlines. The commenters noted that EPA would 

have one year to review and approve implementation plans for each State by June 2017. But, 

under this schedule, the commenters noted that affected generating units would have less than 

three years to develop their respective compliance plans, including the siting and permitting, 

financing, and construction of any needed replacement capacity and/or transmission facilities--a 

time period that the commenters indicated flies in the face of all recent experience in this 

country. The commenters stated that the construction timeline for a new transmission facility can 

be 5 to 15 years depending on the voltage class, location, and availability of skilled construction 

crews.

According to the commenters, the timing proposed by EPA for implementation of the NOPR is 

infeasible and exacerbates its reliability and cost implications. The commenters stated that the 

NOPR would adopt an aggressive compliance schedule that would require States and affected 

EGUs to complete the lions' share of the required emission reductions within a few short years 

after the rule is finalized and State implementation plans are submitted to EPA. While EPA 

included a 10-year interim compliance period and did not impose a final emission reduction 

target until 2030, the commenters noted that its so-called glide path only applied to emissions 

reductions associated with renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency. In contrast, the 

commenters said the EPA projected that all emissions reductions associated with heat rate 

improvements at exiting coal-fired EGUs and all redispatch from coal-fired EGUs to NGCC 

turbines would be completed before the initial 2020 compliance deadline. Thus, the commenters 

contended that the NOPR did not call for a phased transition; rather, it would require nearly three 

quarters of the emissions reductions to occur in the next five years (i.e., by January 1, 2020). 

The commenters concluded that states and affected EGUs would have to take immediate action 

in planning for and implementation of the rule's mandated changes in view of the time lag 

required to modify generation and to plan, permit and construct related large scale infrastructure 

projects such as additional transmission, especially in states with significant coal-fired generating 

capacity. The commenters noted that recent experience with transmission projects shows that it is 

highly unlikely that a state could develop an implementation plan, obtain EPA approval, and plan 

for, design, site, permit and construct massive infrastructure projects in less than a decade. The 

commenters concluded that, even if EPA completes the rulemaking on schedule, it seems 

apparent that states would not be prepared to implement significant portions of their plans until 

2025, or halfway through the interim compliance period.
42

Commenters contended that EPA did not even model transmission system impacts or consider 

transmission as a critical path for getting VERs deliverable to load. In this regard, SPP 

concluded: "Based on SPP's review of the proposed CPP, EPA has considered neither the cost 

nor the time required to plan and construct electric transmission facilities... Compliance with the 

proposed CPP is impossible due to the transmission expansion that will be required and the time 

it takes to complete the required transmission expansion." The commenters concurred with SPP's 

findings and believes that they equally apply on a nationwide basis.

Commenters stated that, given the effect on existing coal facilities, it appears that additional 

generation and transmission resources will need to be constructed to achieve the goals proposed 

to take effect in 2020. The commenters questioned if the proposed guidelines adequately 

considered the long timeline needed to study, plan, design, and obtain regulatory approval for 

new generation and transmission facilities. The commenters stated that the Southwest Power 

Pool, of which the three major transmission-owning utilities in Nebraska are members, has 

indicated that there would be significant reliability issues that could not be addressed in the 

timeframe required by the Carbon Emission Guidelines. Although the process to construct wind 

generation facilities can be relatively short, the commenters stated that is not the case with 

conventional, dispatchable generation facilities and significant transmission projects. The 

commenters noted that the SPP indicated that it may take 6 to 8 years to plan and construct large 

transmission projects, which would make the installation of transmission by the start date of the 

Carbon Emission Guidelines impossible, and potentially have a detrimental impact on reliability. 

The suggested that the EPA should allow considerably more time in which electric utilities can 

meet the goals set in the Carbon Emission Guidelines, as this would protect electric consumers 

and the economy from harm caused by implementing guidelines that lack sufficient regard for 

their effects on reliability or cost.

Comment 25: Comment that time is needed for additional transmission system planning studies 

and analysis to determine transmission constraints caused by generating station retirements.

Response 25: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See sections V.A.3.g., 

V.D and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that time is needed for additional transmission system planning studies and 

analysis to determine transmission constraints caused by generating station retirements. The 

commenters pointed out that the bulk-power system was planned around the delivery of energy 

from large central power stations to distribution stations through the bulk-power system. 

According to the commenters, any retirements or significant changes in generation must be 

studied and well understood to determine the reliability impacts. If there are significant reliability 

impacts, such as the creation of a new transmission constraint as the result of the retirement of a 

unit, the commenters indicated that transmission reinforcements or expansion may be necessary. 

According to the commenters, the time to identify an issue through transmission planning studies 

and develop a solution could take up to two years, but the commenters said it is not the most 
43

significant time constraint. The commenters contended that the time to permit, finance, and 

actually build a new transmission line can take significantly longer to complete. The commenters 

noted that permitting alone can take 10 years or more. Thus, the commenters argued that EPA 

needs to allow more time for implementation to allow a more orderly transition from fossil-fired 

units to minimize transmission system constraints and other reliability impacts on the bulk-power 

system.

Comment 26: Comments inquiring about compliance deadline extensions in exchange for lower 

final state goal, and stating that because compliance with EPA's carbon limits cannot be achieved 

in the CPP's timeframe, the limits should be relaxed, the compliance deadline extended, or both.

Response 26: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See section VIII.B of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment. We are not finalizing the 

alternate final goals representing emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, so 

comments on this topic are moot.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters inquired about compliance deadline extensions in exchange for lower final state 

goal. The commenters advocated for Clean Power Plan revisions that provide states with 

compliance timing flexibility to accommodate resources that produce greater long-term 

reductions. In effect, the commenters requested that the final rule enable state plans to adopt 

credible emission goals that are lower than the 2030, but require an implementation period that 

may run beyond 2030 due to the nature of the resource mix relied upon. The commenters stated 

for example, longer lead times associated with state plans that involve implementation of 

dispatchable, carbon-free resources such as traditional nuclear and small modular reactor (SMR)

should be accommodated. The commenters stated that often these carbon-free technologies may 

be more advantageous long-term than NGCC, which may be the default technology necessary to 

meet 2030 goals. The commenters stated that in an instance in which a state plan contemplates a 

longer implementation period such extended compliance timing can be accompanied with more 

aggressive final emission goals.

Commenters stated that because compliance with EPA's carbon limits cannot be achieved in the 

CPP's timeframe, the limits should be relaxed, the compliance deadline extended, or both.

The commenters stated that the carbon reduction goals EPA would establish for Arkansas are 

unrealistic and unachievable in the timeframe of the CPP. The commenters stated that efforts to 

meet the aggressive goals proposed for Arkansas within the accelerated timeframe of the CPP 

would cause economic dislocation across a large part of the Southeast (e.g., if meeting the goals 

necessitated premature retirement of Plum Point, the harm would be in Arkansas and in other 

states where the plant's co-owners and off-takers do business - namely, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma).
44

The commenters stressed that the issues are not merely problems of compliance that may be 

considered at a later stage of EPA's deliberations, but rather, are issues concerning whether 

EPA's BSER modeling accounted for real-world impediments that impact the timeframe for 

compliance. The commenters stated that no amount of "flexibility" will make possible the 

attainment of unattainable goals. 

The commenters urged the EPA to recognize that its BSER modeling does not fully or properly 

reflect the many practical, economic and social factors that limit the ability of any state to reduce 

its carbon emissions in a relatively compressed period of time. The commenters stated that the 

EPA should modify its BSER modeling so that the goals established for Arkansas and other 

states give effect to the real-world limitations on achievable carbon emission reductions. The 

commenters also urged the EPA to recognize that the drastic reductions proposed for Arkansas 

cannot be achieved in the narrow timeframe the CPP would impose. The commenters stated that 

those deadlines should be relaxed so that the necessary infrastructure build-out can keep pace 

with the mandated schedule of emissions reductions. The commenters stated that a more 

extended phase-in of the limits would mitigate the economic impacts of such significant 

emissions reductions to some degree.

Commenters requested that the following option(s) (among others) be implemented to improve 

the workability of the proposed guideline rule and to provide additional compliance flexibility to 

meet the emission targets established in the proposal: 

• EPA should eliminate the interim target and allow states more flexibility on the glidepath demonstration to meet their interim and final targets, particularly if a state has new 

non-emitting generation under construction or in development. There is a need for a 

compliance mechanism for the glide path or final target which accommodates for longer 

installation times of low- or non-emitting generation. 

• EPA should grant additional flexibility by allowing states the option to select compliance 

with the alternative 2025 target. 

• EPA should allow state plans to provide credit for unit efficiency improvements, 

including nuclear uprates, made prior to 2012 and allow for "early action" credit for 

emission reductions achieved prior to 2020. 

Comment 27: Comments stating that compliance schedule is too aggressive and does not allow 

adequate time for States and affected EGUs to achieve heat rate improvements and work in 

concert with States, ISOs, and RTOs, arguing that the implementation of the EPA's compliance 

tools, including heat-rate improvements and redispatch, is unrealistic and requires more time 

than is allowed under the proposed rule, and favoring phase-in of Block 1.

Response 27: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage the 

complexities that commenters mention, among others. See sections V.A.3.g., V.D and VIII.B of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.
45

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed rule is causing irreparable harm to affected EGUs. The 

commenters noted that EPA proposed to adopt an aggressive compliance schedule that will 

require States and affected EGUs to complete the lions' share of the required emission reductions 

within a few short years after the rule is finalized and State implementation plans are submitted 

to EPA. The commenters contended that while EPA includes a 10-year interim compliance 

period and does not impose a final emission reduction target until 2030, this so-called glide path 

only applies to emission reductions associated with renewable energy and demand-side energy 

efficiency. In contrast, the commenters stated that EPA projects that all emission reductions 

associated with heat rate improvements at existing coal-fired EGUs and all re-dispatch from 

coal-fired EGUs to NGCC turbines will be completed before the initial 2020 compliance 

deadline. The commenters noted that what might appear on the surface to be a smooth transition 

over time actually resembles a cliff, as nearly two-thirds of the emission reductions required by 

EPA must occur in the next 5 years (i.e., by January 1, 2020).

The commenters noted that States and affected EGUs will have to take immediate action to 

implement the proposed rule if States are to achieve EPA's projected emission reduction targets 

and fully implement Building Blocks 1 and 2 by the initial January 1, 2020 compliance date. As 

an initial matter, the commenters noted that the heat rate improvements contemplated by EPA 

cannot be implemented overnight. The commenters noted that these projects require careful 

planning and may require affected coal-fired EGUs to be offline for a significant period of time 

to make the necessary operational changes. The commenters stated that for larger utilities and for 

States with significant coal-fired generating capacity, there are significant logistical concerns 

associated with implementing heat rate improvements on such a large scale, and, as NERC 

asserts, the outcome may be earlier retirements of coal-fired EGUs than EPA assumes, "which 

creates additional uncertainty in future generation resources." NERC Report at 8. The 

commenters noted that to ensure grid reliability, heat rate improvements will have to be 

staggered over time so that sufficient generating capacity remains online to meet consumer 

demand. In addition, the commenters stated that bottlenecks may occur if facilities seeking to 

implement heat rate improvements exceed the supply of labor and materials needed to install 

those improvements. The commenters stated that to ensure that all affected coal-fired EGUs can 

make the necessary changes by 2020, utilities - working in concert with States, ISOs, and RTOs -

will have to begin planning and implementing these changes immediately upon finalization of 

the rule.

The commenters stated immediate action will be needed to implement Building Block 2. 

According to the commenters, in some markets, significant infrastructure improvements will be 

necessary to ensure that existing NGCC facilities can reliably run at a 70% capacity factor and 

provide electricity to the consumers who demand it. The commenters stated new pipeline 

infrastructure will be necessary in some cases to ensure that there are sufficient supplies of 

natural gas to meet demand. The commenters stated NGCC facilities depend on real-time

delivery of natural gas, and existing pipeline capacity may not be able to accommodate an 

increase in capacity to 70%, particularly on a seasonal basis when demand for natural gas is 

strong in other sectors. Likewise, the commenters stated existing NGCC facilities are rarely colocated with the coal-fired EGUs whose generation they will replace. As a result, the 

commenters stated that in some cases additional transmission lines will be necessary to ensure 
46

that these facilities can transmit electricity to the consumers currently served by coal-fired EGUs. 

The commenters stated that such large-scale infrastructure projects routinely take 5 or more 

years to complete, so States and affected EGUs will need to begin implementing these changes 

as soon as EPA finalizes the rule to meet a 2020 compliance deadline.

The commenters stated that utilities with coal-fired EGUs will face immediate questions 

regarding the retirement of existing facilities in the face of an EPA-mandated reduction in 

demand for coal generation. The commenters stated that EPA projects that, in addition to the 

coal-fired EGU retirements expected in response to existing environmental regulations such as 

MATS, as many as 49 GW of coal generating capacity - representing 19% of the current coal 

generation fleet - will be retired as a result of this proposal. To meet EPA's emission reduction 

targets, the commenters stated that these retirements must occur by 2020 - not by 2030 when the 

interim compliance period ends. The commenters stated that even if utilities had plans to retire 

some of their generating capacity, this rule will accelerate the retirement schedule and increase 

the costs associated with the transition from existing coal-fired EGU capacity to other sources of 

electricity. According to the commenters, for facilities scheduled for retirement over a longer 

time scale and facilities that were not projected to be retired at all, there will be a significant cost 

in the form of stranded assets as these facilities will be retired before the end of their remaining 

useful lives. The commenters stated that the costs will likely be exacerbated for facilities that 

have only recently spent millions of dollars to comply with MATS and other EPA regulations. 

The commenters stated that these utilities will suffer significant economic harm if they cannot 

recoup their investments before being forced to retire their coal-fired EGUs.

Commenters indicated that this problem is particularly acute with respect to the interim 

compliance period (2020-2029), which may begin within a year of an approved plan. According 

to the commenters, the proposed rule does not adequately address the time needed to facilitate 

new power generation, including natural gas, nuclear, and/or renewable power generation, nor 

does it address additional costs necessitated by the abrupt implementation schedule. The 

commenters also noted that the proposal also does not comport with the time required for state 

legislative and regulatory processes, in addition to the time required to comply with other federal 

regulations. Taken together, the commenters concluded that these constraints make the time 

allowed for installing new technology, equipment and infrastructure unrealistic. The commenters

also noted that there is not sufficient time to make the efficiency improvements envisioned under 

Building Block One. The commenters noted that turbine upgrades are major undertakings 

requiring significant lead time. Based on the current time needed to site, permit and modify 

power plants, the commenters argued that EPA's timelines for heat-rate improvements are 

unreasonable. Regarding Building Block Two, the commenters noted that the proposed rule 

assumes that most of the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from redispatch can be realized 

by 2020. 

The commenters contended that the EPA's assumptions regarding the gains achievable through 

redispatch are questionable, making this timeline for redispatch unrealistic. Specifically, the 

commenters indicated EPA has not adequately analyzed the technical or legal requirements of 

large-scale redispatch, nor has it addressed the infrastructure required to support the increased 

fuel requirements. The commenters concluded that the time needed to site, permit and build the 

infrastructure and power plant projects suggested by the proposed rule far exceeds the EPA's 

proposed timelines.
47

Commenters suggested that EPA allow Wyoming to assess measurable heat rate improvements 

available to the plants in the Wyoming fleet and then to develop a composite compliance goal. 

The commenters noted that the state could designate the measurement period for each unit at 

each plant. The commenters contended that maintaining flexibility in timing the measurement of 

best effort is a practical necessity. As an example, the commenters noted that the turbines at 

Laramie River Station were replaced before those at Jim Bridger, which means that the benefits 

of turbine replacement at the two plants will be on a different cycle. The commenters said a 

broad window should also be available to accommodate existing overhaul schedules, which tend 

to avoid making more than one unit unavailable at a time, and to accommodate compliance with 

environmental upgrades. 

In response to a request for comment in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) of October 27, 

2014, the commenters considered a phase-in of Block 1 to be essential. In plants with multiple 

units, the commenters indicated the cumulative stress to the grid may be unmanageable if all 

units are taken off line at once, particularly if plants at different locations are attempting to 

comply at the same time (the commenters provided a more detailed discussion of the application 

of the numerous Sargent & Lundy technologies to Wyoming EGUs in their comment). The 

commenters further indicated that utilities may not have the managerial capacity to take on 

multiple upgrades and complex environmental compliance projects at the same time. 

Nonetheless, the commenters did not claim to have a regional or national perspective that would 

allow them to advise EPA on the duration or design of a phase-in period.

Comment 28: Comment that the CPP timeline, with the interim compliance period beginning in 

2020, provides no flexibility to states on the timing for implementation of Building Blocks 1 and 

2.

Response 28: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage the 

complexities that commenters mention, among others. See sections V.A.3.g. and VIII.B of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters argued that the EPA and states have considerable discretion in setting appropriate 

compliance deadlines for meeting the CO2 performance standards that states must establish 

under section 111(d) of the CAA. The commenters noted that the statute does not prescribe any 

specific deadline for compliance with applicable performance standards. Similarly, the 

commenters noted that the Agency's implementing regulations do not impose any specific 

compliance deadline. 

According to the commenters, the timeline the EPA has proposed, with the interim compliance 

period beginning in 2020, provides no flexibility to states on the timing for implementation of 

Building Blocks 1 and 2. The commenters stated that this inflexibility creates very significant 

and likely insurmountable challenges for many states that face very substantial CO2 emissions 
48

reduction requirements in 2020 due to the EPA's assumption that Building Blocks 1 and 2 are 

fully implemented by 2020.

The commenters stated that, if the EPA continues to pursue the overreaching policy reflected in 

its Proposed Guidelines, in order to correct the many problems that will be caused by the interim 

compliance period and ensure sufficient flexibility for the implementation of the stringent 

reduction obligations the EPA has proposed for 2030, the EPA should eliminate the interim 

compliance period and instead only require states to achieve their final emission rate goals in 

2030. Under this approach, the commenters indicated each state would have the responsibility of 

developing its own glide path for the expeditious implementation of the measures necessary for 

achieving its final goal by 2030. In so doing, the commenters indicated that the state would be 

able not only to determine which actions and measures to pursue to reduce emission rates, but 

also to choose a reasonable schedule for implementing those measures consistent with reliability 

needs, infrastructure development, and least-cost planning to provide affordable power to 

customers. The commenters indicated that there would be no requirement that states achieve any 

particular target prior to 2030.

According to the commenters, such an approach is generally consistent with the statutory 

language of section 111(d), which gives the states the primary responsibility for developing a 

plan for the establishment and implementation of the performance standards applicable to 

affected existing sources. The commenters further noted that the statute does not impose any 

specific time frame for the implementation of performance levels set by the federal guidelines. 

The commenters argued that this silence clearly gives the EPA the discretion to allow states to 

achieve their state-specific emission goals based on various factors enumerated in section 111, 

including costs, energy requirements and the remaining useful life of existing source.

Comment 29: Comment recommending that EPA consider undertaking a round of focused 

discussions with states and stakeholders before finalizing its emissions targets to ensure it has 

appropriately applied its assumptions to the on-the-ground realities in each state.

Response 29: The EPA is finalizing this rule with additional time and options that provide states 

flexibility in assembling their plans through the use of emission rate plans, energy efficiency 

plans, or as part of a larger regional plan. This more local planning effort affords utilities 

opportunity to interact with states and provide input to plans based on local concerns and 

generation needs, thus allowing for specifics in plans that would otherwise be generalized were 

the EPA to try and consolidate all stakeholder needs into a rule package. In this view, adding 

another layer of communication complexity into the rule making process may provide for less 

effective rulemaking and longer rulemaking delays. BSER concerns are discussed in sections 

V.A., V.C. and V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP. A discussion on state and regional 

planning options can be found in sections VIII.C, VIII.D., VIII.G and VIII.I of the final rule 

preamble. 

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:
49

Given the importance of adopting an achievable target using the BSER, and the many 

adjustments the commenters have suggested to EPA's BSER assumptions, commenters 

recommended that EPA consider undertaking a round of focused discussions with states and 

stakeholders before finalizing its emissions targets to ensure it has appropriately applied its 

assumptions to the on-the-ground realities in each state. The commenters stated that these statespecific negotiations, while not mandated by the Clean Air Act or the Administrative Procedures 

Act, would nevertheless provide significant benefits to EPA, states, and utility stakeholders. 

According to the commenters, EPA would benefit from a better understanding of the individual 

constraints facing each state, while giving state officials an opportunity to ask questions about 

compliance options. The commenters indicated that utilities would benefit from this additional 

layer of process because they could be given a more formal seat at the discussion table--the 

commenters noted that CAA section 111(d) does not contemplate a role for utilities despite 

being, in many ways, the real party in interest. The commenters understood the importance of 

adhering to a timeline in order to complete the final rule during the President's term in office. 

However, the commenters believe it is equally, if not more important to get these targets right. 

According to the commenters, an additional layer of process would provide guidance and 

certainty to states with regard to the achievability of their targets using the BSER and, through 

direct consultation with EPA officials, the available options for compliance with non-BSER 

measures.

Comment 30: Comments that it is inappropriate to require that the Building Block 2 redispatch 

be fully implemented by 2020, that the EPA should allow the states to determine how quickly 

Building Block 2 may be phased in, and disagreeing with EPA's assertion that pipeline capacity 

can be added to enable the large-scale fuel switching called for under Block 2.

Response 30: For several reasons, including timing needs for infrastructure development such as 

the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans 

and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. Also, the EPA is finalizing this 

rule with additional time and options that provide states flexibility in assembling their plans 

through the use of emission rate plans, energy efficiency plans, or as part of a larger regional 

plan. See sections V.A.3.g., V.D and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s 

response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters argued that the EPA has not shown that Building Block 2 has been adequately 

demonstrated or is achievable. According to the commenters, the EPA proposed to find that it is 

achievable for affected EGUs in each state to shift generation from existing coal- and oil/gasfired steam EGUs to existing NGCC units until those NGCC units reach a statewide maximum 

capacity factor of 70 percent (or 65 percent under the 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,928 alternate goals EPA 

solicits comment on). The commenters noted that EPA based this conclusion on its observation 

that of 464 NGCC plants it identified with generation data in 2012, 10 percent had a capacity 

factor of 70 percent or greater. According to the commenters, using a different set of data, the 

EPA also observed that some units are capable of operating at greater than 70 percent capacity 

factor on a seasonal basis, with 16 percent and 19 percent of units operating at or above that level 
50

in the 2012 winter and summer seasons, respectively. Relying on this data, the commenters noted 

that EPA "assumed that 70% was a reasonable fleet-wide ceiling for each state" on an annual 

average basis. 

The commenters argued that EPA's conclusion is not supported by its own analysis, which failed 

to demonstrate that the 70 percent target for Building Block 2 redispatch is achievable by all 

affected NGCC units in the source category by 2020, the year the EPA assumes in its state goal 

calculations that all existing and under construction NGCC units begin operating at a 70 percent 

annual capacity factor. According to the commenters, the EPA's Building Block 2 analysis is 

insufficient because it fails to account for factors that can limit the ability of EGU owners to 

increase utilization of their NGCC units. As an example, the commenters pointed out that some 

units are unable to increase generation to any level approaching 70 percent due to technical 

limitations, permit limits, or gas and transmission infrastructure constraints. The commenters 

further noted that other NGCC units will not be able to generate sufficient amounts above 70 

percent to make up for these lower-utilization units. According to the commenters, the fact that 

the EPA states that its proposed guidelines do not require that all affected NGCC units operate at 

a 70 percent capacity factor is irrelevant. The commenters contended that, because the acrossthe-board 70 percent capacity factor assumption is part of the EPA's proposed BSER 

determination, the Agency must show that it has in fact been adequately demonstrated. The EPA 

analysis fails to do this.

The commenters argued that EPA's assumption that each state's entire fleet of existing NGCC 

units can match the operational level of the top 10 percent of units across the country is arbitrary 

and unsupported by fact. The commenters stated that EPA did not undertake any assessment of 

the differences between high- and low- capacity factor NGCC units that may have led a small 

subset of those units to operate above a 70 percent capacity factor in 2012. According to the 

commenters, the Agency acknowledged that units operating above 70 percent on an annual basis 

were "largely dispatched to provide base load power," and that units operating above 70 percent 

on a seasonal basis typically "were idled or operated at lower capacity factors' during periods of 

lower demand. However, the commenters stated that the EPA did not examine whether the 

NGCC units providing base load power have different characteristics from the other existing 

NGCC units that were assumed to be capable of operating at a 70 percent capacity factor in the 

EPA's Building Block 2 application, or whether units that were idled during periods of relatively 

low demand did so because of economic, technical, or regulatory constraints on their operations. 

The commenters noted that the EPA instead assumed that all NGCC units are identical. 

According to the commenters, the EPA has failed to establish that the 10 percent of existing 

NGCC units operating at 70 percent capacity factor or higher in 2012 are representative of the 

remainder of NGCC units in the source category.

Commenters noted that, in reality, many existing NGCC units face constraints that will prevent 

them from increasing their utilization to a 70 percent capacity factor. According to the 

commenters, some units may be located in areas that are designated as in non-attainment for a 

NAAQS, and as a result could have operating permits imposing mass limits on carbon monoxide 

("CO") or NOx emissions that would effectively establish a cap on those units' operations. The 

commenters noted that other units were designed and maintained for the specific purpose of 

operating in cycling duty rather than as base load. According to the commenters, many of these 

units would not be able to achieve the target utilization rate without significant upgrades and 
51

testing to ensure that they are technically capable of operating near full load on a continuous 

annual basis. In addition, the commenters indicated that their permitted emission limits may not 

allow them to operate at a 70 percent capacity factor. The commenters further noted that, for 

many existing NGCC units, there is simply insufficient pipeline natural gas availability, or 

transmission infrastructure to permit operating year-round at a 70 percent capacity factor.

According to the commenters, the EPA did not acknowledge or adequately address the 

constraints preventing existing EGUs from operating at a 70 percent or higher capacity 

factor. The commenters stated that the EPA completely ignored potential permit limits on NGCC 

unit operation and dismissed infrastructure concerns. The commenters argued that the Agency's 

primary response--that the allowance for "emission rate averaging across multiple units" within a 

state in the proposed emission guidelines--does not demonstrate that a 70 percent overall 

capacity factor is achievable. According to the commenters, the EPA has made no attempt to 

determine whether each state will have a sufficient number of existing NGCC units that are able 

to generate sufficient electricity above a 70 percent capacity factor to make up for units that are 

not able to approach this level.

The commenters noted that EPA also pointed to historic trends in an attempt to justify its 

assumption that sufficient infrastructure already exists to support Building Block 2. As an 

example, the commenters referred to the Agency's statement that NGCC generation increased by 

22 percent between 2011 and 2012, supposedly demonstrating that existing natural gas 

infrastructure can accommodate rapid increases in existing NGCC utilization. According to the 

commenters, the EPA failed to note that even after this expansion--which was largely a function 

of historically low natural gas prices in 2012--over half of the existing NGCC units that EPA 

examined still operated at a capacity factor below 50 percent, presumably due to the kinds of 

constraints the EPA ignores. In addition, the commenters noted that EPA relied on trends in 

hourly capacity factor to claim that a 70 percent capacity factor is an achievable goal. According 

to the commenters, the EPA indicated that nationwide NGCC capacity factor during peak hours 

of the day averages 11 percentage points higher than the overall annual average, suggesting that 

the current system is able to support national average capacity factors "in the mid to high 50's for 

NGCC for peak" (i.e., 11 percentage points higher than the 2012 national average capacity factor 

of 45.8 percent). The commenters noted that EPA did not explain, however, why it believed it 

was reasonable to expect that the current system could accommodate an additional 10-15 

percentage points in order to reach a 70 percent average capacity factor over all hours of the day.

Commenters argued that EPA's effort to convert these load following or peaking facilities into 

base load EGUs also ignored the obvious question of which units will then become the load 

following and peaking units, both of which are required to effectively operate the electric 

generation system. The commenters indicated that each resource has its strengths and 

weaknesses and is best suited to a specific role in the system of EGUs. The commenters noted 

that existing coal units cannot be converted into load following or peaking units.

According to the commenters, many NGCC units might be able to increase capacity factors, 

while coal unit capacity factors decrease, but then it becomes unclear which units are then 

dispatched to provide the power when these NGCC units have hit their limits. If NGCC units 

become base load units, the commenters pointed out that utilities will likely need to build even 

more gas-fired units to operate as load following and peaking units, especially with the increase 
52

in RE generation contemplated by Building Block 3, but the commenters indicated that building 

these new units will take time, require approvals, and will put additional strains on the gas 

supply, pipeline infrastructure, and electric transmission grid. The commenters stated that EPA 

did not address these issues.

Finally, the commenters argued that EPA failed to adequately consider the time it takes to build 

the additional natural gas infrastructure necessary to support the 70 percent NGCC capacity 

factor target in its BSER determination. According to the proposed schedule, the commenters 

noted that EPA will be approving, or disapproving, state plans between mid-2017 and mid-2019. 

The commenters noted that compliance with the proposed interim goals begins in 2020. 

Presuming a state plan is approved, the commenters indicated that there will be one to three 

years to come into compliance with the state plans. According to the commenters, the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an interstate natural gas pipeline takes 

approximately three years to complete between announcement and completion. The commenters 

said there may be additional time necessary to identify the need for additional pipeline and other 

prior planning actions by the pipeline operator. In individual circumstances, due to localized 

siting and permitting issues, construction may take even longer. The commenters contended that 

the EPA had not considered the inadequate time their plan allows for the build-out of additional 

natural gas pipeline infrastructure when establishing a 70 percent capacity factor in Building 

Block 2.

In summary, commenters stated that EPA failed to demonstrate that its Building Block 2 target 

of redispatching generation from existing coal- and oil/gas-fired steam EGUs to existing NGCC 

units up to an overall NGCC capacity factor of 70 percent for every unit by 2020 is adequately 

demonstrated or achievable. According to the commenters, the Agency also failed to assess 

whether the subset of NGCC units operating at or above a 70 percent capacity factor in 2012 is 

representative of the remainder of existing NGCC units, and that it did not properly address 

economic, technical, regulatory, or infrastructure constraints preventing some units from 

operating at the target level. In addition, the commenters stated that EPA failed to consider the 

need for additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure to support an overall NGCC capacity factor 

of 70 percent beginning in 2020.

The commenters noted that the EPA, in its October 30, 2014 NODA, suggested that a way to 

reduce the negative consequences of requiring an interim goal would be to phase-in Building 

Block 2 over time rather than assuming full redispatch by 2020. The commenters strongly 

believe it is inappropriate to require that the Building Block 2 redispatch be fully implemented 

by 2020. To address this problem, the commenters recommended that the EPA allow the states to 

determine how quickly Building Block 2 may be phased in.

Commenters disagreed with EPA's assertion that pipeline capacity can be added to enable the 

large-scale fuel switching called for under Block 2, that "over a longer time period, much more 

significant pipeline expansion is possible." The commenters argued that EPA's analysis failed to 

examine whether this significant expansion can happen by 2020 or even 2030, given the 

impediments the pipeline industry faces in expanding pipelines, including the time necessary to 

site, permit, and construct pipelines. The commenters noted that very similar issues exist for the 

build out of transmission lines. In the commenters' experience, the timeline for placing new 

transmission projects in service--from the planning stage through certification and routing, right 
53

of way acquisition, procurement, engineering and construction--can take five to seven years. The 

commenters noted that several states also have a significant fraction of their existing NGCC fleet 

located in regions where there is not adequate transmission to move the electricity to where it 

will be needed to replace generation from the reduced utilization of the state's coal-fired units. 

According to the commenters, building out the transmission grid is a very lengthy, costly effort, 

and the proposed rule presumes Building Block 2 can be implemented at the outset of the 

compliance program.

Comment 31: Comment explaining that construction of new NGCC units could be delayed due 

to the presence of ozone nonattainment areas in the state, and suggesting that EPA adjust the 

time frames for submitting state plans and compliance periods in consideration of the 

forthcoming revised ozone standards.

Response 31: For several reasons, including timing needs for infrastructure development such as 

the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans 

and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this 

additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among others. See section X.C of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that a significant complication to accelerated construction of new NGCC 

units is the presence of nonattainment areas within a state. The commenters noted that Maricopa 

County and portions of Pinal County do not meet the current ozone standard of 75 parts per 

billion (ppb). The commenters noted that the EPA will soon be making revisions to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and should it be reduced much of the state 

could transition to nonattainment status. The commenters stated that the project developer would 

need to obtain emissions offsets (which are not readily available) to construct a source in a 

nonattainment area. The commenters stated that projects are often delayed to allow for 

development of needed offsets through other air quality control projects.

The commenters noted that many EGUs, including those affected by the proposed CPP, will 

have new compliance burdens for ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs) once the revised NAAQS 

for ozone are final. The commenters indicated that integrated planning for the CPP and SIPs for

new ozone standards will be very difficult. The commenters stated that strategies that work for 

ozone may conflict with those that work for the CPP (and vice versa). The commenters noted 

that revised ozone standards and the CPP would lead to increased regulatory costs and additional 

permitting burdens for industry, as well as increasing the resources required by air agencies for 

planning. The commenters suggested that EPA consider parallel rulemaking to allow states to 

integrate requirements for affected facilities in both state plans under CAA section 111(d) and 

SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas.

Comment 32: Comments discussing the timing of emission reductions required in Arizona, 

specifically: the CPP does not allow sufficient time for implementation in Arizona; and that 
54

Arizona faces daunting, time-consuming, extensive and expensive evaluation, siting and 

permitting processes.

Response 32: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, capacity and reliability 

concerns, and timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has 

extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim 

period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this additional time due to reasons the 

commenters mention, among others. See sections V.A.3.g., V.D, VIII.B, VIII.G, and X.A of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed rule will undermine the provision of reliable electric 

service in Arizona. The commenters stated Arizona utilities would need to construct or acquire 

other non-coal resources in order to reliably serve their loads. Based upon an analysis completed 

by the Arizona utilities, the commented stated that Arizona utilities would need to acquire over 

2,000 MW of additional generation capacity at a cost of over $2 billion by 2020 to meet their 

firm load obligations if they stopped use of all coal units. The commenters stated that the fuel 

and purchase power costs would increase by over $17 billion through 2030. The commenters 

stated that while the Arizona utilities might be able to meet some of these needs through 

acquisitions or power purchase agreements with existing NGCC generators, not all of these 

needs can be met without new capacity being built. However, the commenters stated that the 

ability to develop sufficient new capacity by 2020 is not possible. According to the commenters, 

given that a state will not know until 2017, at the earliest, if its plan is approved, there will not be 

adequate time to develop, site and construct new generation, electric transmission and associated 

gas pipelines if the new generation is gas fired. The commenters stated that NERC 

acknowledged these same concerns in its November 2014 Report when it concluded that more 

time would be necessary to implement the Proposed Carbon Rule to accommodate reliability 

enhancements, pointing out that areas that experience a large shift in resource mix are expected 

to require electric transmission enhancements to maintain reliability. 

The commenters also stated that there may also be significant transmission reliability issues that 

will need to be addressed if all, or even substantial amounts, of Arizona's coal generation must 

be shut down. The commenters noted that a recent study completed by the Southwest Area 

Transmission ("SWAT") Sub-regional Planning Group (attached as Exhibit 11 to comment 

23479) evaluated different levels of coal shutdowns under different resource replacement

scenarios in 2019 for the Arizona-New Mexico-Southern Nevada footprint. The commenters

stated that this analysis found that, under a scenario in which about 4,800 MW of coal generation 

was shut down and replaced with about 3,900 MW of renewable resources and 900 MW of 

reduced flow to California, there was inadequate inertia and dynamic reactive capability, leading 

to instability in the electric system under certain contingencies. The commenters stated that this 

was a preliminary "book ends" study, and the only conclusion that can really be made is that 

there could be potential problems that will need to be addressed, and that more detailed study is 

needed. According to the commenters, a broader geographic area should be considered in order 

to identify impacts on the broader Western Interconnection.
55

The commenters noted that since 2000, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has 

completed Biennial Transmission Assessments ("BTA") for the Arizona Transmission System in 

accordance with A.R.S. Section 40-360.02.G. The commenters noted that the purpose of the 

BTA is to ensure the adequacy of the existing and planned transmission facilities in Arizona to 

meet the present and future electrical energy needs in a reliable manner. The commenters stated 

that the BTA is completed based upon 10-year transmission plans filed annually in accordance 

with A.R.S Section 40-360.02.A by any entity anticipating the construction of transmission 

within the next 10 years in Arizona. In addition, the commenters stated that the BTA contains 

specific studies such as the Ten Year Snapshot and Extreme Contingency Analysis, both of 

which look at the aggregate impact of all planned transmission. The commenters noted that over 

the years, BTAs have also directed the Arizona utilities to perform additional studies to address 

concerns raised in the BTA process. For example, the commenters noted that the ACC has 

requested assessments of transmission that would enhance the access to renewable resources. 

The commenters explained that in the most recent BTA approved in October 2014, the utilities 

were directed to assess the potential impact on the reliability of the electric system in Arizona of 

a significant reduction in coal generation. However, the commenters stressed that issues of this 

magnitude take time to examine and resolve.

The commenters stated that Arizona, along with other western states, has worked to create a 

reliable, flexible grid that will be impacted, possibly severely, by a shift in the planned resource 

mix and location that is anticipated as a result of the Proposed Carbon Rule. The commenters 

stated that more time is necessary to further study the impacts of these possible changes.

The commenters explained that the electric system is an interconnected grid and reliability issues 

in one state can have impacts that reach well beyond its borders. The commenters provided for 

example, the impact on system stability and dynamic reactive capacity of retiring large amounts 

of coal could impact the entire Western Interconnect as demonstrated in the SWAT study 

discussed above. The commenters concluded that setting state goals that require shutting down 

coal by 2020 does not allow adequate time for system planning and implementation of the 

necessary changes that would be required to correct identified issues.

Commenters stated that the timing of the application of Building Block 2 should be moved 

beyond 2020 to allow adequate time and flexibility for states to use all of the building blocks to 

comply with the end goal in 2030. By applying Building Block 2 fully in 2020, the commenters 

argued that the EPA has not reflected the remaining useful life of coal units, allowed time for 

replacement resources, or allowed adequate time for the development and construction of such 

transmission, or for natural gas pipelines, which can take 5 or more years to develop, permit and 

construct. The commenters stated that electric transmission system upgrades would be required if 

increased generation from the existing NGCC plants located west of the load pockets in Arizona

are relied upon as compliance options.

Commenters stated that despite the EPA's insistence that the renewable energy and energy 

efficiency targets used to set the interim and final state goals for the states provide "flexibility," 

the magnitude and timing of that "flexibility" for Arizona is wholly insufficient to compensate 

for the massive and immediate changes called for under BB2. The commenters explained that 

due to energy market circumstances completely unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions or climate 

change, Arizona has a large amount of NGCC generation capacity (9,856 MW). The commenters 
56

stated that the supposed availability of those plants apparently convinced the EPA that all 

affected coal-fired power plants in Arizona can be replaced by NGCC by 2020. The commenters 

presented a chart showing that Arizona would be required to achieve 90 percent of its total 

emission rate reduction less than 3 years after the approval of its state plan (assuming the plan is 

submitted and approved by June 2017).

In addition to the expense related to increasing the infrastructure necessary to support the 

increased demand and use of NGCC, the commenters argued that the process for infrastructure 

improvements is going to include time-consuming siting and permitting processes for pipeline, 

storage, and other midstream natural gas infrastructure. The commenters stated that modifying 

the electric transmission infrastructure is a complex, costly, time-consuming process that will 

require the cooperation of state and federal agencies, electric utilities, tribes, the general public, 

and private landowners. According to the commenters, EPA has not provided guidance for grid 

updates and infrastructure support, necessary for states to begin such a daunting, timeconsuming, extensive, and expensive process.

The commenters indicated that Arizona faces an extensive planning and review process and will 

likely face NGCC resource allocation problems. Due to the inflexibility of the 2020 interim goal, 

the expected problems associated with ramping up energy efficiency, and the approval states will 

need to implement the State Plans, the commenters said Arizona anticipates and expects that this 

will create complications regarding an uninterruptable supply of natural gas and pipelines and 

storage sufficient enough to allow available NGCC units to bridge the difference in the electric 

generating capacity. To further demonstrate this concern, the commenters noted that the Salt 

River Project (SRP) completed an analysis demonstrating that this extra capacity does not exist 

during Arizona's peak summer months. According to the commenters, SRP additionally 

determined that Arizona has little to no control over how NGCC units are dispatched, as most of 

Arizona's merchant plant generators have contracts with in-state and out-of-state entities; 

therefore, a combination of all merchant NGCC generation and the existing baseload coal-fired 

units will be necessary to meet electric demand in the state and ensure reliability. The 

commenters further noted that Arizona faces additional problems in a timeline for implementing 

new NGCC capacity, as siting and permitting requirements will likely average ten (10) years or 

more if federal or tribal lands are involved. Further, given federal, state and tribal relations, the

commenters indicated it may be infeasible or even impossible to acquire adequate private land 

for new projects.

Comment 33: Comment arguing that EPA has not addressed natural gas transport limits on 

redispatch. 

Response 33: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as capacity and 

reliability concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for 

States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. 

The final rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among 

others. See sections V.A.3.g., V.D and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment.
57

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

As support, the commenters referenced the Pace Study, which noted that the existing 

transmission network is designed for coal-fired EGUs located in the eastern and southern 

periphery of the State, while the NGCC EGUs are located in and around Phoenix and in the 

western periphery of the State. According to the study, significant modifications to the 

transmission network would be required to account for shutdown of the coal-fired EGUs and still 

provide reliable electricity. See Pace Study Section 3.1, at 13-14. According to the commenters, 

it does not appear that these issues were included in the proposed timing of BB2 implementation 

in 2020.

The commenters noted that Pace similarly reviewed the natural gas pipeline capacity in Arizona 

and determined that there are two major systems: Transwestern and El Paso. According to the 

study, the Transwestern system is essentially at 98-100% utilization even prior to the proposed 

rule, so increased utilization would thus fall almost wholly on the El Paso system, which is also 

reportedly near full capacity. The study indicated time is short to fully integrate pipeline system 

improvements prior to 2020, given lead times for such infrastructure projects. See Pace Study 

Section 3.1, at 14.

According to the study, Arizona does not currently have a sufficient natural gas pipeline system 

to support likely proposed rule demand and will not have time to upgrade the system to comply 

with the interim and final goal timelines. The study further noted NERC-CAISO's determination 

that Arizona's "existing pipeline capacity is not adequate to handle incremental gas needs of the 

state under the CPP." See Pace Study Section 3.6, at 26 (citing NERC-CAISO Joint Report, 

"Maintaining Bulk Power System Reliability while Integrating Variable Energy Resources"). 

According to the commenters, EPA has not given adequate consideration of this issue and must 

revise the timing of BB2 and revision to the interim goal, at the very least, to accommodate the 

necessary infrastructure upgrades. Referring to EPA's assumption that states would be able to 

rely upon one another to comply, the commenters countered that, given that individual states 

have the theoretical ability to define their own future in terms of compliance with the goals of the 

proposed rule, it is not guaranteed that Arizona will have sufficient capacity in its neighboring 

states to maintain reliable electric service. Consequently, the commenters concluded that Arizona 

must be afforded the relief requested to continue a reliable electric grid on its own as well as a 

sufficient MW peak reserve margin, as the Pace Study addressed.

Comment 34: Comment stating that the few years between approval of state plans and the 

beginning of the interim goal compliance period offered in the CPP provides insufficient time to 

develop and implement a state-wide cap and implementing regulations.

Response 34: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage the 

complexities that commenters mention, among others. See section V.A.3.g., VIII.B of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.
58

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Regarding mass-based programs, commenters explained that states that choose to develop a 

mass-based program also need significant time to devise and implement the program. 

Notwithstanding EPA's TSD regarding the translation of emission rate goals into mass-based 

standards, the commenters stated that it will take significant time to develop a state-wide cap and 

the implementing regulations surrounding a mass-based compliance program. The commenters

stated that determining what the emissions cap should be and, where appropriate, how to allocate 

allowances and potential revenue from a cap-and-trade program will take a substantial amount of 

time. According to the commenters, then it will take an additional period of time to allocate the 

allowances and to set up an emissions tracking and trading platform. The commenters stated that 

power plant owners also will need sufficient time to determine their compliance strategy to limit 

emissions to their allowance allocations or else to identify likely sellers of allowances. The 

commenters provided, for example, that even though California signed a cap-and- trade program 

into law in 2006, the program did not take effect until 2012, 6 years after the program was 

conceived. The commenters stated that the few years between approval of state plans and the 

beginning of the interim goal compliance period offered in the CPP provides insufficient time to 

develop and implement such complex programs. 

Comment 35: Comments claiming that the CPP proposal will have negative effects on coal 

production jobs.

Response 35: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 

2022. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility in constructing those plans to 

manage the economic complexities that commenters mention, among others. See section VIII.G 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters disagreed with the CPP proposal because of the negative effects the commenters

asserted it would have on coal production jobs. As a Commonwealth of Virginia Hose Delegate, 

the commenters stated that their Virginia House Bill 1261 (that took effect July 1, 2014) requires 

the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) to work with the Center for 

Coal and Energy Research (CCER) examine policy options and adopt standards less stringent

than the EPA regulations. The commenters explained that the bill requires compliance schedules 

longer than required by the EPA to lessen the impact on the coal industry in Southwest Virginia. 

The commenters stated that the DMME and CCER will be required to conduct an in-depth 

analysis of new EPA regulations to determine any flexibility within the federal law to adopt 

standards that will minimize the negative impact on the coal industry, and that new regulations 

will have to be measured in Virginia to further the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth. 

The commenters urged the EPA to follow Virginia's lead for the benefit of all states that mine 

coal.
59

Comment 36: Comments claiming that all the regulations proposed and/or finalized over the 

past five years creates uncertainty for their [utility] industry and their association's members.

Response 36: As stated above, the EPA recognizes the concerns voiced by the commenters and 

has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the 

interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to 

states in constructing their plans to manage the complexities that commenters mention, among 

others. A discussion of interaction between this rule and other EPA rules is included in section 

X.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP; discussion of state and regional plan timing 

considerations specific to the commenters’ concerns can be found in sections VIII.B, VIII.E, 

VIII.F, and VIII.I of the final rule preamble. 

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that, with all the regulations proposed and/or finalized over the past five 

years, this creates uncertainty for their industry and their association's members. Their basic 

question as each regulation is proposed and/or finalized is: Should they invest in their current 

fleet, should they build something new or should they go to the market for their power? The 

commenters said this is really difficult to answer. The commenters noted that the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) were finalized in 2011; 

the three carbon dioxide regulations on power plants and redefining 'waters of the US' were most 

recently proposed in 2013 and 2014; and the Section 316(b) rule was finalized a few months ago. 

The commenters expected changes to the regulation of coal combustion residuals to be finalized 

at the end of this year and the amendments for startup, shutdown & malfunction events and 

revisions to effluent limitations guidelines for electric generating units to be finalized next year. 

The commenters argued that it is nearly impossible for electric utilities to adequately prepare for 

each of these, let alone the sum of these, proposals.

Comment 37: Comments recommending that the EPA implementation period be extended to 

give states like Louisiana the opportunity to develop additional institutional resources to avoid 

the rate shock and economic harm that will otherwise result.

Response 37: For several reasons, including infrastructure and capacity concerns such as the 

commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans 

and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this 

additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among others. A discussion of this is 

included in the preamble to the final rule. See section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters indicated that the EPA takes for granted the institutional infrastructure that is 

lacking in certain parts of the country for initiating many of the policies included in its BSER 

approach. The commenters noted that, rather than implement an RPS and EE targets or goals, 

Louisiana has taken a more measured approach to alternative energy in an effort to avoid the 
60

imposition of unduly burdensome energy costs on its ratepayers. According to the commenters, 

the state is lacking in a broad number of potential market suppliers and alternatives (primarily in 

RE and EE) and does not have the historical institutional background in the development of 

regional clean power, clean air, and efficiency markets that exists in places like the Northeastern 

U.S. The commenters recommended that the EPA implementation period be extended to give 

states like Louisiana the opportunity to develop these additional institutional resources to avoid 

the rate shock and economic harm that will otherwise result. Commenters concurred, stating that 

since there are states with limited energy efficiency programs and evaluation experience, it will 

be important to allow for a "ramp up" period to develop the expertise required to both implement 

and to evaluate such programs. 

Comment 38: Comments stating that EPA's expedited renewable energy timeline should be 

pushed back, and noting that, in many states, under blocks 3 and 4, the state will need authority 

to move on a renewable energy mandate or energy efficiency mandate, and stating that it is 

unclear how the renewable energy needed to be developed as a result of the Clean Power Plan 

will be constructed within the time constraints set forth in the proposed rule given the significant 

barriers to mass construction of new renewable resources.

Response 38: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as capacity, reliability, 

and timing concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed 

for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. 

The final rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among 

others. See sections V.A.3.g.and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s 

response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA is requiring states to begin increasing renewable energy 

generation by 2017, 3 years before the compliance period begins for the proposed guidelines. 

The commenters asserted that this timeline is simply too aggressive and illogical relative to other 

relevant CPP timelines (e.g., the EPA is not finalizing its rule until 2015 and state plans - at the 

earliest - are not due until June 30, 2016 or June 30, 2018 for multi-state plans). The commenters 

stated that the EPA is requiring states to begin meeting the renewable energy goals contained in 

plans that may not have even been submitted to EPA, let alone approved. The commenters stated 

that this timeline not only ignores EPA's own CPP timelines, but fails to acknowledge the

contractual and regulatory hurdles inherent in building out renewable energy capacity in order to 

meet the new goals. For these reasons, the commenters suggested that the EPA should strongly 

consider pushing back its renewable energy timeline to be more in line with other CPP deadlines 

and practical realities.

The commenters noted that, in many states, under blocks 3 and 4, the state will need authority to 

move on a renewable energy mandate or energy efficiency mandate, if it is allowed to impose 

such a mandate. The commenters said this is an even more pronounced issue with cooperative 

and municipal electric utilities. In Iowa, for example, the commenters noted that the state electric 

utility authority body, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), takes its authority from chapter 476 of the 
61

Iowa Code. The commenters pointed out that the IUB is not allowed to take any action that is not 

otherwise authorized by statute. The commenters indicated there is currently no legislative 

authority for the IUB to implement a renewable energy mandate or an energy efficiency program 

on municipal utilities or cooperatives. To implement a renewable mandate under a state plan, the 

commenters said the Iowa General Assembly would need to meet and approve the passage of a 

mandate or otherwise grant the IUB specific authority to establish such a mandate. The 

commenters also noted that Iowa Code section 476.6(16)(c) establishes that municipals must 

develop an energy efficiency plan based on cost effective programs, file their plan and 

implement it. The commenters said there is no mandate that municipals achieve a percentage 

savings beyond what their own studies have shown is cost-effective. In order to mandate 

municipal electric utilities undertake certain savings, the commenters indicated the statute must 

be amended to create such a mandate or statutory authority must be granted to the IUB to 

regulate municipal utilities in such a manner, which would be an unprecedented move. 

Although the commenters did not advocate for such statutory changes, in order for Iowa to make 

such changes, the General Assembly would have to meet to pass the appropriate mandate or IUB 

authorization bill. In either regard, the passage of such a bill is not guaranteed; like any 

legislative process, a bill needed to establish the workability for a state plan would be subject to 

amendments or even opposition killing the proposed bill. If the legislature fails to authorize the 

actions in the proposed state plan, the commenters asked how the state can submit the plan to the 

EPA for approval. Even if a state plan is approved at the EPA and the state agency seeks 

legislative implementation of the plan elements after EPA approval, the commenters said there is 

no guarantee that the state legislature would not significantly amend the proposal or oppose the 

passage of the bill. In order to successfully navigate state legislative pitfalls, the commenters 

contended that the timing in the proposed plan must be altered to allow more time for plan 

development and for implementation.

The commenters noted that Iowa is not alone in having this potential problem. According to the 

commenters, in Minnesota, the existing Integrated Resource Planning Statute, Minn. Stat. section 

216B.2422 would have to be re-written and passed by the legislature reflecting the mandatory 

energy efficiency or renewables, again a statutory change that the commenters did not support. 

The commenters likewise noted that the Minnesota renewable energy mandate, Minn. Stat. 

section 216B.1691 and the state energy efficiency goal, Minn. Stat. 216B.241, would also have 

to be revised to reflect the state plan. In North Dakota and South Dakota, the commenters noted 

that renewable energy statutes are written as goals only, and neither state has an energy 

efficiency mandate (although energy efficiency is defined as a renewable resource in North 

Dakota). NDCC sections 49-02-28 through 49-02-34; SDCL sections 49-34A-101 through 49-

34A-105. The commenters noted there are no renewable or energy efficiency goals or mandates 

in Wyoming as well. 

The commenters noted that it takes several years to construct the required upgrades and build-out 

of transmission necessary to support additional renewable energy development, not to mention 

the time required to complete the associated engineering, land acquisition, permitting and 

construction of the renewable facilities themselves. The commenters argued that reliance of the 

Clean Power Plan on block 3 will create significant manufacturing demand, which could cause 

more delays. The commenters further noted that time needed to construct additional natural gas 

units must also be taken into account because of the intermittent nature of traditional renewables 

like wind and solar. The commenters pointed out that wind and solar facilities can only produce 
62

electricity when the wind is blowing or sun is shining, meaning that other generation sources, 

most likely natural gas units, will be needed to back up those renewables and maintain a reliable 

flow of energy.

Commenters stated that the 111(d) rule does not take into consideration the length of time and 

cost involved in adding substantial new transmission in order to integrate large amounts of 

intermittent renewable energy. The commenters stated that renewable resources are generally 

(but not always) located in areas that are more remote from customer demand which requires the 

addition of electric transmission lines to move renewable energy to more populated areas of the 

state. The commenters stated that Texas's Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) 

experience is a prime example of the level of transmission investment necessary to move 

renewable energy from the where it is produced to where it will actually be used. The 

commenters provided a table with a comparison of key statistics at the beginning of the CREZ 

program in 2008 and the actual status of the CREZ program as of June 15, 2014. The 

commenters stated that this table illustrates the difficulty of accurately estimating the costs of a 

project of the size and scope of Texas's CREZ build out. The commenters stated that what is 

clear is that projects of this size will, due to a variety of factors, almost always cost more than the 

initial estimates. 

The commenters explained that it took 9 years (from 2005 to 2014) for completion of the final 

CREZ transmission lines. The commenters stated that from May 2005 to December 2013, the 

Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) designated CREZ zones, selected transmission 

providers to build the transmission, and decided 37 contested transmission CCN applications 

which authorized the construction of approximately 3,600 miles of transmission lines. The 

commenters stated that some areas of West Texas have not reached their full CREZ capacity 

build-out. The commenters stated that other areas, such as the Panhandle, will require a 

significant amount of new transmission in order to accommodate more renewable resources. The

commenters stated that as evidenced from Texas's own experience, integrating renewable 

resources successfully requires a significant investment of time and money.

Comment 39: Comments arguing that the final goal of 2030 did not consider NEPA process.

Response 39: : For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as timing and 

planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for 

States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. 

The final rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among 

others. A discussion of Building Block 3 concerns can be found in section V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP, and discussion of interactions regarding this rule and other EPA 

regulations can be found in section X.C of the final rule preamble. Discussion of state and 

regional plan timing concerns may be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule 

preamble.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:
63

Regarding Building Block 3 (Renewable Energy (RE)), commenters argued that the final goal of 

2030 did not consider NEPA process. The commenters noted that RE and transmission projects 

take many years to permit. The commenters indicated that these projects can be very 

controversial because they involve siting and building above-ground structures, often in areas of 

significant wildlife use. The commenters contended that EPA did not consider the time and 

expenses involved in the permitting process when it analyzed the economics of RE development. 

The commenters pointed out that RE development in the state is dependent on land ownership 

and transmission availability. According to the commenters, over 48% of the land in Wyoming is 

federal land, which triggers the NEPA process. The commenters noted that RE projects can be 

built on private land with the owner's consent and customary monetary compensation, but also 

noted that even projects on private land trigger the NEPA process when a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) Eagle Take Permit is required. The commenters noted that golden eagles are 

prevalent throughout Wyoming, so most of the wind projects on private land require an Eagle 

Take Permit. 

The commenters also noted that the time involved for permitting the development of renewable 

energy can be significant in Wyoming, as the permitting involves not only the facility but also 

the transmission required to move RE generation. The commenters stated that the permitting 

process for RE and transmission is particularly time intensive, as it involves the NEPA process 

and it has been their experience that wind projects often involve multiple NEPA processes. 

According to the commenters, the NEPA process adds considerable time to RE projects and has

increased in duration for the most recent transmission and wind projects in Wyoming. The 

commenters indicated that NEPA processes for wind facilities and transmission lines have a 

proven track record of taking at least eight years. In some cases, even after such a lengthy 

approval process, the commenters indicated that only a partial decision is rendered, allowing 

only a portion of the project to move forward. The commenters indicated that further time may 

be necessary should additional environmental Impact Studies (EIS) or Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) be required for other federal agencies. As an example, the commenters noted 

that, if the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requires an EIS for a decision

regarding a wind facility or transmission line on federal land, the elements of the BLM's analysis 

do not automatically satisfy an EIS process stipulated by the FWS for an Eagle Take Permit. In 

addition, the commenters noted that research conducted by Wyoming BLM does not necessarily 

cover the elements for the transmission line that extends to a neighboring state. Thus, the 

commenters noted, the other state's BLM office may require additional analysis prior to issuing a 

permit for the entire project. 

To further illustrate the timing needs associated with these types of projects, the commenters 

pointed to the Power Company of Wyoming, LLC's Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy 

Facility. The commenters noted that this facility, on federal land, was considered a high priority 

project and placed on a federal 'fast-track' process. According to the commenters, a notice of 

intent was issued in 2008, and a decision from the BLM was issued in 2012; however, the FWS 

required an additional NEPA process for an Eagle Take Permit. The commenters indicated that a 

decision is not anticipated until 2016. If approved, the commenters indicated it will authorize 

only half the facility to be constructed. The commenters indicated additional approval from FWS 

will be required to build the entire facility, as planned. The commenters noted that the process is 

taking 8 years for partial approval on a fast-tracked project. According to the commenters, the 

NEPA process for transmission lines has a similar timeline. The commenters pointed out that 
64

Trans West Express and Gateway West, both federal ' fast-track' projects, began the NEPA 

process in 200~, and both are still awaiting a final decision. The commenters stated that Trans 

West Express anticipates a decision in 2015, and a complete decision on Gateway West is 

expected in 2016. 

The commenters concluded that necessary evaluation of wildlife limitations, land ownership, and 

federal permitting add significant time to the development of RE resources. The commenters 

stated that this is the reality of the time required to obtain federal permitting for RE and 

transmission projects in Wyoming. Once the lengthy NEPA process is complete, the commenters 

said the Right of Ways and local permitting processes can begin, which also require at least an 

additional year. According to the commenters, a project may not begin construction until it has 

received all of the necessary state, federal, and private approvals. Therefore, the commenters 

concluded that it is unrealistic for Wyoming to build RE and transmission projects within the 

timeline proposed in Building Block 3.

Comment 40: Comments that the approval processes required by other agencies (such as the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) related to transmission line approval/construction will result in a 

lengthy compliance process.

Response 40: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as timing and planning 

concerns including interactions with other Federal Agencies such as the commenters mention, 

the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start 

of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this additional time due to 

reasons the commenters mention, among others. A discussion of this is included in the preamble 

to the final rule. Discussion of interactions regarding this rule and other EPA regulations can be 

found in section X.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that Oklahoma faces substantial regulatory obstacles. While the SPP 

concluded that transmission line approval and construction alone could take as many as eight and 

a half years to complete, the commenters said factoring in approval processes required by other 

agencies-such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's protection of endangered species-will 

result in an even lengthier compliance process, not to mention potential delay caused by the 

interaction with other EPA's proposed rules, including the Waters of the U.S. rule. 

Comment 41: Comments arguing that there is insufficient time for compliance.

Response 41: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final 

rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among others. See 

sections V.A.3.g., VIII.B and VIII.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to 

this comment.
65

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

The commenters stated that the emission rate goals in the proposed rule are front-loaded, 

meaning that the reduction required to get on EPA's glide path in 2020 is daunting. The 

commenters stated that there is insufficient time to achieve the suggested emission rate by 2020 

due to the state and utility planning and subsequent actions that must take place between now 

and 2020. The commenters noted that states must submit plans by June 30, 2016, or June 30, 

2017 if granted a 1-year extension, or June 30, 2018 for multi-state plans, pushing final EPA 

approval of these plans to mid-2018 or mid-2019. The commenters stated that this creates 

uncertainty when determining where and when a utility needs to invest in renewable capacity 

additions. Under EPA's methodology, the commenters explained that states are expected to begin 

increasing renewable energy by 2017, 3 years before the interim compliance period. The 

commenters stated that building renewable capacity requires several years to allow for planning, 

permitting, and construction, so actions to bring renewable energy on line in 2017 must begin 

immediately. The commenters stated that other compliance options, such as coal unit retirements 

made possible through transmission upgrades and construction of new NGCC units require 

several years to complete. The commenters stated that based on EPA's proposal which penalizes 

States and utilities for early emission reductions when setting state-specific emission goals, a 

state or a utility would have to be very wary of investing in compliance measures prior to EPA 

approval of state plans. 

The commenters stated that, in the NODA, EPA notes that it has received comments on whether 

states should be allowed to implement state goals prior to 2020 and receive "credit" for such 

actions, thus allowing a more gradual phase-in of the required emission reductions. The 

commenters stated that this approach would not create credit for pre-2020 actions, but would 

allow states to include them in their compliance plans by moving up the start date of the 

compliance period. According to the commenters, it appears that EPA would not mandate that 

the compliance period start before 2020, but is considering allowing states to choose whether to 

move up the compliance period start date. The commenters stated that EPA's use of the term 

"credit" is incorrect and misleading. The commenters stated that EPA's proposed early action 

"credit" only allows states to begin compliance early and is therefore not truly a "credit" for early 

action. However, the commenters argued that EPA should offer true early action credit for 

actions taken from 2005 to the start of the first compliance period. Said another way, the 

commenters offered that emission reductions or credits from early actions should be bankable 

and allowed to be used for future compliance.

The commenters stated that the requirements in the final rule will likely result in the retirement 

of many coal fired units. The commenters noted that EPA analysis projects 30-49 GW of coal 

fired capacity will be retired by 2020 as a result of the rule. The commenters stated, pursuant to 

Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, as a user, owner, and operator of a bulk power 

system, that they are required to meet certain performance criteria established in Reliability 

Standards promulgated by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and 

approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a result, the commenters stated that 

compliance with those criteria is not optional. The commenters also stated that transmission 

upgrades are frequently required to meet NERC Reliability Standards when generating units 

retire.
66

The commenters stated that they built and continue to operate one of the largest high voltage 

transmission systems in the country, and their in-house Electric Systems Projects group has 

extensive experience upgrading and extending the system. According to the commenters, current 

lead time for large transformer projects typically is 2 years, and environmental review and land 

acquisition alone for transmission lines can take several years. Commenters stated they expect a 

typical 20 mile single circuit 161 kV transmission line project to take approximately 56 months 

from initial planning studies to completion, and a project for a 30 mile 500 kV line to take 

approximately 84 months. The commenters stated that they completed construction of the 18 

mile Unionville-Rally Hill 161 kV transmission line in 2014, and the actual time from start to inservice for this project was 67 months.

The commenters agreed with EPA's conclusion that multi-state compliance plans could 

significantly reduce compliance costs, but argued that EPA has not considered the complexities 

involved nor allowed states the 5-10 years it will take to develop such plans. The commenters

suggested that a better approach would be utility system-based plans that work within the 

realities of power system operations and fleet portfolio management. The commenters stated that 

EPA should provide guidelines and sufficient time for development and implementation of 

multi-state or system compliance plans. 

Comment 42: Comments noting some problems with EPA's assumption that states will use early 

reductions to help achieve the compliance goals. 

Response 42: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage the 

complexities that commenters mention, among others. See sections VIII.B, VIII.C and VIII.G of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters referred to EPA's statement that states will need to begin taking action to reduce 

emissions before the interim compliance period starts in 2020 in order to achieve the 10-year 

interim emission rate. As an example, the commenters noted EPA's projection that many states 

would begin ramping up end-use efficiency programs and renewable generation projects in 2017 

in order to attain the annual levels of end-use efficiency and renewable generation included in 

determining each state's emission rate goals. While EPA assumes that states will commit to early 

reductions in order to help achieve the interim and final goals, the commenters noted that the 

guidelines focus on accountability and compliance in the interim period. 

The commenters noted a further complication in the process states must follow in developing and 

getting their plans approved by EPA. Although state plans are due in 2016, the commenters 

noted EPA offered states the option of seeking an additional year (for an individual state plan) or 

two (for multistate plans). Once submitted, the commenters noted EPA has one year to approve a 

plan. While additional time to develop compliance plans is a welcome flexibility that recognizes 

the challenge for states in crafting workable plans, the commenters said this additional time 
67

means that it could be as late as 2018 or 2019 before a state has a final approved compliance 

plan. The commenters noted that states that do not have or are not planning to rely on existing 

state programs (e.g., RES, EE programs) would have very little time to get started on the early 

reductions that could be used towards compliance.

Comment 43: Comments urging EPA to allow credit for early actions implemented before 2020 

to be counted toward a state’s compliance goals, stating that the proposed rule penalizes states 

and utilities that took action prior to 2012, arguing that EPA's failure to give appropriate credit to 

states that took early action to reduce their CO2 emissions creates a harmful precedent, 

expressing concern that the draft rule provides no incentive to take action to reduce emissions 

before 2019, and recommending allowance for the use of pre-2020 banked megawatt-hours or 

avoided CO2 emissions during CPP performance period.

Response 43: The EPA recognizes the value of early actions that deploy CO2-reducing 

investments, such as RE and demand-side EE measures. For discussion of state plan 

requirements related to incentivizing early action see section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

Commenters’ concerns about treatment of early action are further addressed by changes from 

proposal to the BSER assumptions and the methodology used by the EPA to establish the CO2

emission performance levels and rate-based state CO2 goals in the emission guidelines. The 

specifics of these changes are addressed in section V.A.3.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction actions (i.e., 

increasing existing policies, enacting new programs and/or adding 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, as detailed in AWEA's comments. The 

commenters said this would help ensure that states have an incentive to engage in carbon 

reduction measures prior to that period and get a jump on being better positioned to achieve their 

final compliance goals.

Commenters urged that states should be allowed to count measures that are implemented after 

the submittal of the state plan, even though the programs were initiated at a prior time.

Commenters noted that, while the Iowa-specific goals as currently determined give appropriate 

recognition to Iowa's existing policies, programs, and early actions to support renew able energy, 

energy efficiency, and consideration of CO2 reduction objectives in resource planning, the CPP 

provides that measures that a state takes after the date of this proposal, or programs already in 

place, which result in CO2 emission reductions during the 2020- 2030 period, would apply 

toward achievement of the state's 2030 CO2 emissions goal. (CPP p. 34839). As such, the 

commenters said the CPP appears to preclude states from taking credit for existing programs and 

early actions that take place between 2012 and 2020. The commenters joined the Iowa Agencies 

in urging the EPA to give states credit for CO2 reductions occurring between 2014 and 2020.
68

Otherwise, the commenters indicated there will be diminished incentive to pursue aggressive 

steps to implement CO2 reducing measures over the next several years.

Commenters stated that the design of the proposed guidelines penalizes states and companies 

that took action before 2012 to reduce emissions by giving those states more stringent goals. The 

commenters explained that the proposed guidelines would penalize leadership in emissions 

reductions, renewable energy and other clean energy programs. Ironically, the commenters stated 

that the proposed guidelines would impose greater burdens on utilities and states that have 

already implemented the very programs that EPA would like to encourage. According to the 

commenters, this approach punishes states, companies, and utility customers that have invested 

in building the nation's clean energy resources.

Commenters noted that EPA asked for comments on whether reductions that are implemented 

prior to the performance period, i.e. 2020, should be credited. As a result of the direct global 

warming benefits of early action, the commenters urged EPA to allow states to credit reductions 

generated before 2020. From a policy perspective, the commenters said credit for early 

reductions is also critical for the power sector, as the investments that are made between the time 

EPA issued the proposal and 2020 will potentially have 30-50 year life cycles or greater. In 

addition to the emissions reductions that occur prior to 2020, the commenters indicated those 

investments will continue to generate fewer emissions for the rest of those facilities' lives. As an 

example, the commenters noted that one of their processing facilities will continue to process 

wastes and increase recycling long after the term of the Clean Power Plan.

According to the commenters, allowing states to credit emissions impacts of actions that are 

taken prior to 2020 will also avoid the absurd result of causing power plant owners and operators 

to delay GHG improvements to their facilities. The commenters noted that, if a power plant 

owner or operator is faced with a prospective action in 2018 that would dramatically reduce the 

GHG emissions, but would receive no credit for those actions unless they are delayed until 2020 

(and potentially could be forced to conduct further reductions if the improvements were 

implemented in 2018), then the incentives that EPA has created would encourage delayed 

implementation of those improvements. The commenters indicated that the climate impacts 

would be particularly contrary to the intent of the Clean Power Plan if one of their processing 

plants were similarly delayed, as the decaying matter in landfills, that otherwise could be 

converted to ABFuelTM, will continue to emit methane (a more potent GHG in the short-term 

than CO2) for decades. The commenters pointed out that EPA has previously allowed the 

benefits of credit for early reduction of GHGs under the CAA rules for light duty vehicles.

According to the commenters, EPA has noted that, by allowing early reduction credits, states can 

create a more gradual reduction requirement, and can also allow businesses greater flexibility to 

determine the most cost-effective reductions, whether that is quick action, or more dramatic 

reductions towards the end of the compliance period. The commenters indicated this additional 

flexibility should help to reduce compliance costs for affected industries, and ratepayers. 

According to the commenters, EPA has also noted the potential downside that, by allowing states 

credits for early emissions reductions, the overall emissions could increase, unless EPA and the 

states are able to limit early reductions to those that would not have occurred except for the 

Clean Power Plan. However, the commenters pointed out that attempting to implement causation 

tests may be problematic, and could result in removing support from those improvements that are 
69

the most cost-effective. Given the global warming benefits associated with early actions, if there 

are additional emissions that are generated later in the performance period, the commenters

indicated that those are likely to be offset by the cumulative benefits of the early actions. The 

commenters also indicated that technology advances will serve to reduce the costs of later 

emissions-reducing actions, thus decreasing the likelihood of significant increases in later years 

of the performance period.

In the case of ABFuelTM, the commenters stated that their company's investment in recycling 

and waste-processing technologies will provide climate benefits for decades to come, and those 

benefits will only increase more quickly if allowed to receive credit for their emissions 

reductions prior to 2020.

Commenters stated that pre-2020 (and pre-2014 for that matter) RE/EE measures should be 

accounted toward compliance with the ultimate goal. The commenters noted that EPA requested 

comments on whether RE/EE projects undertaken prior to 2020 should count toward compliance. 

The commenters believe this questions is easily answered by posing it in a slightly different 

manner: Does the Agency want to see any new RE/EE projects undertaken between 2015 and 

2020 or not? According to the commenters, if utilities are not allowed to count new projects 

toward compliance until 2020, then they would be well-served to postpone any planned 

developments until that date--or at least to perform the minimum as may be required under 

existing state statutes. The commenters indicated that such a disincentive would forebode a 

dismal business environment for the RE/EE industry that the proposal seeks to support.

Commenters stated that the proposed rule should give credit to states that have already 

implemented energy efficiency programs. The commenters explained that early acting states 

have made substantial investments to accumulate significant energy efficiency resources over 

several years. As an example, the commenters stated that New York has invested over $4.5 

billion during the past 15 years to support the installation of 9,272 cumulative annual GWh of 

energy efficiency and it is now developing additional strategies that are intended to stimulate 

private development of energy efficiency resources. Commenters requested that the EPA 

consider allowing states to account for natural gas savings in energy efficiency programs. 

Commenters commented that rural electric cooperatives should receive credit for their current 

and past demand-side efficiency programs and services. 

Commenters said the guidance should provide states with needed clarity on the following: 

Create Incentives for Immediate Action to Reduce Emissions. Commenters stated EPA should 

provide states with flexibility to take credit for actions taken after the Clean Power Plan was 

proposed and before the interim compliance period begins (2020) and count that credit toward 

achievement of the state's compliance obligation. Commenters stated this early-action provision 

would help ensure that the states have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions prior to 2020 and 

eliminate an unintentional incentive to delay EE projects until after 2020. 

According to commenters, a principal concern with the proposed rule is that it fails to give states 

like California and its utilities, such as the commenters' members, fair credit for significant and 

quantifiable emission reductions that they have already made and will make prior to 2020. The 

commenters noted that the proposed rule establishes state-specific CO2 emissions goals for both 

an interim period (2020 - 2029) and a final ongoing period to be achieved by and after 2030. The 
70

commenters noted that these goals are based on the EPA's application of the combination of 

several BSER Building Blocks, which are applied to each state. According to the commenters, 

while the BSER and goal-setting methodology do consider some individual state situations, the 

BSER assumptions are generally applied evenly to all states without consideration of individual 

states' prior emission reduction activities. In particular, the commenters argued that EPA's goalsetting methodology does not consider whether the state and its utilities have already taken 

measures that reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector. The commenters' concerns relate 

primarily to the methodology that the EPA has selected for calculating state goals and to the 

EPA's proposed treatment of pre-compliance period "early action" emission reductions. These 

concerns are discussed in the paragraphs below. 

First, commenters argued that the EPA's goal-setting methodology should not disadvantage 

states that have reduced and will continue to reduce CO2 emissions prior to 2020. According to 

the commenters, the EPA's goal-setting methodology fails to account for the significant and 

quantifiable reductions in CO2 emissions, or the costs associated with those reductions, that 

leading states (including California) undertook prior to 2012. For example, the commenters 

noted that California reduced the GHG emissions of its in-state electric generation sector by 

more than 13% from 2000 to 2012, despite significant economic growth and the shutdown of the 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and relatively low hydroelectric generation in 2012. 

Over the same period, the commenters noted that California reduced the carbon intensity of its 

economy by 17%. The commenters explained that these emission reductions were accomplished 

by improving the thermal efficiency of California's in-state natural gas power plants by 17% 

since 2001, and by investing heavily in EE and RE both inside and outside the state.

According to the commenters, while these reductions support the validity of the BSER 

methodology to reduce emissions, the proposed goal-setting methodology fails to recognize that 

additional reductions beyond those already achieved will be significantly more expensive and 

difficult for states that took early action to reduce emissions than they will be for those states that 

have done little to reduce their emissions. The commenters further noted that, because of the 

manner in which the EPA has calculated state goals, states with higher levels of RE and EE in 

2012 are expected to obtain greater emission reductions from RE and EE during the interim 

compliance period than are states with low 2012 levels of RE and EE. The commenters stated 

that the reason for this disparity is that the EPA assumes that all states will begin, in 2017, with 

the level of RE and EE deployment that they had achieved by 2012. Thus, the commenters 

concluded, EPA effectively requires states like California that invested early in RE and EE to 

reach higher maximum RE and EE deployment rates-and to achieve those maximum deployment 

rates sooner-than states that failed to make such investments prior to 2012. For example, the 

commenters noted that California is expected to reach a cumulative EE savings level of 9.46% 

and a RE deployment rate of 20.6% by 2025, whereas Wyoming (which is in the same RE "best 

practice" region as California) is only expected to achieve cumulative EE savings of 6.55% and a 

RE deployment rate of 15.5% in the same timeframe. The commenters indicated that the only 

reason for this discrepancy is that California, unlike Wyoming, invested early in policies and 

other measures to encourage RE and EE, which resulted in a higher 2012 baseline for RE and 

EE. Consequently, the commenters argued that the EPA's proposal to base states' interim and 

final goals in part on the levels of RE and EE improvement they had achieved as of 2012 

penalizes the states that chose to adopt emission reduction measures early. The commenters 
71

concluded that this outcome is arbitrary and unfair, and would set a poor precedent for future 

national environmental policy.

In order to avoid punishing early actors that have already reduced the GHG intensity of their 

electric sectors significantly, the commenters recommended that EPA change the way that it 

quantifies the RE and EE component in calculating state goals. Instead of assuming that states 

will start to increase their RE and EE deployment from their historic 2012 RE and EE levels, the 

commenters suggested that the goal calculation methodology assume that all states will phase in 

their RE and EE investments starting from the same national baseline level of RE and EE 

deployment, regardless of what each state's actual 2012 baseline was. If a state has already 

achieved a high level of RE and EE development prior to issuance of the proposed rule, the 

commenters indicated that it should not be required to increase its deployment further merely 

because it was proactive in developing these zero-carbon alternatives.

Second, commenters argued that actions taken before 2020 that are still generating emission 

reductions during a compliance period should count toward compliance regardless of the date on 

which they were implemented. The commenters stated that, in general, it is important that the 

proposed rule not artificially advantage one form of emission reduction activity over another. 

However, the commenters noted that the EPA's current proposal for crediting existing state 

programs and activities would establish different rules for claiming compliance credit based on 

whether the emission reduction was obtained by displacing fossil generation with RE or by 

avoiding fossil generation with EE. Specifically, the commenters noted that EPA's proposal that 

EE measures would only count toward compliance if they were implemented after the date of 

this proposal (June 18, 2014), whereas RE measures could count regardless of when they were 

implemented, should be changed to put these two important techniques for reducing emissions 

on a level playing field.

To remedy this inconsistency, the commenters recommended that EPA clarify that all EE and RE 

measures that were implemented before 2020 and that are still generating emission reductions 

during a compliance period could count toward compliance with the interim and final targets. 

Unless this aspect of the proposed rule is changed, the commenters indicated the rule would 

unfairly preclude states and utilities from getting credit for some early investments in EE, but 

allow them to take credit for analogous early investments in RE. The commenters argued that 

there does not appear to be a rational basis for making such a distinction between these two 

emission reduction strategies and urged the EPA to correct this inconsistency.

Third, commenters argued that emission reductions achieved after the baseline year and before 

2020 should count toward compliance with state goals. Under the proposed rule, the commenters 

noted that emission reductions obtained in the years before the start of the first compliance 

period in 2020 but after the 2012 baseline year could not count toward compliance with state 

goals. However, the commenters noted that EPA took comment on an alternative proposal in 

which the agency would allow states to count emission reductions that are achieved prior to the 

first compliance period. The commenters noted that EPA also requested comment on an 

appropriate start date for allowing states to receive credit for early emission reductions under this 

alternative proposal. 
72

The commenters strongly supported allowing states to count pre-compliance period emission 

reductions toward compliance with the interim goal. According to the commenters, all emission 

reductions, regardless of when they occur, help to achieve the ultimate goal of the Clean Power 

Plan, which is to reduce emissions from the electric power sector. Just like emission reductions 

that occur in 2020 or 2025, the commenters contended that measures such as RE and EE that are 

implemented prior to 2020 would avoid significant amounts of emissions from fossil-fueled 

power plants by reducing the need to operate these fossil-fueled power plants. Moreover, the 

commenters noted that these measures would begin reducing CO2 emissions from affected 

power plants as soon as they are put into effect. Therefore, the commenters recommended that 

these early emission reductions be credited toward a state's compliance with its emission target.

The commenters further argued that allowing states to count pre-2020 emission reductions would 

incentivize electric utilities and states to reduce their emissions earlier, rather than waiting until 

2020 to implement emission reductions. Without this provision, the commenters pointed out that 

many stakeholders could be incentivized to wait until 2020 to bring their RE facilities online or 

to invest in EE improvements. According to the commenters, earlier action to reduce CO2 

emissions would be environmentally beneficial because it would have the effect of slowing down 

the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, thus delaying the onset of climate change. 

Thus, the commenters concluded, early reductions would be even more valuable for avoiding or 

mitigating the impacts of climate change than reductions that take place later in time, and the 

commenters recommended that EPA strongly incentivize such early actions.

According to the commenters, such an approach would also benefit the overall program by 

allowing states that count pre-2020 actions toward compliance to more gradually implement RE, 

EE, and other emission reductions strategies, rather than implementing these strategies in a rush 

beginning in 2020. The commenters noted that gradual implementation would allow states, 

regions, utilities, and reliability entities to better plan for and adjust to the changes in dispatch 

and consumption that emission-reducing activities would require. According to the commenters, 

the EPA correctly noted in the NODA that allowing states to count pre-2020 emission reductions 

toward compliance with the interim goal would alleviate some of the concerns stakeholders have 

raised regarding the significant front-loading of emission reductions from Building Blocks One 

and Two during the first few years of the program. 

The commenters noted that EPA offered several alternatives for the date on which early actions 

to reduce emissions could begin to count toward compliance with the rule. The commenters 

stated that the most appropriate start date for crediting early reductions is clearly January 1, 

2013. The commenters pointed out that emission reductions achieved prior to this date are 

already reflected in states' goals because the EPA selected 2012 as the baseline year for 

calculating these goals. According to the commenters, emission reductions occurring after 

January 1, 2013 reflect early actions on the parts of states and utilities to further reduce their 

emissions below the 2012 baseline, and should be eligible for credit to the same extent that 

emission reductions that occur during a formal compliance period are eligible for credit.

The commenters recommended that EPA, in its final rule, clarify that any emission reductions 

that occur on January 1, 2013 or thereafter may be counted toward compliance with a state's 

emission goal. The commenters further recommended that states that elect to convert their ratebased goals to mass-based targets be able to receive credit for any tonnage reductions achieved 
73

by qualifying early actions prior to the start of the first compliance period in 2020. According to 

the commenters, crediting early actions in this way would provide a strong signal to electric 

utilities and project developers that they would be rewarded for taking or having taken early 

action to reduce emissions, as opposed to waiting until 2020. The commenters indicated that this 

policy would lead to earlier reductions in CO2 emissions than would otherwise occur under the 

proposed rule, and would help encourage states to begin moving toward their 2030 emission 

targets quickly and responsibly.

Commenters argued that emission reductions from all types of measures should be eligible for 

early action credit. In addition to providing credit for state programs that generate early emission 

reductions from RE and EE, the commenters recommended that final rule also clarify that early 

emission reductions from other activities may also count toward compliance with state emission 

goals. For example, commenters suggested that the final rule clarify that states can take credit for 

pre-2020 state or utility policies that shift generation from high-emitting sources to loweremitting sources, or that encourage divestment from or retirement of high-emitting resources 

such as coal-fired power plants. As with EE and RE activities that take place before the start of 

the first compliance period, the commenters noted that early retirements of coal-fired generation 

or shifts in dispatch from coal to natural gas generation could significantly reduce emissions 

below the baseline year. The commenters also suggested that states that encourage such emission 

reductions through policies and other activities be able to take credit for these early emission 

reductions to the same extent that they could take credit if those reductions occurred during a 

compliance period. The commenters suggested that the eligibility start date for such 

measures mirror the start date for crediting early reductions obtained from RE and EE measures 

(i.e., January 1, 2013).

Finally, commenters argued that states that over-comply in one compliance period should be 

allowed to apply excess emission reductions toward future compliance periods. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA, in addition to recognizing emission reductions that occur before the 

first compliance period, should also provide further incentives for early action by allowing states 

that over-comply during the first compliance period (from 2020-2029) to "bank" any excess 

emissions reductions and apply them toward future compliance periods. According to the 

commenters, such a mechanism would reward states and electric utilities that continue to invest 

early in emission-reducing activities while maintaining flexibility for states that need more time 

to make those investments. The commenters stated that this policy would also reduce, potential 

volatility in carbon markets by providing an additional source of emission reductions during 

future compliance periods, when the incremental cost of reducing emissions further could be 

higher than expected. The commenters pointed out that EPA has successfully employed a 

banking mechanism in its acid rain and mobile source emission programs, and the commenters 

indicated that there is every reason to believe that such a mechanism could be useful in the 

context of the EPA's proposed limits on CO2 emissions.

Commenters noted that EPA is also seeking comment in the NODA whether to allow credit for 

early reductions, which could provide flexibility to defer other emission reductions until later in 

the 2020 to 2029 period. The commenters supported all measures to give credit for early 

reductions. Additionally, the commenters stated that their proposed idea of requiring only the 

final goal enables additional infrastructure improvement projects (e.g., natural gas pipeline 
74

expansion or transmission improvements) to be incorporated into a long term schedule rather 

than adhering to an arbitrary phase-in schedule established by the EPA.

Commenters recommended that EPA not isolate and allow the use of pre-2020 banked 

megawatt-hours or avoided CO2 emissions for use during the Clean Power Plan performance 

period without consideration of overall emission outcomes in a state. The commenters believed

that each state will have numerous options available during the plan performance period to meet 

compliance.

According to commenters, a program that fails to recognize efforts by states and companies to 

show leadership in reducing CO2 emissions will have the long-term effect of discouraging states 

and companies from implementing beneficial environmental measures unless and until mandated 

by EPA. Equally important, the commenters noted that consumers--the ratepayers and 

customers--of those companies, along with owners, already are paying for those investments in 

CO2 reductions. 

The commenters indicated that climate change has been an important environmental 

consideration for many companies and states for years. The commenters noted that companies 

have included carbon values in integrated resource plans when deciding where and how to 

invest, and have used carbon values in deciding which plants to retain, which to retire, and at 

which to invest in further pollution controls. According to the commenters, some companies 

have made public commitments to reduce GHG emissions and carried out those commitments 

through multi-million dollar investments. The commenters noted that states and companies have 

cooperated to promote and enact state legislation to encourage RE development, subsidize home 

and business EE and conservation programs, and establish low-carbon resource plans. The 

commenters further noted that some states have entered into compacts to establish carbon trading 

programs to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. According to the commenters, the effect of 

these prior state and company actions is that their CO2 emissions are significantly lower today 

than they were in 2000 and will continue to decrease over the next several years. Instead of 

rewarding these states for their early action, however, the commenters contended that the 

proposed rule would penalize them by mandating even more stringent CO2 emission reduction 

requirements.

According to the commenters, EPA has acknowledged that these early actions have resulted in 

substantial CO2 emissions reductions. As an example, the commenters pointed to Colorado's 

Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act of 2010, which required Colorado investor-owned utilities with coal 

plants to develop multi-pollutant plans in cooperation with the state's environmental regulatory 

agency to meet existing and reasonably foreseeable CAA requirements. The commenters noted 

that Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest investor-owned utility, submitted a plan that was approved 

in 2010. The commenters further noted that, with this plan, by 2020, Xcel Energy's generating 

units are projected to reduce CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 35 percent.

Commenters indicated that EPA could recognize and provide credit for such early action in two 

ways: (1) by providing an earlier baseline year, or (2) by allowing states that took early action to 

use both new and existing RE and EE to comply with their emission rate goals. The commenters 

further indicated that EPA could provide credit for early investments in EE by employing the 

same baseline electricity savings rate for all states. According to the commenters, an earlier 
75

baseline period would recognize and reward state and company leadership in reducing emissions. 

The commenters noted that displacement of fossil-fuel fired generation by early investment in 

RE, EE, and natural gas would not be "built in" to the goal calculation, so states that made these 

investments would not be assigned overly stringent emission reduction goals.

Alternatively, the commenters indicated that EPA should allow states to count avoided CO2 

from existing RE and EE measures toward their emission goals. See Id. at 34,918. Specifically, 

the commenters indicated that EPA should allow states to count CO2 avoided from existing RE 

and EE measures between 2012 and 2020 towards compliance with their emission rate goals. 

The commenters contended that this approach would appropriately reward states with existing 

RE and EE programs and result in less stringent interim emission goals. The commenters stated 

that this could allow states greater flexibility in developing a plan demonstrating progress toward 

the 2030 final goal or allow them to extend by a few years the onset of the final goal 

requirements.

The commenters further indicated that EPA could provide credit to states that invested in EE 

programs early by using the same baseline electricity savings rate for all states. According to the 

commenters, because the baseline electricity savings rate would have to be a rate that states 

without existing EE programs could achieve, states with existing programs would already have 

achieved the baseline electricity savings rate in 2020 and would not have to ramp up their 

electricity savings until later in the performance period. The commenters indicated that many 

states with existing EE programs would still have an incentive to ramp up their EE programs. 

According to the commenters, in many cases, EE programs reduce CO2 emissions more costeffectively than other CO2 emission reductions options, like fuel switching. Id. at 34,874, n.188. 

Thus, the commenters concluded, states could ramp up their EE programs beyond the electricity 

savings rate target for compliance purposes.

Commenters expressed concern that the draft rule provides no incentive to take action to reduce 

emissions between the June 2014 release of the draft rule and the end of 2019 since renewable 

energy deployed during this period would not be able to generate compliance credits until 

January 1, 2020, as proposed. The commenters suggested that the EPA should allow credit for 

emissions reductions from renewable energy facilities deployed in this period to count toward 

compliance during the plan performance period (2020-30).

Commenters stated that creating more stringent standards for clean energy leaders will create 

disincentives for others to take early actions to reduce emissions. The CAA does not require 

states and electric utilities to be punished for reducing emissions before EPA required them to do 

so. The design of the proposed guidelines for existing EGUs should make clear to states, electric 

utilities and other source categories that will be the subject of future 111(d) guidelines to reduce 

CO2 emissions that early action is needed and will be recognized appropriately. EPA's proposed 

approach to setting the state-specific emission rate goals in these proposed guidelines send a 

clear message to the contrary. Commenters stated that as a policy matter, EPA should recognize 

and incent investments that result in early emissions reductions.

Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule would send the wrong signal to the regulated 

community, i.e., that those who voluntarily chose to be proactive and elected to reduce their 

overall carbon footprint before being required to do so, will receive no credit for such beneficial 
76

action, and moreover, that result would, in tum, create unfortunate incentives for the regulated 

community not to be similarly proactive in the future, as it would lead many entities to delay 

such proactive, beneficial measures by perhaps several years in order to wait until EPA 

promulgates a new regulation that enables those entities to get credit for their actions. 

Comment 44: Comments requesting that the EPA strengthen the overall stringency of Iowa's 

interim and final emissions rate target because changes underway in Iowa's electric system will 

put Iowa in compliance with the proposed rule before 2020. 

Response 44: The EPA thanks the commenters for their assessment of the status of Iowa in 

respect to meeting interim deadlines. We are appreciative of states that are taking initiative and 

moving forward to meet the challenges this rulemaking will bring. We are not finalizing any 

early action on the part of Iowa or any other state as this final rulemaking may bring about new 

discussions, such as regional partnering, that would take additional time to review, plan for and 

finalize before state plans are to be submitted. See sections VIII.C and VIII.I of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that Iowa's electric system is dynamic and is already in the process of 

reducing its carbon emissions intensity. Since 2012 (EPA's proposed baseline year) Iowa utilities 

have 1) retired or announced for retirement some coal-fired power plants, 2) converted or 

announced for conversion some coal plants to natural gas, 3) announced and begun construction 

on a new, natural gas plant, and 4) built or announced construction of significant new wind 

generation. The commenters stated that these changes are underway and will largely be 

concluded by 2016 or 2017.

The commenters stated that Iowa will likely be in compliance with the proposed rule before the 

plan performance period even begins in 2020 - and will potentially be in compliance before Iowa 

is required to submit a state compliance plan in 2016. 

According to the commenters' analysis of changes in Iowa since 2012 (including coal 

retirements, coal conversions to gas, construction of a new natural gas plant, construction of new 

wind generation, and approval of ongoing energy efficiency programs) the state will be in 

compliance with the proposed 2030 target before 2020 and will remain in compliance during the 

entire 2020-2030 time frame. The commenters stated that, assuming EPA allows activity 

between 2013 and 2019 to count towards the compliance obligation starting in 2020, the 

proposed Clean Power Plan is unlikely to impose a compliance obligation on most or all 

regulated entities in Iowa. In other words, the commenters stated that simply by 1) accounting 

for actions taken or planned to date and by 2) continuing existing energy efficiency programs, 

Iowa will comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan.

Comment 45: Comments supporting incentives for early action. 
77

Response 45: The EPA recognizes the value of early actions that deploy CO2-reducing 

investments, such as RE and demand-side EE measures, and in this final rule is providing states 

with discretion to credit reductions from the activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the 

context of both mass-based and rate-based plans. For discussion of state plan requirements 

related to incentivizing early action, see Section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported incentives for early action to encourage investments renewables and 

energy efficiency and a shift away from fossil-fired generation, including in the pre-2020 period 

after a state compliance plan has been approved by the EPA, as long as these incentives do not 

undermine the overall level of emissions reductions achieved by the CPP. The commenters said 

the quicker we can cut emissions, the better from a climate perspective.

Commenters contended that EPA should maintain strong 2020 interim targets, but allow new 

renewable energy and energy efficiency actions taken after January 1, 2017, to be banked for 

2020 compliance. According to the commenters, strong interim targets are necessary to begin to 

transition the electric sector towards less-polluting infrastructure and investments in renewable 

energy and energy efficiency that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. However, the 

commenters warned that restricting credit for energy efficiency and renewable energy actions 

until 2020 may distort the market by encouraging delay in new actions until such time as they are 

eligible for credit. To alleviate this circumstance and to offer more tools to states concerned 

about meeting the 2020 interim targets, the commenters supported a limited pre-2020 banking 

option.

The commenters recommended that EPA allow credit for new carbon reduction actions--

including increasing existing policies and adopting new policies--taken after January 1, 2017, 

and before the plan performance period begins (Jan. 1, 2020) to count toward achievement of the 

state's 2030 carbon emission goal. The commenters indicated this would help ensure that the 

states have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions by using new renewable energy and energy 

efficiency measures, as well as other compliance tools, prior to 2020. By limiting banking to 

"new" emission reduction measures (which could include expanding existing programs, 

measures, or actions--or establishing new ones), the commenters said actions taken before 2020 

would place states in a better position to comply in meeting the ultimate required emission 

performance standards. Also, to ensure that states are making meaningful progress throughout 

the compliance timeframe, the commenters recommended that EPA divide the ten year period 

into two five-year compliance periods so that emission reduction actions between 2020 and 2030 

are not likely to be delayed until the end of the compliance period.

Comment 46: Comments arguing that the EPA cannot rely on emission reductions prior to the 

compliance period to moderate the consequences of the proposed rule. 

Response 46: The EPA disagrees with the commenters in that early actions taken do effectively 

reduce GHG emissions and provide both meaningful GHG reductions and significant steps 
78

forward, both in terms of emissions reductions but also infrastructure and partnership pathways 

that are essential to driving planning options for meeting interim goals and the 2030 final goal.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that electric generating sources will not have sufficient notice of their 

specific compliance obligations to make significant emission reductions prior to the compliance 

period.

Accordig to commenters, the reductions that could be achieved between 2017 (the earliest date a 

state might have an approved plan) and 2020 (the onset of the compliance period) would fall well 

short of the significant reductions needed to smooth out the emissions trajectory mandated by the 

promised interim goals. The commenters also noted that the proposed rule effectively prohibits 

electric generating companies from taking action independently in advance of the approval of a 

final state implementation plan because (i) companies will not have certainty regarding their 

individual compliance obligations until the plan is approved and (ii) it is unclear to what extent 

any actions would be credited toward compliance. According to the commenters, electric 

generating companies that take early action would risk significantly increasing the economic 

burden on its rate-payers posed by the proposed rule if such early actions were not credited 

toward compliance and not fairly allocated in a final approved plan. The commenters concluded 

that the proposed rule does not afford electric generating companies and states with sufficient 

time and flexibility to deviate from the compliance path mandated by the proposed rule.

Comment 47: Comments related to the start date for counting electricity savings.

Response 47: The EPA recognizes the value of early actions that deploy CO2-reducing 

investments, such as RE and demand-side EE measures, and in this final rule is providing states 

with discretion to credit reductions from the activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the 

context of both mass-based and rate-based plans. For discussion of state plan requirements 

related to incentivizing early action, see section VIII.B and of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

2012 was selected as the baseline year as it was the most recent year where a complete data set 

was available and is therefore the most recent data we have appropriate to setting such a mark. 

Discussion surrounding EE measures can be found in sections VIII.B, VIII.D, VIII.F and VIII.K

of the final rule preamble, while a discussion around “banking” of EE credits can be found in 

section VIII.K of the final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that in setting target rates, EPA should count electricity savings from 

energy efficiency measures starting in June 2014. Commenters stated estimates of the potential 

savings states can achieve during the ramp-up of energy efficiency should be based on the latest 

available information. Commenters stated EPA should update the savings potentials based on the 

latest EIA information available when the analysis is completed.

Commenters noted that for South Carolina, this effect will be small, but states with significant 

current programs may have noticeable savings from 2014 to 2016; if Maine maintains its 1.96 
79

percent incremental savings reported for 2012, and if those savings met M&V requirements, it 

would have roughly 5 percent incremental savings for June 2014 to December 2016, of which 

roughly 1.5 percent would persist until 2029. This would bring its 2029 potential from 12.1 

percent to 13.6 percent. 

Commenters stated it is inaccurate to assume that a state will make no progress in increasing the 

annual incremental savings rate between 2012 and 2017. Commenters stated some states have 

already made progress improving their energy savings rate since 2012 while others can be 

expected to improve by 2017; for example, EmPOWER Maryland increased its savings rate by 

36 percent from 2011 to 2012 and by 31 percent from 2012 to 2013, which means the 2012 data 

used in the rule is already outdated in 2014. Commenters stated EPA should use the most up-todate data available on energy savings rates as the starting point and then apply the growth factor 

to that rate for all years after finalization. Commenters stated this will more accurately capture 

the level of savings that would occur even before states adopt compliance plans, and will thus 

more accurately predict the quantity of savings achievable during the compliance period. 

Commenters stated the rule creates timing issues: (1) the rule assumes that states will achieve 

the same annual incremental reductions in 2017 as they did in 2012, even though some states 

have surpassed their 2012 savings rates already, and (2) the rule's assumptions about how the 

energy savings from a particular action are distributed over time have the effect of pushing much 

of the benefit of such actions outside of the compliance period. Commenters urged EPA to 

address the timing issues, and that adjusting these assumptions will ensure that the emission 

targets in the final rule more accurately capture the full potential of energy efficiency as a costeffective emissions reduction mechanism. 

Commenters stated that as EPA states, there should generally be congruence between the 

forward-looking methodology that the EPA used to propose state emission performance goals 

based on the BSER and state compliance options: states should not get emission-reduction credit 

for past actions already reflected in the BSER. Commenters stated additionally, states should be 

encouraged to build the policy and programmatic infrastructure necessary to make meaningful 

progress toward targets during the initial performance period, while maintaining the 

environmental imperative to reduce emissions intensity of electric power production.

Commenters recommended states should be able to claim credit for the post-2020 emission 

reduction impact of energy efficiency measures installed after the date the rule was 

proposed. Commenters stated these goals can best be balanced by allowing states to use energy

efficiency measures installed after the date the rule was proposed to be used against observed 

emissions rates at affected EGUs during the performance period. Commenters stated this would 

encourage states to launch or maintain energy efficiency efforts ahead of the compliance period, 

and recognize early action by states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Commenters stated that 

allowing states to use pre-2020 emission reductions in the compliance period would conflict with 

the purpose of the rule, reducing the emissions intensity of electric power production, allowing 

states to trade early performance for later performance.

Commenters recommended that states be allowed to start tracking energy efficiency measures 

installed in 2017 or later, not in 2014 as EPA has initially proposed. Commenters stated that 

counting energy savings from measures installed starting in 2017 towards each state's emissions 
80

rate goals is consistent with the Building Block 4 calculation in establishing the emissions rate 

goals. Commenters noted that while measures from eligible state and utility policies and 

programs should be tracked and counted starting in 2017, energy savings credit from these 

measures should begin in 2020 as the EPA has proposed. Commenters stated that starting energy 

savings credits sooner than 2020 will reduce the overall CO2 emissions reductions achieved by 

the Clean Power Plan.

Commenters supported EPA's approach in counting programs adopted before the performance 

period, beginning in 2020, towards compliance as long as they were adopted after the proposal 

date; however the commenters stated that it is critical to allow measures that are put in place 

after June 18, 2014 that are still in service in 2020 to count towards state compliance. 

Commenters asserted that this credit is needed in order to create an incentive for states and 

utilities to maintain the EE infrastructure that has recently been established in the Southeast. 

Commenters stated that this will also encourage states to take advantage of EE opportunities to 

meet their goals which will keep costs low, create and maintain jobs, and increase the quality of 

life.

Commenters believed that EPA should recognize savings accruing in the compliance period 

regardless of when implemented so long as the state plan can demonstrate sufficient EM&V was 

in place. Commenters noted that they are not recommending a banking of energy efficiency 

measures, rather, the recommendation is a modest recognition of the fact that states have already 

taken aggressive steps to implement energy efficiency programs and invested in a robust EM&V 

program to ensure that real savings are achieved.

Commenters stated that it is important that the energy efficiency efforts that are ongoing, and the 

results achieved since the publication of the rule in June 2014, should be counted toward 

compliance with any state plan. Commenters noted that allowing banking of energy efficiency 

credits is essential to maintain the momentum of existing programs. Commenters asserted that 

utilities and third parties will have little incentive to continue efforts without a banking 

mechanism.

Commenters struggled to understand the EPA's rationale for proposing to set the baseline for 

carbon emissions at 2012, while setting the baseline for carbon emission reduction projects at 

2014. Commenters noted that based on this decision, companies that made voluntary carbon 

emission reductions in the interim timeframe will not be given credit for those reductions even 

though they were made after the initial carbon emission baseline was established. Commenters

stated that common sense and fairness require these baselines be established at the same time and 

there not be a gap of two years where a company that has achieved significant reductions will not 

be granted credit for those reductions.

Commenters supported EPA's assumption that there are no annual incremental savings or 

expiring savings required until the year of 2017. Commenters agreed with EPA's assumption that 

the states will have no incremental savings from energy efficiency measures until 

2017. Commenters stated this allows states to receive "credit" for energy efficiency savings 

incurred from 2012 to 2017 to count towards their goals.
81

Commenters stated that EPA assumes a ramp-up in EE achievement starting in 2017, several 

years prior to the proposed rule becoming enforceable. Commenters stated EPA provides no 

justification for using a standard of performance that begins prior to the rule taking effect.

Comment 48: Comments supporting idea of allowing any incremental emission reductions 

achieved after June 18, 2014 and prior to 2020 that are included in a SIP to be credited towards 

compliance with the interim and final state emission targets.

Response 48: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support in using pre 2014 baseline dates 

for this rulemaking. As mentioned above we are finalizing this rule using a 2012 baseline year. 

As the commenters further mention, the rule finalizes “banking” options that add flexibility for 

states and regional planning groups to meet interim goals. Additional discussion on these 

decisions are outlined in sections VIII.C and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters strongly supported the idea of allowing any incremental emission reductions 

achieved after June 18, 2014 and prior to 2020 that are included in a SIP to be credited towards 

compliance with the interim and final state emission targets, regardless of the motivation for 

these initiatives, as long as they meet certain pre-defined criteria (i.e., quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, etc.). 

The commenters noted that in advance of the Clean Power Plan proposal, many states have been 

contemplating the design of strategies that would achieve CO2 reductions equivalent to those 

that could be required by CAA section 111(d) emission standards. The commenters stated that, to 

the extent that states, electric utilities and others are able to achieve incremental emission 

reductions prior to 2020 that can be banked and later used for compliance, this approach could 

provide an incentive for earlier emission reductions. According to the commenters, allowing a 

state to count emission reduction credits created from state programs prior to 2020 toward its 

interim goal would also allow the state to begin demonstrating emission performance earlier and 

follow a more gradual emission improvement trajectory during the interim performance period of 

2020-2029. In recognition of this, the commenters recommended that the EPA allow the banking 

of emission reduction credits created from existing and new emission reduction requirements, 

programs and measures instituted after the date of the proposed rule (June 18, 2014) and before 

2020 to be used for compliance during the plan performance period. 

The commenters stated that implementation of measures subsequent to the proposal or 

promulgation of the emission guidelines is consistent with EPA's forward-looking goal-setting 

approach, as these actions may be necessary to meet a required level of emission performance 

during the plan performance period or will put a state in a better position to meet the required 

level of performance. 

The commenters envisioned that early reduction credit would be reflected in a state compliance 

demonstration similar to the manner in which new renewable energy and end-use energy 

efficiency projects are factored into the state emission goals, namely by adding MWh generated 
82

or avoided to the denominator of the adjusted 2012 emission rate. The commenters provided for 

example a company's projected 2020 CO2 emissions rate without any early reduction is 1000 

lbs/MWh, but the company constructs a renewable energy project that goes into operation 

January 1, 2016. The commenters stated that crediting one year of avoided emissions from this 

zero-emitting project would bring down the company's overall rate by 10 lbs/MWh, and starting 

in 2020 the company's rate would now be 990 lbs/MWh. The commenters noted that with credit 

for early action the company could go back before 2020 and receive four years' worth (2016-

2019) of MWh generation at zero emissions to add into the 2020 rate calculation, bringing their 

rate down 10 lbs/MWh each year for four years to 960 lbs/MWh (assuming, for simplicity sake, 

that the renewable energy project produced the same number of MWh each of the four years).

Commenters suggested regulatory language they developed that would allow emission 

reductions achieved after June 18, 2014 and the end of 2019 to be used for compliance under 

EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.

Comment 49: Comments stating that Building Block 4 penalizes states that invested early in EE 

programs and that EPA sets more stringent goals for early acting states, and requires these states 

to continue investing in EE programs despite the higher costs and significant implementation 

barriers that these states face. Comments supported a crediting mechanism for states that have 

already made significant investments in energy efficiency.

Response 49:The EPA recognizes the value of early actions that deploy CO2-reducing 

investments, such as RE and demand-side EE measures, and in this final rule is providing states 

with discretion to credit reductions from the activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the 

context of both mass-based and rate-based plans. For discussion of state plan requirements

related to incentivizing early action, see Section VIII.Bof the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Building Block 4 penalizes states that invested early in EE programs and 

that EPA sets more stringent goals for early acting states, and requires these states to continue 

investing in EE programs despite the higher costs and significant implementation barriers that 

these states face.

Commenters supported a crediting mechanism for states that have already made significant 

investments in energy efficiency.

Commenters stated that the lack of early credit will likely discourage the development of 

demand-side energy efficiency programs for a number of years. Commenters requested that EPA 

award credit for early action from a program established in June 2014 or after. Commenters

strongly urged EPA to modify its position and allow states to gain credit for early action because 

early action helps prevent the buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere, provides a smooth transition 

and enhances the likelihood of meeting the target in a timely manner, helps facilitate a staged 

approach to implement what otherwise might be difficult infrastructure modifications, provides 

an incentive for incorporating EE factors into the decision-making process, rewards leadership, 

ensures that ratepayers receive the full value of state policies and investments, encourage 
83

environmental benefits immediately, and brings down incremental costs of later emissions 

control.

Commenters supported a robust "credit for early action" mechanism which they believe will 

give industry and states greater incentives to implement cost-effective emission reduction steps 

now, without fear that these steps will have no compliance value when EPA's rule takes effect 

despite their obvious benefits in achieving the Administration's emission reduction goals. 

Commenters stated that the value of early action is particularly compelling for EE programs like 

appliance Early Replacement, which can be scaled-up quickly, achieve GHG reductions 

immediately and deliver tangible multi-year savings in energy costs to consumers without delay, 

as well as create manufacturing and retailing jobs in the U.S. Commenters stated that if early 

action credits are coupled with a broadly accepted ER "toolkit", states and utilities would have 

confidence that rebate programs implemented now will be approved by EPA and credited toward 

compliance in 2020 and subsequent years which will increase the willingness of all parties to 

launch ER programs as early as 2015-2016.

Commenters believed that EPA should give full consideration to generators that made significant 

efforts with early action. Commenters noted that generators have made significant investment in 

recent years anticipating the need for carbon reduction, however; EPA's proposal substantially 

excludes these efforts from consideration. Commenters strongly recommended that EPA develop 

a method to recognize these investments and efforts allowing states include these in their 

implementation plans, as it would be consistent with historical regulation as reductions in criteria 

pollutants that were achieved before the implementation of targets were included in compliance.

Commenters noted, for instance that RGGI states have reduced their GHG emissions by over 40 

percent on a mass basis between 2005 and 2012 and stated that the steps that RGGI states and 

others have already taken to reduce emissions should be instructive to EPA when evaluating 

comments from states that have not initiated substantive measures to reduce emissions prior to 

the implementation of this Rule, as these steps demonstrate the actual potential burdens imposed 

by the Rule and inform the states' ability to cost-effectively implement the Rule.

Commenters stated that an improve building block methodology should be developed to give 

credit to early acting states while encouraging other states that have not yet implemented robust 

energy efficiency programs to take advantage of their opportunity to "pick the low hanging fruit" 

more rapidly in order to achieve greater emissions reductions and economic benefits such as 

energy bill savings. Commenters added that, in their experience, every $1 invested in energy 

efficiency improvements yields $3 in energy bill savings to consumers participating in the 

efficiency programs.

Commenters detailed EE programs and money saving programs currently available in the state of 

Florida and believe that EPA should consider how avoided electric sales in the past can be 

measured and credited, as the commenters are unable to reap the benefit of its current and past 

programs and services as the rule is currently drafted.

Commenters urged EPA to allow states to credit early action savings that result from measures 

now in effect or planned for implementation between 2014 and 2020 without reducing the 
84

baselines for individual states so that states will not be discouraged enough to postpone 

developing EE programs and measures.

Commenters agreed that EE plays an important role in reducing the carbon footprint of the utility 

industry, but asked that EPA give full credit for early actions. Commenters noted that higherbenefit, lower-cost programs are generally adopted first which leaves lower-benefit, higher-cost 

programs for utilities to implement.

Commenters stated that if EPA insists on utilizing a 2012 baseline, states that have reduced 

emissions during the 2005 to 2012 period should be allowed to claim credit for early actions, 

whether they be absolute emissions reductions from EGUs or emissions reductions from out-ofsector offsets.

Commenters urged EPA to credit states with the generation avoided because of EE measures 

implemented before June 2014 and which continue to have an impact within the compliance 

period.

Commenters urged EPA to recognize and give credit for early action on EE starting in 2005 and 

results of past EE achievements as published in EIA-861.

Commenters believed that credit for early action should be applied beginning in 2010.

Commenters also noted that since Gas DSM programs reduce methane emissions, these 

programs should count toward compliance with a state goal if the state chooses to include it in its 

implementation plan.

Commenters urged EPA to recognize and reward EE savings between 2012 and 2017 and 

recognize early actions on EE taken before 2012.

Commenters asked EPA to allow states to take credit for EE actions that have occurred since 

June 2013 up to the beginning of the initial compliance period in 2020.

Commenters held concerns about the cost of meeting their goals under Building Block 4 if early 

actions for EE were not accounted as most of the "low-hanging fruit" has already been captured 

in many states, making it more difficult to achieve additional cost-effective energy efficiency 

savings.

Commenters noted that EPA's analysis does not account for EE improvements made to date 

although manufacturers have taken the initiative to invest in and implement cost-effective EE 

measures, thus much of the "low-hanging fruit" has already been captured. Commenters stated 

that additional measures will be much more costly and difficult to achieve and sustain. For 

example, the commenters noted the EE improvements that have been achieved have occurred in 

part due to the introduction of LED or other high-efficiency lighting options, which represent the 

cheapest and most universal efficiency improvements currently available. Commenters noted 

that as those lighting efficiency improvements saturate the market, which can be expected in the 

next few years, states and electricity customers will be forced to move towards more aggressive, 

and less cost-effective, means of encouraging further efficiency improvements. Commenters felt 
85

that the Proposed Rule will effectively penalize business and industry for early investments and 

put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Commenters stated that by applying an average-based expectation of future efficiency savings to 

states that have already achieved significant savings through established programs, the proposed 

rule serves to punish early adopters of efficiency. Commenters noted that a state that is already 

aggressive in its energy efficiency programs, and which may have invested in increasingly costly 

energy efficiency investments over time, may be starting out at around a 1.5% savings, a rate 

which Building Block 4 obligates the state to maintain and achieve again within the compliance 

timeframe; meanwhile, a state with a modest energy efficiency portfolio may start with a 0.5% 

annual savings, and would take five years to ramp up the saving to 1.5%. Commenters stated that 

the proposed rule is more punitive for early adopters and those states that have already achieved 

many energy efficiency gains than states that have not.

Commenters stated that Washington State has added so much renewable power and energy 

efficiency between 2005 and 2012 that additional gains between 2020 and 2030 will be much 

more difficult than they would have been if we had not taken early action. Commenters noted 

that the state has invested $5.3 billion in wind energy since 2001, adding over 2,806 MW of 

wind generation, and that state utilities have also invested heavily in EE programs since 2000 as 

the state requires utilities to acquire all cost-effective conservation. Commenters stated that 

Washington utilities have spent more than $200 million per year on EE programs since 2010 and 

with such robust programs already in place, Washington faces significant challenges in 

expanding EE programs because the marginal cost for expanding EE in the state will be greater 

than historic program costs.

Commenters believed that EPA is penalizing utilities and states that implemented EE and 

demand side management programs before the 2012 baseline as the cost of EE programs increase 

exponentially once the most effective programs are in place. Commenters stated that EPA is 

implying that utilities and states that have implemented EE programs before the baseline are now 

left to implement more expensive programs if they want to match EPA assumptions for EE. 

Commenters noted the success of their voluntarily approved EE and demand side management 

programs which have generated large energy savings and stated that their current program would 

have to quadruple in order to match 1.5% of sales. Commenters noted that given that the 

program has taken five years to develop to this point, it does not seem reasonable or feasible to 

achieve such increases in EE.

Commenters detailed the previous successes of New York's EE programs and investments and 

noted that these early investments capture the "low-hanging fruit" of energy efficiency 

opportunities (e.g., lighting upgrades) and represent the most cost-effective investments. 

Commenters stated that future actions could be more costly, and by not counting these existing 

energy savings, early-acting states are put at an economic disadvantage when compared to states 

that have not funded programs to make similar "low-hanging fruit" reductions.

Commenters sought clarity on how states that undertake investments between 2012 and 2020 

will be assured that they will be fairly credited for these investments. Commenters asked EPA to 

detail how these pre-2020 improvements in EE savings will benefit a state in meeting its EE 

goals in 2020 and beyond. Commenters noted that one reasonable interpretation of the proposed 
86

rule would suggest that states might be better off postponing aggressive EE/DSM until 2020 to 

get maximum value, which the commenters doubted was EPA's intent.

Commenters noted that Florida utilities have made substantial progress over the last decade by 

increasing electric generation by 10 percent between 2005 and 2012 but also reducing 

statewide the CO2 emission rate by 19 percent (from 1,498 lbs/MWh to 1,214 lbs/MWh) and 

total CO2 emissions by almost 11 percent (134 million to 120 million tons) during this same time 

period. Commenters suggested that given that EPA's proposal seeks to cut CO2 emissions by 30 

percent of 2005 levels, the great progress Florida's utilities have already made to reduce 

CO2 emissions from 2005 levels should have been taken into account in calculating Florida's 

interim and final goals.

Commenters stated that it will be more difficult and costly to achieve such incremental energy 

efficiency levels in a state such as Florida which has been implementing utility energy efficiency 

programs continuously for 30-plus years compared to a state which has been implementing 

utility energy efficiency programs for a significantly shorter time period. Commenters noted that 

this is because what would be considered "low hanging fruit" has been harvested in Florida and 

incremental energy savings from end-use energy efficiency is much more costly to achieve than 

in other states that have a much shorter history of implementing utility energy efficiency 

programs.

Commenters stated that Oregon has a long-term commitment to acquiring EE, but the 

commenters had concern that EPA's methodology did not adjust the EE potential by the amount 

of conservation previously acquired or the amount of conservation available. Commenters were

worried that this may have the effect of requiring a state like Oregon, with established and robust 

conservation programs, to acquire conservation at a much higher cost (non-cost effective).

Commenters stated that EPA failed to recognize that states with long running EE programs may 

have achieved near cost-effective saturation of such programs. Commenters stated that 

mandating incremental new EE programs in such cases cannot be achieved at EPA's proposed 

costs. Commenters noted that they have a long history of administering demandside management programs through its member-owner distribution cooperatives, having 

already taken advantage of cost-effective energy efficiency options.

Commenters stated that some Nebraska utilities have already implemented demand-side 

management programs to reduce electric consumption and that these utilities may not have the 

ability to find additional methods of reducing electric consumption. Commenters noted that this 

will cause utilities with successful demand-side management programs to be punished by the fact 

that they have already undertaken aggressive and creative policies to reduce their customer's 

electric consumption.

Commenters stated that EPA should address the proposal's inequality between states that have 

taken early action on CO2 reductions, and those that have not, by removing from the baseline 

large efforts such as closing a coal-fired plant from inclusion in the targets, and by giving states 

credit for other early actions as states might propose in their implementation plans. Commenters

believed that this should include allowing states to use EE measures implemented between 2012 

and 2020 to demonstrate post-2020 compliance.
87

Commenters contended that early action states will find both RE and EE options to be more costlimited than for states that did not aggressively pursue early action to reduce CO2 emissions and 

will increase costs to consumers. Commenters provided detailed examples of how EPAs 

proposed goal calculation methodology penalizes early actors.

Commenters contended that there were limited opportunities for low-cost EE with existing 

technology, and utilities and states that have been leaders in early reductions are left with higher 

cost options to achieve additional savings. Commenters contended that despite this, EPA 

assumes these states will continue to outperform states where low-hanging efficiency 

opportunities still exist. Commenters contended that States and power producers will likely defer 

implementing programs that reduce energy waste or mitigate pollution until 2017 or later. 

Commenters expressed concern that future compliance dates in the proposal (2020-2030) would 

cause some states to suspend investments in the years 2015-2019. Commenters contended there 

is significant misunderstanding about credit and burden-sharing explaining Clean Power Plan 

requirements only apply to fossil plants, and clean plants face little to no additional cost or 

burden. Commenters added that as a result, under the rule as proposed, states that currently have 

larger than average amounts of non-emitting generation in fact have much less work to do, 

contrary to some stakeholders' misunderstanding.

Commenters stated the goal-setting methodology penalizes states that have invested early in EE 

programs. Commenters indicated there is a problem with using past EE gains to set 

targets. Commenters stated EPA's goal setting methodology does not account for the coal-fired 

megawatts that already have been displaced by EE. Commenters stated existing (i.e., pre-2012) 

EE therefore negatively impacts early-acting states by making the baseline emissions rate 

artificially low. Commenters noted that energy efficiency has displaced a significant amount of 

fossil generation in some states prior to 2012. Commenters noted that Arizona enacted EERS in 

2009 that utilities were required to meet EE savings targets of 0.94 to 1.25 percent by 2011 and 

1.5 to 2 percent by 2013; Arizona's SRP utility achieve EE savings of 1.8 percent in 2012 by 

displacing generation from coal power plants, and absent the electricity savings SRP achieved in 

2012, Arizona's baseline emission rate and corresponding state goal would have been higher. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed goal calculation methodology requires states that invested 

early in EE programs to meet more stringent interim goals, and on a faster timeline than they 

otherwise would have been required to meet, in that existing EE is used to determine states' 

incremental and cumulative EE goals and the rate at which those goals are

achieved. Specifically, commenters stated existing EE determines (1) how quickly a state will 

reach the proposed 1.5 percent annual EE improvement rate, and (2) a state's cumulative EE goal 

(because the cumulative EE goals depend on how quickly a state reaches the proposed EE 

improvement rate) (EPA states that cumulative EE savings take into account the lifetime of EE 

measures, but EPA improperly estimated the lifetime of EE measures based on the national 

average lifetime of EE measures across all sectors.). Commenters indicated EPA assumes that 

states with higher historic annual incremental EE levels will reach the proposed 1.5 percent 

incremental improvement rate sooner than states with lower historic annual incremental EE 

levels, resulting in higher cumulative EE savings levels for early-acting states (EPA's final 

cumulative EE savings levels are excessive when compared with historical EE savings; even 

states that have aggressively pursued EE savings, like Minnesota, are expected to achieve EE 

savings in future well beyond the EE savings they have achieved in the past). Commenters
88

provided a figure comparing the average cumulative EE savings levels of states with an existing 

EE incremental rate greater than 1 percent with the average cumulative EE savings levels of 

states with an existing EE incremental rate lower than 1 percent (see Figure 4 of their comment 

letter). 

Commenters stated that EPA adds the cumulative EE savings levels to the states' BSER 

calculation denominators, so that a higher cumulative savings level therefore results in a lower 

performance goal Commenters stated that this means that states that have historically high 

incremental EE levels are faced with more stringent final goals. Commenters stated imposing 

more stringent final goals on states that have historically high incremental EE levels means that 

these states will be faced with more stringent interim goals and final goals, which they will be 

unable to meet if they cannot attain the ever-increasing incremental EE savings that EPA 

incorrectly assumes are achievable. Commenters provided a figure comparing the average 

incremental EE savings levels of states with an existing EE incremental rate greater than 1 

percent with the average incremental EE savings levels of states with an existing EE incremental 

rate lower than 1 percent. Commenters indicated states with existing EE incremental savings 

rates greater than 1 percent begin the performance period with a 1.5 percent incremental savings 

rate, while states with lower starting EE incremental savings rates have a longer ramp-up 

period. Commenters stated if early-acting states are unable to continue increasing their EE 

savings by 1.5 percent per year, they will be unable to meet their interim goals, which assume 

these constantly increasing EE savings. 

Commenters stated there are limited opportunities for low-cost EE with existing technology. 

Commenters indicated that utilities and states that have been leaders in harvesting energy savings 

historically are left with higher cost options to achieve additional savings; despite this, EPA 

assumes these states will continue to outperform states in which the "low hanging" efficiency 

opportunities still exist. Commenters stated these early-acting states already have taken 

advantage of the most cost-effective EE measures, so the more stringent goals require these 

states to spend more money on additional EE measures than states that have not already invested 

in EE, and may force these states to pursue EE measures that are not cost-effective under current 

state commission requirements. For example, commenters indicated that in 2012, cumulative EE 

savings accounted for 10.25 percent of Portland General Electric's ("PGE") retail sales; those 

savings were achieved through hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in EE made by 

PGE's customers, and not only does the Proposed Rule not reward those investments, it uses 

those investments to make Oregon's goal more stringent.

Commenters stated EPA could provide credit to states that invested in EE programs early by 

using the same baseline electricity savings rate for all states. Commenters stated because the 

baseline electricity savings rate would have to be a rate that states without existing EE programs 

could achieve, states with existing programs would already have achieved the baseline electricity 

savings rate in 2020 and would not have to ramp up their electricity savings until later in the 

performance period. Commenters stated many states with an existing EE program would still 

have an incentive to ramp up their EE programs. In many cases, EE programs reduce CO2 

emissions more cost-effectively than other CO2 emission reductions options, like fuel switching 

Thus, commenters indicated states could ramp up their EE programs beyond the electricity 

savings rate target for compliance purposes.
89

Commenters stated that EPA could avoid imposing a penalty on early adopters while 

encouraging significant increases in states that have lagged in EE deployment by establishing a 

tiered approach to Building Block Four. Commenters noted, for example, that EPA could set 

state goals on the assumption that stats with low levels of cumulative EE savings (e.g., less than 

6%) will invest heavily in the early years of the program at a rate of 1.5 or even 2 percent 

annually. Commenters noted that in such states, there is presumably significant un-harvested 

"low-hanging fruit," such that EE could be expected to initially increase significantly with 

modest levels of investment. Commenters noted that states that have already achieved higher 

cumulative levels of EE would not be expected to continue increasing their EE at such an 

aggressive rate; thus, for example, EPA could set the EE target for states with cumulative EE 

levels greater than 6 percent based on a lower assumed level of annual incremental savings (e.g., 

0.5 or 1% annually). Commenters stated that this approach would reflect the reality that states 

with already high levels of EE have fewer cost-effective opportunities to continue reducing 

emissions through additional EE and that adopting this tiered approach would avoid penalizing 

these early adopters while continuing to encourage states and utilities with low levels of EE to 

invest more aggressively. Commenters also stated that it is important that all relevant state EE 

efforts-including codes and standards, as suggested by the EPA in the Proposed Rule-are counted 

in an equitable and cost-effective manner; otherwise, an aggressive EE savings goal would not 

be realistic for a state like California, which has already invested heavily in such EE programs, 

has promoted the construction of zero-net energy buildings, and is increasingly targeting existing 

buildings for additional EE savings.

Commenters stated that EPA's assertion that the 1.5% savings rate is inclusive of existing state 

EE programs is patently false because EPA is counting emission reductions that existing 

state programs achieve only as a result of actions taken after the date of this proposal. 

Commenters stated that EPA cannot claim that this 1.5% savings goal is inclusive of existing 

energy efficiency programs when it is not counting emission reductions achieved from those 

programs unless some subsequent action is taken after the promulgation of this rule. Commenters 

noted that by discounting emission reductions achieved by these existing state programs, EPA is 

implicitly punishing states that have taken the early initiative to adopt energy efficiency 

programs. Commenters noted that states that have been proactive and adopted programs such as 

energy efficient building codes, energy efficient appliance rebates, or smart meter infrastructure 

will see none of the emissions achieved through these programs count toward its energy 

efficiency goal unless the state takes some further action on these programs after this rule 

is promulgated. Commenters stated that by not accounting for future emission reductions 

achieved via existing state programs, EPA is not only punishing states for being good actors, but 

including a BSER that cannot "produce the improved performance necessary to achieve the 

goal."

Commenters indicated that States with existing EE programs will face higher costs to expand 

their programs. Commenters stated there are limited opportunities for low-cost EE with existing 

technology. Commenters stated utilities and states that have been leaders in obtaining energy 

savings historically will now have to turn to higher cost options to achieve additional savings. 

Commenters stated nonetheless, EPA assumes these states will continue to outperform states in 

which lower-cost EE opportunities still exist. Commenters stated these early-acting states already 

have taken advantage of the most cost-effective EE measures, so the more stringent goals require 
90

these states to spend more money on additional EE measures than states that have not already 

invested in EE.

Commenters stated relying on the historic average cost of existing EE programs, EPA estimates 

that the net cost impacts for EE programs in 2020, 2025, and 2030 will range from $16-$24 per 

metric ton of CO2 emissions. Commenters stated EPA assumes that controlling the costs of EE 

programs is possible simply by implementing best practices. (Id. at 34,874.) Commenters stated 

EPA fails to recognize that the marginal costs of expanding EE in states with existing EE 

programs will be higher than historic costs because states and utilities have already taken 

advantage of the most cost-effective EE options first.

Commenters stated at least 27 states use a cost-effectiveness test in deciding whether to 

implement an EE measure. Commenters stated although EPA claims that EE programs are 

poised for dramatic growth over the course of the next 10 to 15 years, some of the potential EE 

programs may not pass state cost-effectiveness tests and therefore may not be implemented. 

(GHG Abatement TSD at 5-19.) Commenters stated further, EPA concedes that the greatest 

potential for EE program expansion is in the Midwest and the South where EE programs are 

relatively new. (Id.) Commenters indicated States in other regions of the United States that have 

established EE programs have less cost-effective EE measures available to them. Commenters

stated as a consequence, states that adopted EE programs earlier will have higher marginal costs 

to meet their higher electricity savings targets, assuming that the targets are even achievable.

Commenters stated EPA should consider means of incentivizing a greater degree of early action 

to ramp up EE investments in advance of the 2020 compliance period, and recognize the work 

that states have already done to invest in EE. Commenters stated that because the building block 

four target is based on annual incremental levels of EE, states may choose not to begin 

implementing EE measures until the start of the compliance period. Commenters indicated that 

based on the assumptions that early, "low-hanging fruit" actions are less expensive than 

subsequent actions and have limited availability, states that have not yet started investing in EE 

may delay implementing new EE programs until the compliance period to reach the incremental 

MWh targets set by EPA for 2020 and beyond. Commenters stated delaying is also incentivized 

by the expiration of savings attributed to EE measures installed at an earlier point in time. 

Commenters stated such delays would show the same annual emissions rate during the 

compliance period, but would lead to fewer cumulative real emissions savings. Commenters

indicated its member states have proven the many benefits of ongoing, cost-effective EE savings, 

and encouraged EPA to structure building block four in the final rule in a way that will 

incentivize earlier investments in EE, for example, in building block three this issue is 

diminished by setting a cumulative target for renewable energy generation rather than an 

incremental target.

Commenters noted that EPA's uniform approach belies the fact that some states -- like New York 

-- have already invested millions of ratepayer dollars in energy efficiency programs that have 

resulted in real and documented emission reductions. Commenters provided multiple examples 

of investments New York has made in energy efficiency programs. Commenters stated that 

these early investments capture the "low-hanging fruit" of energy efficiency opportunities (e.g., 

lighting upgrades) and represent the most cost-effective investments. Commenters noted that 

future actions could be more costly, and by not counting these existing energy savings, early-
91

acting states are put at an economic disadvantage when compared to states who have not funded 

programs that have made similar "low-hanging fruit" reductions. Commenters suggested 

that measurable, verifiable, existing energy efficiency savings should be incorporated into a 

state's compliance plan in the same manner that existing renewable energy such as wind and 

solar are allowed.

Commenters noted that EPA fails to recognize that the demand side energy efficiency programs 

it seeks to impose are "theoretical" levels of impact and that several states recently have scaled 

back EE programs. Commenters asserted that EPA overstated by a wide margin what can 

actually be achieved, thereby forcing states to seek additional reductions from other sources. 

Commenters stated that EPA discounted emission reductions achieved by these existing state 

programs, thereby punishing states that have taken the early initiative to adopt energy efficiency 

programs.

Commenters noted that the savings from EE programs cannot be duplicated in the future since 

the opportunity once realized is lost for that specific technology. Commenters stated that EPA's 

proposition that savings from EE programs cannot be counted toward the emissions rate 

calculation until 2017 clearly penalizes states that have had the foresight to legislate mandatory 

EE savings goals. Commenters stated that EPA's target for New Mexico and other states should 

be adjusted to reflect the actual savings potential demonstrated through implementation of 

mandated EE programs in New Mexico.

Commenters believed that the proposed rule provides no incentive for states to implement energy 

efficiency programs prior to 2020, because energy efficiency savings do not provide compliance 

benefits until 2020. Additionally, commenters asserted that the rule provides no incentive to 

implement EE programs or take other, similar measures to go beyond what is required to meet a 

state goal during a given compliance period. Commenters stated that EPA should assume that 

all states begin with an initial level of energy efficiency achievement of zero in the goal-setting 

calculation to avoid this inequity and penalty on states that have already achieved higher levels 

of energy efficiency. Commenters suggested that EPA allow bank credits generated by pre-2020 

EE savings to be used for compliance purposes beginning in 2020 and that States be allowed to 

bank excess credits generated during a compliance period for use during a subsequent 

compliance period.

Commenters stated that all energy efficiency measures that are still in place during the 

compliance period will reduce emissions during that period and thus should count towards 

compliance, whether or not they were installed before or after 2020. Commenters suggested that 

EPA allow measures installed after the baseline year(s) to count towards compliance since these 

measures would not have been included in the baseline yet would reduce emissions during 

compliance. Commenters stated that if EPA continues to use 2012 as a baseline, this would allow 

measures installed from 2013 to 2019 to count towards compliance. Commenters urged EPA to 

provide banking of these reductions from the baseline year(s).

Commenters stated that by not including any growth assumption for the five years between 2012 

and 2017, EPA significantly reduced the energy savings targets for every state. Commenters

noted that for the five years from 2017 to 2022, EPA assumed that total U.S. energy savings 

could grow from 0.56% of sales---the 2012 level---to 1.33% of sales, representing a 0.2% annual 
92

ramp rate, but if EPA were to assume the same ramp rate for the five-year period from 2012 to 

2017, the 2017 levels would be nearly two-and-a-half times as high. Commenters noted that 

some may argue that EPA should not assume what might be considered "early action" prior to 

2017, but stated that it would be unreasonable for EPA to base its targets on the unrealistic 

assumption that every state and every utility is taking a five-year hiatus from action.

Commenters stated that the Rule's failure to recognize significant EE projects that occurred 

before 2013 creates an unrealistic expectation for the commenters to achieve the 12% energy 

savings EPA contemplated for Building Block 4 in Michigan. Commenters stated that if other 

Michigan utilities find themselves in the same position, as some will, the state's overall target for 

EE gains will not be met.

Commenters stated that EPA's energy efficiency goals do not count efficiency improvements 

already made voluntarily by individuals and businesses and since many states already have 

energy efficiency programs, many of the easy, low-cost efficiency options have already been 

employed, leaving larger, more expensive options available in order to meet EPA's goals.

Commenters detailed Pennsylvania's history of administering EE programs since 2009 and 

encouraged EPA to adopt a framework or to facilitate states use of existing rigorous frameworks 

that similarly establish credibility and give clarity to the benefits of myriad demand side energy 

efficiency investments that are possible.

Commenters noted that states with ambitious existing energy efficiency programs tend to have a 

larger obligation than states where energy efficiency policies are less advanced and that 

the effect of such differentiation across states on cost-effectiveness from a national perspective is 

an open question. Commenters asserted that one might expect there to be more low-cost 

opportunities for saving energy in the inexperienced states where energy-using equipment and 

building stocks are presumably less efficient than in the more experienced states, but it could 

also be the case that more experience with running energy efficiency programs results in learning 

by doing and greater future energy savings at lower cost.

Commenters noted that under EPA's Proposed Rule, cooperatives would not be given any credit 

for energy conservation which is currently installed and has ongoing value. Commenters stated 

that because of the demand side successes they've already seen, EPA's Building Block 4 is 

unattainable and would only drive up costs to the consumer and penalize them for investments 

already made.

Commenters supported approaches to provide credit for early action to encourage emission 

reductions prior to 2030. Specifically the commenters supported the EPA's proposal for states to 

be able to choose to implement state goal requirements early (i.e., before 2020), which could 

provide states with the ability to achieve the same amount of overall emission reductions, but to 

do so by making some reductions earlier.
93

Comment 50: Comments recommending that states should be allowed to get limited credit 

("bank") for MWh generated prior to 2020, stating that early emissions reductions should be 

encouraged through emissions banking programs. 

Response 50: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support in using pre 2014 baseline dates 

for this rulemaking. As mentioned above we are finalizing this rule using a 2012 baseline year. 

As the commenters further mention, the rule finalizes “banking” options that add flexibility for 

states and regional planning groups to meet interim goals, within limitation as the commenters

suggest. Additional discussion on these decisions are outlined in sections VIII.C and VIII.I of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters proposed that the EPA allow existing solar measures to receive a credit for a 

limited time prior to the start of the 2020 compliance period. The commenters recommended that 

states should be allowed to get limited credit ("bank") for MWh generated prior to 2020. 

Specifically, the commenters suggested that states should be allowed to bank MWh generated 

from the date their SIP is submitted, and that those credits be eligible for compliance purposes 

for 36 months from the date of the start of the compliance period. 

The commenters stated that this approach is consistent with EPA's goal of compliance flexibility 

and EPA's rationale that states and EPA will need a few years to create and approve compliance 

plans prior to 2020. Further, the commenters stated that limited banking after SIP approval 

ensures that only measures included in approved SIPs are used for compliance and incentivizes 

states to submit SIPs for approval in a timely manner. The commenters stated that limiting 

banking to 2-3 years is aligned with best practices of most RPSs and regional markets which 

allow banking for 2-3 years without significantly reducing overall state goals. However, the 

commenters stated that some banking incentives early action and market momentum while 

reducing large fluctuations in the supply curve, which in turn will reduce compliance costs and 

increase the viability of building block 3 as a compliance option for states.

While the commenters supported limited banking, the commenters stated that unlimited banking 

or extended banking of emission reductions beyond a 3 year timeframe should not be permitted

for states because unlimited banking would undermine the effectiveness of the Plan. 

Additionally, the commenters stated that the extended or unlimited banking creates distortions in 

the market by allowing states and EGUs to choose not to create new renewables until late in the 

compliance period or only create new renewables early on. According to the commenters, both 

create significant uncertainty for renewable energy markets, which may increase compliance 

costs or lead to states failing to comply. Further, the commenters expressed concern that 

unlimited banking may lead to gaming, higher potential for double counting, and enforcement 

challenges if the EPA uncovers validation issues with MWhs generated many years prior. 

Commenters generally agreed with the flexible state-based approach and the specific standards 

and emissions levels set by the EPA for the states under its Clean Air Act section 111(d) 

authority. However, the commenters believed that the timeline must be accelerated to stimulate 

critical early technology development activities. The commenters indicated this could be 

accomplished by allowing emissions banking for credits achieved at any point between the date 
94

of the proposal and later reasonable further progress demonstrations (as EPA has often done in

past Clean Air Act programs). The commenters said this would provide one tool for driving 

transformative capital investments in technology in the shorter term.

Comment 51: Comments supporting the EPA's proposal that existing measures should be 

allowed to count during the compliance period. 

Response 51: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support in including existing measures 

and programs toward the meaningful reductions included in the final rule. As requested by the 

commenters, the EPA has finalized a baseline for such inclusions at 2012. As requested by the 

commenters, the finalized version of the rule has more specifics on baseline year, and eligible 

programs, as well as guidance for states in assembling their plans. See sections VIII.C and VIII.I 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters interpreted EPA's proposal regarding existing measures to mean that state measures 

which exist after the date of the proposal, June 18, 2014, can be used to drive emissions 

reductions during the compliance period (2020-2030). However, because building block 3 was 

factored into determination of the state goals, the commenters noted that existing renewable 

energy measures and actions can count if implemented prior to June 18 2014. The commenters

therefore concluded that MWh from renewable energy capacity installed pursuant to an existing 

measure or program any time prior to 2020 can be counted towards compliance during the 

compliance period (2020-2030) if the existing measure is included in a state's implementation 

plan. For example, the commenters noted that, if 1000 MW of solar capacity was installed in 

2013 pursuant to an RPS and the state includes the RPS in its compliance plan, then emissions 

displaced by MWh from the 1000 MW of solar capacity during the compliance period (2020-

2030) can count towards the state's 111(d) compliance requirements in that period.

The commenters stated that existing measures can help states meet interim compliance goals set 

forth in the original proposal. The commenters believed that this is consistent with EPA's 

interpretation of the BSER as including measures taken by states to reduce emissions across the 

electric system. The commenters further believed that this is consistent with the cooperative 

model promoted by section 111(d) and the Clean Air Act, which provides states with significant 

flexibility in determining the best method for reducing emissions. The commenters stated that 

allowing states to count existing measures towards compliance recognizes the investment already 

made by states towards emission reduction, and will allow states to carry forward programs that 

are in motion without distorting current markets.

However, the commenters noted that during the comment period there has been significant 

confusion regarding exactly which existing renewable energy measures can be counted towards 

compliance and when credit will be given. The commenters said this confusion is already 

threatening potential emission reductions by slowing project development because states and 

EGUs are uncertain which actions will count towards compliance, and when these actions can 

count. Therefore, while the commenters supported the proposal put forth by EPA as interpreted 
95

above, the commenters requested that in the final rule the EPA more clearly state which actions 

can count towards compliance and when such actions count.

Comment 52: Comments expressing concern that the CPP requires a level of CO2 emission 

reduction that is unachievable by existing EGUs and also by the short time frames for achieving 

the reductions due to the proposed deadlines.

Response 52: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the levels of emissions reductions 

sought by this rule are not achievable. In this final rule we are providing flexibility to state and 

regional planning groups that will enable them the ability and time to legislate and enact the 

changes they need in order to meet their interim and final targets. See section VIII.B of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that the levels of CO2 emission reductions and time frames for achieving 

them are not attainable. The commenters expressed concern that the proposed Clean Power Plan 

requires a level of CO2 emission reduction that is unachievable by existing EGUs and also by the 

short time frames for achieving the reductions due to the proposed deadlines. The commenters 

stated that contrary to the statutory framework under Section 111 (d) of the CAA, "outside-thefence" emission reductions from non-affected sources and measures including re-dispatching 

NGCC, RE, and EE would be necessary to meet the targets proposed for Pennsylvania. Because 

of the potential effects on fuel diversity, energy prices, and other consumer effects, the 

commenters argued that such policy decisions are better left to the United States Congress or 

other elected officials. The commenters stated that clearly, this is a concern of the Pennsylvania 

House of Representatives and Senate, both of which passed legislation that was signed into law 

by the Governor of Pennsylvania. The commenters stated that this legislation mandates that DEP 

submit the proposed Section 111 (d) State Plan to the General Assembly for their review and 

approval. As proposed, the commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan could leave residential, 

commercial, and industrial U.S. consumers exposed to less reliable, more expensive, and more 

volatile electric markets in the future.

Comment 53: Comments stating that the EPA should follow the proposed compliance time 

frame and should not extend the proposed timetables unless the state has a valid reason for an 

extension, and stating that EPA should not adopt the alternative option of a single 5-year 

compliance period in combination with weaker CO2 emission performance goals.

Response 53: As stated above, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their 

plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to manage complexities 

that are stated by a large number of commenters. The EPA is finalizing the rule with a series of 

interim goals and a final goal in year 2030. Our reasoning for adapting the final timeframe, and 

flexibilities afforded states and regional planning partnerships, are detailed in sections V.C, V.D, 
96

V.E, and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. We are not finalizing the alternate final 

goals representing emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, so comments on this 

topic are generally moot.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that, at a minimum, states should file an initial proposal within one year and 

then can submit their complete plans to EPA if they get an extension. The commenters stated that 

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, the commenters disagreed with EPA's alternative option, a 5-year period for 

compliance, in combination with a less stringent set of carbon emission performance levels. 

The commenters argued 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 5 years from the plan's announcement. The 

commenters stated that 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.

The commenters noted that EPA recognizes states can achieve emission reductions in the shortterm with many measures. The commenters disagreed with EPA's conclusion that renewable 

generating capacity can take longer than other methods to ramp-up. The commenters stated that 

renewable energy, such as wind, is rapidly scalable and deployable. The commenters stated that 

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. The commenters stated that 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, and shows continued growth with 13,600 MW under construction as of the end of 

the third quarter of 2014. The commenters contended that EPA grossly underestimates the ability 

of renewable energy to be quickly installed and integrated into the grid as a compliance measure.

Commenters stated that EPA should not adopt the alternative option of a single 5-year 

compliance period in combination with weaker CO2 emission performance goals. The 

commenters stated that EPA should not adopt the alternative option imposing weaker CO2 limits 

over a 5-yr time span. The commenters stated that EPA's own data and analysis shows that the 

best system of emission reduction deployed over this time period would achieve significantly 

greater emission reductions than are reflected in the proposed alternative state goals. 

The commenters stated that EPA has not justified the assumptions underlying the reduced 

stringency of the alternative goals associated with the 5-year compliance plan alternative. In 

setting the interim and final goals for this alternative option, the commenters stated that EPA 

made several adjustments to the set of assumptions used to generate the proposed goals 

associated with the 10-year compliance period. See Id. at 34,898. The commenters stated that 

first, with respect to the anticipated heat rate improvement from coal-fired EGUs under Block 1, 

EPA used a value of four percent instead of six percent. Id. The commenters stated that second, 

under Block 2, EPA assumed that the potential annual utilization rate for NGCC units would 
97

increase to 65 percent instead of 70 percent. Id. The commenters stated that third, under Block 4, 

EPA assumed that annual incremental electricity savings achievable through a portfolio of 

demand-side energy efficiency programs would be one percent instead of 1.5 percent. Id. The 

commenters stated that EPA has noted, these assumptions may be "overly conservative," and 

"underestimate the extent to which the key elements of the four building blocks . . . can be 

achieved." Id.

The commenters stated that EPA has provided no analysis to support the adjusted assumptions 

aside from the assertion that "the time period for implementation relates directly to the emission 

reductions that are achievable[.]" Id. The commenters stated that if EPA were to establish only a 

single 5-year compliance period, the state targets should reflect the full emission reduction 

potential available during that 5-year period, commensurate with potential shown during the 

initial five years of the proposed 10-year compliance period as strengthened through the 

recommendations discussed in these comments.

Comment 54: Comments agreeing with a shorter (5 year) compliance time frame, but without 

setting less stringent standards.

Response 54: The EPA agrees that a 5 year period for compliance is too restrictive for a number 

of reasons, but the EPA disagrees that less stringent CO2 emissions performance levels are the 

solution to that problem. We are finalizing the rule with a series of interim goals and a final goal 

in year 2030. A full discussion of this decision making is included in sections V.C, V.D, V.E, 

and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. We are not finalizing the alternate final goals 

representing emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, so comments on this topic 

are generally moot.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

In response to the request for comment on an alternative option, a 5-year period for compliance 

in combination with a less stringent set of CO2 emission performance levels, commenters agreed 

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 commenters stated 

that the alternate approach proposed for a less stringent program with a 2025 goal year is overly 

conservative with respect to achievability by that time. 

Commenters urged the EPA to shorten the timeframe for compliance to 5 years without setting 

weaker standards to accommodate a shorter timeframe.

Comment 55: Comments stating that 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.

Response 55: The EPA agrees with the commenters and, as stated above, we are extending the 

time allowed for States to finalize their plans and meet the first of a series of interim goals, 
98

beginning in 2022. States must also check in midway and affirm that they are on target to meet 

their interim goals or provide a means to reach them if they are more than 10% off target. See 

section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment. We are 

not finalizing the alternate final goals representing emission performance that would be 

achievable by 2025, so comments on this topic are generally moot.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported 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 

commenters suggested that the state submittal be required to strengthen or add to measures in the 

state plan to the extent necessary to achieve that level of performance. Commenters also 

agreed that it is a good idea to update the state plan with a second submittal in 2025, to have state 

program implementation milestones, and to make non-compliance consequences more than a 

slap on the wrist.

Commenters supported the EPA's proposal for tracking of state compliance plan performance as 

described below and further recommended that the EPA require states to undertake annual 

tracking of actual plan performance during implementation:

"In addition to demonstrating that projected plan performance will meet the 

interim and final state goals, the EPA proposes that state plans must contain 

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 emission performance and interim 

progress, the state plans would 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." 

The commenters also recommended that the EPA require that the state compliance plans include 

true-up provisions to ensure that they are on track to meet the interim and final compliance goals. 

The commenters indicated this could take the form of true-ups, at least every 3 to 5 years, for the 

individual programs that contribute to state compliance goals, or an overall true-up of the 

achieved state emissions reductions. The commenters said this type of regular review will help 

prevent situations where states fall short of the emission reduction goals and have to rapidly 

make up deficits. According to the commenters, policy and investment changes in the power 

sector require some time to implement or adjust, so advance notice will be key to ensuring they 

are well aligned with the goals of the Clean Power Plan. According to the commenters, one 

example of the importance of this type of review comes from the RGGI states, which, in 2012, 

undertook a program review of the CO2 budget. On the basis of changing market conditions, 

which showed a significant excess supply of allowances relative to actual emission levels in the 

region, the states chose to take advantage of the additional cost-effective emissions achievable 

and reduce the level of the carbon cap. The commenters supported the EPA's proposal that states 

provide regular review of the performance of state implementation plans could provide important 
99

information to the EPA as it reviews and updates the whole Clean Power Plan prior to 2025, as 

mentioned above.

Comment 56: Comments requesting definition of “less stringent”, and stating that benefit should 

be weighed against the outcomes of the more stringent 10-year plan.

Response 56: The EPA thanks the commenters for their responses to our requests. We are 

finalizing this rule to extend the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and meet the first 

of a series of interim goals, beginning in 2022. See sections V.C, V.D, and V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters noted that the agency is also requesting comment on an alternative 5-year period for 

compliance, in combination with a less stringent set of CO2 emission performance levels. The 

commenters stated that, while an option for a 5-year compliance period sounds reasonable, they 

need to better understand what the definition(s) of a "less stringent" performance level are. The 

commenters stated that the benefit should be weighed against the outcomes of the more stringent 

10-year plan. 

Comment 57: Comments stating that states need the full compliance period through the end of 

2030 to achieve their goals, and that planning, permitting and construction could not be 

accomplished by 2025 as required by the alternate goals.

Response 57: The EPA agrees with the commenters and, as stated above, we are extending the 

time allowed for States to finalize their plans and meet the first of a series of interim goals, 

beginning in 2022. States must also check in midway and affirm that they are on target to meet 

their interim goals or provide a means to reach them if they are more than 10% off target, as 

described in VIII.F.3. See sections V.C, V.D, V.E, and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for EPA’s response to this comment. We are not finalizing the alternate final goals 

representing emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, so comments on this topic 

are generally moot.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that the timeline EPA established for states to achieve their alternate 

emission reduction goals is not realistic. The commenters noted that states need to have the full 

proposed compliance period, through the end of 2030, to achieve their goals. According to the 

commenters, this time will minimize compliance costs and allow states to prudently plan for 

these significant changes to the power sector, many of which require considerable lead time due 

to planning, permitting and construction time frames and could not be accomplished by 2025 as 

required by the alternate goals.
100

Comment 58: Comments acknowledging early efforts to achieve higher energy efficiency by 

this utility seems to have disadvantaged its customers since the least-cost options have already 

been implemented.

Response 58: The EPA is finalizing a means for state and regional planners to make use of EE 

advances made during the 2012 baseline year, forward. See sections V.A, V.C, V.D, V.E, 

VIII.B, VIII.K.1, and XII.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to these

comments.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters listed their efforts to achieve higher energy efficiency for themselves and their 

consumers. They then stated that by attacking the least cost options in advance of EPA's 

proposed Rule, they appear to have disadvantaged their community under the Rule relative to the 

state not only in securing credit for their past actions but also in removing the lowest costeffective options to meet EPA's expectations moving forward, as their lowest cost programs have 

already been utilized by eligible customers. The commenters read and understood EPA's 

assertion that its model is a national model and that EPA does not expect each utility to meet the 

scenario utilized for setting the goals but would caution EPA that when a utility or state cannot 

meet one or more expected BB rates, increased compliance in other areas becomes a mandate. 

Based on the commenters' analysis, neither they nor their state will be able to meet BB 1 

reductions or BB 2 reductions requiring a significant overweight in BB 3 and 4. Yet, the 

commenters' efforts to reach those in the greatest need of EE improvements also impair future 

capabilities. Many of these projects involve capital expenditures that reap important rewards at 

the location but are not economic. Because capital to invest in EE projects is not inexhaustible, 

these expenditures, while an important component of the commenters' community obligation, 

saps from their ability to make the more efficient expenditures that EPA envisions.

In addition, the commenters stated that they are a very small vertically integrated utility, having a 

very efficient transmission system to serve its load. The commenters stated that they have a 

compact, multi path or looped transmission system that makes their system extremely 

efficient. The commenters repeated that they built a reliable, efficient transmission system 

that their customers paid for well in advance of this proposed rule. The neighboring investor 

owned utilities are now trying to upgrade their transmission system and recovers costs from the 

markets which the commenters' customers must cost share, but the commenters received no 

compensation from outside for their existing meshed transmission system. The commenters were

gravely concerned that the Rule will drive additional, costly transmission projects that have high 

ROI for transmission providers within the markets, driving up costs for their consumers, with 

very little to no actual benefit. The commenters stated that as a small municipal utility principally 

serving their community, the transmission lines are very short distances, such that increasing 

efficiencies, even just another 0.09%, would be relatively impossible for the commenters to 

achieve. Commenters stated the U.S. EPA's expected efficiency increase in transmission did not 

consider a small municipal utility with a small and networked transmission system in 

establishing the efficiency goal.
101

Comment 59: Comments stating that the 2020 interim goal and 2030 final goal are not 

attainable or realistic.

Response 59: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final rule needs to provide 

additional time and flexibility to allow states and regional planners a means to manage existing 

and necessary infrastructure. For this and several other reasons, including infrastructure needs, 

funding, timing and planning concerns, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final 

rule includes this additional time to allow for discussions, legislation, planning, and forging 

agreements as necessary to manage the very complexities mentioned by the commenter. We are 

providing additional flexibilities in the final rule with the goal of allowing states avenues for 

encouraging modernization and upgrades to portions of their portfolio as well as make 

accommodations to existing infrastructure where it is necessary to do so. A discussion of this is 

included in sections II.E and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following is a summary of the specific public comment:

Commenters stated that the Navajo Generating Station supplies power and water to 4 million 

people in Maricopa County. The commenters stated that the 2020 interim goal and 2030 final 

goal is not attainable or realistic. The commenters stated that they do not have the capacity to 

comply with the challenges that are in front of them in the next 72 months because the Central 

Arizona Project owes the United States $1.6 billion and is making a $50 million a year payment 

to the trust fund that distributes all these funds for water right settlements throughout the state. 

The commenters stated that the original deal with the United States when the Central Arizona 

Project was created was to operate the Navajo Generating Station under the Regional Haze Rules 

until 2066. The commenters stated that they borrowed money, made commitments, and signed 

long-term contracts with most of the cities in Central Arizona and the 10 tribes that they serve. 

The commenters stated that now that timeline has gotten shortened in the TWIG agreement and 

this new set of rules brings them into compliance in 2030 and mostly in 2020. The commenters

stated that the United States through their various agencies has not lived up to the original 

bargain. 

The commenters expressed gratitude for the improvements that these regulations bring to the 

tribe. The commenters noted it raised water rates by 11 percent to pay for the $1 billion in 

upgrades to the Navajo environmental constraints, the coal leases, and the transmission lines that 

contain the components for the Navajo Generating Station that serves the Central Arizona 

Project.

The commenters stated that they do not have the ability to just switch fuel sources and go to 

natural gas. The commenters stated that the original deal with the United States is 97 percent of 

our energy was to come from the Navajo Generating Station and it was to be used for the farms 

and the commitments that we made to the people of Central Arizona and the tribal settlements 

that the United States made under their fiduciary duty. 
102

The commenters stated that the target date has gone from 2066 to 2020 and that they do not have 

the capacity, the bonding capacity, or the rate-making capacity to write a check for $350 million 

in the next 72 months.

Comment 60: Comments on counting measures implemented after state plan submittal

Response 60: The EPA recognizes the value of early actions that deploy CO2-reducing 

investments, such as RE and demand-side EE measures, and in this final rule is providing states 

with discretion to credit reductions from the activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the 

context of both mass-based and rate-based plans. For discussion of state plan requirements 

related to incentivizing early action, see Section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters also urged that states should be allowed to count measures that are implemented 

after the submittal of the state plan, even though the programs were initiated at a prior time.

Comment 61: Commenters stated that significant time will be required to site, plan, design, 

permit, and construct the new infrastructure required to meet the interim and final goals of a 

111(d) program, noting that in Arizona, more than 80% of the land is owned by federal and state 

governments and tribal nations, and siting and permitting of electricity and gas transmission 

infrastructure on federal or tribal land is subject to many processes and procedural requirements 

for compliance that can threaten timely completion of these projects. Commenters explained that 

“there are several factors that complicate a utility's ability to construct the new energy 

infrastructure needed to meet the requirements associated with the Proposed Rule. One of the 

biggest issues is the lengthy timelines associated with obtaining necessary environmental 

approvals to construct and operate these facilities. (verbatim) The Western U.S. is unique in the 

amount of land owned by the federal government, state governments, and tribal nations. SRP is 

particularly concerned that the high proportion of federal, state, and tribal lands in Arizona -

more than 80% - represents unique challenges to timely completion of new energy-related 

projects. Specifically, in Arizona, approximately 41% of land is owned by the federal

government, almost 13% is controlled by the state, and about 27% belongs to tribal nations. In 

addition, 7,220 square miles within the state have been identified as critical habitat for threatened 

or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Figure 7-7 on the following page 

shows the extensive amounts of federal and tribal lands within Arizona, including critical habitat 

designations. Siting and permitting of new energy infrastructure on federal land can take 10 

years or more. In many cases, obtaining the permits necessary to construct a transmission line 

can take longer than constructing the line itself.”

Response 61: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final rule needs to provide 

additional time and flexibility to allow states and regional planners a means to manage existing 

and necessary infrastructure. For this and several other reasons, including infrastructure needs, 
103

funding, timing and planning concerns, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. See Section 

VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

6.1.3 Start date for performance period for interim goal

This section discusses the start dates for the interim step periods (i.e., 2022-2024, 2025-2027, 

2028-2029). This relatively long planning and implementation period provides states with 

substantial flexibility regarding methods and timing of achieving emission reductions. 

Comments were received on both sides (for and against) the interim periods and overall 

compliance deadline of 2030. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Additional comments on this topic are in RTC chapter 6.1.2 and 6.1.4.

Comment 1: Comments opposing any change in the CPP to lengthen the compliance deadline or 

relax the stringency of the glide path. 

Response 1: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support in regulating GHG emissions and 

we are sensitive to the commenters’ sense of urgency. While many meaningful GHG reductions 

are occurring right now, after review of comments received as well as data and studies that have 

been provided, the EPA is extending the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has 

moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The EPA has not extended the final 

date of compliance demonstration in the final rule, but recognizes the complexities involved with 

assembling the workable pieces necessary to enact a state or regional partnership plan and 

develop a glide path toward 2030. In support of the commenters’ statement, the EPA is aware of 

several efforts to reduce CO2 emissions that are already underway across the country and we 

expect these efforts, and those put in place by State plans, will work to reduce emissions of CO2 

to levels below the minimum goal requirements. See sections I, V.A.3.g, VIII.B, and VIII.G of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for further discussion. Cost concerns raised by commenters 

are addressed in sections XI.D and XI.E of the final rule preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the rule is too slow to respond to the crisis at hand. Rather than 

allowing states to delay action for several more years, the commenters stated that the rule should 

require that meaningful greenhouse gas reductions occur prior to 2020.

Commenters strongly opposed any effort by EPA to relax the stringency of the glide path or 

phase in emission reductions under Building Blocks 1 and 2, an issue raised in the agency's 
104

recent NODA. The commenters stated that if EPA preserves the current rule schedule, states and 

utilities will have five years after EPA finalizes the Clean Power Plan and two to three years 

after state plan approval to prepare for implementation. The commenters stated that moreover, 

under the current proposal, the interim goal is based on an average across all years, rather than 

on performance in any specific year, and the final goal need only be attained at the end of the 

compliance period. The commenters stated that as such, states are free to apportion their 

emission reductions across the period however they choose, so long as the interim and final goals 

are met. The commenters stated that this measure of flexibility provides a sufficient buffer 

against stranded assets and other technical challenges toward achieving compliance, and no 

additional relaxation of the glide-path is necessary, irrespective of when the compliance period 

begins and ends. The commenters stated that we therefore urge EPA not to accede to any 

requests that it establish a more lenient pathway toward compliance in the final rule.

Commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan will play a critical role in meeting the U.S. target 

for more stringent GHG emission reductions and provide an incentive for other countries to 

reduce their carbon pollution. The commenters stated that with President Obama's latest 

commitment, carbon emissions reductions in the early years of the Clean Power Plan's proposed 

compliance period will be essential. The commenters stated that a stronger Clean Power Plan is 

essential to assure that the U.S. reaches its international climate targets for 2020 and 2025. The 

commenters stated that yet industry and several states are advocating for a more gradual "glide 

path" that would give utilities additional years to start achieving the reductions from Building 

Blocks 1 and 2. The commenters stated that States are already given significant flexibility 

because they are allowed to use averaging over the entire compliance period. The commenters 

stated that delaying the phase-in of Blocks 1 and 2 would weaken EPA's proposed interim 

targets, and delay long needed carbon pollution reductions. The commenters stated that the 

interim targets should not be relaxed, but strengthened and, indeed accelerated. The commenters 

stated that as discussed below, the Clean Power Plan's compliance deadline should end in 2025 

and the agency should revise and strengthen the standard afterwards. The commenters stated that 

not only is a stronger Clean Power Plan needed to help meet the more ambitious 2025 target that 

the U.S. has agreed to achieve, but a commitment to early reductions is also vital to U.S. 

credibility and leverage over the critical next 12 months.

Commenters stated that EPA's additional October 2014 publication of the "Notice of Data 

Availability" for the Proposed Rule is disconcerting because it contains proposals that would 

further weaken the already weak guidelines. The commenters stated that these proposals would 

undercut and, in some instances, vitiate the purpose and intent of section 111(d) altogether. The 

commenters stated that delaying compliance implementation even further causes additional costs 

inherent in delay itself, and increasing the use of natural gas exacerbates the harmful effects of 

the Proposed Rule's over-reliance on this fossil fuel. The commenters urged EPA to discard all 

but one of these new proposals.

The commenters stated that EPA should strengthen rather than weaken the compliance trajectory 

or "glide path" of emission reductions. The commenters stated that one of the preferred reasons 

for weakening the interim compliance targets is that the proposed interim goals supposedly 

"severely limit the opportunity to fully take advantage of the remaining asset value of existing 

coal-fired generation." The commenters stated that EPA's apparent agreement that this sentiment 

constitutes a legitimate objection to the Proposed Rule is lamentable. The commenters stated that 
105

although section 111(d)(2) states that EPA shall take into consideration, "among other factors, 

remaining useful lives of the sources in the category of sources" to which a standard applies, 

nothing whatsoever requires EPA to devise a standard so lenient that existing sources can "fully 

take advantage" of their "remaining asset value.' The commenters stated that such an 

interpretation of section 111(d) would render the statute meaningless, as it would allow the full 

fleet of dirty, outdated, and pollution-spewing plants and factories to foul the air without any 

additional pollution controls until the last bit of anticipated profit (the "remaining asset value") 

has been wrung from them. The commenters stated that that is not what Congress had in mind, to 

the contrary, the "essential purpose" of the Clean Air Act is "reducing emissions as much as 

practicable" The commenters stated that Section 111 is intended to force the introduction of new 

technology, not to allow polluting facilities to avoid its application. The commenters stated that 

allowing old plants to pollute until their operations (not counting the externalities of pollution) 

run into the red turns the structure of the Clean Air Act on its head: the Act does not protect 

industry profits but imposes costs so that new technologies are implemented, and approves of 

those costs as long as they fall short of levels that are "exorbitant," "exorbitantly costly," or 

"more than the industry could bear and survive." The commenters stated that in short, the desire 

to allow the entire class of to-be-regulated sources to "fully take advantage" of their "remaining 

asset value" is an unlawful, not a legitimate, consideration under section 111(d).

The commenters stated that the argument is also factually incorrect. The commenters stated that 

as the Sierra Club comments demonstrate, the median age of a coal-fired unit in 2025 (assuming 

no retirements) will be 52 years, whereas the average design life assumed at the time of these 

units' construction was 30 to 40 years. The commenters stated that a review of approximately 

300 coal units that retired between 1993 and 2012 indicates that the average age at the time of its 

retirement is 53 years. The commenters stated that in other words, coal-fired power plants are 

well past their useful lives or remaining asset values. The commenters stated that supporting 

them past that time while allowing them to damage the climate is not EPA's business.

The commenters stated that at the same time, EPA should not consider any particular plant's 

"book life" or the costs of upgrades it may have installed already. The commenters stated that 

though the remaining useful lives of the affected sources is one factor to be considered, the 

remaining useful life or particular economics of a specific unit is not EPA's concern. The 

commenters stated that EPA's job is to establish BSER, an inquiry that does not focus on specific 

plants, but sets national guidelines based on forcing technological change at a cost that is not 

"exorbitant" or more than the industry as a whole can bear.

The commenters stated that moreover, the Clean Power Plan is premised on the clear 

understanding that (a) coal-fired power plants are the main culprits among EGUs causing climate 

change, and (b) the fleet is aging and soon to be obsolete, with many existing plants soon to 

retire, regardless of any rulemaking. The commenters stated that to now turn about and act to 

prop up and prolong the existence of these plants contradicts the rulemaking's very premise. The 

commenters stated that the assertion that coal-fired plants must be permitted to run longer 

because only they can ensure electricity reliability during severe weather events is unsupported 

by evidence. The commenters stated that even if such evidence existed, the Proposed Rule 

already leaves enormous "flexibility" to remedy such a situation. The commenters stated that for 

example, a state plan could continue to allow a specific plant to stay available for back-up 

operations during severe weather; it could require that plant to install upgrades so its emissions 
106

are reduced when and if it must be run; it could use the remaining building blocks to achieve its 

goals; it could devise other carbon reduction measures not included in the rulemaking; or it could 

link up with other states and, in effect, purchase emission reductions from them. The 

commenters stated that in short, in light of the plethora of compliance options, allowing all states 

to delay compliance even beyond the unreasonably long compliance periods already built into 

the Proposed Rule is unnecessary, unreasonable and capricious.

The commenters stated that as the agency is aware, delay itself increases the damage wrought by 

carbon emissions exponentially, and these delay damages are recurring, irreversible and 

permanent. The commenters stated that should EPA indeed reduce compliance obligations 

further, it must be transparent about the consequences of any such action by accounting for the 

additional damage done by further delay, using the correct data for the GWP and leakage rate of 

methane as explained above, and using updated social cost of carbon calculations that reflect the 

latest, peer-reviewed evidence. The commenters stated that at a minimum, those costs must be 

weighed against actual, as opposed to hypothetical, costs states can prove would be incurred 

should the compliance dates be made even more lenient, costs that are unlikely to outweigh the 

damage wrought.

The commenters noted that industry complaints concerning the purported "infeasibility" of 

retiring coal-fired power plants, or even of using them less frequently, because of "recent 

significant capital investments at some existing coal-fired units," simply underscores the 

inevitable negative consequences of the Proposed Rule's preferment of NGCCs. The commenters 

stated that the Proposed Rule admittedly spurs further investment in NGCCs, leading to certain 

claims a decade or two from now that switching from natural gas to renewable energy is equally 

"infeasible" because of capital investments made in direct reliance on EPA's action today. The 

commenters stated that EPA must forestall a boom in new gas-fired power plants for this reason 

alone.

Commenters opposed phasing in the requirements over the 10-year period, because it will reduce 

the national stringency of the proposal. The commenters noted that 2020 is still 6 years away. 

The commenters noted that in the 6-year time period between 1999 and 2005, Connecticut added 

significant quantities of new natural gas fired, combined cycle and simple cycle generation to its 

generation fleet. In that time period, the commenters noted that natural gas fired generation rose 

from 27% to 55% of Connecticut's fossil generation. According to the commenters, by 2010, 

natural gas accounted for approximately 96% of fossil generation in Connecticut. The 

commenters contended that Connecticut's experience has demonstrated that the redispatch 

envisioned in the CPP is reasonable and can be achieved in the allowed time frame. The 

commenters did not object to phase-in that is off-set by other measures that increase the 

stringency of the CPP. However, the commenters objected to state plans that delay 

implementation to late in the compliance period because, at that point, if states are lagging 

behind their goals, the emission reductions will likely be unable to be achieved without 

significant risk to system reliability. 

Additionally, the commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan proposal is not prescriptive, and 

noted that it offers flexibility for states to use additional EE and RE to compensate for the 

inability to fully satisfy the heat rate improvements and redispatch to natural gas required in 
107

Building Blocks 1 and 2. Therefore, according to the commenters, states have options to avoid 

the perceived "cliff" discussed in the NODA. 

Commenters stated that EPA should call for more ambitious reductions and ensure states stick to 

the schedule by allowing for no extensions on plans for 2020.

Comment 2: Comments urging the EPA to shorten compliance periods and incorporate ongoing 

updates to the emission rate standards.

Response 2: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support in the reduction of GHG 

emissions and we agree with the commenters that shorter interim compliance goals are a more 

robust approach for helping states and regional planning groups to establish their glide path, 

perform periodic assessments to demonstrate glide path agreement, and move consistently 

toward the final goal of 2030. A discussion of this is included in section VIII.B of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA should shorten compliance periods and incorporate ongoing 

updates to the emission rate standards. The commenters stated that a number of the problems 

with the Proposed Rule's BSER stem from the challenges inherent in predicting the impact of 

technological progress to 2030 and beyond. The commenters stated that given the rapid rate of 

improvement in advanced energy technologies - e.g., solar PV panel costs declined 12-14 percent 

in 2013 alone -it is difficult for EPA in 2014 to accurately project emission reduction potentials 

in 2030.

The commenters stated that the long compliance period in the Proposed Rule, which does not 

even begin for 6 years, also creates a timing issue when it comes to implementation. According 

to the commenters, by averaging state emissions over 10 years in the interim compliance period, 

the Proposed Rule allows for years of delay in action without compliance implications. The 

commenters stated that given the extensive experience of states in deploying advanced energy 

technologies through government and utility programs, there should be no need for a prolonged 

ramp-up period in emission reduction. Furthermore, the commenters stated that greater clarity on 

the timing of implementation would help the advanced energy industry invest appropriately to 

meet compliance-driven demand for technologies that provide emission reductions.

Comment 3: Comments that the proposed interim compliance period does not allow sufficient 

time for RTOs and ISOs to evaluate and potentially alter market rules to accommodate changes 

in dispatch.

Response 3: The EPA agrees with the commenters that RTO’s and ISO’s, along with other 

entities involved at key positions, will need additional time to organize their plans, conduct 

reviews and adjust practices as necessary, and formulate revisions to business models as 

necessary to move toward meeting the first interim goal of 2022, and other goals beyond. A 
108

discussion of this is included in sections V.A.3.g., and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed interim compliance period does not allow sufficient time 

for RTOs and ISOs to evaluate and potentially alter market rules to accommodate changes in 

dispatch. The commenters stated that the changes in how demand is met envisioned by the 

proposed guidelines---increased dispatch of existing NGCC units, increased deployment of RE 

generation and use of existing RE generation and the preservation of some existing nuclear units-

--will have significant implications for the wholesale electricity markets operated by RTOs and 

ISOs. The commenters stated that current market structures are built around the concept of 

security-constrained economic dispatch. But, the commenters noted that state plans could require 

different approaches to dispatch. The commenters stated that because each market has its own set 

of rules, it is not immediately clear how the RTOs and ISOs will respond to such state plans. As 

a general matter (and at minimum), the commenters stated that adequate time is required to 

ensure appropriate consideration and rule changes are made in each market. The commenters 

stated that replacing rate based interim targets with a state determined glide path with defined 

and verifiable milestones to achieve the final 2030 emission target levels help provide adequate 

time for a reliable transition to new market rules. 

The commenters stated that wholesale electricity markets are under the jurisdiction of FERC, and 

any market changes will require FERC approval. The commenters stated that under the FPA, 

FERC is required to ensure that rates are "just and reasonable" and "not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential." FPA sections 205(a) and 206(a). The commenters stated that after state plans are 

submitted and approved, the RTOs and ISOs must evaluate and implement any market changes 

that will be needed to effectuate state compliance plans. The commenters stated that the RTOs 

and ISOs will need time to determine any necessary market rule and system changes; vet these 

proposed changes through their stakeholder processes; obtain state and federal approvals, 

including FERC approval; and reliably implement the required changes. The commenters stated 

that in RTO/ISO markets, the stakeholder process can take six to eight months, even on an 

expedited basis. The commenters stated that FERC approval can take as long as a year or more, 

and implementation cannot start before final approval. Accordingly, the commenters stated that 

even on the most expedited basis, RTOs and ISOs would have very little, if any time, to make 

market changes before 2020.

Comment 4: Comments that the states and regional planning groups should have more time to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022, because 

EPA's compliance options will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement to the necessary 

levels in such a short time period.

Response 4: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 

2022. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 
109

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, forward market sales and system operation planning. A discussion of these concerns is 

included in sections VIII.D and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed schedule leaves insufficient time between approval of state 

plans and 2020, the start of the interim compliance period. The commenters stated that the 

interim compliance period presents a significant problem with respect to compliance because of 

the extremely compressed amount of time between when state plans are scheduled to be 

completed and approved by the EPA and 2020, the proposed start of the interim compliance 

period. The commenters noted that, based on the EPA's proposed plan submittal schedule, states 

can submit their plans to the EPA as late as June 2018 if they participate in a multi-state 

program. The commenters contended that, while it is too early to know what approach states will 

take with respect to their plan development, the EPA may not approve state plans until mid2019, just 6 months before the start of the interim compliance period, which is clearly 

unworkable. The commenters noted that in the Proposed Guidelines, the Agency assumes that 

Building Blocks 1 and 2 will be fully implemented by 2020, but provides no evidence that states 

can actually do so. The commenters argued that there is a significant void between the EPA's 

assumptions and the reality regarding states and affected entities' ability to meet the interim goals 

on the schedule the EPA has proposed. The commenters stated that the 2020 start date for the 

interim compliance period simply leaves inadequate time after state plan submittal and approval 

for affected entities to develop compliance plans, have them approved, and implement those 

plans. 

The commenters stated that the EPA's assumed 6 percent heat rate improvement for existing 

coal-fired EGUs in Building Block 1 is unachievable for numerous reasons unrelated to the 

implementation schedule for Building Block 1. Even if the proposed schedule provided adequate 

time to plan, design and implement heat rate improvements, 6 percent is a technically 

unachievable level of improvement. However, the commenters stated that because the 2020 

interim state goals reflect full implementation of Building Block 1, states and affected entities 

will be forced to look elsewhere for reductions in 2020 to make up for the Building Block 1 

shortfall. The commenters stated that this only exacerbates the problems presented by the interim 

compliance period and the 2020 goals in particular, because there is not ample time to identify 

and achieve the extra reductions from other measures. Regarding Building Block 2, which the 

EPA has also assumed is fully implemented by 2020, the commenters stated that the 70 percent 

capacity factor the EPA assumed for all existing and under construction NGCC units is actually 

more like 80 percent or higher because the EPA based its calculations on nameplate capacity 

rather than net rated capacity. Therefore, according to the commenters, it's unlikely that existing 

and under construction NGCC units would be able to ramp up operations in 2020 to fill the gap 

left by Building Block 1 to this level of continuous operation, let alone achieve the capacity

factor the EPA assumed in Building Block 2. The commenters stated that the full implementation 

of Building Block 2 could require by 2020 in many states a substantial additional build out of 

transmission infrastructure and natural gas pipeline capacity and the EPA has failed to even 

demonstrate that the full implementation of Building Block 2 is achievable by 2020. Being 

unable to achieve either Building Block 1 or 2 by 2020, the commenters noted that states would 

have to look elsewhere to make up the difference. Yet, the commenters stated that it is highly 
110

unlikely that many states could get more out of Building Blocks 3 and 4 than the EPA has 

already assumed in the state goals for 2020, again due to the limited time between state plan 

submittal and approval and 2020. The commenters stated that there is also insufficient time to 

look beyond the Building Blocks to identify and implement other potential CO2 emission 

reduction opportunities to make up the shortfall. The commenters stated that there are few if any 

options beyond those the EPA used as the basis for its BSER determination to further reduce 

CO2 emissions that could be implemented in the timeframe required by the interim compliance 

period. Therefore, the commenters contended that the EPA's decision to frontload emissions 

reductions for many states will likely result in the failure of states to meet their interim 

compliance period average goal.

The commenters stated that regulated electric utilities have a legal duty to make reasonable and 

prudent investments pursuant to the review of their public utility commissions. The commenters 

stated that regulated utilities generally need prior commission approval before pursuing new 

projects such as new generation, demand-side energy efficiency, and major transmission 

projects. For projects needed to comply with the requirements of a state section 111(d) plan, the 

commenters noted that utilities typically will not seek commission approval, nor would 

commission approval likely be given prior to the EPA approving a state plan because there is too 

much uncertainty about the final regulatory requirements for utilities or utility commissions to 

act before plan approval. In addition, the commenters stated that once the EPA approves a state 

plan, it can take years for the utility to complete the necessary planning, receive the required 

permits and approvals for and implement the needed projects. Therefore, the commenters 

contended that the EPA's assumption that states can take significant steps to reduce emissions in 

advance of the start of the interim compliance period is incorrect. The commenters stated that the 

implementation schedule must take this reality into account.

Commenters stated that EPA's timeline does not take into account realistic planning cycles that 

are required to implement the broad array of options that may be required to comply with the 

standard, especially in implementing measures in the 2015 to 2020 time period to meet the 

aggressive requirements of the interim compliance period. The commenters noted that the rule 

proposes the following timeline: 

• June 2015 - final rule promulgated

• June 2016 - state plans due to EPA

• June 2017 - 1-year extension for state plans

• June 2018 - 2-year extension for multi-state plans

The commenters recommended that the first compliance period should not begin until a 

minimum of 5 years after the state's compliance plan is approved by EPA. The commenters 

stated that the CAA does not prescribe specific deadlines by when states must submit Section 

111(d) plans to EPA, nor does the statute impose deadlines for EPA to approve such plans. 

Therefore, the commenters suggested that EPA should provide states adequate time to develop 

workable plans that are not constrained by unrealistic schedules.
111

The commenters said a rule that will have enormous and far reaching impacts on the U.S. 

economy should not be rushed by arbitrary deadlines. The commenters contended the 2020 goals 

are unrealistic and will be difficult to achieve in most states as they do not take into 

consideration the complexity of initiating and implementing new projects.

Commenters argued that sources have an inadequate amount of time to meet the interim 

compliance targets set to begin in 2020.

Commenters contended that the emission rate goals in the proposed rule are unreasonably 

aggressive in the early years for them (and their member LPCs) to reasonably achieve. Because 

there are numerous state planning actions that must be both established and then implemented by 

2020 under the proposed rule, the commenters said the reduction required for them to meet 

EPA's initial 2020 compliance date is an overly ambitious and unachievable goal.

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed glide-path solution, which is addressed in the NODA, 

would allow for compliance options to be done sooner and then average these reductions over a 

longer period of time, for example from 2017 to 2029. The commenters stated that this is not a

workable solution. The commenters stated that to have any success in implementing Building 

Blocks 2, 3 and 4 and achieve the emission rate reductions required by the Proposed Rule, states 

must permit, site, and construct substantial new infrastructure and promulgate new legislative 

initiatives. The commenters stated that these changes simply cannot be completed by 2020. The 

commenters provided the timeline below to demonstrate that the construction of infrastructure 

alone is prohibitive. 

Anticipated Implementation Timeline:

• June 2015 - Final GHG Rule

• June 2017 - State Plan Proposed, with allowed one year extension

• June 2018 - EPA approves State Plan

• 2017 to 2018 - North Dakota Public Service Commission (NDPSC) 2-yr Integrated 

Resource Plan completed and submitted to commission for proposed generation resources

• 2019 - NDPSC issuance of Advanced Determination of Prudence order of new resource 

implementation and retirement of existing resource if determined a prudent decision by 

the commission via certification of public convenience and necessity filing

• 2019 to 2021 - MISO interconnect and network upgrade study completed for existing 

resource retirement and new resource - re-evaluate resources and resource locations 

depending on network upgrades identified or if major reliability concern identified

• 2020 to 2021 - Obtain major permits and public service commission siting approval

• 2020 to 2025 - Obtain major permits for electric and/or natural gas transmission 

infrastructure, depending on location, project length and environmental concerns
112

• 2020 to 2025 - Obtain NEPA Record of Decision, if required

• 2019 to 2022 - Design, engineer, develop bid specifications, award bids and procure 

resource equipment and receive delivery

• 2022 - Begin resource construction

• 2022 to 2025 - Begin infrastructure construction

• 2025 - Begin resource construction if NEPA review required

• 2025 to 2026 - Commission and resource online, depending on infrastructure construction 

schedule

• 2028 - Commission and resource online if NEPA review required

The commenters stated that this timeline reflects a realistic timeframe for constructing new 

infrastructure and generation necessary to achieve the emission rate reductions required by the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters stated that it is readily apparent that states and generating 

companies would not have time to construct the infrastructure necessary to meet the interim 

goals.

Commenters stated that the glide path alternative recognizing certain pre-2020 reductions is 

intriguing, but more time is needed to fully review the alternatives. The commenters 

recommended that the final rule provide states with the flexibility to set their own glide paths 

that demonstrate how each state intends to meet its interim and final state goal.

Commenters stated that the final guidelines will set the emission rate goals for the states, but 

how these goals will be achieved depends on the reductions actions and measures that states 

include in the compliance plans that will be submitted to EPA for review and approval. The 

commenters noted, as EPA has recognized, states need the flexibility to design plans that reflect 

a range of state-specific circumstances. Importantly, the commenters noted that states need real 

flexibility in order to be able to choose the most cost-effective reductions, as determined by the 

states, to ensure that electricity remains affordable for consumers. The commenters noted that 

states also need clarity on a range of topics so that they can craft compliance plans that will be 

approvable. 

Specifically, the commenters noted that states need the flexibility to design emission rate 

reduction glide paths that reflect the states' determination of the best way to achieve the 2030 

goals while maintaining reliability and protecting the affordability of electricity. The commenters 

stated that the current design of the interim compliance average and period forces many states to 

achieve the majority of required reductions by 2020, if not before. According to the commenters, 

this is not practically achievable and deprives states of the flexibility to design their own 

compliance plans or choose the pace of reductions to respect state-specific conditions and 

circumstances. The commenters stated that implementing actions and measures that comprise the 

four BSER Building Blocks - which also will comprise the centerpiece of most states' 

compliance plans - will require states, electric utilities and other regulators to assess the impacts 
113

of the Building Blocks on the interconnected power system. The commenters noted that the 

complex analysis required will take time, as will making the changes necessary to accommodate 

the dramatic shift in how electricity is generated and delivered envisioned by the proposed 

guidelines. The commenters recommended that the final guidelines should ensure that adequate 

time is available, both to design compliance plans and to implement them. The commenters 

noted that there are a range of ways that states could design compliance plans that accommodate 

both emission reductions and reliability. The commenters recommended that the final guidelines 

should clearly authorize this range of options, so that states have the confidence to pursue them, 

pending final EPA approval of compliance plans.

Commenters recommended EPA provide flexibility in how it will allow affected states to meet 

the interim goal, particularly if a multi-state or regional approach is developed by a group of 

states or a region.

The commenters noted there has been much discussion on the achievability of Washington 

State's interim goal. The commenters recognized the complicated processes that will need to 

occur in order to develop, finalize, and approve the state plan. The commenters stated to be

hopeful that Washington State may explore the possibility of a multistate or regional approach. 

While stating that the goal EPA established for 2030 should remain intact, the commenters 

recommended flexibility on meeting the interim goal, as noted above.

Commenters stated that because compliance with the interim goal is to be measured on a 10-year 

average basis between 2020 and 2029, any delay in reducing emissions in the early years of this 

period would have to be compensated for by accelerating emission reductions beyond the final 

goal in the later years. The commenters noted that since the state's plan may not be approved by 

EPA until as late as the middle of 2019, requiring such a significant emission reduction 

beginning only a half year later is not realistic. 

The commenters explained that new generation may also be needed for states and utilities to 

achieve the proposed 2030 goals. The commenters stated that some new generation will be 

required to meet the goals, but additional new generation will be required to ensure that system 

reliability requirements are met. The commenters stated that properly evaluated generation 

system modifications requires significant time, capital and planning by states, utilities, system 

operators, permitting agencies and other regulators in order to integrate them into the 

interconnected system. According to the commenters, before any generation system modification 

can be made, system operators and their stakeholders must conduct specific reliability impact 

assessments. The commenters stated that EPA's rulemaking timeline does not allow adequate 

time for the needed reliability assessments and system modifications to be accomplished before 

2020.

The commenters stated that companies generally will not commit to large financial investments, 

nor will state public utility commissions approve such investments prior to final EPA-approved 

regulatory decisions. Thus, the commenters stated that utilities and utility regulators will not 

want to undertake the risk of investments to achieve emission reductions until after state plans 

are approved, which could be well into 2018 or 2019. The commenters noted that this will 

challenge the state's ability to demonstrate compliance with the interim average emission rates 

starting in 2020. The commenters stated that the EPA's assumption that states can take 
114

significant steps to reduce emissions in advance of the start of the interim compliance period is 

inconsistent with its own regulatory timeline. The commenters stated that the interim compliance 

goal does not take into account the lead time necessary to achieving reductions.

Commenters argued that the aggressive compliance timeframe is unrealistic. The commenters 

stated that the proposed interim emission performance requirement for Florida is only marginally 

different from the final requirement, and requires a substantial proportion of the 2030 

requirement CO2 emissions reductions to occur beginning in 2020. The commenters stated that 

although EPA outlines a few avenues for states to have additional time for submitting their 

compliance plans, the commenters noted that the Proposed Rule does not allow corresponding 

flexibility in the interim performance period. Regardless, the commenters stated that Florida will 

have had to make compliance decisions before there is certainty of EPA's final rule and before 

having an approved state implementation plan. The commenters stated that compliance with the 

proposed emission performance requirements necessitates long-term decisions and investments, 

potential legislative action, and must account for the statutory timing of siting and constructing 

new generation, transmission, and pipeline capacity that will likely be needed. The commenters 

stated that under Florida's existing statutory and regulatory regimes, the State as a whole will not 

be able to achieve EPA's proposed emission performance requirements within EPA's timeline. 

The commenters stated that compliance with EPA's proposed emission performance 

requirements will likely take more time than EPA envisioned, and the time required to complete 

the necessary infrastructure improvements is particularly problematic. The commenters provided 

two recent examples in Florida illustrative of project timing: 

• A proposed nuclear project in southern Florida was originally scheduled to complete the 

Florida Site Certification Application review within 14 months, yet the review schedule 

was waived and ultimately extended to almost 60 months. The protracted timeline was 

required in order to address concerns stemming from electric transmission expansion.

• In 2013, the Commission approved as prudent, a utility's request to enter into a long-term 

gas transportation contract associated with the proposed Sabal Trail pipeline, which is not 

expected to commence natural gas delivery until 2017.

The commenters stated that whether these cases are typical of future projects is uncertain; 

however, they illustrate that 3 years may not be sufficient time to study, permit, and complete 

infrastructure additions necessary to comply with the interim emission performance 

requirements. The commenters contended that EPA's 2020 threshold date appears to be more 

aspirational than realistic when one considers the scope of detailed reviews and justification 

necessary to support additional power plants, transmission, and pipeline investments that could 

be needed. The commenters noted that EPA's NODA appears to recognize the need for increased 

flexibility to address the timing of various infrastructure projects.

The commenters asserted that even with the flexibility of expanding timelines, Florida's interim 

emission performance requirements should not be mandatory, and Florida's interim goals (used 

for tracking or reporting) should be established during the state implementation plan 

development process. According to the commenters, this will allow Florida to review appropriate 

actions to mitigate the impacts of premature retirements of certain generating units. The 
115

commenters stated that Florida and the affected entities should be given a more flexible glide 

path toward the ultimate performance requirement.

Similarly, commenters stated that under the proposal, Florida's State Implementation Plan would 

be due to EPA between June 2016 and June 2018 and EPA then has 12 months to review the 

state's plan. The commenters noted that possibly only 6 months after EPA approves Florida's 

plan, the state of Florida and Gulf Power will need to begin operating in a compliance mode to 

meet the proposed interim targets. The commenters argued that EPA's compliance option simply 

cannot be implemented to the necessary levels in such a short time period.

Commenters stated that, based on EPA proposed implementation timeline, affected sources will 

not have certainty regarding their compliance obligations until between one and three years 

before the onset of the obligations.

Commenters noted that the beginning of the performance period, January 1, 2020 begins 3.5 

years from the proposed June 2016 deadline for plan submittals, 2.5 years for those with an 

extension, and 1.5 years for those doing multi-state plans. The commenters disagreed that 1.5 to 

3.5 years is sufficient time for compliance. The commenters stated that entities will have 

significant concerns with implementing any finalized state plan strategy prior to EPA approving 

that strategy as meeting the requirements of this rule. The commenters noted that EPA is 

proposing to extend their time to review and approve plans from 4 to 12 months. The 

commenters stated that it is unacceptable that entities under state plans will have anywhere from 

6 months to 2.5 years from the time they are aware a state plan is approvable to begin 

implementation. The commenters disagreed with EPA's justification for why 2020 is an 

appropriate and achievable starting period for compliance (e.g., discussion of prompt heat rate 

improvements, modest upgrades, 70% utilization of NGCC at 79 FR 34905 which the 

commenters addressed elsewhere). The commenters asserted that the EPA's 2020 start date will 

not be achievable and only demonstrates the EPA's lack of due diligence in researching the 

feasibility of this proposal.

Commenters contended that the timing of State Plan submittals is unworkable and does not 

adequately account for timing of Nevada's legislative session or multijurisdictional planning. The 

commenters stated that the timing of plan submission and approval is insufficient to allow states 

to meet the proposed interim goal. The commenters noted that the final rule will not be issued 

until June 2015, and states will then have 1 to 2 years to submit a plan for EPA approval, an 

exceptionally short timeframe given the complexity of state planning requirements. The 

commenters stated that even with the provision for a 1-year extension, this timeframe is 

inconsistent with planning timelines specified in the Clean Air Act. The commenters noted that 

section 111(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act states that EPA shall "establish a procedure similar to 

that provided by section 110 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator 

a plan..." The commenters noted that section 110 of the Clean Air Act generally provides states 

with a 3-year period to develop state implementation plans related to new or revised national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The commenters asserted that there is no rationale or 

justification for providing less than a 3-year planning period in the proposed regulations. 

According to the commenters, plan approvals at the earliest would be accomplished by June 

2017 which would give states a scant 2 years to implement their plans, and their plans would 
116

require most of the implementation to occur on the front end of that time frame. The commenters 

stated that while the intent of doing so might be to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are 

reduced as quickly as possible, it is not practically achievable to do so in this situation.

Commenters argued that the interim goal requirements established are too aggressive compared 

to the timeline allowed for state plans. The commenters said additional time needs to be granted 

for companies to plan once the state plans are approved. The commenters noted that, under the 

current schedule, less than two years will be granted. The commenters pointed out that other 

EPA rules, such as MATS, NAAQS and CSAPR, have allowed at least three years to plan and 

implement compliance, with an option to apply for a fourth and fifth year before full 

implementation. The commenters argued that the CPP is expecting an out of the ordinary, short 

period for compliance with such a complex rule.

Commenters noted that, although EPA has recognized the enormous undertaking it is imposing 

on the states, and allows them an additional year (or two) to develop and submit their plans, the 

extension of time for the development and approval of state plans means that there could be as 

little as six months between final federal approval of a state plan and the beginning of the first 

compliance period in 2020, if everything proceeds according to EPA's proposed schedule. The 

commenters contended that xix months is clearly inadequate to allow for the type of reliability 

assessment that is typically performed by the regional transmission organizations to take place, 

let alone for the construction of the replacement resources and transmission mitigation measures 

that will be necessary to assure grid reliability. According to the commenters, the magnitude of 

the coal plant retirements projected in EPA's integrated planning model runs is ten times the 

magnitude of the retirements that were projected for MATS, and EPA's projections for 

retirements under the MATS rule were vastly understated. The commenters also noted that the 

period for compliance from the time of final promulgation of the MATS rule to the extended 

deadline available through the states was four years. The commenters argued there is simply not 

enough time to implement changes of this magnitude by 2020, nor should they be implemented.

Commenters argued that affected entities need to have sufficient time to implement the state 

plan. 

Under EPA's current proposal, commenters noted that states could have up to 3 years to submit a 

compliance plan. Assuming that EPA issues the proposed rule in June 2015, and that EPA 

receives a year to approve the plan as is currently contemplated in the proposed rule, the 

commenters pointed out that affected entities that are granted full extensions for plan submittal 

will not have a final, approved state plan until June 2019. The commenters noted this would 

leave only 6 months before the start of the interim goal compliance period, at which time 

affected entities must take actions contemplated in the plan.

While EPA may argue that entities can begin planning upon release of the final rule, the 

commenters noted that in many states, including Arizona, if adjustments are not made to current 

goals, compliance plans will require large capital investments in new energy infrastructure. 

According to the commenters, affected EGU owners and operators will be reluctant to initiate 

these investments without the certainty provided by an EPA-approved compliance plan. The 

commenters noted that this is a particularly sensitive issue for utilities in the Western U.S., where 

planning for the Regional Haze rule compliance ultimately was dictated by federal 
117

implementation plans rather than state plans. According to the commenters, utilities will not 

invest in system changes that they cannot be assured will be approved. The commenters 

concluded that EPA must contemplate these constraints and propose a reasonable timeframe for 

submittal, approval, and implementation of a 111(d) plan.

Commenters argued that the electric power sector, including their city, which relies on long 

range planning, is not equipped to abruptly change course based on these ambitious new limits. 

Assuming the EPA proposed rule survives legal challenge and is finalized in June of 2015, and 

state plans are submitted to EPA around 2016-2017, and approved by EPA within a year of 

submittal (2017-2018), the commenters said this leaves little (possibly only one year) to actually 

prepare for the changes that must be implemented in order to achieve the interim compliance 

dates.

Conversely, the commenters stated that it is too risky to a utility's rate payers for the utility to 

make major and costly changes to its electric generating fleet and operating practices prior to the 

finalization of this rule and approval of the state plan. The commenters noted that public power 

utilities, such as their city's, must be particularly cautious when determining which technologies 

to select for electric generation and when to implement them. As not-for-profit entities owned 

and controlled at the local level, the commenters noted that public power customers will bear the 

associated costs of complying with federal and state environmental regulations. As such, the 

commenters said there is greater risk associated with local governments investing in unproven 

and un-mandated technologies that could potentially change due to political influences, or that 

might increase electric rates without achieving the desired goal.

Commenters argued that EPA's compliance options will be difficult, if not impossible, to 

implement to the necessary levels in such a short time period.

The commenters noted that, under the proposal, Florida's implementation plan would be due to 

EPA between June 2016 and June 2018, and EPA would then have 12 months to review the 

state's plan. The commenters indicated that possibly only six months after EPA approves 

Florida's plan, their company will need to begin operating in a compliance mode to meet EPA's 

proposed interim targets (2020 - 2029).

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan establishes significant CO2 emission 

reductions for coal-fueled power plants in their state that will cause disruptive changes in the 

state's well diversified electricity mix. The commenters indicated that their state would only have 

12 to 24 months after EPA approves their implementation plans to progress towards meeting 

their interim emissions target on January 1, 2020.

Commenters stated that implementation of state plans will take longer than the time allocated by 

EPA. 

Assuming that EPA approves state plans within 12 months of their submittal, between June 30, 

2016, at the earliest, and June 30, 2017, at the latest, the commenters said states must begin 

implementing their approved plans in mid-2017 or mid-2018. At that point, the commenters 

estimated states would have, at most, only two-and-a-half years to fully implement their 

approved plans before the performance period begins in 2020. The commenters argued this is 
118

simply insufficient time to implement the emissions reductions measures that will need to be 

included in state plans to achieve the steep reductions required by 2020 (i.e., the compliance 

cliff), due to the magnitude of the changes needed and the implementation barriers states will 

encounter.

The commenters further noted that states that choose to develop a mass-based program also need 

significant time to devise and implement the program. The commenters said that determining 

what the emissions cap should be and, where appropriate, how to allocate allowances and

potential revenue from a cap-and-trade program will take a substantial amount of time. The 

commenters indicated it will then take an additional period of time to allocate the allowances and 

to set up an emissions tracking and trading platform. According to the commenters, power plants 

will need sufficient time to determine their compliance strategy by adjusting their operations to 

meet their allowance allocations or identifying likely sellers of allowances. As an example, the 

commenters noted that California's cap-and-trade program, while signed into law in 2006, did 

not take effect until 2012--six years after the program was conceived. The commenters argued 

that the few years between approval of state plans and the beginning of the interim standard 

compliance period provides insufficient time to develop and implement such complex programs.

Commenters stated that - in order to facilitate collaboration between FERC (which regulates both 

electric and natural gas utilities), Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC), and EPA -

adequate time between SIP approval and the interim compliance period must be afforded for the 

inter-utility efforts to ensure NGCCs can operate when and how required, without regard to 

natural gas delivery constraints. 

Commenters noted that the, under the proposed implementation timeline, there will only be 6 to 

18 months between SIP approval and the beginning of the interim compliance period (2020), 

which the commenters argued is insufficient, especially when it takes approximately 5 years to 

site, permit, and construct an NGCC facility.

Commenters noted that public statements made by EPA personnel since the proposed rule's 

announcement indicate that there is a "glide path" to achieving CO2 emission reductions and the 

proposal itself even indicates emission reductions can be achieved in the short term, through 

interim goal achievements. The commenters noted that while there may be a perceived glide path 

between 2020 and 2030, the commenters expressed concern that the proposal does not address 

the sharp drop in emissions that must be achieved prior to 2020. The commenters submitted a 

chart, which demonstrates that a 37% decrease in CO2 emissions prior to 2020 must be achieved 

in Arkansas in order to maintain the average CO2 emission rate of 968 lb/MWh from 2020 

through 2029. For the purposes of this chart, the commenters assumed that the current emission 

rate of 1,634 lb/MWh does not change until 2020. The commenters noted that Arkansas' interim 

goal for 2020 through 2029 is 968 lb/MWh, and the final goal in 2030 is 910 lb/MWh.

The commenters argued that the proposal's assumption that there is low-hanging fruit to be 

picked to achieve the interim targets is wrong. In order to meet the interim goals and 2030 

targets, the commenters stated that the large majority of emissions reductions must be made prior 

to 2020. The commenters stated that because utility forecasting and generation planning are 

long-term prospects, they will effectively have to comply with Building Blocks 1 and 2 prior to 

2020, in order to achieve the interim goals. As mentioned elsewhere, the commenters stated that 
119

Building Block 1's proposed heat rate efficiency gains are greatly overstated meaning Arkansas 

will have to achieve more CO2 emission reductions in Building Block 2 to comply with the 

proposed Rule. According to the commenters, this means that Arkansas would have to lower its 

coal-fired capacity and increase its NGCC capacity even more than what is suggested in the 

proposed rule to meet the goals.

The commenters noted that under the proposed rule, the commenters noted that a state has 1 year 

to submit a proposed SIP and a group of states has 2 years to submit a multi-state plan. Under 

either a single-state or a multistate plan approach, there is an option to request a one-year 

extension which the commenters feel confident most, if not all, states and groups of states will 

request. 

The commenters explained that if the final rule is issued in June 2015, a state will have to submit 

a proposed SIP by June 2017 (assuming an extension is granted), and then the EPA has to 

approve the SIP, which could take another 1 to 2 years based on past experience. So, the 

commenters stated that it is likely that a final SIP will not be in place until June 2018, at the

earliest, or even as late as calendar year 2019. Depending on the scenario, the commenters stated 

that EGU operators could have as little as 6 to a maximum of 18 months to prepare for 

compliance under the final, approved SIP.

According to the commenters, if many states are forced to reduce coal-fired generation to the 

point of shutting down coal-fired units, then it is very likely that those coal-fired units will be 

replaced with NGCC units. Based on the commenters' estimates, it takes approximately 5 years 

to site, permit, and construct an NGCC facility. Also, as the commenters explained elsewhere, 

the existing natural gas infrastructure in Arkansas is likely insufficient to handle the expected 

increase in demand resulting from more generation produced by NGCC facilities. Thus, the 

commenters stated that the existing natural gas infrastructure must be upgraded in order to 

support the addition of NGCC units to a generation fleet in the near future.

Even if the proposal were finalized today, the commenters stated that meeting the emissions 

targets by the year 2020 would be extraordinarily difficult and very costly. The commenters 

stated that adding the additional time for the SIP process to be vetted and finalized makes the 

task almost impossible. In short, the commenters stated that more time is needed between EPA's 

approval of a state's SIP and the beginning of the intermediate compliance period.

Based on the information above, the commenters stated that the compliance dates should be 

extended no less than 5 years (i.e., the interim compliance period should begin no earlier than 

2025, and the final compliance date should be no earlier than 2035).

Commenters noted that the initial compliance date for the proposed rule is 2020, not 2030. The 

commenters stated that the state emissions reduction targets that EPA has proposed are steep at 

the outset, and states must undertake significant emissions reductions immediately to comply 

with those standards by 2020. As a result, the commenters said utilities are impacted today, as 

they and states must take measures now designed to promote compliance with the proposed 

standards, which take effect in 2020.
120

In order to meet the 2020 targets, the commenters said utilities will be forced to accelerate plans 

to retire certain coal-fired EGUs before the end of their remaining useful life and, at the same 

time, will have to accelerate plans to construct alternative generating capacity to replace them. 

Given the long timeline (five years or more) to obtain permitting approval and construct new 

power plants, the commenters said utilities will have to begin that process in the immediate 

future to meet obligations under the initial compliance period of 2020.

Commenters noted that EPA anticipates finalizing the CPP in June 2015 and will allow up to two 

years for states to submit plans. Optimistically assuming it takes one year for EPA to approve 

Oklahoma's plan, the commenters said companies like theirs will have to comply with 85 percent 

of Oklahoma's target within the interim period, starting in 2020. The commenters stated this is 

simply unattainable given the magnitude of reductions called for and the infrastructure required 

to achieve them. 

Commenters expressed concern with the timing for compliance. The commenters stated that 

there is no possible way to comply within the next 62 months for the interim compliance 

timeline.

Commenters requested the EPA delay the interim compliance years to allow for a cost-effective 

and efficient modification of their system to meet the final emission goals.

The commenters noted that their company has invested in a reliable transmission system that has 

been studied, planned and built for the use of base loaded coal generation with intermediate and 

peaking units primarily fueled by natural gas and fuel oil. In recent years, the commenters' 

company has diversified its generation mix with renewable wind energy in Missouri, Kansas and 

soon Oklahoma. The commenters noted that the CPP projects a significant increase in NGCC 

generation and the idling of coal generation to meet electricity demand. The commenters said 

this shift in generation is a major change to our system and requires additional study to determine 

the full impact on system voltage stability. According to the commenters, the studies for these 

types of changes require multiple years to complete. The commenters argued that the CPP is not 

allowing utilities enough time from the issuance of state plans to the interim target years to fully 

analyze the impacts in the change in generation mix to insure the reliability of service to our 

member owners.

Commenters recommended that EPA consider establishing more flexible deadlines for 

compliance that would allow a specific amount of time for compliance from the date EPA issues 

final approval of the state plan, instead of a date-specific compliance deadline. In that way, the 

commenters said EPA can avoid the timing concerns that could otherwise arise if any delays 

occur. In this instance, the commenters indicated delays appear to be particularly likely if a state 

fails to submit a plan on time, if EPA fails to approve a plan on time, if EPA determines that a 

federal plan may be needed, or if a federal court alters the implementation timeline through 

either a stay of the rule during litigation or a remand of the rule to address any legal flaws. 

According to the commenters, such delays could further shorten an already truncated compliance 

window to the point that compliance would become even more difficult, if not impossible. 

The commenters noted that, in the past, EPA's decision to establish specific dates for compliance 

has led to confusion when delays such as those listed above have occurred. As an example, the 
121

commenters cited the implementation of EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which 

has been significantly complicated by EPA's decision to impose a date-specific compliance 

deadline, due to the significant delays due to litigation. By allowing states and the utility industry 

at least three years to comply "from the date that EPA fully approves a plan for the state," instead 

of focusing on a specific year or years, the commenters indicated EPA can provide the greatest 

certainty to all parties involved and minimize the risk of imposing an insufficient compliance 

window.

Commenters recommended that the initial compliance date of 2020 for multi-state programs be 

extended by several years.

While commenters acknowledged that the proposal rightly provides states seeking a multi-state 

compliance plan additional time to develop the plan, the commenters said the proposal does not 

recognize that covered entities in these states will have significantly less time to comply. 

According to the commenters, an entity in a state choosing a single state implementation plan 

will presumably have between 2017 and 2020 to put implementation activities in motion, after 

finalization of the plan, but entities in a multi-state program could have as little as 12 months to 

prepare for compliance by the time a final state plan is approved by EPA. While the 

commenters appreciated the Agency's implicit acknowledgement that a multi-state, market-based 

program will indeed be more efficient to implement once it is set up and approved, the 

commenters said the proposal should ensure that the development of these programs are not 

rushed. Therefore, the commenters said the initial compliance date of 2020 for multi-state 

programs should be extended by several years, recognizing the time needed for affected entities 

to make the necessary investments to reduce CO2 emissions. The commenters noted that in 

many cases, adequate time for making such investments is critical to the efficient and costeffective functioning of the emissions trading market.

As part of their request for more time to develop SIPs, commenters stated that the lack of 

certainty for regulated entities prevents industry compliance by 2020. 

Commenters stated that even if started today, the actions necessary to implement the Rule 

Proposal's requirements by 2020, would be incredibly difficult to achieve. For instance, the 

commenters noted that permitting new generating facilities and/or constructing new transmission 

facilities are multi-year processes. The commenters stated that these processes may be even more 

time consuming under EPA's Rule Proposal, given the need to coordinate actions among players 

in an entire market and coordinate approvals with various regulatory agencies. The commenters 

stated that considering the time delays associated with passing legislation and implementing 

rules, it becomes impossible to comply with a 2020 date, and even years after.

The commenters stated that SIPs cannot reasonably be anticipated to be completed by the states 

until the summer of 2019. The commenters noted that this leaves roughly half a year from the 

date of submission until compliance is supposed to begin, and does not even consider the time 

needed for the EPA to opine on the sufficiency of the SIP submission. The commenters noted 

that this leaves, effectively, no time for utilities and the other affected industries covered by this 

rule to implement actions to comply with the Clean Power Plan beginning in 2020. The 

commenters stated that compliance timelines must be pushed significantly back in order to 
122

accommodate legal actions (legislation, rulemaking), resource development (permitting, 

financing, construction), and associated planning.

Commenters recommended that the EPA resolve broader issues, such as the proposed rule's 

impact on electric system reliability and adequate lead time to construct upgrades needed to 

support implementation of the forthcoming compliance plans. The commenters stated, given that 

the interim goal compliance period begins in 2020 and that state plans do not need to be 

completed until 2017/2018, it will be virtually impossible for any transmission that would be 

needed to be planned, permitted, and constructed to be available in time to meet the interim 

goals. 

The commenters recommended that to the degree that transmission expansion or upgrades are 

required, the length of time required to plan and permit these facilities, even before the 

construction cycle, should be taken into consideration as the EPA and the state create deadlines 

for meeting emissions targets. The commenters stated that the difficulties that transmission faces 

in federal and state regulatory forums are well-documented. The commenters provided a figure 

from the Southwest Power Pool that shows the transmission build cycle.

The commenters stated that the time typically needed to bring projects, including those that are 

driven by public policies like state renewable portfolio standard (RPSs), from concept to 

energization, can be 5 to 10 years and substantially more in many cases. The commenters stated 

that smaller, more discrete projects take less time to develop than larger or multi-state projects. 

The commenters stated that there is remarkable uncertainty about the future of many proposed 

projects. The commenters noted that the length of the planning and permitting processes will 

have an impact on the ability of many states and regions to set and accomplish reasonable 

emission reduction goals, especially under building Blocks 2 and 3 of the CPP, within a 

predictable timeframe. The commenters stated that this casts immediate doubt on the practicality 

of the interim goals.

Commenters argued that the CPP did not take into consideration the constraints to transmission 

and distribution systems when requiring the construction of new renewable energy sources. The 

commenters contended that the transmission system construction timeline does not support the 

CPP's interim compliance time period and stated that building block 3 should be delayed.

Commenters argued that EPA's proposed compliance timeline does not allow adequate time for 

the needed reliability assessments and system changes to be accomplished before 2020, by which 

time many states would need to have accomplished significant emission reductions. 

According to the commenters, NERC, the entity responsible for ensuring the reliable operation 

of the Bulk Power System in North America, has concluded that "[t]he proposed timeline does 

not provide enough time to develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable operation of 

the electric grid by 2020. To attempt to do so would increase the use of controlled load shedding 

and potential for wide-scale, uncontrolled outages."

To the extent states desire to engage in multi-state emissions trading programs, the commenters 

contended that the emission implementation timeline is simply inadequate. The commenters 

indicated there is far too little time to allow states to engage neighboring states on the myriad, 
123

complex issues required for such plans. For example, the commenters noted that states will need 

to coordinate receiving credit for renewable generation when renewable energy credits have been 

sold out-of-state, incorporating new generation sources and siting interstate gas and electric 

transmission facilities. The commenters also noted that states will need to determine the effects 

of redispatch decisions between power plants in different states and generators that export their 

generation under existing agreements with out-of-state distribution utilities.

Commenters argued that EPA has failed to consider the timing of the infrastructure requirements 

necessary to support the implementation of the CPP. 

According to the commenters, EPA's proposal to re-dispatch NGCC units to achieve a 70% 

capacity factor may require significant transmission upgrades that are necessary to maintain 

system reliability and cannot be completed in time to meet the interim goals, which are premised 

on full implementation of Building Block 2. As support, the commenters cited a report by 

the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), entitled "Potential Reliability 

Impacts of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan" (November 2014), which states that "[a] 

construction timeline for a new high-voltage line can range from 5 to 15 years depending on the 

voltage class, location, and availability of highly skilled construction crews. The construction of 

transmission assets is a very lengthy process starting from planning to the actual physical 

construction. It is recommended that any policies that could potentially impact the reliable 

operation of the transmission system also consider the associated timeline for implementing 

plans." According to the commenters, NERC's initial reliability assessment of the CPP indicates 

that EPA has failed to consider these potential infrastructure requirements necessary to support 

the implementation of the CPP. The commenters noted that the Southwest Power Pool also 

provided a timeline for construction of transmission system upgrades of up to 8 years.

Commenters argued that the proposed rule's standards, assumptions and timeline are 

unachievable. 

The commenters stated that logistical and technical complexities of the proposed rule necessitate 

a timeline extension. The commenters argued that, under the proposed timeline, the standard is 

unachievable. The commenters contended that a standard must not be purely theoretical or 

experimental, but noted that, under the most ideal situation, affected EGUs, regional 

transmission operators, electric customers and state governmental agencies would have four 

years to comply with the proposed rule. The commenters said it is incredibly unlikely that states, 

like Indiana, which will feel the greatest impact of the proposed rule will be able to meet the plan 

submission deadline of June 30, 2016. Therefore, the commenters indicated a more likely 

timeline for most states is either a two-year compliance period if a state successfully petitions an 

individual plan submission extension to June 30, 2017 or six months if EPA awards a multi-state 

plan a submission extension of June 30, 2018. The commenters contended it is purely theoretical 

to think that all of the affected parties under this proposed rule will be able to meet the 2020 

targets.

According to the commenters, EPA expects 108 to 134 gigawatts of fossil fuel-fired generating 

capacity to be reduced by 2020, yet the proposed rule does not set forth a realistic path to replace 

this generation with low- or no-carbon resources within the timeframe. The commenters cited the 

NERC reliability study of the proposed rule, which stated that EPA has not reasonably taken into 
124

account the long lead times required to engineer, permit, obtain right-of-ways, construct and 

integrate the infrastructure necessary to comply with the proposed rule. According to the 

commenters, the greatest timeline issues come under Building Blocks 2 and 3, which require an 

unprecedented amount of infrastructure to be constructed in order to take advantage of any 

carbon emission reductions that may be possible under these measures.

The commenters noted that, under Building Block 2, EPA expects natural gas combined-cycle 

(NGCC) units to be dispatched up to a 70 percent capacity factor--a potential increase of 440 

terawatt-hours per year, yet under normal conditions, the nation's natural gas pipeline 

infrastructure is constrained; a typical timeline to invest in new or update existing pipelines is 

three to five years. The commenters indicated EPA needs to allow for more time so the country 

can appropriately plan, permit, sign capacity contracts, finance and build the necessary natural 

gas pipeline infrastructure to make Building Block 2 feasible. The commenters said Building 

Block 2 poses especial concerns for Indiana, as the state does not have a significant amount of 

existing NGCC generation. According to the commenters, the existing gas pipeline infrastructure 

is not capable of supplying an amount of new NGCC generation to replace the in kind amount of 

coal fired generation that now makes up Indiana's power supply.

The commenters noted that, under Building Block 3, EPA expects states to use more renewable 

energy sources, but noted again the current compliance deadlines do not allow for the time 

necessary to construct the transmission lines to integrate these resources, often in remote areas, 

into the electric system. According to the commenters, constructing a transmission line not only 

consumes time during the engineering, siting and construction processes, but a transmission line 

can also receive strong opposition from landowners who do not want this obtrusive infrastructure 

on their property. The commenters stated that obtaining right-of-ways necessary to construct 

these lines can cause incalculable delays and costs that are not factored into the proposed rule.

The commenters contended that more time to comply with Building Blocks 2 and 3 is critical, as 

some units, including two of the commenters', will be unable to take advantage of Building 

Block 1. The commenters noted that their municipal power agency co-owns the Prairie State 

Energy Campus (PSEC) and owns a portion of Trimble County Unit 2 (TC2) in Kentucky. The 

commenters supported Prairie State Generating Company's comments to the EPA regarding why 

PSEC should be entirely exempt from the proposed rule. The commenters said EPA should apply 

the same logic to also exempt TC2, as both EGUs were constructed with the latest efficiency 

technology. Therefore, the commenters concluded, it is infeasible for these units to make use of 

further heat rate improvements or implement better operating practices to achieve a six percent 

reduction in carbon emissions.

If enough time is not given to make the necessary infrastructure investments for the integration 

of Building Blocks 2 and 3, the commenters indicated the reliability of the entire electric system 

will suffer. For the aforementioned reasons, the commenters requested that EPA should extend 

the proposed rule's compliance deadlines.

Commenters stated that EPA should recognize the complexities and timeframe that will be 

required for states to develop and implement a policy to meet the building block 2 goal. The 

commenters noted that states, will face many obstacles due to the complexity in developing a 

working mechanism, infrastructure constraints, and ensuring enforceability. The commenters 
125

stated that the timeframe for states to develop such measures is estimated to be many years, 

which would make it extremely difficult for states to utilize this building block to help reach the 

interim goals.

Commenters stated that the CPP's proposed compliance timeline is unreasonable and likely to 

lead to unnecessary costs. The commenters stated that the short time frame for compliance with 

this rule creates a number of resource planning uncertainties for utilities and the Louisiana Public 

Service Commission (LPSC). The commenters stated that the LPSC has solicited information 

from its utilities and other stakeholders, through a written comment process and is not likely to 

understand the full impact that the Proposed CPP will have on its regulated utilities given the 

continued uncertainties associated with this new regulation. The commenters stated that most 

utilities, to date, have indicated that a number of difficult decisions will have to be made, and are 

currently being investigated, should the CPP continue along its currently-proposed framework. 

The commenters stated that major electric reliability organizations such as the regional reliability 

coordinating councils (MISO, SPP, as well as NERC), and reliability regulators, like the FERC, 

are also in the process of evaluating the CPP's potential impacts. The commenters stated that to 

date, these analyses are ongoing and preliminary. The commenters stated that most important is 

the fact that all Louisiana regulated investor-owned utilities have advised the LPSC that they will 

have difficulty complying with the rule and that it will likely result in considerable cost increases 

to their respective ratepayers. The commenters stated that the EPA proposes interim reductions 

of 38 percent by 2020 with the total 42 percent reduction to occur by 2030 such that 90 percent 

of the overall proposed reductions for Louisiana are expected to occur by the interim goals 

period. The commenters stated that it will be difficult to meet such requirements within the given 

time period given the national scope of this rule, and the near-term transmission constraints 

noted earlier. While the EPA hails the Proposed Rule's "flexibility," the commenters argued that 

the proposal is anything but flexible, representing a return to the command-and-control 

regulation of the 1970s.

The commenters stated that the currently proposed CPP timeline envisions a final rule being 

developed by June 2015 where States will be given 12 months to develop initial State 

Implementation Plans ("SIPs") (June 30, 2016) and 24 months for final SIPs (June 30, 2017), and 

States developing a regional response are given until June 30, 2018. Thus, the commenters noted 

that states are likely to have approved SIPs in place sometime in the 2017-2018 time period 

while interim reductions, however, begin in 2020: some 2 to 3 years after compliance plans are 

approved. The commenters stated that this is simply not enough time given the Rule's potential 

compliance requirements.

The commenters provided for instance, it takes at least 3 years to plan, permit, and develop a 

new NGCC unit, assuming no development congestion and a relatively normal business-as-usual 

development environment that will likely not be the case given the broad, far-reaching national 

nature of the proposed CPP. The commenters stated that it takes, on average, some 8 years to 

plan, permit, and develop a new transmission project. The commenters stated that new 

generation and transmission will likely be necessary to maintain resource adequacy requirements 

if Building Block 2 is chosen as a compliance option using EPA's estimates.
126

The commenters stated that Louisiana will also be required to increase its renewable power 

generation by 103 percent by 2020 to meet the CPP's proposed interim emissions reduction 

goals. The commenters stated that this is equivalent to a 495 MW increase in renewable 

generation capacity that will have to be developed in a post-SIP approved 24 to 36 month 

compliance window. The commenters noted that it has taken some states, such as New Jersey, 

Maryland, and Colorado, at least 5 to 6 years to increase their in-state renewable generation 

shares to six percent of total generation.

Likewise, the commenters stated that Louisiana will be required to increase its commitments to 

energy efficiency from 0 to 1.14 percent in 2020 and 9.33 percent in 2030. The commenters 

stated that between 2020 and 2030 represents an increase of 720 percent. The commenters stated 

that this new requirement is comparable to 1.4 GW of avoided generation capacity that, again, 

will have to be developed within a 2 to 3 year period: a time period far more escalated that the 

time it took EPA' best practices states to reach what EPA believes to be an optimal level of 

energy efficiency adoption.

The commenters stated that what this all adds up to is offering Louisiana, and other states, a 

choice between three bad state implementation options. According to the commenters, first, 

Louisiana can choose speed over cost-effectiveness by adopting a set of poorly-examined 

emissions reductions strategies included in EPA's deficient building block analysis in order to 

meet the unnecessarily expedited interim goals deadline. Second, the commenters stated that 

Louisiana, by adopting EPA's proposed building blocks on an expedited basis, can run the risk of 

compromising system reliability since the ability of the bulk power system to accommodate 

these EPA strategies, as discussed earlier, is questionable. Third, the commenters stated that 

Louisiana can try to develop a more cost-effective set of strategies, on a more reasonable pace, 

and run the risk of paying considerable penalties and potential fines for non-compliance. The 

commenters asserted that all of these potential outcomes (or any combination of them) are 

simply unreasonable and inconsistent with its charge to provide safe, economic and reliability 

electricity service to Louisiana ratepayers.

The commenters referred to the comments offered by MISO which support LPSC's conclusions 

that EPA's expedited time frame will be expensive and could very well challenge system 

reliability. The commenters stated that in comments before the LPSC, MISO noted that the 

compliance timeline included in the proposed rule significantly challenges its ability to sustain 

adequate reserve margins; and that CPP compliance costs would be "non-trivial" and heavily 

dependent on timing factors. The commenters noted that MISO developed a number of 

compliance cost estimates, for instance, and found that regional approaches would save MISO 

states, collectively around $3 billion in implementation costs over a state level approach. The 

commenters stated that MISO also noted that the expedited timing of the CPP would likely 

discourage regional-based solutions, thereby leaving these opportunities for reducing overall 

compliance costs on the table. 

Commenters argued that the CPP proposes a timeline that is not affordable, is pragmatically 

unobtainable and, as the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) explains in its 

recent comments on the CPP (MISO, November 25, 2014), threatens reliability.
127

Comment 5: Comment stating that it is unrealistic to expect sources to take costly actions before 

states finalize their plans and before EPA has reviewed and approved them.

Response 5: In response to this and similar comments regarding the need to address 

infrastructure and financing concerns, as well as timing and planning concerns such as the 

commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans 

and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A discussion of this is included 

in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the Proposed Guidelines would create final state-specific goals to be met 

by 2030 and interim goals to be achieved on average over the 10-year period from 2020 to 2029. 

Id. at 34904. The commenters noted that EPA claims this approach provides states with 

flexibility to design their programs and the trajectory of emission reductions. The commenters

stated that this flexibility is an illusion, and noted that EPA itself acknowledges that states will 

have between 1.5 and 3.5 years from the expected deadlines for plan submittal before 

compliance actions must commence. Id. at 34905. The commenters stated that EPA insists this is 

not unreasonable because affected sources "will have knowledge of state requirements as they 

are adopted" and will therefore have more time to act. Id. The commenters stated that the 

additional time EPA imagines is itself quite short, and it is unrealistic to expect sources to take 

costly actions before states finalize their plans and before EPA has reviewed and approved them, 

especially considering the uncharted territory the Proposed Guidelines force states to enter.

Commenters noted that after a state plan is submitted, states will have between 1.5 and 3.5 years 

before compliance actions must commence. The commenters contended that, under any 

circumstances, implementing such a significant rule would be difficult to achieve on that 

timeline, yet in this situation, EPA unrealistically expects sources to take costly actions before 

states finalize their plans and before EPA has reviewed and approved them. The commenters 

argued that sources cannot be expected to undertake such actions prior to knowing the rules of 

the game. The commenters also stated that traditional utilities cannot recover such costs if they 

are later shown to be imprudent, while non-PSC regulated utilities like the commenters--with 

their more limited resources--also cannot undertake substantial new construction, which requires 

financial justification to lenders that such expenses will be prudent and capital assets built will 

provide the necessary cash flow to service incurred debt. The commenters said it will be 

extremely difficult--some might say foolhardy--to implement a plan that has not yet received 

requisite Federal approval. The commenters further noted that states will be equally reluctant to 

begin implementation without knowing whether their plans have been approved. 

The commenters also noted that the reductions that EPA assumes states will be able to make by

2020 represent for many states the majority of the reductions required by 2030. For example, the 

commenters noted that, in the proposal, Georgia is required to reduce its 2012 emission rate of 

1,598 lbs CO2/MWh to 834 lbs CO2/MWh by 2030; almost 83% of this reduction is assumed by 

EPA to occur by 2020. The commenters noted many other states would have equally or even 

more severe reductions required by 2020 (many are > 90%), making the flexibility that EPA 

thinks the CPP provides an illusion.
128

Commenters stated that the EPA has grossly overestimated the ability of new units to come 

online quickly by proposing state-specific goals that must be met by 2030, and interim goals that 

must be met on a 10-year average from 2020 to 2029. The commenters noted, as EPA has 

acknowledged, that leaves states with only 1.5 to 3.5 years between the state plan submittal 

deadline and the start of the interim compliance period. The commenters noted that the 

compliance timeframe is further reduced as states must begin taking action to reduce emissions 

before 2020 in order to achieve their interim emission rate goals (e.g., implementing end-use 

energy efficiency programs as early as 2017, and increasing utilization of NGCC units prior to 

2020). The commenters noted that the EPA rationalizes such a short compliance timeframe by 

pointing out that affected sources "will have knowledge of state requirements as they are 

adopted" and thus will have more time to act. The commenters stated that it is unreasonable, 

however, for EPA to expect affected sources to undertake expensive compliance measures before 

states finalize their plans and before EPA has approved the plans; and, given the amount of time 

it takes to site, permit and construct new pipelines, transmission lines, and EGUs, it is impossible 

for states to begin implementing their plans as early as would be necessary to comply with EPA's 

proposed goals. The commenters provided for example, once EPA approves a state's plan, it will 

take about 2 years for generation and transmission entities to analyze the potential requirements 

of their systems. The commenters stated that plans for additional electric generation and 

transmission must then be developed and analyzed in an open regional planning process, which 

usually takes at least another 2 years. The commenters stated that additional time is required to 

permit and construct new units and transmission lines. The commenters concluded the result is a 

6- to 7-year timeframe before necessary new facilities and transmission lines can be built. The 

commenters stated that this timeframe is optimistic, and yet would be inadequate for a state to 

meet EPA's proposed goals. The commenters concluded that the EPA's timeframe for 

compliance is thus arbitrary and unworkable, and should be addressed by eliminating the initial 

compliance period.

Comment 6: Comment that states cannot complete efforts to permit, site, and construct 

substantial new infrastructure and promulgate new legislative initiatives by 2020, and that the 

CPP schedule for developing state plans by 2018 does not allow for the infrastructure upgrades 

required to meet the rule.

Response 6: For several reasons, including infrastructure needs, as well as timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to 

finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final 

rule includes this additional time due to reasons the commenters mention, among others. A 

discussion of this is included in sections V.A.3.g., VIII.B. and VIII.E of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP. The EPA disagrees with the commenters in that we find value in the inclusion of 

interim compliance goals and allowing states and regional planning partnerships to establish 

glide paths that take such complexities in to account. While allowing great latitude in how these 

plans accomplish the glide path goals, we see value in having checkpoints along the way that 

both demonstrate real emissions reductions as well as provide feedback and increased confidence 

that the plan is workable and on track. As the commenters mention, some infrastructure and 

planning needs are more long term and may be leveraged by states or regional planning groups 
129

as ways to ‘anchor’ their plans and bring their glide path into alignment with 2030 final goals on 

time. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the CPP does not take into consideration constraints to the natural gas 

supplies and the time to improve infrastructure when requiring 70% capacity of the NGCC fleet. 

The commenters said their company, like many utilities does not currently contract for firm 

natural gas supply and/or transport of fuel to operate all of its existing NGCC generation plants. 

The commenters said each plant in their system located in three states (Missouri, Oklahoma and 

Arkansas) has different natural gas suppliers and transporters. In order to operate the NGCC fleet 

as required under the 111(d) rule, the commenters said their company will need time to 

renegotiate some contracts to acquire firm and ratable gas supply. In addition, the commenters 

said some plants may require infrastructure improvements such as additional compressors and 

looping to meet the increased plant capacity. The commenters noted that the Dell Power Plant 

located in Arkansas which has one of the lowest proposed state emission rates and highest rate 

for coal generation displacement will require supply infrastructure upgrades. According to the 

commenters, the time needed to negotiate contracts, design, permit and construct the additional 

infrastructure to meet the supply requirements is not possible by the 2020 interim compliance 

date. The commenters argued that the CPP schedule for developing state plans by 2018 does not 

allow for the infrastructure upgrades required to meet the rule. The commenters recommended 

removal of the interim compliance targets to allow utilities the time to properly plan and execute 

infrastructure upgrades to begin compliance by 2030.

Commenters argued that the CPP did not take into consideration the time required to finance, 

permit and construct new NGCC plants to meet compliance. The commenters said it can be 

reasonably expected that the utility sector will be forced to decommission existing coal units, 

convert to natural gas generation or construct new NGCC facilities. The commenters contended 

that, by the time the final rule is published and state plans developed, the time required to meet 

compliance by 2020 would not be sufficient. The time required to plan, design, permit and 

construct repowered or new natural gas facilities is not sufficient from the time of final state plan 

approval to the preliminary implementation date. The commenters acknowledged that the 

CPP gives states flexibility to average emission rates over the interim period, but contended that 

this is not practical, as rates are set so low that a higher early rate does not allow enough time in 

the remaining interim period to average and meet compliance. The commenters recommended 

that EPA eliminate the interim rate to allow for utilities to properly plan for and contact plants to 

transition to lower carbon emissions.

Comment 7: Comment that the proposed rule establishes unachievable interim goals, which 

increase the risk of premature plant retirements, stranded costs, and reliability impacts, and 

requesting the EPA to allow states to establish their own interim schedules to reach the 2030 

final goals.

Response 7: In response to this and similar comments the final rule allows additional latitude in 

how state plans accomplish the glide path goals, plans will be able to both demonstrate real 
130

emissions reductions as well as provide feedback through interim checkpoints and offer 

increased confidence that the plan is workable and on track. See section VIII.D.2 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for more discussion. As the commenters mention, some infrastructure and 

planning needs are more long term and may be leveraged by states or regional planning groups 

as necessary to meet power delivery needs in rural areas while offset by energy efficiency or 

emissions reduction gains in other areas affected by the plan.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the proposed rule establishes unachievable interim goals, which

increase the risk of premature plant retirements, stranded costs, and reliability impacts that would 

otherwise be avoided with sufficient time to draft and implement responsible statewide plans. 

The commenters noted that EPA anticipates approving state plans by mid-2017 (assuming a 

twelve-month review and approval period, which the commenters indicated gives states very 

little time to reach the optimistic interim goals established by the proposed rule. According to the 

commenters, it takes years for utilities and energy providers to plan and develop substantial 

changes to electricity generation portfolios and additional time to obtain necessary state agency 

approval of these plans. The commenters stated that Colorado does not currently have a 

regulatory structure in place to review and grant approval from all affected utilities operating 

within the state. The commenters contended that these political, logistical, and jurisdictional 

issues may make considerable additional carbon reduction by 2020 unattainable. 

The commenters noted that the proposed rule establishes a Colorado interim goal of 1,159 of 

CO2 lbs/MWh from all fossil fuel-fired EGU's by 2020. Due to Colorado's early action, the 

commenters said the most cost-effective and straightforward improvements have already been 

made. The commenters said Colorado utilities will make additional emission reductions by 2020 

through compliance activities planned according to Colorado's existing requirements; however, 

the commenters indicated these activities are not anticipated to meet the stringent interim goals. 

In an effort to decrease CO2 from the current rate of 1,470 lbs/MWh to 1,159 lbs/MWh by 2020, 

the commenters noted Colorado utilities run the risk of premature retirements, stranded costs, 

and reliability impacts. 

According to the commenters, an emission reduction plan that provides clean, reliable power 

without burdening customers with excessive costs takes years to plan and execute. To implement 

Colorado's 2010 CACJA, the commenters noted Xcel Energy studied hundreds of options and 

proposed multiple scenarios for the PUC to consider. After reviewing thousands of documents, 

conducting weeks of hearings, and listening to the more than 30 parties that participated in the 

process, the commenters said the PUC selected a plan. According to the commenters, in 2011, 

Xcel Energy submitted regulatory applications for the individual projects comprising the selected 

plan. The commenters said the approved plan included a 2012-2017 work plan, with the first 

project beginning almost three years after the CACJA was passed.

The commenters pointed out that Xcel Energy's extensive process for the CACJA represents the 

work of only one utility in Colorado with a small geographic footprint, whereas the proposed 

rule will involve every utility within each state with an analysis of the grid as a whole. The 

commenters argued that the proposed timeframe is grossly inadequate for creating and 
131

implementing a statewide plan, much less achieving the interim goals. The

commenters requested that the EPA allow states to establish their own interim schedules to reach 

the 2030 final goals. Within their state plans, states could implement timelines based on strategic 

information and actual data to ensure reliability and responsible investment in emission reduction 

infrastructure.

Comment 8: Comment that compliance will be difficult to achieve in the timeframe provided in 

the proposed rule.

Response 8: In response to this and similar comments, the EPA agrees with allowing extended 

the time for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of 

the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A discussion of this is included in sections V.A.3.g., and

VIII.B.1of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The EPA disagrees with the commenters in that 

we cannot take into account potential legal challenges and ramifications of those outcomes in 

considering the requirements or timing of the final rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that compliance will be difficult to achieve in the timeframe provided in the 

proposed rule. Under EPA's schedule, the commenters noted that states must submit complete 

plans by 2017 or, if submitting a multi-state plan, 2018. The commenters noted that EPA expects 

to approve complete state plans within 12 months of submission, but even if EPA meets this 

ambitious goal (which will be difficult given that states will be submitting plans nearly 

simultaneously), the commenters expected that state plans will not likely be approved until 2018 

or 2019. Because interim goals are effective beginning in 2020, the commenters expected the 

stringent reductions will require states/utilities to take significant steps towards meeting those 

goals before the state plan is even approved (and perhaps even before the plan is proposed). 

The commenters also expected the practical time frame will lengthen substantially by the fact 

that legal challenges to both federal and state plans are almost certain to occur. According to the 

commenters, legal challenges of recent federal EPA rules have taken approximately three years 

to run their course through the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme 

Court. The commenters stated that generating companies may not know what the final CPP will 

be until mid-2018 at the earliest, about three years after June 2015, the date when the rule is 

expected to be issued in final form. The commenters indicated that any state that waits for the 

appeal process to be completed before beginning state processes is unlikely to meet the 

implementation date of 2020.

Commenters stated that EPA must extend its proposed compliance deadline. The commenters 

stated that electric utilities, which have a legal duty to make reasonable and prudent investments, 

cannot even begin to make investments in the new generation, efficiency and transmission 

upgrades, and end-use energy efficiency programs that would be required to comply with state 

plans until after a state plan has been submitted and approved by EPA or survived any judicial 

challenges. The commenters stated that even if EPA retains the proposed, overly aggressive 

schedules for submitting state plans, it is possible that regional plans would not be submitted to 

EPA until 2018, which could mean that litigation over any EPA plan disapprovals could last into 
132

2019 or 2020. Thus, the commenters stated that utilities in many states, including South 

Carolina, may not be able to begin making investments in compliance measures until the year in

which EPA expects those entities to begin complying. 

The commenters stated that these investments cannot be made overnight. For example, the 

commenters noted that efficiency upgrades to coal-fired EGUs can take months or years, 

depending on the complexity of the upgrade, the need to obtain additional permits, and the 

availability of skilled contractors and engineers. The commenters stated that construction of 

additional transmission infrastructure to address reliability impacts that could result from 

significant re-dispatch to NGCCs or integration of additional RE capacity will also take years 

even after a utility obtains permission from regulators to undertake the upgrades. Similarly, the 

commenters noted that the construction of additional natural gas pipeline capacity is highly 

regulated and is a multi-year process. The commenters stated that even before construction can 

commence, building new major gas transmission lines typically entails pre-filing, public 

comment, scoping, and environmental permitting, processes that usually take more than a year 

and a half to complete; NERC estimates that completion of a new gas pipeline can take up to five 

years. Finally, the commenters stated that the initiation of hundreds of these projects at the same 

time in states around the country could strain manufacturing and engineering resources, leading 

to additional bottle-necking and delays that could substantially delay affected EGU owners' 

ability to comply with the Proposed Rule.

In sum, the commenters stated that EPA's proposal to require entities to begin complying by 

2020 is unreasonable in light of the fact that stakeholders will be unable to even begin 

undertaking these costly, complex, and time-consuming changes until after litigation over state 

plans is concluded. The commenters stated that EPA should retain the proposed 10-year interim 

compliance period, but should not require entities to begin complying until at least 3 years after 

final issuance of a state (or federal) implementation plan.

Comment 9: Comment supporting the EPA's approach to addressing concerns with the way the 

state-specific CO2 goals are calculated.

Response 9: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support to our approach for calculating 

state specific CO2 goals. In this final rule the EPA is allowing state and regional planners the 

additional option of including Emissions Reductions as a component of their plans, as well as 

allowing benefits gained by enacting early reduction taken as early as 2012. Discussion of the 

rationale for this decision is included in the preamble section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that in applying the building block formula to each state's 2012 generation 

and emissions to determine the final goal and the interim year annual rates under State Emission 

Target Option 1, EPA assumes increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency levels 

between 2020 and 2029 to reflect the gradual movement of states toward regional benchmarks. 
133

Ramping up renewable energy and energy efficiency levels reduces the annual emission rates 

progressively, starting in 2020 and reaching the final goal in 2030. 

The commenters stated that by contrast, the two other building blocks, coal plant efficiency 

improvement and re-dispatch of coal to existing NGCC, remain unchanged between 2020 and 

2029. The commenters noted that reductions related to both these building blocks jump to their 

final 2030 levels at the start of the interim period in 2020. In doing so, the commenters stated 

that EPA's goal computation formula implicitly factors in all emission rate reductions associated 

with building blocks 1 and 2, which account for nearly 50 percent of the total national emission 

reduction in 2030 under the proposed rule, in 2020. The commenters noted that this "frontloading" of rate reductions results in an abrupt drop in the goal trajectory in 2020, with relatively 

little change thereafter through 2030.

The commenters noted that in the NODA, EPA addresses two issues that stakeholders have 

raised with respect to the manner in which EPA calculates the state emission goals in the 

proposed Clean Power Plan. First, the commenters noted that the EPA indicates that 

stakeholders, including states, have concerns with the way the state-specific CO2 goals are 

calculated including concerns that the numeric formula for calculating each state's goal is not 

consistent in its application of BSER for building block 2 as compared with incremental 

renewable energy generation and energy efficiency generation avoidance under building blocks 3 

and 4. The commenters stated that, in the stakeholders' view, by holding existing fossil 

generation and the corresponding emissions at 2012 levels in the calculation of the state emission 

goals, and not reducing them based on the amounts of incremental renewable energy and energy 

efficiency, the state goals fail to reflect the full potential, under the BSER, for incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency to replace fossil steam generation. Instead, the 

commenters noted that simply adding incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency to the 

denominator, while making no equivalent subtraction from the 2012 levels of fossil generation 

and corresponding emissions, does not clearly indicate whether, and to what extent, that 

generation will replace existing fossil generation as opposed to future generation increases from 

existing sources.

To address stakeholder concerns about the potential challenges associated with achieving all of 

the reductions that states may need to obtain as early as 2020, the commenters noted that the 

EPA is seeking comment on two additional specific adjustments to the interim goal calculations 

that would allow for a more gradual phase-in of building block 2 during the 2020-2029 interim 

compliance period: 

1. Replace all historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis. The proposed state goal-setting 

formula assumes a constant level of generation for total existing fossil generation greater 

than or equal to 2012 historical levels (i.e., the amount of fossil generation in the 

denominator of the state goal equation is greater than or equal to 2012 levels). In the 

proposal, incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency was simply added to the 

denominator of the state goal formula. An alternative treatment of this incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency would be to assume that it directly replaces 2012 

fossil generation levels and the corresponding emissions on a pro rata basis across 

generation types (i.e., fossil steam and gas turbine).
134

2. Prioritize replacement of historical fossil steam generation. A second alternative 

approach would be similar to the one described above, but the adjustment would reflect

incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency first replacing fossil steam 

generation below 2012 levels rather than replacing all fossil generation on a pro rata 

basis. Subsequent to replacing fossil steam generation, if there were any remaining 

incremental renewable energy or energy efficiency, it would replace gas turbine 

generation levels and the corresponding emissions. 

The commenters supported EPA's second approach to addressing concerns with the way the 

state-specific CO2 goals are calculated. The commenters stated that displacing fossil steam 

generation with renewable energy and energy efficiency is consistent with the manner that EPA 

proposes to displace fossil steam generation with unused NGCC capacity in building block 2.

The commenters noted that the other stakeholder concern discussed by EPA in the October 28 

NODA is the potential technical challenges associated with achieving all of the reductions that 

states would be required to make as early as 2020, when the compliance period begins. Potential 

approaches EPA requests comment on for addressing this issue include: allowing credit for early 

reductions, which could provide flexibility to defer other emission reductions until later in the 

2020 to 2029 period, and phasing in building block 2 over time. The commenters recommended 

that the EPA consider adopting both of these options for addressing the "2020 cliff" issue.

Comment 10: Comment requesting that the EPA build longer lead times into the 2020 

"compliance cliff" to create a less abrupt "glide path" and relax the near-term emission reduction 

requirements to a level that is attainable, and withdraw attempts to significantly increase natural 

gas utilization.

Response 10: The EPA agrees with the commenters in that for these and other reasons, such as 

timing, planning concerns, legislative processes and reliability concerns the EPA is extending the 

time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 

2020 to 2022. The EPA is also including added flexibility in the rule that should aid states and 

regional groups to better manage the complexities involved in enacting plans to accomplish the 

glide path goals. A discussion of this is included in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the final rule dictates an 

overly “front loaded” glide path that will result in a “compliance cliff” as the commenters 

describe as the final rule includes such things as the banking of emissions credits, early action 

credits and additional planning time what we expect provide substantial additional flexibility not 

reflected in the proposed rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that, without regulatory reforms within the federal permitting agencies, the 

prospect of significantly increasing natural gas utilization seems unlikely to occur in the time 

provided. The commenters requested that the EPA build longer lead times into the 2020 cliff and 

relax the near-term emission reduction requirements to a level that is attainable, and withdraw 

attempts to significantly increase natural gas utilization.
135

Commenters stated that the proposed rule's interim emission goal requires most of the emission 

reductions to take place in 2020 or shortly thereafter and creates a "compliance cliff" that biases 

decision making against renewable energy, which often requires longer lead times for 

investment, development, and policy planning. The commenters said the rule should be 

improved by modifying the interim compliance goal to create a less abrupt "glide path" for the 

states, which will allow the right policies to be put in place to incentivize the adoption of 

renewable energy and allow states to meet their 2030 emission goals through the expanded use 

of renewable energy. 

The commenters noted that the proposed rule sets an interim goal that must be met over a threeyear average during the 2020-2029 timeframe. The commenters indicated that the interim 

emission goals require significant emission reductions and require a majority of states to make 

50-70% or more of their total reductions during this period. In order to meet their interim goals, 

the commenters said a number of states will need to make these reductions in the early years of 

this plan, possibly by 2020. The commenters contended that this "compliance cliff" could result 

in a number of marginally effective outcomes. According to the commenters, transitioning from 

existing carbon-emitting EGUs to truly clean power will require time to support and build 

modern infrastructure and for states to adopt and implement the appropriate clean energy 

policies. Thus, the commenters suggested the rule should be improved by revising the 2020 

interim compliance goal. 

The commenters noted that the economic viability of existing coal EGUs, when considering the 

cumulative results of other emerging EPA regulations (MATS, CSAPR, 1-hr SO2 NAAQS, 

CWA 316(b), and ash rules) coupled with the interim compliance checkpoints, may create 

reliability concerns. The commenters indicated these concerns will likely be addressed by 

shifting generation to existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units and/or the construction 

of new NGCC units with economic lives that far exceed 2030, cementing gas dependency 

regardless of the economics of zero-carbon generating sources. While natural gas and renewable 

energy generation can complement each other, with natural gas ramping capability balancing 

variable renewable generation and renewables helping address gas price volatility, the 

commenters said the sudden retirement of coal-fired EGUs combined with the lack of sufficient 

natural gas infrastructure in most states could lead to resource adequacy risks and high power

prices. While these outcomes can be avoided by the deployment of cost-effective renewable 

energy, the commenters contended that the early compliance target overlooks the timeline, which 

may be needed to construct these cost-effective resources at the necessary scale.

According to the commenters, the interim compliance period may also prevent states from 

adopting the most strategic policies to encourage the build out of renewable energy sources 

because the interim compliance period disallows the amount of time needed by legislative bodies 

to enact the correct policies. The commenters noted that a number of state legislatures are not in 

session or have shortened or budget-only sessions in 2016 during crucial months leading up to 

EPA's deadline for state plan submittals. As an example, the commenters noted that in 2016, four 

states do not convene their legislatures and four more have only budget sessions. In addition, the 

commenters noted that at least eight states have required legislative approval for state plans. 

Even if the proper policies are put in place, the commenters contended that the interim 

compliance period does not allow sufficient time for the construction of new cost-competitive 

renewable energy facilities, and, more importantly, the critical expansion and improvement of 
136

the electrical grid needed to more easily integrate increasing levels of renewable energy and to 

deliver this energy from remote sites to load centers. 

The commenters also noted that many states will likely delay designing an implementation plan 

until all legal challenges to the proposed rule are resolved. As a result, the commenters said there 

could be a forced rush to comply created by the compliance cliff. The commenters indicated this 

will likely result in the immediate retirement of existing coal EGUs and, due to immediate 

reliability concerns caused by these retirements, substituting other slightly lower emitting fuels 

in their place. The commenters concluded that this compliance rush could result in thoughtful 

renewable energy policies being ignored or abandoned. The commenters noted that such a rush 

also places ratepayers at risk, as the price of substitute fuels is likely to dramatically increase as a 

single source of energy, if history is any lesson. In contrast, the commenters noted that renewable 

energy has the advantage of zero fuel costs, which actually constrains electricity rates and 

protects ratepayers.

Commenters argued that the proposed rule limits are too aggressive for the stated compliance 

period. From a development standpoint, the commenters contended that the proposed rule limits 

appear to have been generated through a "top-down" approach (set a goal and hope to achieve it) 

rather than a "bottom-up" approach whereby it is first determined what is actually achievable, 

and then a goal and compliance date set accordingly. The commenters stated that the limits are 

essentially front loaded, with many of the reductions being required toward the beginning of the 

compliance period (i.e. 2020). A longer and smoother compliance glide path is needed. 

As an example, the commenters noted that even Form EIA-860 plans ahead 10 years for nuclear 

generators. According to the commenters, this acknowledges that nuclear generators take a very 

long lead time to come to fruition, even if the massive investment it takes does become available. 

The commenters noted that no other baseloaded options are available.

Comment 11: Comment that the timelines are unrealistic.

Response 11: The EPA agrees with the commenters that additional time is necessary to provide 

state and regional planning group’s opportunity to formulate, revise, finalize and enact their 

emissions reductions plans. The EPA disagrees that the emissions rate targets are too largely 

front-loaded or that renewable and energy efficiency projects will be squeezed out by these 

timelines. We fully expect EE, ER, and RE projects will all be used in state and regional plans, 

in varying amounts depending on a wide number of factors, and that all will be keys in the 

overall success of this rulemaking.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the timelines for compliance are unrealistic. The commenters cited the 

Congressional Research Service, which on November 3, 2014 stated that "Some industry 

stakeholders and state agencies have characterized EPA's proposed CO2 emission rate targets for 

exiting power plants as "front-loaded," with the disproportionate percentage of emission rate 

reductions required in the early years of the program (2020-2024); they further state that their 
137

"analysis provides data consistent with this observation." The commenters contended that the 

steep early reductions in the proposed Clean Power Plan will force many states to turn to natural 

gas, which will squeeze out renewables and energy efficiency.

Comment 12: Comment requesting the EPA to reassess the requirements to be realized by the 

2020 milestone.

Response 12: The EPA agrees with the commenters and has extended the time allowed for 

States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to States in constructing their plans to 

manage the complexities that commenters mention, among others. See sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional discussion on timing of state and 

regional plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the timeframe in which compliance can be practically and economically 

achieved may need to be re-evaluated. In order to minimize the financial impact to the general 

population and industries such as theirs, the commenters encouraged the Agency to reassess the 

requirements to be realized by the 2020 milestone. If these could be delayed or eliminated, the 

commenters said it would help to dampen the burdens that this regulation would place on their 

small drinking water utility and electrical providers in Arkansas and throughout the country.

Comment 13: Comment encouraging the EPA to allow enough time to safely plan for natural 

gas infrastructure improvements by delaying the implementation of the plans interim goals.

Response 13: The EPA agrees with the commenters and has extended the time allowed for 

States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to states and regional planning partners 

in constructing their plans, manage legislative changes, assess reliability and plan for 

infrastructure needs and other complexities that commenters mention. See sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional discussion on timing of state and 

regional plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters encouraged the EPA to allow enough time to safely plan for natural gas 

infrastructure improvements by delaying the implementation of the plans interim goals.

The commenters noted that the interim emissions goals will require cooperatives to construct 

new natural gas infrastructure quickly. In doing so, the commenters said they increase the risk 

and possibility of incidents such as fires and explosions if time is not allowed to safely plan, 

design, and build the infrastructure, the commenters are concerned that, in a haste to build 
138

infrastructure containing a highly flammable material to meet interim goals, they will jeopardize 

the safety of the generating facility and general public.

Comment 14: Comment that the EPA's proposal would require all reductions from heat rate 

improvements, re-dispatch to NGCCs, and future operation of under-construction nuclear 

facilities to occur by 2020, and that this “front-loading” of the CO2 reduction requirements has 

the effect of requiring states to achieve, on average, 75% of their total annual reduction target in 

2020.

Response 14: The EPA agrees with the commenters in that we are including in this final rule 

added flexibility to include emissions reductions, along with RE and EE reductions into state and 

regional planning timelines and interim goals. The commenters refer to several infrastructure 

related concerns, and we have extended the initial planning and interim goal timelines based on 

this and similar comments, with these items discussed in the preamble to the final rule. The 

commenters’ reference to the BSER options and their impact on facilities are also covered in 

detailed discussion in the final rule preamble. The EPA has finalized additional flexibilities both 

affecting the timing of implementation of the rule, and in the ability for states and regional 

planning partnerships to manage the complexities covered in their plans. Adding Emissions 

Reductions to the planning options, and clarifying qualifying existing and preexisting credits, as 

well as allowing the banking of credits are just some of these added flexibilities that we expect 

will make the interim goals and the 2030 final goal attainable for covered entities. See sections 

VIII.B, VIII.D, VIII.E, VIII.G, and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional 

discussion on timing of state and regional plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA's timing assumptions for implementing the building block measures 

are incorrect and will lead to significant problems for utilities and consumers. The commenters

stated that although EPA has correctly included a gradual phase-in period for emission 

reductions from RE and EE during the interim compliance period (2020-2029), EPA has 

inexplicably failed to include a similar phase-in period for emission reductions from other 

components of the BSER. The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal that all reductions 

from heat rate improvements, re-dispatch to NGCCs, and future operation of under-construction 

nuclear facilities would occur by 2020 is unreasonable, arbitrary, and should be changed.

First, the commenters stated that even if some of the equipment upgrades cited by EPA in 

building block one were feasible, these expensive, complex construction projects could require 

significant time to obtain or update permits, secure contractors, replace or upgrade equipment, 

and then test and fine-tune the upgrades. The commenters noted that the added burden of 

undergoing an NSR process could further lengthen the timeframe for implementing these 

emission reductions.

Second, the commenters stated that re-dispatch to NGCCs at the levels anticipated by the 

Proposed Rule could require significant investments in additional electric transmission and 

natural gas pipelines to alleviate potential reliability concerns. Moreover, the commenters stated 

that because many NGCC units are operated by merchant generators rather than load-serving 
139

utilities, accomplishing the anticipated re-dispatch from in-state coal generators to in-state 

merchant NGCCs could require a major restructuring of the current energy regulatory 

framework, particularly in states like South Carolina where most utilities are vertically integrated 

and may be prevented from purchasing power from merchant generators except during times 

when their customers' demand exceeds the utility's capacity to supply electricity. The 

commenters stated that it is unreasonable to assume that all of these changes could be 

implemented by 2020 - particularly if this rule and state implementation plans are subject to 

litigation (as they are expected to be).

Third, the commenters stated that although the five nuclear reactors currently under construction 

are expected to come online before 2020, construction delays or other complications could well 

lead these units to open later. In addition, the commenters noted that new nuclear units typically 

require an initial period of adjustment and fine-tuning before they are able to run at full capacity. 

Therefore, contrary to EPA's assumptions, the commenters stated that it is possible that one or 

more of these units will not be fully operational and achieving an annual 90% capacity factor by 

2020.

The commenters stated that the consequence of EPA's approach is that the interim goal imposes 

a compliance "cliff" requiring many states to achieve very steep CO2 emissions reductions 

immediately at the start of the section 111(d) program. The commenters stated that this is 

illustrated by South Carolina, which must achieve 89% of the State's interim goal by 2020 under 

the Proposed Rule. The commenters noted that South Carolina is not the only state that faces an 

almost impossible task of achieving all of its CO2 emission reductions under building blocks one 

and two by the start of the program in 2020. The commenters provided a data table showing the 

steep percentage reductions proposed for 22 states. The commenters stated that this front-loading 

of the CO2 reduction requirements has the effect of requiring states to achieve, on average, 75% 

of their total annual reduction target in 2020.

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposed implementation schedule leaves states with 

insufficient time to meet their CO2 emissions reduction obligations imposed under building 

blocks one and two. The commenters noted that at most, states will only have 2 or 3 years to 

complete all of the measures (including major infrastructure improvements to generation and 

transmission infrastructure as well as increases to natural gas pipeline capacity) that would be 

necessary to achieve these ambitious reduction levels.

Moreover, the commenters stated that the establishment of a 10-year averaging period for 

meeting the interim goal provides virtually no relief from compliance cliff created by building 

blocks one and two. According to the commenters, this is clearly illustrated by the fact that a 

state's failure to implement at least a substantial portion of these two building blocks will leave 

the state with no choice but impose more aggressive RE and EE requirements on EGUs and other 

affected entities within its jurisdiction in order to make up for the shortfall in emissions 

reductions from blocks one and two. As a result, the commenters stated that the EPA's decision 

to frontload emissions reductions from these two blocks could, at best, lead to overly stringent 

RE and EE requirements and, more likely, result in the failure of states to meet their state goals 

despite best efforts. In addition, the commenters stated that this aspect of the Proposed Rule will 

lead to the imposition of very onerous compliance costs on affected entities and consumers 

within states that are particularly affected by this compliance cliff.
140

The commenters stated, as EPA's October 2014 NODA recognizes, many stakeholders are 

concerned that EPA's front-loading of emission reductions from re-dispatch, heat rate 

improvements, and under-construction nuclear could make it infeasible for many states to meet 

the interim goals. The commenters stated that abruptly phasing out much of a state's coal-fired 

generation could also lead to electric reliability issues during periods when the natural gas supply 

is interrupted or constricted. Furthermore, the commenters stated that forcing the premature 

shutdown of these existing coal-fired EGUs in 2020 will result in billions of dollars in stranded 

assets. The commenters stated that many of these units are far from the end of their useful lives 

and, in many cases, the units have recently installed expensive pollution control equipment to 

comply with new EPA regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule and the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Given that there has been insufficient time to recover the capital 

costs of these investments, the commenters stated that consumers would likely incur higher 

electricity costs as a result of these stranded asset costs.

In addition, the commenters stated that the EPA's proposal that all emission reductions from 

blocks one and two and under-construction nuclear would be implemented by 2020 is arbitrarily 

different from EPA's approach to RE and EE. Under the Proposed Rule, the commenters noted 

that the EPA assumes that RE and EE measures will be added gradually over the 2020-2030 

compliance period, but does not make similar assumptions for other sources of emission 

reduction, even though all of the measures included in BSER will require significant adjustments 

to electric supply, distribution, and consumption that require time and significant investment. For 

these reasons, the commenters stated that EPA should either eliminate the interim goal entirely 

or adopt a phased approach to the implementation of the other building blocks. The commenters

stated that one reasonable approach would be to calculate an average state or regional 

implementation rate for emission reductions from building blocks one and two and underconstruction nuclear, and apply that growth rate on an annual basis to compute the interim goal. 

In the alternative, the commenters stated that the EPA - in consultation with states, FERC, the 

NRC, and electric reliability organizations - should study the potential reliability, safety, 

transmission, and pipeline constraints on ramping up generation from building blocks one and 

two and under-construction nuclear, and assign more realistic phase-in periods for these emission 

reductions based on the outcome of this study.

Comment 15: Comment that the time period provided to achieve the proposed carbon rate 

reductions contemplated from building blocks 1 & 2 is inadequate.

Response 15: The EPA agrees with the commenters concerns about timing and has extended the 

time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 

2020 to 2022. As discussed in the response to previous comment the final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to states and regional planning partners in constructing their plans, 

manage legislative changes, assess reliability and plan for infrastructure needs and other 

complexities that commenters mention. A discussion of this is included in section VIII.D of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
141

Commenters argued that the time period provided to achieve the proposed carbon rate reductions 

contemplated from building blocks 1 & 2 is inadequate. 

The commenters noted that, in the determination of the final and interim CO2 goals, EPA 

assumed that there are increasing RE and EE levels between 2020 and 2029 to reflect the gradual 

implementation of these measures to meet the targets. On the other hand, the commenters noted 

that coal plant efficiency improvement and redispatch of coal to NGCC remain unchanged from 

2020 to 2029. The commenters said this front loading of CO2 reductions results in sudden drops 

in the goal trajectory in 2020. According to the commenters, the consequence of EPA's approach 

is that the interim goal imposes a compliance cliff requiring very steep CO2 emissions reductions 

immediately at the start of the section 111(d) program. As an example, the commenters noted 

that in the state of Utah where they are located, about 84 percent of the state's interim goal must 

be achieved by 2020, with the remaining reductions divided over the next 10 years.

Commenters contended that EPA's proposed implementation schedule leaves insufficient time to 

meet CO2 emissions reduction obligations imposed under building blocks 1 and 2. The 

commenters indicated that, at most, only two or three years is available to complete all of the 

measures that would be necessary to achieve these ambitious reduction levels. As an example, 

the commenters indicated it is uncertain whether there will be sufficient time to obtain federal 

and state regulatory approvals that will likely be required to meet the interim goal of increasing 

NGCC capacity to 70 percent per EPA's assumption.

For these reasons, the commenters recommended that EPA build in reasonable phase-in periods 

for heat rate improvements and redispatch from coal to NGCC to account for the significant 

regulatory, reliability and capacity issues that will need to be addressed before building blocks 1 

and 2 can be fully implemented.

Comment 16: Comment that the first interim goal is too restrictive.

Response 16: The EPA agrees with the commenters and for several reasons, including 

infrastructure needs, as well as timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, 

the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start 

of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule also includes additional flexibility for 

state and regional planning groups to include RE and EE planning, as well as Emissions 

Reductions plans, and to include ability to count emissions reductions starting at the 2012 

baseline year, and bank early reductions to help meet later glide path requirements. A discussion 

of this is included in the sections VIII.E and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed interim goal is too restrictive because the timing does not 

allow for orderly energy planning. The commenters stated that the interim goal fails to account 

for the manner in which large energy generation shifts generally occur and is at odds with 

Minnesota's energy planning processes. The commenters stated that the interim goal is too strict, 

and as a result limits Minnesota's flexibility in choosing how to meet the interim and/or final 

reduction goals. 
142

The commenters stated that EPA's integrated planning model (IPM) predicts Minnesota closing 

1600 MW of coal-fired generation by 2030. According to the commenters, to replace such large 

generation resources, Minnesota utilities will need to consider all types of generation. The 

commenters stated that such large generation shifts are not yet identified in utilities' current 

integrated resource plans (IRPs). The commenters stated that the effort to accomplish those shifts 

includes generation resource planning, design, financing, permitting and construction, not only 

of generation, but potentially additional transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. The 

commenters stated that EPA's alternative RE goal could require even further additional 

transmission investments - the nature of wind generation and Minnesota's load would require 

construction of transmission lines so that nighttime generation could be transferred to the east. 

The commenters stated that if no longer able to "sink" energy to the east, they would likely be 

required to curtail more generation. 

The commenters stated that for a long-term average interim target whose compliance period 

begins in 2020, it will be difficult for states to achieve the emission performance required by 

EPA's interim targets set by EPA's building block assembly. The commenters stated that setting a 

stringent interim target that includes an average of emissions performance beginning in 2020 

would then require states to over-control beyond the interim value to offset any year's emissions 

rates above the value - possibly controlling to a level even below the final target value. The 

commenters stated that because of this, states would essentially need to be achieving emissions 

rates close to the interim target by 2020. The commenters stated that Minnesota has reduced the 

carbon intensity of its energy fleet substantially, but these efforts began nearly 15 years ago; 

EPA's current interim approach affords us insufficient time to implement significant changes to 

Minnesota's electric generating fleet.

Comment 17: Comment requesting that the EPA allow utilities to begin compliance within three 

years after the issuance of a state plan or in the alternative simply abandon the interim goals 

altogether. 

Response 17: The EPA agrees with the commenters concerns for timing and planning flexibility

and we are extending the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of 

the interim period from 2020 to 2022. A discussion of this is included in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. While we recognize the complexities necessary to 

form and enact plans and some States needing additional time to plan for, and meet, the first 

interim goal we are standing fast to the final goal deadline of 2030. In finalizing this rule, the 

EPA cannot consider the possible myriad of legal challenges and decisions that may follow this 

rule promulgation in our determination of the timeline in the rule itself.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters requested that EPA allow utilities to begin compliance within three years after the 

issuance of a state plan or in the alternative simply abandon the interim goals altogether.

The commenters noted that, if the final rule looks anything like this proposed rule, there will be 

significant state legislative actions that must be taken to achieve a planned renewable and energy 
143

efficiency program. The commenters indicated that this, coupled with the timeframes for natural 

gas pipeline expansion, will push the process back until at least 2019. Once the state plan is 

approved, the commenters indicated litigation will likely extend final approvals beyond 2020. At 

that point, when it becomes clear what the utility owners of the EGUs must do, the commenters

said huge investments of ratepayer money must be made over a very short period of time. The 

commenters stated that requiring compliance to begin three years after state plan issuance or 

abandoning the interim goals would make more sense.

Comment 18: Comment requesting that the EPA extend the compliance deadlines, and 

suggesting that the compliance obligation for the first phase should begin not earlier than 5 years 

from the date that the state must submit its section 111(d) implementation plan.

Response 18: The EPA agrees with the commenters and for these and other reasons, including 

timing and planning, reliability studies, infrastructure development, and legislation concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 

2022. The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ assertion that a full five years are necessary 

between submission of a final state or regional plan and the beginning of the first interim 

compliance period. In this final rule we require state plan submission by the year 2018, and 4 

interim periods beginning January 1, 2022, and retaining the final goal of 2030. A discussion of 

this is included in sections VIII.D and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the compliance deadlines are too short and need to be extended. The 

commenters stated that the timeline for implementation of the state CO2 emission reduction 

goals is extremely ambitious. The commenters noted that in addition to showing that state plans 

are projected to result in carbon intensity rates (or mass emissions, as appropriate) consistent 

with EPA's goals, states must demonstrate that their plans have actually met the state-specific 

interim and final goals. Specifically, the commenters noted that states are required to 

demonstrate that they are making progress consistent with the emissions reduction trajectory set 

out in their plans. The commenters noted that if a state (or multi-state group) exceeds an 

acceptable compliance range in the interim compliance period, it must institute "corrective 

measures" to bring itself into compliance. The commenters noted that each state must 

demonstrate that it has met the state goals by calculating the actual, average emission rate from 

all affected entities (along with any EE savings the state achieved) over the 2020-2029 

compliance period (for the interim goal), and 2030-2032 period (for the final goal). The 

commenters stated that for mass-based plans, the state would need to demonstrate that the total 

mass emissions from affected EGUs were equal to or less than the converted mass-based goal 

(regardless of the emission rate). The commenters noted that following the final compliance 

period, states would have to demonstrate that they have met the final state goal on a threecalendar year rolling average basis beginning January 1 of each year (i.e., 2031-2033, 2032-

2034, etc.). The commenters noted that although the ultimate reduction goals are set in 2030, the 

reduction requirements are front loaded and thereby must be achieved by 2020. 
144

The commenters urged the EPA to extend these compliance deadlines. The commenters stated 

that electric utilities have a legal duty to make reasonable and prudent investments pursuant to 

the review of their public utility commissions (PUCs). As a result, the commenters noted that 

utilities generally cannot even begin to make major capital investments in the new generation, 

efficiency and transmission upgrades, and end-use EE programs that would be required to 

comply with state plans until after a state plan has been submitted and approved by EPA. The 

commenters noted that even if EPA retains the proposed, overly aggressive schedules for 

submitting state plans, it is possible that regional plans would not be submitted to EPA until June 

2018 at the earliest. The commenters stated that further delays could also result from legal 

uncertainty regarding the applicable section 111(d) requirements until resolution of any major 

legal challenges to the federal rule or state implementation plans. Thus, the commenters stated 

that most electric utilities will likely be able to begin, at the earliest, making investments until 

about 1 year before EPA expects those entities to begin complying.

The commenters stated that this is not enough time for affected utilities and other regulated 

entities to implement the control measures under the time schedule contemplated by the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters provided for example, many utilities will need additional time 

to implement building block 2 measures (dispatch natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) 

generation at 70% capacity factor) by 2020 due to transmission constraints, inadequate natural 

gas pipeline capacity, and ownership limitations-just to name a few. The commenters stated that 

construction of additional transmission infrastructure or pipeline capacity needed for significant 

re-dispatch to NGCC generation take years even after a utility obtains permission from 

regulators to undertake these projects.

Finally, the commenters stated that it should be emphasized that EPA and states have 

considerable discretion in setting appropriate compliance deadlines for meeting the CO2 

performance standards that states must establish under section 111(d) of the CAA. The 

commenters noted that the statute does not prescribe any specific deadline for compliance with 

applicable performance standards. Similarly, the commenters noted that the Agency's 

implementing regulations do not impose any specific compliance deadline. Rather, the 

commenters stated that the EPA has broad discretion to specify the compliance schedules for any 

particular source category in the federal emission guidelines, including different "compliance 

times" for different types of facilities, where approximate. 

The commenters recommended that the EPA should set reasonable compliance dates for meeting 

the CO2 performance standards that reflect the substantial reduction obligations imposed under 

the Proposed Rule. Specifically, the commenters suggested that the compliance obligation for the 

first phase should begin not earlier than 5 years from the date that the state must submit its 

section 111(d) implementation plan.

Furthermore, the commenters suggested that states should be allowed to extend the compliance 

schedules based on the ability to install the control measures, the cost of compliance, impacts on 

reliability, and other relevant factors through the case-by-case variance procedures established in 

the implementing regulations. 

Commenters stated that the draft guidelines envision an electric generation in transmission 

system that will be revolutionary, not evolutionary in the near term (e.g., the details of what 
145

Missouri will require may not be known until 2018, but compliance begins in 2020, achieving 

over 82 percent of the final goal in the first 9 years). The commenters stated that a period of less 

than 2 years is not long enough to implement decisions that will change one of the nation's 

largest industry sectors forever and raise customer rates by more than simple double digits for 

decades in the future. The commenters stated that at least 5 years from the final approved state 

plan is needed for implementation of the glide path toward final compliance.

Commenters stated that the proposed rule compresses compliance dates and specifies future 

milestones at dates certain in the future. The commenters contended that this is unusual for 

environmental regulations that by their nature have long gestation periods and may require 

significant capital improvements. The commenters stated that some of the unreasonableness of 

the rule schedule could be mitigated if the dates were replaced by implementation intervals of 

time. The commenters provided for example, state plans would not be due until 2 years after the 

final rule is published in the Federal Register, or 3 years if state is participating in a multi-state 

plan. Similarly, the commenters suggested that if the EPA continues to insist upon interim 

goals, setting the beginning of the interim goal at a reasonable time interval (minimum 5 years) 

after the state's plan is approved will provide utilities the necessary time to complete the plan, 

permit, and construct new resources needed to diversify energy portfolios.

Commenters argued that the EPA is in error when they believe that giving states until 2020 

provides the necessary flexibility to achieve the goals outlined in the proposed guidelines. Even 

setting aside the potential inevitable delays created by litigation, the commenters said the 

proposed schedule as a practical matter only gives states 6 months to begin showing some 

reductions attributable to the CPP. The commenters noted that states will not know what the final 

guidelines will be until June or July of 2015, and until that time, it is difficult to have meaningful 

evaluation of multi-state agreements, much less begin interstate negotiations or to evaluate the 

true implications of the rule in a given state. The commenters noted that the guidelines include 

an additional year of delay based on state requests, assuming that the state can show progress, so 

the issuance of a state plan may not be required until June of 2017. The commenters noted that 

the deadline is further delayed until June of 2018 if the state is working on a multi-state 

agreement. The commenters also noted that EPA allows itself a full year to approve the state 

plan. The commenters said the final result of the delay is that states and the utilities located in 

them may not know with certainty what actions will be required until June of 2019, with 

compliance beginning as soon as January 1, 2020. The commenters said that is unreasonable, not 

attainable, and would result in the waste of ratepayer's money with no benefit to the 

environment. The commenters requested that EPA modify the provision that gives a five year 

window between state plan and compliance so that compliance is not required until five years 

after EPA approves a state plan.

Commenters stated that the compliance dates should be extended no less than five (5) years, i.e., 

the interim compliance period should begin no earlier than 2025, and the final compliance date 

should be no earlier than 2035.

Commenters argued that interim compliance timing must be extended.

The commenters stated that the CPP proposal does not allow adequate time for states to 

implement the necessary measures to achieve the front-loaded interim goal in 2020. According to 
146

the commenters, Michigan's interim goal represents a greater than 27% cut in emissions between 

2012 and 2020, and the end target goal in 2030 is only 4% more at 31%. Thus, the commenters 

estimated 87% of the 2030 emission reduction goal must be implemented in the interim phase. 

According to the commenters, this issue is compounded by the fact that, following the timeline 

in the proposal, a state will have, at a maximum, 36 months under a plan approved by EPA until 

the interim goal begins in 2020.

The commenters contended that the time needed to meet 87% of the final goal under a state's 

compliance plan will exceed 36 months. The commenters argued that it is not reasonable to 

expect that they, or any other impacted entity in Michigan, would make significant investments 

in asset acquisition or strategy deployment, prior to receiving notification that their required 

compliance plan is accepted by EPA and approved by state regulatory agencies (e.g. the 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Michigan Public Service 

Commission (MPSC)), and other governing or regulating entities (e.g. Midcontinent Independent 

System Operator, Inc. (MISO)). The commenters indicated the same can be said of the 

significant regulatory and legislative changes that will need to occur in Michigan to implement 

measures contained in the EPA proposal.

According to the commenters, a perfect example of the damaging impacts of rapid, aggressive, 

change to the existing energy supply chain is occurring right now in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. 

Due to a combination of energy deregulation, environmental regulatory changes, and a lack of 

existing infrastructure, the commenters noted that residents of the Upper Peninsula are facing 

annual electric billing increases of hundreds to thousands of dollars, and commercial and 

industrial ratepayers are facing even higher cost increases. The commenters noted that a 

combination of representatives from Michigan, Wisconsin, MISO and Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) have been working to develop a sustainable solution here, with 

Michigan emphasizing a low cost option, but they have made little progress. The commenters 

stated that EPA should prudently respect and not underestimate the necessary time needed to 

implement the broad changes in existing energy policy and infrastructure to achieve compliance 

with the CPP proposal. According to the commenters, the importance of maintaining safe, 

reliable, affordable and clean energy, while working within the bounds of our bureaucratic 

processes, concludes that the policy objectives proposed by EPA deserve more time.

Thus, the commenters requested that EPA grant states 3 years from the date of promulgation of 

the final section 111(d) rules to submit the state plan and at least five years from the date when 

EPA approves a state's respective plan before any states' interim compliance period begins. The 

commenters indicated that doing so allows the requisite time to ensure compliance and deal with 

inevitable issues in regulation and legislation necessary to implement the approved EPA plans.

Commenters stated that if the interim goal is retained, EPA should delay the start of the interim 

compliance period to 5 years after EPA's approval of the state plan. The commenters stated that 

the currently proposed interim period start of 2020, in combination with the stringent interim 

goal, requires actions on a schedule that is not realistic (too much, too soon). The commenters 

stated that according to the emissions rate schedule published in the appendix to the Goal 

Computation TSD, Georgia's target for the 2020 calendar year would be 966 lbs CO2/MWh and 

the 10-year average interim goal is 891 lbs CO2/MWh (from the Goal Computation TSD). The 

commenters stated that although EPA states that there is flexibility to fall behind at the start of 
147

the period and make it up later, this would be very difficult to do in light of the cumulative 

averaging nature of the goal. The commenters explained that the further a state is into the interim 

period, the harder it is to improve the average. The commenters stated that EPA has targeted a 

reduction in emissions performance from 1598 lbs CO2/MWh in 2012 (fossil sources) to 966 lbs 

CO2/MWh in 2020 through implementation of all BSER except incremental RE and EE. The 

commenters stated that this reduction amounts to 73% of the overall reduction in Georgia's 

emissions rate reduction from 2012 to 2030. The commenters stated that they see no reason to 

require the significantly steep reductions in the first few years of a 15 year plan. 

The commenters stated that EPA's proposal therefore requires Georgia, and many other states, to 

make significant CO2 emission reductions prior to 2020. The commenters stated that Georgia 

must implement the following changes to its energy sector prior to 2020 in order to have a 

chance of meeting EPA's interim goal:

• Design, fund, permit, and construct the projects necessary to implement the heat rate 

efficiency improvements targeted by the proposal at the 15 coal-fired EGUs that will still 

be operating in 2020;

• Utilities must renegotiate a number of contracts to reduce the amount of coal burned 

while increasing the natural gas dispatch to 70%;

• Build the natural gas infrastructure necessary to achieve 70% natural gas dispatch (annual 

percentage) at all NGCC units;

• Complete the construction, testing, and startup of two new nuclear plants;

• Pass laws (potentially), promulgate rules, and design management systems to establish 

and track renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; and

• Increase energy efficiency savings by 0.2% per year (percentage of retail sales) beginning 

in 2017.

The commenters noted that state plans are due to EPA by June 30, 2016 and (according to 40 

CFR 60.5715) EPA will have until June 30, 2017 to approve or disapprove the state plan. The 

commenters noted, assuming that these two steps happen on schedule, that only 2.5 years will 

remain until the proposed start (January 1, 2020) of the interim compliance period. The 

commenters stated, as EPA will be tasked with reviewing 49 state plans simultaneously, that it is 

likely that there will be delays in the approval process. (The commenters noted that Washington 

DC and Vermont are not required to submit state plans because they have no coal-fired EGUs.) 

The commenters stated that there is simply not enough time to implement the actions listed 

above between plan approval and January 1, 2020. The commenters stated that the interim goal 

should be replaced with a state developed glide path. However if an interim goal is retained, the 

commenters stated that EPA should move the start of the interim period to 5 years after EPA's 

approval of the state plan, and retain the starting emissions performance target and interim period 

average as set in the final rule. According to the commenters, this should allow time to 

implement the plan and achieve interim emission rates, while retaining an advance progresstracking period of adequate length.
148

Commenters stated that the aggressive targets of the proposed interim compliance period suggest 

that they may need to construct new NGCC plants by the early 2020s to displace coal generation 

that is retired to meet the standard. The commenters stated that new combined cycle generation 

planning and construction typically requires 5 years from initial development to commencement 

of operation. The commenters stated that this typical capital development cycle requires that a 

decision to construct a new NGCC plant would need to take place in 2015, well before a state 

plan is even submitted to EPA for review. The commenters noted that uncertainty (e.g., including 

uncertainty with the proposed aggressive timeline) may lead to delays in planning and ultimately 

in their ability to meet the emission reductions required during the interim compliance period. 

The commenters stated that a minimum of 5 years is needed between the date that EPA approves 

a state plan and the start of the first compliance period. 

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed interim compliance period (2020-2029) is unworkable 

because it requires most reductions to be achieved prior to or immediately after 2020 in order to 

achieve the target emission rate for the 10-year average compliance period ending in 2029. The 

commenters noted that the interim reduction goal for Michigan is a 10-year average of 1,227 

lb/MWh, which is a 27.4 percent decrease from the 2012 average Michigan rate of 1,690 

lb/MWh. The commented noted that the 2030 goal for Michigan is 1,161 lb/MWh which 

constitutes a 31.3 percent decrease from the 2012 average emission rate, but only 4 percent 

beyond the large 27.4 percent reduction required during the interim compliance period. Despite a 

seemingly long-term goal for making these emission reductions, the commented stated that the 

bulk of the reductions, including upfront planning, would need to be accomplished in the next 5 

years. Further, the commenters noted that their company is a fully regulated utility, and that 

Michigan's plan will not likely be approved by the EPA until 2018 because Michigan will likely 

ask for the additional year for submittal (June, 2017) and EPA approval can take a full year with 

many of the state plans being submitted at the same time. The commenters noted that this will 

reduce the 5 years to roughly 2 years. The commenters stated that 5 years is not a realistic 

timeframe for planning the scale of the electric generation transformation that this rule is 

requiring, let alone 2 years.

The commenters' 2012 baseline emission rate for their company is approximately 2,100 lb/MWh, 

which is already 26 percent higher than the 2012 state average for Michigan. The commenters 

noted that if the Michigan rate reduction targets are applied directly to the facility, the interim 

and final reduction standards would require emission rate reductions of greater than 40 percent 

below 2012 levels for the company. In order to meet these targets, the commenters stated that 

most of the changes to their generation mix would need to be accomplished prior to 2020 or in 

the 2020-2025 time period even with some relaxation of the interim standard timing. The 

commenters stated that the company will need to take aggressive measures in the next 10 years 

(2015 - 2025) to achieve a 40 percent emission rate reduction target, including:

• Retirement of over half of coal generation capacity

• Additions of significant combined cycle and simple cycle (peak load) capacity

• Nearly doubling of current renewable capacity
149

The commenters noted that many have referred to the proposed decrease in emissions as a glide 

path to the final goal in 2030; however, the commenters provided a graph titled "Potential CO2 

reduction requirements for DTE (lbs/MWH)" that indicates the glide path is more like a cliff at 

the start of the compliance period.

Comment 19: Comment requesting that the proposed interim goals beginning in 2020 be 

eliminated, or at the very least, start no earlier than the year 2025 with less stringency.

Response 19: The EPA agrees with the commenters concerns for timing and flexibility and for 

several reasons, including timing and planning, reliability studies, infrastructure development, 

and legislation concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time 

allowed for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of 

the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ assertion that 

2025 is the earliest timeframe where an interim assessment of progress could be made. In this 

final rule we require state plan submission by the year 2018, and 4 interim periods beginning 

January 1, 2022, and retaining the final goal of 2030. A discussion of this is included in sections

VIII.B, VIII.D, and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended extending the proposed schedule for compliance in order for the 

necessary electric transmission, electric generation, and gas pipeline infrastructure to be 

identified and constructed within and across the appropriate planning areas. At a minimum, the 

commenters requested that the proposed interim goals beginning in 2020 be extended at least 5 

years. According to the commenters, extending the schedule for compliance will help states 

develop plans that are achievable and acceptable to the EPA, reduce risks of reliability impacts 

and violations of reliability standards, and increase the possibility that states will be able to take 

a regional approach that reflects market realities and how transmission is planned and paid for.

Commenters asserted that the rulemaking and implementation schedule is unrealistic with the 

interim goal target date of 2020. The commenters noted that after rulemaking by the EPA, plan 

writing by the State, plan review by EPA, and final implementation by affected units, there will 

be optimistically 2 years remaining to achieve the interim goals in 2020. The commenters 

recommended the interim goal should be at a minimum delayed until 2025 or eliminated 

altogether and just use the final rule in 2030. The commenters stated that many of the 

infrastructure improvements needed to come into compliance will require more time than the 

EPA is allowing in the 111(d) draft rules. The commenters noted that this concern has also been 

expressed to the EPA by the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, the Iowa Utilities Board, 

the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator 

in their comments. The commenters suggested that the EPA fully consider the impacts of this 

rule and its timeline on the reliability of the electric system and the economic impacts of the 

entire country. 

Similarly, based on consultation with utilities in Indiana, commenters expressed concern that 

EGUs will not be able to implement changes to their units in a reliable fashion by 2020. The 

commenters requested that the EPA remove the interim compliance requirement to provide 
150

facilities with the ability to safely comply with the rule. If the EPA needs the interim goal to 

demonstrate continuing compliance efforts are underway, the commenters requested that EPA 

revise the rule to require interim goals be met by 2025 at the earliest, to allow facilities making 

large scale and expensive changes to do so in a safe, reliable, and cost effective manner. The 

commenters stated that requiring facilities to make complicated and expensive changes within 3 

years of the publishing of the rule puts the nation's electric grid reliability at risk.

Commenters contended that EPA's assumptions regarding building blocks one, two, and four 

appear to be overly optimistic, and there may be problems for some smaller utilities with 

building block three. According to the commenters, the need to construct electric transmission 

lines and natural gas pipelines associated with building blocks two and three will require years to 

plan, permit, and construct. The commenters stated they were not asking EPA to recalculate 

Iowa's baseline or final goal, but were instead asking EPA to recognize that the baseline 

calculations and goal computations that EPA assumed using these building blocks do not appear 

to be feasible within the proposed timeframe, which the commenters said supported their earlier 

request that the interim goal should be eliminated, or at the very least, start no earlier than the 

year 2025 with significantly less stringency compared to the final goal.

Commenters suggested that the nearest term compliance date for the rule should be 2025.

According to the commenters, the proposed rule provides relatively stringent emission rate limits 

and mainly focuses on the compliance date of 2030, but, because the rule also includes an 

interim limit that must be met as an average for the years 2020 through 2029, and this interim 

limit is almost as stringent as the 2030 limit, the proposed rule essentially requires compliance 

with the standards by 2020, not 2030. The commenters contended that the actions put forth in the 

four building blocks that are the basis for the rule cannot be put in place by 2020.

Comment 20: Comment stating that a reasonable extension of the deadlines is necessary for 

several reasons: the legal vulnerability of the rule; the certainty that it will be reviewed by the 

courts; the far-reaching impacts of the proposed rule; and the extreme burden that the 

development and implementation of such a plan would cause to the states, the impacted facilities, 

and the general public.

Response 20: The EPA agrees with the commenters that RTO’s and ISO’s, along with other 

entities involved at key positions, will need additional time to organize their plans, conduct 

reviews and adjust practices as necessary, and formulate revisions to business models as 

necessary to move toward meeting the first interim goal of 2022, and other goals beyond. A 

discussion of this is included in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

While we recognize the complexities necessary to form and enact plans, we are not moving the 

final goal deadline of 2030. The final rule does include additional time to formulate plans and 

meet the initial interim goal due to reasons the commenters mention, among others.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that an extended initial implementation period is justified. 
151

According to the commenters, prudence requires that the development and implementation 

deadlines in any version of the rule promulgated set forth implementation deadlines extended 

beyond those contained in the proposed rule. The commenters stated that a reasonable extension 

of these deadlines is necessary for several reasons: the legal vulnerability of the rule; the 

certainty that it will be reviewed by the courts; the far-reaching impacts of the proposed rule; and 

the extreme burden that the development and implementation of such a plan would cause to the 

states, the impacted facilities, and the general public. The commenters said an extension is all the 

more reasonable considering the manner in which carbon emissions react in the atmosphere and 

the relatively insignificant impact that any emissions occurring during an extended 

implementation period will have on global CO2 levels and the environment.

The commenters noted that EPA currently proposes that states must begin meeting interim goals 

by 2020. In order to achieve these goals, the commenters indicated that states and industry would 

have to begin preparation for implementing state plans prior to the finalization of EPA's 

proposed rule. According to the commenters, states may have to work with neighboring states 

and RTOs/ISOs, due to the interconnected nature of the electrical grid. The commenters also 

indicated that multiple intrastate agencies will be required to coordinate in order to develop and 

implement a state plan. The commenters said states will be heavily burdened to coordinate with 

other states, develop the necessary state plan, and if necessary, promulgate state regulations and 

enact state statutes to begin meeting interim goals by 2020. Meanwhile, the commenters noted, 

industry will be attempting to develop business models and strategies to meet the emission goals. 

In order to achieve compliance with previous EPA rules, the commenters noted that industry has 

already dedicated large amounts of resources in order to keep existing sources operating in 

compliance. To meet the proposed interim goals by 2020, the commenters said some of these 

same sources may well find it necessary to significantly scale back the operation of these units 

and/or may potentially find it necessary to retire these existing units earlier than intended. 

Furthermore, in order to assist with re-dispatching energy, the commenters indicated industry 

will be required to expend a vast amount of additional resources in updating transmission lines, 

as well as securing new sources of natural gas if they choose to fuel switch. The commenters

argued that this will heavily impact industry, as it will be required to expend substantial 

resources within a short timeframe, which in turn may transfer the financial burden to the rate 

payers and the general public. The commenters also noted that industry will have only a short 

time to identify, apply for, and obtain the appropriate authorizations, such as permits, from the 

various appropriate state agencies. Finally, the commenters argued that general public, rate 

payers, and taxpayers will be burdened because of the vast amount of resources spent in 

preparing, developing, and implementing state plans by the deadlines set forth in the proposed 

rule.

The commenters also stated that lengthy litigation over the validity of the proposed rule will 

undoubtedly occur. The commenters said there have already been several legal challenges made 

to the proposed rule, and it is almost certain that there will be additional challenges filed if the 

rule is finalized. According to the commenters, an extended development and implementation 

period would allow the courts to issue an ultimate decision on the legality of the rule. Absent 

such an extended development and implementation period, the states, the commenters said 

the federal government, and industry will have to dedicate large amounts of limited resources to 

comply with the extremely complex requirements of this rule (which may or may not be upheld 

in a form that resembles the final version ultimately issued by EPA). The commenters indicated 
152

that a deadline that contains an additional five years (i.e., until 2025) for the development and 

implementation of a plan would help avoid a great deal of uncertainty regarding the ultimate 

requirements of the rule and would likely have a diminutive overall impact on the purported goal 

of the proposed rule related to atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, the commenters said the 

environment may actually suffer if the vast amount of state and industry resources necessary to 

develop and implement a plan consistent with the proposed rule are focused on this effort and the 

rule is ultimately stricken by the courts. According to the commenters, resources are limited, and 

redirecting those resources to comply with an approach that may likely be determined to be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act will divert those resources from other necessary 

environmental protection efforts.

Comment 21: Comment suggesting that the EPA either eliminate the interim goals or move its 

2020 interim goal to 2022 in order to allow for a realistic timeline to develop a 111(d) state plan, 

without the need to request a time extension.

Response 21: The EPA generally agrees with the commenters and in this final rule we are 

extending the time allowed for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has 

moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The commenters raise concerns about 

the legislative processes required for states and regional groups to enact in order to support their 

finalized plans and we are swayed by this, and other complex ramifications of such an effort. A 

discussion of this is included in section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. While we 

recognize the complexities necessary to form and enact plans and some States needing additional 

time to plan for, and meet, the first interim goal we are standing fast to the final goal deadline of 

2030.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA must either eliminate the interim goals or move its 2020 interim 

goal to 2022 in order to allow for a realistic timeline to develop a 111(d) state plan, without the 

need to request a time extension. The commenters noted that Idaho's negotiated rulemaking 

process can take a significant amount of time, and all rules must be presented to the Idaho 

Legislature before becoming final. Given the time involved, the commenters indicated the Idaho 

Legislature would not be able to consider the State's rules for implementation until the 2018 

Legislative Session. The commenters said this leaves Idaho with barely a year and a half before 

the 2020 interim goal must be met. While the commenters understands that the proposed rule 

allows for certain time extensions, requesting a time extension is burdensome and would require 

Idaho to prematurely anticipate its needs.

Comment 22: Comment suggesting that the EPA should include reasonable phase-in periods for 

heat rate improvements and re-dispatch from coal to NGCC plants, and that the stringency of the 

interim goal could be adjusted to reflect the state-specific schedule for implementation of the 

control measures within the state.
153

Response 22: The EPA agrees with the commenters and for several reasons, including timing 

and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed 

for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the 

interim period from 2020 to 2022. The EPA notes that a state is not required to achieve the same 

level of emission reductions with respect to any one building block as assumed in the EPA’s 

BSER analysis. A state may use any combination of measures, including those not specifically 

factored into the BSER by the EPA. A description of multiple emission reduction methods is 

provided in sections VIII.C and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA should include reasonable phase-in periods for heat rate 

improvements and re-dispatch from coal to NGCC plants. The commenters noted that in the 

determination of the final and interim CO2 goals, EPA assumes that there are increasing RE and 

EE levels between 2020 and 2029 to reflect the gradual implementation of these measures to 

meet the targets. On the other hand, the commenters noted that the coal plant efficiency 

improvement and re-dispatch of coal to NGCC remain unchanged from 2020 to 2029. The 

commenters stated that this front loading of CO2 reductions results in sudden drops in the goal 

trajectory for virtually all states in 2020. The commenters stated that the consequence of EPA's 

approach is that the interim goal imposes a compliance cliff requiring many states to achieve 

very steep CO2 emissions reductions immediately at the start of the section 111(d) program. The 

commenters provided for example, in the state of Utah, about 84 percent of the State's interim 

goal would need to be met by 2020, with the remaining reductions divided over the next 10 

years. The commenters stated that Utah is not the only state that faces the task of achieving all of 

its CO2 emission reductions under Building Blocks 1 and 2 by the start of the program in 2020. 

The commenters noted that this front-loading of the CO2 reduction requirements has the effect of 

requiring states to achieve, on average, 75 percent of their total annual reduction target in 2020. 

The commenters asserted that the EPA's proposed implementation schedule leaves states with 

insufficient time to meet their CO2 emissions reduction obligations imposed under Building 

Blocks 1 and 2. The commenters noted that at most, states will only have 2 to 3 years to 

complete all of the measures (including major improvements to generation and transmission 

infrastructure as well as increases to natural gas pipeline capacity) that would be necessary to 

achieve these ambitious reduction levels. The commenters noted for example, increasing NGCC 

capacity to 70 percent per EPA's assumption will likely require additional pipeline and 

transmission capacity; it is questionable whether the process for obtaining federal and state 

regulatory approvals to meet the interim goal would be achievable.

For these reasons, the commenters recommended that EPA build in reasonable phase-in periods 

for heat rate improvements and re-dispatch from coal to NGCC to account for regulatory, 

reliability and capacity issues that will need to be addressed before these Building Blocks 1 and 2 

can be fully implemented. The commenters stated for example in the implementation of Building 

Block 2, EPA could assign each state a specific annual ramp rate that is calculated based on the 

difference between 70 percent and the state's actual average historic NGCC capacity factor.

In so doing, the commenters noted that the EPA would be adjusting the stringency of the states' 

interim goals to account for the barriers and delays that states may face in implementing 
154

Building Blocks 1 and 2. According to the commenters, under this approach, the state would still 

achieve the 2030 final goal established by EPA based on the four Building Blocks, but the 

stringency of the interim goal could be adjusted to reflect the state-specific schedule for 

implementation of the control measures within the state. The commenters noted that this would 

enable each state to develop a workable and reasonably achievable plan based on its ability to 

install the control measures, the cost of compliance, impacts on reliability, and other relevant 

state-specific factors. Furthermore, the commenters noted that the state plan would include 

federally enforceable milestones, for implementation of the emission reductions necessary to 

meet the final goal.

Comment 23: Comment expressing concern regarding the feasibility of implementation of HRIs, 

specifically with respect to timing and grid reliability concerns, and arguing that heat rate 

improvements would likely require longer time periods, and suggesting that the EPA not finalize 

any interim goal and should allow states to determine and set their own reasonable schedules for 

implementing heat rate improvement projects, including on a unit-specific basis.

Response 23: The EPA agrees with the commenters and for several reasons, including timing 

and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed 

for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the 

interim period from 2020 to 2022. Many aspects of the final rule’s design are intended to 

support system reliability, especially the long compliance period and the basic design that allows 

states flexibility to include a large variety of approaches and measures to achieve the 

environmental goals in a way that is tailored to each state’s energy resources and policies. The 

EPA notes that a state is not required to achieve the same level of emission reductions with 

respect to any one building block as assumed in the EPA’s BSER analysis. A state may use any 

combination of measures, including those not specifically factored into the BSER by the EPA. 

BSER Building Block 1 is discussed in section V.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP. A 

description of multiple emission reduction methods available to state and regional planners is 

provided in section VIII.I of the final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters expressed concern regarding the feasibility of implementation of HRIs, specifically 

with respect to timing. The commenters stated that if the EPA finalizes this overly ambitious 

schedule and they meet the June 2016 deadline for plan submittal without the need for an 

extension, firm and legally binding heat rate goals would not be in place until June of 2017 

(allowing the EPA's 1-year approval process). The commenters contended that the goal for the 

Ohio is overly ambitious, and that in order to meet this goal (both interim and final), many 

improvements would have to be in place by 2020. The commenters stated that if this timing 

holds, the utilities would have 2.5 years (30 months) to complete the necessary HRI projects in 

order to realize reductions in time for 2020. The commenters stated that, if Ohio must request an 

extension, this would be reduced to 1.5 years (20 months). Whether 20 or 30 months, the 

commenters stated that it is unrealistic to assume that sufficient numbers of HRI projects across 

Ohio's large coal-fired fleet with meaningful impact on achieving the EPA's goal for Ohio could 
155

be completed in this time frame without significantly impacting grid reliability, reserve capacity, 

and costs to consumers. The commenters stated that these impacts will occur, not only in Ohio, 

but regionally and nationally when all states prepare to meet their goals at the same time. 

Based on the commenters' stakeholder outreach, the commenters received several cradle-to-grave 

timelines of recent efficiency improvement projects at several Ohio EGUs. The commenters

urged the EPA to consider the following issues regarding the timing of major improvement 

projects at a typical coal-fired boiler. The commenters presented the timing considerations that 

must be accounted for when scheduling an outage via the RTO in Ohio, PJM Interconnection. 

The commenters noted that larger projects that involve boiler and/or turbine repair, replacement 

of major components, and the installation of new equipment are performed during major outages, 

and these outages are typically budgeted for 3 to 5 years in advance. The commenters stated that 

for the purposes of grid reliability, these outages must first be scheduled with PJM, and such 

outages typically last 6 to 10 weeks. The commenters stated that to help ensure grid reliability, 

these outages are carefully scheduled on regular and well-established maintenance cycles based 

on previous maintenance activities. The commenters stated that outages for boilers are typically 

scheduled every 3 to 5 years, and turbine outages approximately every 6 years. The commenters

stated that to avoid outages during periods of high demand, most outages are scheduled during 

the Spring and Fall months when demand is typically lower, and PJM reserves the right to cancel 

all scheduled outages up to the day before the unit is scheduled to be offline. The commenters

found it unreasonable that a large proportion of its coal-fired EGUs will be expected to schedule 

and complete major improvement projects, in just the spring and fall months over the course of 

20 to 30 months without impacting grid reliability. The commenters stated that utilities in the 

PJM region are already competing for limited down time for making improvements and limited 

labor and supply resources.

The commenters stated that even more concerning is that Ohio is anticipated to lose 

approximately 27% of its coal-fired generating capacity between 2015 and 2016, and Ohio EPA 

is concerned that it will become increasingly difficult for units to schedule lengthy outages. As 

discussed elsewhere, the commenters stated that the remaining coal fleet in Ohio will be well 

maintained, highly efficient and well controlled. The commenters stated that Ohio anticipates 

any remaining HRIs that can occur will be more substantial major upgrade projects. The 

commenters reiterated that the proposed rule raises substantial grid reliability concerns and urged 

the EPA to re-examine the proposed rule in this light.

In addition to timing considerations with respect to maintaining grid reliability, the commenters

stated that the types of major upgrades that the EPA specifies as part of the overly-ambitious 

target of 6% HRI set by the EPA require lengthy planning, engineering, construction, and testing 

processes that go well beyond the 20 to 30 months of the proposed rule's timetable. The 

commenters urged the EPA to consider the following timetable for such projects, provided by 

Ohio stakeholders:

• Initial planning: 6 to 8 months

• A/E firm contracting: 3-6 months
156

• Create engineering/spec package: 3 to 7 months

• Solicit proposals/contracting for construction: 3 to 5 months

• Design/fabrication/delivery: 3 months for "off the shelf" products, 18-24 months for 

unique components

• Installation: 2 to 4 months

Using the lower estimates for each phase of a project, the commenters noted that approximately 

20 months would be necessary for a facility to complete a major upgrade. The commenters

expressed concern that major upgrades at even a small number of units, let alone the fleet-wide 

improvements envisioned by the EPA, could not be completed in time to have meaningful 

impact on the glide path to achieve the state-wide emission intensity goal. Furthermore, the 

commenters stated that an additional 18-24 months would be required if a particular project were 

to trigger NSR/PSD permitting. The commenters stated that clearly, the timetable of the 

proposed rule is unrealistic, presents significant reliability concerns, and was created without 

regard for any of the above considerations.

A second project timeline, supplied to the commenters via stakeholder outreach, details the 

upgrade of the low pressure turbines at a coal-fired power plant in Ohio. The commenters stated 

that the objective of the upgrade was to increase the efficiency of the low-pressure side of 

generating system. The commenters stated that the actual historical timeline is presented below:

• May 2007: Requested OEM Feasibility Study for this LP Upgrade.

• September 2007: OEM presented results of Feasibility Study.

• December 2007: Preliminary economics evaluated, required cash flows, and 

recommendations for going out for competitive bid.

• January 2008: Requested Long Range (5-year) Budgeting approved for 2012 cash flow 

commencement.

• January 2011: RFP's issued for competitive bids.

• April 2011: Proposals received and evaluated.

• October 2011: Capital project and funding approved and Contract Issued to Seller.

• November 2011: Released for detail engineering.

• December 2011: Long lead time materials (16-24 months) ordered for expedited delivery 

to assembly shops.

• June 2012: Commenced detail planning of outage including duration development.
157

• April 2013: First materials received at shops for assembly (6 months for assembly prior 

to shipment to plant).

• September 2013: Commenced outage for LP Upgrade.

• December 2013: LP Upgrade completed, unit returned to service and testing initiated.

The commenters stated that this project also necessitated an alteration to the normal outage 

period scheduled with the RTO, but this alteration only impacted the schedule by approximately 

90 days. The commenters stated that it is typically the preference of EGU operators to schedule 

upgrades such as the one described above to coincide with the regular and well-established 

generator and boiler inspection and repair outage schedule, but such a scheduled outage was not 

possible in this particular instance. The commenters stated that this does not diminish the fact 

that the turbine upgrade required almost 7 years to complete and the unit return to normal 

operation. Again, as with previous example, the commenters stated that the EPA clearly did not 

explore and/or consider appropriate time periods in the proposed rule. The commenters believed

that it is impossible for those states that generate significant quantities of electricity from coalfired EGUs to have sufficient numbers of generators upgraded to meet the EPA's strict goals in 

time to have a meaningful impact on the glide path to achieve the state-wide emission intensity 

goal.

Commenters argued that heat rate improvements would likely require longer time periods. The 

commenters noted that EPA, in setting interim goals, assumed that heat rate improvement 

projects could be implemented by 2020. However, the commenters indicated it is unlikely that 

that a state's utilities would begin to implement heat rate improvement projects prior to EPA's 

approval of their state's plan. Given that a state plan may not be approved until 2018, and a 

multi-state plan may not be approved until 2019, the commenters indicated it is unlikely that heat 

rate improvement projects could be planned and completed by 2020. 

The commenters contended that longer time periods for compliance would provide more 

flexibility in project management and cost control. The commenters noted that the projects that 

offer the greatest potential to improve heat rate are often long lead-time projects. The 

commenters further noted that the logistics of many coal units implementing similar projects in 

the same, short time period may lead to cost increases and scheduling issues due to supply chain 

bottlenecks in obtaining equipment. According to the commenters, a recent project at the 

Boswell Energy Center Unit 4, of which WPPI is a part owner, illustrates the time required to 

implement a significant heat rate improvement project. The commenters noted that, at this unit, a 

steam turbine retrofit project, initiated in 2007, required approximately three years for design, 

procurement, permitting and scheduling of a lengthy plant outage for installation, and was 

completed in 2010.

Commenters stated that future technological advances may make additional heat rate 

improvement possible and the EPA should consider this while developing interim state carbon 

intensity targets and not assume that all HRIs will be implemented within the next few years.

To address these issues, the commenters suggested that EPA not finalize any interim goal and 

should allow states to determine and set their own reasonable schedules for implementing heat 
158

rate improvement projects. In the event that EPA includes a mandatory interim goal, then at the 

very least, the commenters suggested that EPA assume a ramp-up period for the implementation 

of these projects (as suggested in the NODA) similar to what EPA has proposed for renewables 

and energy efficiency.

Multiple commenters suggested that the EPA allow for a gradual implementation of the 

achievable HRI that is determined on a unit-specific basis. 

Commenters stated that building block 1 (heat rate improvement) must be phased in over the 

compliance timeframe. The commenters stated that EPA's presumption that building block 1 HRI 

actions can be accomplished by 2020 is unrealistic. The commenters stated that unless significant 

adjustments to EPA's building block 1 approach are undertaken based on the actual HRI 

feasibility of individual units, EGUs will be forced to implement significant improvements, 

many of which take years to plan and implement and generally require approval by the PSCW. 

The commenters stated that a full turbine upgrade can take up to 7 years to get planned, 

approved, and installed. According to the commenters, since EPA is not expected to approve 

state plans prior to 2019, this means that such an upgrade should not be presumed to occur prior 

to 2026. 

The commenters stated that even if EPA adjusts building block 1 to align with the real technical 

potential for HRI in each state, EPA must consider that the most effective long-term solution in 

some cases may be actions (such as plant retirement or fuel switching) that are beyond BSER, 

but which may make more sense for utility systems in the long-term. The commenters stated that 

EPA needs to allow sufficient time beyond 2019 to accommodate these potential alternatives. 

Finally, the commenters stated that EGU outages for equipment installations have to be 

coordinated by the independent system operator (ISO). The commenters stated that this planning 

and approval process, along with any necessary permitting, also cannot occur by 2020.

In recognition of these realities, the commenters stated that their preferred approach is for EPA 

to eliminate the interim goal and allow states to determine a schedule for implementation based 

on feasibility and cost. However, the commenters stated that if EPA chooses to retain the interim 

goals and allow states to phase in building block 1 over the entire compliance period, a phase-in 

schedule should consider the time required to integrate any transmission enhancements needed to 

address impacts to reliability, as indicated by MISO and the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NAERC).

Comment 24: Allow for a gradual implementation of the achievable HRI that is determined on a 

unit-specific basis

Response 24: See sections V.C, VIII.B, and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for 

EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the NODA also requests comment on whether EPA should phase in 

Block 1 heat rate improvements for coal-fired units. The commenters stated that this approach 
159

does not address the issue that heat rate improvements are best addressed on a unit-by-unit basis, 

thereby making any assumed approach by EPA to phase-in these reductions arbitrary and 

generic. The commenters stated that rather, to appropriately phase-in heat rate improvement 

projects EPA should allow for state plans to develop this schedule by conducting case-specific 

analyses. The commenters provided Appendix D including supporting information related to 

these technical issues including work practices conducted by Alliant Energy and summaries 

describing the potential impacts of load, cycling and degradation. 

Commenters stated that the proposed HRI for EGUs under BSER Building Block 1 are assumed 

to be in place in 2019 in order to meet interim state goals starting in 2020. Commenters stated 

EPA's expectation is unreasonable given the proposed timetable for submittal and approval of 

state plans; the timeframes needed to plan, design, and install the systems and equipment needed 

for HRI; and the very nature of HRI projects. 

The commenters stated that at the latest, states must submit complete plans, including HRI 

proposals, to EPA no later than June 30, 2016 for single-state plans or June 30, 2017 for multistate plans. The commenters stated that timeframes for review of these state plans by EPA, 

which could be as late as June 30, 2018 under the Proposed Rule, further contract the time 

available for design and installation. The commenters stated that as an example, the typical 

timeframes for utility industry planning, design, and installation of control equipment and 

systems associated with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) exceeded 30 months for 

even the most minor of modifications such as the installation of low-NOx burners. [Response to 

Comments Received on BART Applications, PacifiCorp Energy letter to WDEQ dated 

September 16, 2009.] The commenters stated that the time needed for full implementation of 

HRI projects would be similar.

The commenters stated that additionally, HRI projects by nature are most effective immediately 

after installation and degrade in effectiveness with time. The commenters stated that as a result, 

maintaining target HRI over a long-term period will be an ongoing process likely involving more 

frequent replacement of ancillary equipment. The commenters stated that this, along with the 

unrealistic timeframes for design and installation by 2019, creates an unachievable goal for HRI. 

The commenters stated that EPA should reconsider the timing associated with HRI 

implementation and revise the Proposed Rule to allow for a gradual implementation of the 

achievable HRI that is determined on a unit-specific basis.

Comment 25: Multiple comments discussing timing required for heat rate improvements and 

redispatch in relation to the glide path, expressing concern that the CPP does not allow adequate 

time for meeting the 2020 interim goal, and requesting a longer glide patch to 2030.

Response 25: The EPA agrees with the commenters and is providing additional flexibility to 

states to accommodate such requirements and programs through a “state measures” plan. We are 

also finalizing this rule to include consideration for emissions reductions made as early as 2012, 

and to allow “banking” of achieved emissions reductions to help meet interim and final goals. 

We are also moving back the beginning of interim goal tracking to 2022 and are retaining the 

final goal of 2030. A discussion of these issues is included in section VIII.C of the final rule 
160

preamble of the CPP. Regarding remaining useful life, see section VIII.G.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Multiple commenters discussed timing required for heat rate improvements and redispatch in 

relation to the glide path.

Commenters stated that efficiency improvement measures require significant time and 

investment to implement, including planning, contracting with vendors to perform this work, and 

scheduling outages in which it can be performed whereas, under the Proposed Guidelines, every 

coal-fired EGU that is not retired would be expected to implement these measures by 2020. The 

commenters stated that this would place an enormous strain on the energy grid as numerous units 

go down for outages at once in order to implement these measures by 2020, and units would be 

reluctant to begin this work before a final state plan is approved, which in many states may not 

occur before mid-2018 (and in states with multi-state agreements may not occur before mid2019). The commenters pointed to NERC who just issued a report that emphasizes that EPA's 

Proposed Guidelines pose a serious obstacle to the reliable supply of electricity in this nation.

Commenters stated that EPA should apply an incremental approach to factoring the carbon 

reductions associated with building blocks #1 and #2 into the interim target rate for each state, as 

it does with building blocks #3 and #4, rather than EPA's primary draft rule proposal of having 

all carbon emission rate reductions associated with building blocks #1 and #2 occur in 2020. The 

commenters stated that EPA provides little justification in the draft rule to ground its 

assumptions that it is feasible for states to implement a 6% carbon emission rate improvement at 

affected EGUs and increase natural gas combined cycle power plant capacity factors to 70% by 

2020. The commenters stated that since the draft rule has been proposed, power plant operators, 

electric utilities, state energy offices, and other knowledgeable stakeholders have been nearly 

uniform in their concern that states and power plant operators would not be able to implement 

building blocks #1 and #2 before 2020, or at one time. The commenters stated that given the 

overall size of the electricity sector, and the tremendous amounts of capital needed to make even 

small shifts in power plant efficiency or hours of generation, such an abrupt shift in electricity

generation operations is economically and operationally infeasible, and may not even be 

technically possible.

The commenters stated that instead of factoring all the carbon emission rate reductions 

associated with affected EGU efficiency improvements and coal-to-natural gas fuel switching 

into the pre-2020 time period, EPA should follow a similar schedule to what it implemented for 

building blocks #3 and #4. The commenters stated that under such a format, affected EGU 

efficiency improvements and coal-to-natural gas fuel switching is assumed to increase at a set 

rate between 2017 and 2029, ultimately achieving the intended carbon emission rate reductions 

in 2029 rather than 2020. The commenters stated that notably, this approach leaves EPA's final 

carbon emission rate targets for each state unchanged while easing state interim targets in order 

to allow states more time to implement cost-effective operational changes and upgrades at coal 

and natural gas power plants. The commenters stated that this also provides greater leeway for 

some fossil fuel burning power plants to live out their useful lives before retirement.
161

The commenters stated that as is noted in the October NODA, providing a more gradual process 

for substituting coal generation with natural gas is especially important given the scale of carbon 

emission reductions associated with building block #2 in many states. The commenters stated 

that if states with significant redistributions of coal to natural gas generation are not able to 

completely achieve the shift forecast in the draft rule by EPA for 2020, they have very limited 

alternate options for achieving a similar scale of carbon emission rate reductions. The 

commenters stated that switching large amounts of coal-fired electricity generation to natural gas 

could adversely affect grid reliability, ancillary services, and balancing authority's abilities to 

meet peak loads if implemented too quickly. The commenters stated that additionally, long-term 

contracts from affected EGUs could be compromised with a 2020 deadline for fuel switching. 

The commenters stated that a longer glide path through 2029 would at least mitigate some of the 

adverse impacts from building block #2.

The commenters stated that alternatively, EPA could split the carbon emission reductions 

associated with building blocks #1 and #2 in half, implementing half the 6% carbon emission 

rate improvement at affected coal EGUs and half the coal-to-natural gas generation shift 

assumed for each state in 2020 while the second half could be implemented in 2025 or another 

year. The commenters stated that setting the interim year carbon emission rate targets in this 

manner would achieve the same goal as the State of Montana's primary recommendation, 

providing greater leeway for states to find cost-effective means of reducing their carbon emission 

rates while leaving the final 2030 carbon emission rate targets for each state unaffected. 

Commenters stated that FMEA supports the proposal to phase in the emission reduction goals for 

BB #1 and BB #2. The commenters stated that this phase-in would help moderate the draconian 

CO2 reductions required in 2020 known as "The Cliff" by many utilities. The commenters 

believed that the phase-in should consider the amount of utilization NGCC generation that is 

both economically and physically feasible by 2020 as well as the time it would take to 

economically and physically fully utilize NGCC resources. The commenters stated that EPA 

should not only consider the "book life" of original fossil fuel-fired generating assets and the 

major upgrades to generating units but also the treatment of the units in the utility integrated

resource plans. The commenters stated that often continued utilization of base load units beyond 

their "book life" is a major factor in moderating consumer electric rates. 

Commenters stated that as noted above, PNM is concerned regarding the stringency of the 

interim goals, which are the result of EPA's assumption that states will be able to fully 

implement building blocks 1 and 2 before the beginning of the interim compliance period in 

2020. The commenters stated that however, EPA's October 2014 NODA requests comment on 

whether the interim goals should allow building block 1 assumptions to be phased in over the 

interim compliance period. The commenters stated that PNM supports that approach because it 

will provide additional flexibility and allow for affected EGUs to attempt several efficiency 

improvement strategies in sequence, rather than simultaneously, as would otherwise be required 

under the short deadlines originally proposed. The commenters stated that by allowing owners 

and operators of EGUs to schedule efficiency improvements sequentially, EPA will be allowing 

them to choose the most cost-effective projects first, and only implement less cost-effective 

strategies later if additional reductions are still needed. The commenters stated that without that 

flexibility, owners and operators of EGUs would be forced to implement all possible strategies at 

once, even ones that are largely duplicative and less cost-effective, in the attempt to achieve 
162

EPA's aggressive six percent efficiency improvement requirement within the short compliance 

window. The commenters stated that thus, PNM asks EPA to allow affected EGUs to gradually 

phase-in efficiency improvements over the entire interim compliance period, similar to EPA's 

approach for evaluating building blocks 3 and 4.

Commenters stated that the ability to gain the emission reductions predicted by EPA from Block 

1, is severely limited, if not impossible. The commenters stated that specifically, Laramie River 

Station has undertaken all the efficiencies it can identify, and, even if there were any additional 

improvements to the heat rate that could be done, the glide path does not give sufficient time to 

meet 2020 interim goals. The commenters stated that assuming a state plan is completed by 2016 

and approved by the EPA in that same year, utilities and regulators are left with less than 4 years 

for significant planning, budgeting, permitting and financing of major enhancements to improve 

the heat rate before 2020. The commenters stated that the NODA asks for input on whether 

allowing a phase-in of block 1 improvements will adequately address timing concerns. The 

commenters stated that planning improvements requires engineers to analyze the types of 

improvements, understand the impacts, and plan the plant outages for the installation of any heat 

rate improvements, and time for regulators to review and approve such plans. The commenters

stated that individual state air regulators understand these limitations which face the fleet in their 

state because they have been regulating them for the life of the plant. The commenters stated that 

while allowing a phase-in for block 1 might benefit units that have available efficiencies yet to 

achieve, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall workability of block 1. The 

commenters stated that in sum, it is very unlikely that LRS or any other affected EGU would be 

able to get any heat rate improvement (whether by 2020 or phased-in), leaving the states and the 

utilities to rely instead on Blocks 2, 3, and 4 to achieve the significant emission reductions 

required by the glide path in this short time frame.

Commenters stated that in its October 30, 2014 NODA the EPA requests comment on the idea of 

a phasing-in of the Building Block 1 heat rate improvement. The commenters stated that the 

problem with that idea is that no amount of time will allow for an average 6 percent 

improvement in the heat rate of coal-fired EGUs because that level of heat rate improvement is 

simply not achievable.

Commenters stated that in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) related to the proposed Clean 

Power Plan, EPA has requested comment on the glide path, whether a phase-in of BB1 and BB2 

would be appropriate. The commenters stated that for states like North Carolina that have 

already achieved high heat rate improvements (HRI), there exists little to no room for further 

HRI in the next few years. The commenters stated that NCDENR does not support the concept of 

a glide path, and believes that a state should not be denied the right to meet the final goal through 

infrastructure changes such as extending the life of a nuclear plant or conversion from coal to gas 

late in the 2020-2029 performance period (were those mechanisms found to be legally 

authorized).

Commenters recommended introducing greater flexibility in the application of Building Blocks 1 

and 2 by eliminating the requirement that the full magnitude of emission reductions from these 

building blocks be achieved by 2020. The commenters stated that under the current proposal, the 

methodology for establishing the interim emission rate goal requires that emission reductions 

occur by 2020 that are equal to the BSER assumptions for heat rate improvements and increased 
163

utilization of natural gas. The commenters stated that in states with significant coal and/or 

natural gas resources, this results in a substantial step change in emission reductions required by 

2020. The commenters stated that thereafter, emission reductions are assumed to occur through 

2030 based on the BSER assumptions for further increased renewables and energy efficiency. 

The commenters stated that accordingly, though there is a "glide path" available for compliance 

from 2020 to 2029, in many cases this is preceded by steep emission reduction required by 2020.

The commenters stated that such a sudden and steep transition from coal- to natural gas- fueled 

resources has the potential to result in the costly and unnecessary stranding of assets and does not 

fully account for the remaining useful life of existing coal-fired resources. The commenters

stated that Section 111(d) clearly provides the EPA administrator to develop regulations that 

allow states to consider, among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to 

which the standard applies. The commenters stated that while, arguably, EPA will allow the 

states to take remaining useful life of assets into consideration in their state plans, States should 

be explicitly provided the option in the final rule. The commenters suggested that EPA 

specifically add to proposed section 60.5740(11), supporting material, a fifth subsection for 

"materials demonstrating the state's analysis of the remaining useful life of the existing source to 

which such standard applies" to address situations where affected EGUs have made recent 

emission control retrofits or have significant remaining book life. The commenters stated that 

furthermore, this change in resource mix may create transmission system stability and reliability 

issues. The commenters stated that fixing these issues may require building and/or expanding 

high voltage transmission lines and substations, which requires lengthy regulatory approval 

processes.

The commenters stated that allowing states to phase in these components of BSER over the 

entire 10-year interim period provides an appropriate response to the concerns identified above 

and establishes parity for the timing of requirements among the four building blocks. The 

commenters stated that such an approach could provide relief to states with significant reduction 

requirements by 2020, as currently proposed, without jeopardizing the ability of states to meet 

the final emission rate goals. The commenters stated that this approach would also allow states to 

take into account their unique circumstances, such as the timing of coal retirements, when 

proposing how they will meet the final goal. 

Commenters stated that EPA seeks comment on whether a phase-in of Building Block 1 is 

appropriate. The commenters stated that in the proposed rule, Building Block 1 is implemented 

in total in 2020, contributing to the "compliance cliff." The commenters stated that Ameren 

Missouri has already implemented heat rate improvements across its fleet and further gains are 

expected to be relatively nominal, thus, the phasing in of this building block would do little to 

offset the impact of the compliance cliff associated with the interim goals. The commenters

stated that Ameren agrees that EPA should allow states to do an assessment of their coal fleets to 

determine which units could implement additional heat rate improvement projects and at what 

cost. The commenters stated that phasing-in an unachievable building block does not provide 

states with a meaningful compliance alternative as final compliance would require additional 

reductions of the other building blocks.

Commenters stated that EPA should allow states to utilize a longer glide path up to 2030 for 

implementation of Building Blocks 1 and 2 to avoid adversely impacting reliability and electric 
164

rates to the consumer. The commenters stated that electric utilities would need up to 10 years or 

more to achieve maximum heat rate improvements. The commenters stated that utilities typically 

complete maintenance outages every three years, and these are scheduled during low energy 

periods such as the spring and fall here in the Midwest. The commenters stated that outages are 

carefully coordinated with other regional utilities to ensure that rates and reliability are not 

significantly impacted and to ensure that the necessary, highly-skilled contract labor is available 

to complete the work. The commenters stated that if utilities are required to achieve their 

maximum heat rate reduction within two to three years, multiple units would need to be shut 

down concurrently for outage work, resulting in significantly adverse impacts to costs because 

more expensive natural gas capacity would have to be dispatched. The commenters stated that 

this could also result in potentially significantly adverse impacts to reliability if insufficient gas 

capacity is available. The commenters stated that capacity and energy gaps in regional coal 

systems could adversely impact the reliability of the transmission system because the 

transmission system has not been analyzed for the contingency loss of multiple coal units in a 

region.

Commenters stated that even if the necessary number of unit outages could be accomplished 

without adverse impacts to rates and reliability, the number of highly-skilled contract labor 

workers is not currently available to achieve the work, and there is insufficient time to develop a 

larger work force. The commenters stated that a labor shortage exists today and qualified labor is 

already in dire shortage both regionally and nationally. The commenters stated that for example, 

in 1988 the number of welders in the U.S. was 570,000; in 2012 that number had shrunk to less 

than 360,000. (And, in 2012, the average age of a welder in the U.S. was 54 years old.) The 

commenters stated that in 2008 there was an estimated shortage of 250,000 welders. The 

commenters stated that the American Welding Society estimates that shortage will grow to 

290,000 by 2020, in other words, the demand for welders in the next several years will grow to 

twice the actual numbers of qualified welders.

Commenters stated that a 10-year glide path for heat rate improvements would allow each unit to 

complete at least three outage cycles mitigating potentially significant adverse impacts to rates, 

reliability or the available workforce.

Commenters stated that providing states with a longer glide path would allow them to factor in 

the remaining useful life of power plants and avoid adverse cost impacts to consumers. The 

commenters stated that forcing expensive heat rate improvements on a coal-fired unit that 

operates infrequently and is scheduled for shut down between 2020 and 2030 is not costeffective for the rate payers. The commenters stated that utilities would have the opportunity to 

shut down the unit in lieu of completing heat rate improvements but potentially at the expense to 

rate payers through stranded cost recovery. The commenters stated that a longer implementation 

glide path would allow states and utilities to mitigate rate impacts by factoring in the longer term 

plans for existing units. 

Commenters stated that EPA is seeking comment on the appropriateness of the phase-in of 

Building Block 1. The commenters stated that the phase in of heat rate improvements at existing 

coal-fired units is not only appropriate, but necessary. The commenters stated that if there are 

available equipment upgrades and changes in operation that will result in increased efficiency,

these changes are likely to trigger permitting requirements. The commenters stated that as EPA 
165

is aware, the permitting timelines for PSD and NSR are long and require the issuance of a permit 

prior to commencement of construction of any upgrades or implementation of any changes in 

operation. The commenters stated that as a result, upgrades and changes are unlikely to be 

completed by 2020 and therefore, it is appropriate to phase-in Building Block 1. The commenters

stated that EPA should leave it up to the states to establish a logical phase-in for obtaining a 

reasonable and achievable final goal and EPA may consider the reasonableness of a state's

proposed phase-in as part of its review of the state plan. According to the commenters, this entire 

issue could be avoided by EPA abandoning the infeasible requirement for a fixed percentage 

reduction from Building Block 1. The commenters explained that it would be much more 

appropriate for EPA to establish a work practice or operational standard under section 111(h) of 

the CAA which reflects the best technological system of continuous emission reduction 

(BTSCER). In the case of coal-fired EGUs, the commenters stated that the BTSCER would be a 

requirement that sources must employ best practices of operation and maintenance to minimize 

heat rate variability and to periodically review available equipment upgrades to determine 

whether such upgrades would cost effectively improve heat rate and boiler efficiency.

Commenters stated that the timing and feasibility associated with building block 1 heat rate 

improvement (HRI) actions should be considered for any adjustments to the interim goal. The 

commenters stated that with regard to the 2020-2029 glide path, EPA is seeking comment on a 

suggestion from stakeholders that a phase-in of building block 1 would be appropriate. The 

commenters stated that EPA's alternative proposal appropriately recognizes that the building 

block 1 HRI actions, as originally proposed, cannot be accomplished by 2020 when, among other 

reasons, approved plans are not expected prior to 2019. The commenters stated that as noted in 

Wisconsin's Clean Power Plan Comments regarding this issue, EPA should eliminate the interim 

goal and allow each state to determine a schedule for compliance based on feasibility and cost.

Commenters stated that in the EPA's NODA, the agency requests comment on whether 

consistent with the BSER, the overall framework proposed includes sufficient flexibility with 

respect to adequate time for the implementation of emissions reduction strategies and the 

consideration of cost. The commenters stated that a relevant concern with EPA's BSER approach 

is the interaction of Block 1 with Blocks 2 and 3. The commenters stated that shifting generation 

from existing coal-fired generation assets and requiring these units to operate at lower capacities 

or as load-following units is counter-intuitive to achieving and sustaining heat rate 

improvements. The commenters stated that while EPA has provided flexibility in the compliance 

measures allowed, these options may not be sufficient or cost-effective compared to greater 

achievement of heat rate improvements at existing coal-fired units when operated as designed to 

provide for base load power at higher capacity factors. The commenters stated that furthermore, 

the interim goals present challenges in the pace of this possible shift in generation resources 

potentially making it difficult to obtain regulatory approvals for heat rate improvements at 

existing coal-fired EGUs post-2020. 

The commenters stated that to that end, as proposed by EPA in the NODA, it would be 

reasonable to address these concerns by allowing state agencies to take into account the book life 

of the original coal-fired assets, as well as the book life of any major upgrades to the asset, such 

as major pollution control retrofits. The commenters stated that alternatively, EPA could allow 

states to consider other measures, such as the depreciation schedule in lieu of the book life. The 

commenters stated that Alliant Energy believes that state plans should be provided the flexibility 
166

and option to use the book life (or some other reasonable measure such as depreciation schedule) 

as the basis for the development of an alternative emissions glide path that would phase-out these 

assets in a manner that maximizes emissions reductions while reducing impacts to reliability or 

affordability. The commenters stated that at a minimum, EPA's final rules must allow for states 

to consider the remaining useful life in demonstrating a request for a retirement off-ramp on an 

EGU-specific basis that could either revise the required emissions reductions or compliance 

deadline in the 111(d) plan.

Commenters agreed that if implemented as proposed, the proposal will be costly to consumers, 

and stranded assets will contribute to those costs in many markets. The commenters stated that 

EPA's suggested fix does not address the core problems in the proposal. The commenters stated 

that coal plants, which EPA's proposal would sideline, provide much-needed reliable generation 

in response to demand and external events. The commenters stated that those assets should not 

be scuttled, as EPA proposes. The commenters stated that that needed generation will exist in 

2030, just as it exists now and will exist in 2020. The commenters stated that the problem the 

NODA is trying to address is a problem of EPA's own making, and simply extending the 

compliance deadlines for specific assets will not fix it.

The commenters stated that EPA's request for comment about how to properly consider the 

remaining useful life of coal plants as part of a phased-in approach is equally misguided. The 

commenters stated that the CAA explicitly instructs states to account for remaining useful life in 

setting the standard, not EPA. The commenters stated that EPA's proposal must permit states to 

do this, yet EPA's proposal here does not. The commenters stated that as discussed earlier, EPA's 

prohibition against states adopting a less stringent "emissions performance goal" or longer 

compliance time than in EPA's guideline document is contrary to the regulations and the statute. 

The commenters stated that instead of EPA accounting for remaining useful life, EPA should 

recognize that states have the authority to vary from the emission rate established in the 

"guideline" as the statute requires. The commenters stated that as currently proposed, EPA's 

guidelines do not. 

Commenters questioned the ability of generators to achieve the 2020 targets as EPA has front 

loaded the reductions goal. The commenters stated that Alstom expects that generators will not 

move to make such heat rate improvements until the rule is finalized and the State 

Implementation plans are finalized. The commenters stated that this would be expected to be mid 

2017 or 2018 according to EPA's timeline. The commenters stated that given the need to review 

and prepare plans, order materials, do required engineering, and install the plant improvements, 

Alstom believes that the early reductions sought by Building Block 1 likely cannot be achieved. 

The commenters suggested a glide path to reductions that allows for time under all the Building 

Blocks to achieve the targeted reductions. The commenters stated that given the time to finalize 

regulations and plans, implementation should be accorded a reasonable approach for compliance 

since ultimately the objective is the 2030 target not the interim targets.

Commenters stated that capital improvements to improve unit efficiency, such as steam turbine 

upgrades, require several years to plan, design, procure, and install and that delivery time for 

major equipment, such as turbine rotors, is currently approximately 24 months. The commenters

expect time for delivery will increase significantly if the rule results in a spike in orders due to 

manufacturing facilities becoming backlogged and many upgrades require lengthy outages that 
167

must be coordinated with outages on other units to ensure sufficient generating capacity is 

always available to meet demand. The commenters further stated that utility steam turbine 

overhauls are significant investments and are now only typically done every 8 to 12 years, and 

upgrading a recently overhauled turbine truncates the benefit of the overhaul stranding that 

investment. The commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the initial compliance period and 

begin compliance in 2030 in order to provide adequate time for capital improvements to improve 

unit efficiency.

Comment 26: Comment supporting additional flexibilities around the "glide path" and early 

reductions, provided overall stringency of the CPP is maintained.

Response 26: The EPA agrees with the commenters concerns about the need for added 

flexibilities supporting the “glide path” and we are finalizing this rule with additional flexibility 

to accommodate such requirements and programs through a “state measures” plan. We are also 

finalizing this rule to include consideration for emissions reductions made as early as 2012. A 

discussion of these issues is included in sections VIII.C and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters indicated that the RGGI states support additional flexibilities around the "glide 

path" and early reductions, provided overall stringency of the CPP is maintained. The 

commenters noted that the RGGI states support the inclusion of flexibility throughout the CPP, 

including the potential for additional flexibility outlined in the NODA with respect to the timing 

of measures relied on as part of state compliance demonstrations. The commenters stated that if 

the EPA were to recognize actions taken during the period from January 1, 2014 through the 

beginning of the proposed 2020 compliance period, greater recognition would be given to the 

substantial progress already achieved by early action states to reduce GHG emissions; such a 

provision could also provide incentives for additional early action. The commenters stated that at 

the same time, the RGGI states urge the EPA to ensure that any recognition of action undertaken 

prior to the compliance period does not reduce the overall stringency of the rule on a national 

level. The commenters stated that in the event that the EPA chooses to provide states with 

greater interim flexibility in a way that diminishes the emission reductions that would have 

otherwise been achieved in the interim period, the EPA should implement other changes such as 

those identified by the RGGI states that would achieve additional cost-effective reductions, such 

that the overall level of national stringency is maintained or increased.

Comment 27: Comment stating that the interim goal is unrealistic, does not allow for delays in 

timing due to right-of-way obtainment or construction of new pipelines, transmission or 

generation facilities, and may ultimately result in stranded assets.

Response 27: The EPA shares the commenters’ goal of avoiding stranded assets. Although 

nothing in section 111(d) explicitly bars a guideline that results in some facilities becoming 

uneconomic before the end of their useful lives, the EPA nonetheless has striven to design the 
168

guidelines so as to give states flexibility to develop plans that allow power companies to recover 

their investments in generation units. The EPA generally agrees with the commenters that state 

and regional planning groups require additional time to review their current status, analyze, plan 

for, and finalize a plan and associated glide path to meet the interim goal, and subsequent goals. 

Discussion of these topics is included in sections VIII.C, VIII.D, VIII.E, VIII.F, and VIII.I of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters referred to EPA's statement at 79 FR 34837 that the EPA "recognizes that, with 

many measures, states can achieve emission reductions in the short-term, though the full effects 

of implementation of other measures, such as demand-side energy efficiency (EE) programs and 

the addition of renewable energy (RE) generating capacity, can take longer. Thus, the EPA is 

proposing interim goals that states must meet beginning in 2020. The proposed interim goals 

would apply over a 2020-2029 phase-in period." The commenters stated that in reality the 

interim goal is unrealistic. The commenters stated that if individual state plan approval is 

anticipated in June 2017, or perhaps even June 2018 if the state receives an extension, it will be 

very difficult for states to begin meeting the interim goal in 2020, even if the proposed rule 

anticipates the interim goal being averaged over 10 years. 

The commenters referred to the EPA's statement, "Of the four building blocks considered by the 

EPA in developing state goals, only the first block, heat rate improvements, involves capital 

investments at the affected EGUs which, if mandated in a state rule, might give rise to remaining 

useful life considerations at a particular facility. The other building blocks - re-dispatch among 

affected sources, addition of new generating capacity, and improvement in end-use energy 

efficiency - do not generally involve capital investments by the owner/operator at the affected 

EGU". The commenters stated that to meet the EPA goals, a state must take into consideration 

the time needed to finance, permit, construct or commission new generation. The commenters 

noted that the interim goal does not allow for delays in timing due to right-of-way obtainment or 

construction of new pipelines, transmission or generation facilities. 

The commenters referred to the EPA's note that timing flexibility, such as that provided with the 

interim goals, allows states to develop plans that will help states achieve a number of goals 

including addressing concerns about stranded assets. Yet, according to the commenters, in order 

to effectively meet a state's goals under the proposed timeline, it will be necessary to re-dispatch 

affected sources or add new generating capacity. The commenters stated that accelerated 

construction to meet aggressive goals may ultimately result in unintended stranded resources. 

Comment 28: Comment stating that the EPA's compliance timeline does not align with resource 

planning and build cycle timelines and recommending that the EPA allow states to retain 

flexibility for, and the establishment of, their own target emission reductions timelines (i.e. a 

compliance target glide-path) in order to meet each state's unique resource planning processes 

that also take into account actual permitting and construction timelines for the optimal solution.
169

Response 28: The EPA agrees with the commenters and for this and several reasons, including 

infrastructure needs, as well as timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, 

the EPA has extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start 

of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule also includes additional flexibility for 

state and regional planning groups to include RE and EE planning, as well as Emissions 

Reductions plans, and to include ability to count emissions reductions starting at the 2012 

baseline year, and bank early reductions to help meet later glide path requirements. We are 

finalizing this rule requiring submission of state or regional plans by 2018, and beginning the 

first interim goal on January 1, 2022. A discussion of these topics is included in sections VIII.B 

and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA's compliance timeline does not align with resource planning and 

build cycle timelines. The commenters noted that the EPA begins the glide path in 2020 with an 

interim goal and establishes a final goal by 2030. The commenters stated that based on South 

Dakota's affected units (one coal fired plant, Big Stone Power Plant or BSP, and one NGCC 

Plant, Deer Creek Station or DCS), the key building block that EPA identifies will meet the 

target emissions rate in 2020 is Building Block 2. The commenters stated that this building block 

is the re-dispatch of energy generated from affected coal units to affected existing natural gas 

units. While at first blush the re-dispatch of energy may seem relatively easy to accomplish, the 

commenters stated that the actual complexity of doing such requires appropriate time to 

adequately plan for re-dispatch to gas, plan for additional generating facilities, and build 

additional generating facilities or transmission lines. 

The commenters stated that re-dispatching DCS to a 70 percent capacity factor would require 

BSP to operate at a 23 percent capacity factor, but the owners of BSP identified that operating 

the plant at such a low capacity factor may cause the unit to become uneconomical to run and, 

ultimately, force the plant to shutdown. The commenters noted that should BSP be forced to shut 

down, additional generating resources or transmission upgrades would need to be determined 

through a resource planning process and then constructed in order to make up the capacity and 

energy lost due to the closure of BSP. The commenters stated that the utilities would then need to 

look at permitting and constructing the optimal plan in order to ensure electricity supply 

adequately meets demand. The commenters stated that the timeline for permitting and 

constructing projects varies depending upon the project, however it is their experience that 

planning, permitting, and constructing NGCC plants may take as long as 5 years, with 

transmission projects taking even longer. Given this, the commenters stated that the EPA's 

assumption that re-dispatch of generating resources can occur by 2020 is flawed. The 

commenters stated that the EPA's final rule must be flexible enough to allow for adequate 

resource planning, permitting, and construction. The commenters recommended that the EPA 

allow states to retain flexibility for, and the establishment of, their own target emission 

reductions timelines (i.e. a compliance target glide-path) in order to meet each state's unique 

resource planning processes that also take into account actual permitting and construction 

timelines for the optimal solution.
170

Comment 29: Comment asking why the EPA “front loaded” the compliance schedule, and 

questioned the ability of generators to achieve the 2020 front-loaded the reductions goal even if 

some level of HRI at a given unit is possible.

Response 29: In estimating the amount of improvement achievable through each building block 

e.g., improvement in heat rate or amount of generation shift to lower-emitting EGUs), the EPA 

relies on estimating the average achievable level rather than attempting to estimate the level 

achievable by each and every affected EGU. Thus, the fact that an individual facility may be 

unable, for example, to achieve the average level of heat rate improvement assumed in goalsetting is consistent with the EPA’s analysis, and does not undermine the EPA’s determination of 

state goals. Regarding concerns such as the commenters mention about timing, the EPA has 

extended the time allowed for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and has 

moved the start of the interim period from 2020 to 2022. The final rule includes this additional 

time due to reasons the commenters mention, among others. A discussion of these issues is 

included in sections VIII.B, VIII.E, VIII.F, and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA directs the states to achieve rather dramatic reductions (in lb/MWh) 

in the first 3 years of operation after the SIP that would be approved in 2017 (i.e., the interim 

goal must be reached by 2020). The commenters noted that, as the proposed rule is written, 

Colorado regulators are directed to ensure an interim reduction of 32.4 percent, but then the EPA 

allows 10 years to make the final reduction goal of 35.4 percent called for in the rule. The 

commenters questioned why EPA frontloads compliance in such a manner. 

Commenters also questioned the ability of generators to achieve the 2020 front-loaded the 

reductions goal even if some level of HRI at a given unit is possible.

Comment 30: Comment stating that states with large amounts of excess NGCC capacity are 

required to make significant CO2 reductions early in the compliance period in order to meet their 

interim goals, defeating the intended purpose of providing states flexibility.

Response 30: The EPA is finalizing this rule to include options that permit states to use a rate or 

mass CO2 emission goal, and each of these pathways allow states multiple plan design choices. 

The final rule also allows states more time to assess and finalize their plans and assemble these 

options into a workable glide path to the 2030 goal. Where the commenters note that flexibility 

seemed limited at proposal they should now find sufficient latitude to assemble their plan(s).

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Referring to the NODA, commenters noted EPA's statement that stakeholders have expressed 

that states with large amounts of excess NGCC capacity are required to make significant CO2 

reductions early in the compliance period in order to meet their interim goals, defeating the 

intended purpose of providing states flexibility. Given that the interim goals reduce high-NGCC-
171

capacity states' options for meeting compliance, the commenters questioned whether EPA 

considered altering or removing the interim goals or phasing in Building Block 2 in order to 

provide states with implementation flexibility

Comment 31: Comment contending that the 2020 implementation date also would be 

inconsistent with EPA's goal of maintaining an affordable and reliable energy mix.

Response 31: The EPA agrees with the commenters and we are finalizing this rule with a 2022 

implementation date for the first interim goal.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters disagreed with the EPA's suggestion that regardless of its impact on flexibility, the 

2020 implementation date may be required as an element of the BSER determination. The 

commenters stated that Section 111(a)(1) defines the "standard of performance" to be imposed 

under section 111(d) as, 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. The commenters stated that strict 

application of building block 2 to Arizona by 2020 would not constitute BSER under this 

definition for four reasons. First, the commenters stated that requiring the retirement of Arizona's 

entire coal fleet by 2020, which would be the effect of imposing building block 2 as a standalone requirement, would impose unreasonable costs in the form of stranded investments. 

Second, the commenters stated that the EPA modeling of the nationwide cost impacts of redispatch pursuant to building block 2 appears to be flawed. Third, the commenters stated that the 

assumption of a 2020 implementation date for building block 2 fails to account adequately for 

the need to develop the infrastructure required for re-dispatch. Finally, the commenters stated 

that full imposition of building block 2 by 2020 or even 2030 could jeopardize the reliability of 

Arizona's grid and would be inconsistent with EPA's obligation to consider "energy 

requirements." For these reasons, the commenters contended that the 2020 implementation date 

also would be inconsistent with EPA's goal of maintaining an affordable and reliable energy mix.

Comment 32: Comment suggesting that states should receive credit toward their interim and 

final goals for early energy efficiency projects and other actions that they take from 2012 to 2019 

in a manner that allows states to apply those credits towards interim compliance.

Response 32: The EPA agrees with the commenters and recognizes the value of such early 

actions, and in this final rule is providing states with discretion to credit reductions from the 

activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the context of both mass-based and rate-based 

plans. Section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP includes a discussion of this topic.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
172

Commenters suggested that states should receive credit toward their interim and final goals for 

early action that they take from 2012 to 2019 in a manner that allows states to apply those credits 

towards interim compliance. The commenters stated that crediting of early reductions provides 

states greater flexibility, provides an incentive to implement measures to meet targets sooner 

rather than later, and gives credits to those states that acted even prior to proposal of the CPP. 

While the commenters appreciated USEPA's recognition of programs implemented prior to the 

interim period, the commenters stated that it is more important that early reductions are put on an 

equal footing as interim period reductions by giving them equal credit. The commenters also 

stated that if the EPA maintains an interim goal averaged from 2020-2029 as proposed, deferring 

credits earned from 2012 to 2019 and applying them toward interim compliance might allow for 

a smoothing of the actual year over year emission rates, helping states to stay within the 10 

percent buffer, which might alleviate some of the onerous reporting burden being put upon states 

by preventing unnecessary midcourse corrections from having to be made.

Commenters noted that the fourth building block establishes national targets for the deployment 

of energy efficiency programs that are based on an evaluation of energy efficiency programs in 

the best performing states. The commenters noted, as proposed, any energy efficiency projects 

implemented after the date of the proposed rule (June 2014) can be credited for compliance 

purposes if they avoid generation during the compliance period, which starts in 2020. The 

commenters noted that the proposal solicits comments about whether the start date should be 

before or after June 2014. The commenters stated that it is reasonable that demand-side energy 

efficiency measures implemented after 2012 should be credited if the projects avoid generation 

during the compliance period because the baseline year in the proposed rule is 2012. The 

commenters stated that the start date for crediting energy efficiency projects should not be any 

later than June 2014, as this could delay the deployment of energy efficiency measures until they 

can receive credit under the rule. The commenters supported crediting energy efficiency projects 

implemented starting in January 2013. If January 2013 is not selected, the commenters suggested 

a starting date of June 2014 would be the next best option.

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow for recent efficiency projects at coal plants to be 

used for compliance.

Comment 33: Comment stated that EPA proposed to set interim goals by assuming that 

building blocks 1 and 2 could be implemented by 2020, however, Puerto Rico will not be able to 

benefit from these building blocks.

Response 33: The EPA agrees with the commenters we are finalizing this rule to include 

flexibility to allow state and regional planning groups the ability to revise the goal setting 

formula and the state goals themselves as well as providing for an explicit phase-in schedule for 

meeting the revised interim goals, while also allowing a state the option of choosing its own 

emissions improvement trajectory. A more detailed discussion of these options is included in 

sections VIII.G and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
173

Commenters stated that EPA proposed to set interim goals by assuming that building blocks 1 

and 2 could be implemented by 2020. The commenters stated that Puerto Rico will not be able to 

benefit from these building blocks. The commenters stated that the interim goals compliance 

period requires Puerto Rico to achieve very aggressive emission reductions in a relatively short 

period of 4 years, considering that the final rule will be issued in 2015 and the state plan is 

completed and approved by EPA in 2016. The commenters stated, considering that the only 

alternate option that Puerto Rico may have to achieve emission reductions under building block 2 

is the replacement or conversion to use natural gas of the existing EGUs affected by this rule, the 

interim goals compliance period needs to be shifted to allow for the implementation of these 

measures. The commenters stated that there are several constraints to the implementation of this 

alternate option by the 2020 period, mainly: the long process for obtaining the necessary state

and federal permit authorizations, securing the financing and contractors, phasing the required 

activities during available outage schedules, development and construction of the necessary 

infrastructure to supply natural gas to these EGUs, among others.

The commenters supported the Large Public Power Council's (LPPC's) position that "to provide 

additional timing flexibility for the implementation of these stringent reduction obligations, EPA 

should build in reasonable phase-in periods for achieving the required emission reductions", and 

that "this can be best achieved by giving each state the authority (subject to EPA approval) to set 

its interim CO2 emission rate goal based on an implementation that is feasible." This way, the 

commenters stated that Puerto Rico could still achieve the final goal, but the interim goal 

compliance period would be adjusted to reflect the state-specific schedule before the final goal 

compliance date.

6.1.4 Duration of performance periods for final and interim goals

This section addresses the timeframe allowed in the proposal for the interim and final goals. 

Many commenters requested that the EPA not finalize interim goals and instead allow the states 

establish their own interim milestones and glide path to meeting the 2030 target.

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are also provided for these topics. 

Comment 1: Comment supporting the flexibility provided by allowing the interim goal to be 

met through a 10-year rolling average during the period from 2020 to 2029 and encouraged EPA 

to allow states to set forth their own interim milestones and glide path while meeting the 

enforceable interim target (on a 10-year average, as proposed) and the 2030 emission target. 

Comment stating that the interim standard is amply achievable and more rigorous emission 

reductions are achievable in 2025, and stating that, consistent with the statutory requirements to 

periodically modernize BSER, the EPA must establish a legally enforceable mechanism that 

requires a BSER determination in 2025 to secure additional deeper reductions beginning no later 

than 2030. Comment arguing that the EPA should remain firm with its 2020 interim compliance 

target date, make it clear that states are allowed to revise or update their compliance plans 
174

through the 2030 compliance period to adjust for changes in technologies and unforeseen 

circumstances, and that they do not support any change to the glide path or any delay in 

achieving the emission reductions specified in the draft rule.

Response 1: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the CPP and our goal of 

providing a flexible approach to reducing GHG emissions by 2030. The EPA has determined 

that the BSER includes implementation of reduction measures over the period of 2022 through 

2029, with final compliance in 2030. Therefore the final rule requires that interim CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals be met for the interim period of 2022-2029, and 

for the three interim step periods (2022-2024, 2025-2027, 2028-2029). The final rule allows 

states that choose to meet a state CO2 emission goal the flexibility to define an alternate 

trajectory of emission performance between 2022 and 2029 to the steps specified in the rule. 

States have the option of meeting goals of the state’s choosing for the interim step periods 

instead of meeting the interim step goals provided in the emission guidelines, as long as meeting 

the state-determined interim step goals will still result in the interim state CO2 emission goal 

being met on an 8-year average or cumulative basis and the 2030 state CO2 emission goal is

achieved. Additional discussion to this point can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

We are not finalizing any position with respect to the implications of the 8-year review of the 

NSPS with respect to possible future revision of this guideline; it is unnecessary to address this 

issue at this point in time. Therefore, these comments are generally moot.

The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the interim standard and for the 

establishment of a final goal attainable in the year 2030. For a number of reasons described in 

section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA is providing additional flexibility 

to states and regional planning groups including additional time to develop and finalize a plan, 

and the start of interim compliance goals in 2022, while retaining 2030 as the final compliance 

date.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the flexibility provided by allowing the interim goal to be met through a 

10-year rolling average during the period from 2020 to 2029 and noted that this is an effective 

way to allow states to develop their own "glide path" to meet the level of emission performance 

required by the final goal in 2030. The commenters stated that, given that CO2 remains in the 

atmosphere for a century or more, strong interim targets are important to the proposed rule's 

environmental protectiveness. The commenters noted that states are already experiencing the 

harms of climate change, and therefore stated that cost-effective steps to reduce carbon pollution 

should be taken as soon as possible.

The commenters stated that interim targets are also important in that they enable timely, 

comprehensive planning to reduce a broad range of air pollutant emissions in an integrated and 

cost-effective way. The commenters stated that inclusion of interim targets beginning in 2020 

combined with a 10-year averaging period provides states with both a clear signal of the 

significant CO2 reductions required in the near term and the flexibility to meet those reductions 

while taking into account obligations to reduce other pollutants. The commenters stated that this 
175

allows states to holistically address not only CO2 emissions under the Clean Power Plan but also 

mercury and air toxics emissions under the MATS, cross-border air pollution under the CrossState Air Pollution Rule, ozone precursors contributing to nonattainment areas under the 

upcoming revision to the ambient air quality standard for ozone, and haze-creating pollutants 

under the Regional Haze Program. The commenters stated that comprehensive planning is more 

cost-effective, ensuring that investments made in pollution controls are not stranded if highemitting power plants become less economical to run under the broader framework of clean air 

standards. The commenters stated that providing interim targets combined with a flexible 10-

year averaging period leading to a final 2030 goal will provide states and power companies with 

the regulatory certainty to make these cost-effective investment decisions.

The commenters noted that EPA recognizes in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) that 

some stakeholders have indicated that the flexibility provided by the 10-year averaging period 

for interim goals is constrained by the stringency of some states' interim goals. The commenters 

strongly supported the inclusion of interim targets, but also encouraged EPA to provide states 

additional flexibility for meeting these interim targets. For example, the commenters encouraged 

EPA to allow states to credit certain reductions achieved between the proposal of the rule and 

2020; and also encouraged EPA to allow states the option to begin the interim compliance period 

before 2020 and therefore have a longer averaging period. The commenters noted that EPA took 

comment on both of these mechanisms in the proposal and the NODA. The commenters strongly 

encouraged EPA to allow states to set forth their own interim milestones and glide path while

meeting the enforceable interim target (on a 10-year average, as proposed) and the 2030 

emission target.

The commenters encouraged EPA, in the event that EPA chooses to provide states with greater 

interim flexibility in a way that reduces the emissions reductions that would have otherwise been 

achieved in the interim period, to consider other changes identified in this letter that would 

reflect additional cost effective opportunities for reductions, including implementing a 

reasonable minimum floor for a shift to natural gas.

Commenters stated that the interim standard is amply achievable and, as EPA itself finds, more 

rigorous emission reductions are achievable in 2025. The commenters stated that, consistent with 

the statutory requirements to periodically modernize BSER, EPA must establish a legally 

enforceable mechanism that requires a BSER determination in 2025 to secure additional deeper 

reductions beginning no later than 2030. 

The commenters argued that the interim standard that takes effect beginning in 2020 is amply 

achievable. According to the commenters, the extensive analysis of the building blocks, 

addresses important and cost-effective ways the building blocks can be strengthened by 

achieving deeper emissions reductions and securing the emissions reductions more swiftly than 

assumed, including, for example, the availability of deeper reductions at the source through costeffective co-firing and repowering with lower emitting fuels that is being widely deployed at coal 

plants today, the demonstrated potential to deploy more extensive and cost-effective renewable 

energy resources, and the rapid mobilization of demand side energy efficiency including a 

broader array of efficiency solutions than considered by EPA. Further, the commenters stated 

that there is extensive flexibility integrated into the compliance design of the interim standards. 
176

In sum, the commenters argued there is a strong - more than amply achievable - basis for 

meeting the proposed interim standard.

Moreover, the commenters stated that the EPA expressly recognized that a more rigorous 

standard could be achieved by 2025, finding that it is achievable for power sector emissions to be 

29 percent below 2005 levels in 2025 based on the changes reflected in the four building blocks. 

The commenters stated that EPA's finding that a deeper reduction in 2025 is achievable based on 

solutions adequately demonstrated meets the pertinent statutory criteria for determining the best 

system of emission reduction and thereby requires EPA to establish such a standard in 2025 that 

"reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable." As such, the commenters stated that the 

EPA must establish a 5-year compliance requirement beginning in 2025 and continuing through 

2029 that is far more rigorous than the 2020-2029 10-year average interim standard.

Finally, the commenters noted that EPA requests public comment on whether to require 

maintenance of the 2030 standard beyond that date or, alternatively, to review and revise its 

BSER determination post 2030. The commenters stated that as EPA recognizes, Congress has 

woven an updating mechanism into the fabric of section 111 that commands the Agency to 

refresh the BSER analysis for new sources "at least every eight years" and is inextricably 

connected with updating the existing source standards through the expansive statutory definition 

of the term "new source," the terms of section 111(d), and the long-standing EPA regulations 

implementing section 111(d) in parallel with section 111(b).

According to the commenters, the availability of clean low carbon solutions is advancing at a 

rapidly accelerating pace as clean technologies are being drive to scale and meeting our nation's 

power needs at briskly diminishing costs. The commenters stated that there is every indication 

that like other modern clean air solutions for the power sector, including scrubbers and SCR, as 

well as for other major source sectors, that emissions reductions in the near future will be 

achievable more swiftly, more deeply and at a fraction of the costs currently expected.

The commenters stated that EPA must hew to the facts in determining BSER and carry out its 

legal responsibility to commit to determine in 2025 through a legally enforceable mechanism the 

BSER that applies over time - and that is not stagnant in maintaining in 2030 the standard of 

performance established a decade earlier. Rather, the commenters stated that the BSER analysis 

must be, as Congress intended, a vibrant, rigorous, and dynamic tool in securing for our nation's 

public health, environmental quality, and prosperity - no later than the 2030 timeframe - the 

additional far deeper "degree of emission reductions achievable."

Commenters supported the 2020 interim target date. 

Commenters argued that EPA should remain firm with its 2020 interim compliance target date as 

reasonable to ensure states remain on track in reaching their respective goals. The commenters 

said the rule should also make it clear that states are allowed to revise or update their compliance 

plans through the 2030 compliance period to adjust for changes in technologies and other 

circumstances unforeseen during the coming period of initial compliance plan development.

Commenters noted that, in its October 28, 2014, Notice of Data Availability (NODA), the EPA 

requested comment on a potential change in the "glide path" for emissions reductions that would 
177

make the 2020 interim state goals less stringent but keep the 2030 goals the same. In light of the 

many cost-effective, quickly-deployed options to cut emissions (including renewable energy and 

energy efficiency), the significant flexibility already provided to states in the timing for reaching 

their interim goals, and the urgent need to make deep cuts in our global warming emissions, the 

commenters did not support any change to the glide path or any delay in achieving the emission 

reductions specified in the draft rule. The commenters stated that further delays in achieving 

emissions reductions are contrary to the overall goals of the CPP to make a significant 

contribution to reduce US global warming emissions in a timely way and could also result in 

more stranded assets with utilities making investments to meet near-term targets that may be 

unsuitable for meeting the longer term targets. Nevertheless, if the EPA were to decide to make 

any change in the glide path, the commenters said it should only be done in conjunction with 

strengthening the state emissions reduction goals required by CPP.

Commenters noted that EPA requested comment on the appropriate time period(s) and final year 

for the EPA's calculation of state goals that reflect application of the BSER. The commenters

stated that a 10 year compliance period is an adequate amount of time for states to reach the CO2 

emission reductions goals. 

Commenters noted that many of the stakeholders that they have met with are concerned about 

the reliability of the electric system if the Building Blocks are utilized for compliance. The 

commenters said electric reliability is always a concern for all stakeholders. The commenters

contended that there is no reason to think that the reduction schedule that EPA has proposed will 

pose a threat to system reliability. According to the commenters, integration of renewable 

resources, increased dispatch of natural gas, and managing demand-side energy efficiency 

resources are long-standing functions of grid operators in Wisconsin, throughout the Midwest, 

and around the country. The commenters argued that the long compliance horizon in the CPP 

provides all stakeholders with sufficient time to take thoughtful, informed, and deliberate actions 

to manage any reliability concerns. The commenters contended that the currently envisioned ten 

year compliance period between 2020 and 2029 provides states with a sufficient amount of time 

to anticipate any adverse impacts that the CPP may have on electric reliability and subsequently 

address them in coordination with regional grid operators and other states.

The commenters stated that EPA is also affording states tremendous flexibility in giving states a 

timeline with two compliance dates, one of 2030 which is 15 years from now and 12 years after 

EPA is likely to approve state plans, and an interim goal with an average over 10 years (from 

2020 to 2030). The commenters stated that states need to show progress towards the average 

reduction (they can't wait until the last minutes) but this is still very flexible. The commenters

stated that this gives states ample time to enact any necessary legislation and undergo the longterm planning necessary to ultimately implement compliance plans in an informed, deliberative, 

and comprehensive way.

Commenters stated that the proposed guidelines, by providing goals over a 15-year period for 

carbon reduction, provide policy certainty for investors and businesses.
178

Comment 2: Multiple comments calling for elimination of the interim emission rate goal. 

Comment stating that the interim targets assume all of Building Blocks #1 and #2 will be 

completed by 2020, which does not allow the time to accomplish these goals, and recommending 

that the EPA eliminate the interim target and only set a final target in 2030.

Response 2: We disagree with commenters’ assertions that interim goals should be discarded,

as we see great value in the interim approach in that states and regional planning groups have a 

stepped approach with checkpoints that provide for assurance that the glide path is on target with 

the goals that have been set. 

Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the 

interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions 

trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 

2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the 

implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the 

interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of 

the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect 

the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 

2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance 

rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section 

V. 

In this final rule, a state plan submittal must demonstrate that the emission performance of 

affected EGUs will meet the interim step CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission 

interim step goals on average over the 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029 periods and the 

final CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal no later than 2030. 

This relatively long planning and implementation period provides states with substantial 

flexibility regarding methods and timing of achieving emission reductions while ensuring that 

states remain on track to meet their goals.

We are finalizing this rule with a great deal of added flexibility both in terms of program options 

and in regard to the timing of interim and final goal milestones. A full discussion of state plan 

timing and flexibility of available programs can be found in sections VIII.E and VIII.G of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters called for elimination of the interim emission rate goals.

Commenters stated that the proposed average emission rate for the period 2020 through 2029 is 

unnecessary and creates needless administrative difficulties. The commenters noted additions 

and removals of generation assets will be required to achieve the 2030 emission goals, 

particularly for Platt River Power Authority which does not operate any natural gas combined 

cycle generation. The commenters noted that changes in the makeup of a resource portfolio take 

a long period of time to plan and implement and are by their nature lumpy. The commissioning 

or decommissioning of resources cerates significant issues associated with rate impacts and 
179

reliability. To the extent that the significant portfolio changes needs to be made subsequent to 

2020, it may not be possible to meet the average emission rates set forth in the proposed rule. 

The commenters stated that utilities may reasonably require a glide path longer than the time 

allowed between the finalization of this rule and 2020 to modify their portfolios. The 

commenters stated that if left unchanged the rule will unavoidably penalize utilities that are 

undertaking prudent efforts to comply through modification of their resource portfolios that 

necessarily extend beyond 2020. The commenters suggested that the EPA set a reasonable 

emissions goal for 2030 and trust the states to develop reasonable compliance plans to achieve 

reductions rather than specifying fixed interim requirements, the effect of which may complicate 

compliance.

Commenters suggested that the interim emission goals that are to take effect in 2020 should be 

eliminated. Given the difficulty states will face in developing plans in the timeframes EPA has 

provided and the fact that a failure to meet an interim goal in early years will require significant 

over compliance in later years to meet the 10-year interim average emission reduction rate, the 

interim goals are simply unachievable. Commenters stated in the event EPA chooses not to 

eliminate the interim goals, the interim goals should be recalculated under the revised 

assumption that the emission reductions from building block 2 are achievable on a phased-in 

basis between 2020 and 2029, rather than being achievable in 2020.

Commenters stated that if the final emission guidelines contain interim goals, which UARG does 

not support, then they should be flexible and allow states to comply using a reasonable "glide 

path." According to the commenters, each state should have the authority to define its own glide 

path using criteria such as costs, energy impacts, and remaining useful life. Commenters stated 

allowing the interim goals to be met using a glide path would be a logical outgrowth of the 

Proposed Guidelines. Commenters said states should be allowed to determine the timing and to 

have a gradual phase-in of Building Blocks 1 and 2.

Commenters stated that the emission goals EPA has set are too stringent and require such 

draconian actions to ensure compliance that many states will have no choice but to take 

significant action by 2020. The commenters noted for example, the State of Arkansas has 

concluded that the infrastructure that will be required to implement the Proposed Guidelines 

makes plan implementation "as early as 2017 to meet an interim goal in 2020... far too soon and 

too abrupt to allow Arkansas utilities to meet the challenges of the proposed rule in a manner that 

is cost-effective for their ratepayers." The commenters noted for that reason, Arkansas has 

requested that EPA eliminate the interim goal to allow for a less burdensome glide-path to 

compliance. The commenters stated that indeed, it is nearly inconceivable that states could 

develop renewable energy, build out infrastructure, or even develop more traditional sources of 

generation to replace the sources that the Proposed Guidelines will force into retirement in time 

to meet the interim goals. 

Commenters noted that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has even found that EPA's 

targets are "front loaded," "with a disproportionate percentage of emission rate reductions 

required in the early years of the program (2020-2024)." The commenters noted that the CRS 

finds, for example, that "90% of Arizona's total emission rate reductions occur between its 2012 
180

baseline and its 2020 emission rate." The commenters stated that the Proposed Guidelines 

improperly tie states' hands and will wreak havoc on electricity markets in the near-term - EPA's 

assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. The commenters stated that in the event that EPA 

decides to proceed with the Proposed Guidelines despite the myriad legal, technical, practical, 

and political issues that they present, EPA should, at the very least, eliminate the interim goals. 

The commenters stated that EPA seems to suggest that it is at least considering this option in the 

NODA issued on October 30, 2014. 

Commenters expressed concern that the interim emission reduction targets are unrealistically 

"front loaded," requiring most of the reductions by 2020-2022. The commenters stated that the 

extensive nature of the changes that will be required by the proposed rule means that utilities will 

reasonably require a glide path longer than that allowed in the proposal - which front-ends many 

of the required reductions and establishes an average emission rate during the 2020-2029 period 

that fails to account for the time required and lumpy nature of major portfolio modifications. The 

commenters suggested that many of the implementation problems created by the establishment 

of a 2020 interim goal can be avoided by simply creating a more reasonable 2030 goal and 

vesting the states with the discretion to develop compliance plans capable of achieving the 

reduction goal.

Commenters stated that imposition of interim emission rate goals starting in 2020 imposes 

unnecessary burdens on the states and affected entities. The commenters stated that for some 

states, virtually all of the reductions that would be required to meet the 2030 goal would need to 

be achieved as of 2020. The commenters noted the EPA's assumptions supporting goal 

development and the Agency's subsequent Integrated Planning Model (IPM) modeling supports 

this conclusion. The commenters noted that in addition, obtaining the permits and the 

infrastructure necessary to comply with the rule in 2020 will be impossible in many states. As 

discussed in the CICS paper entitled "Recommendation for Proposed Alternative to The Clean 

Power Proposal Interim Targets Structure," the commenters suggested that EPA give the states 

greater discretion to submit plans that achieve their own glide paths toward achievement of the 

2030 goals to minimize the economic upheaval caused by the Proposed Rule.

Commenters stated that as a result of EPA's assumptions regarding the implementation of Blocks 

1 and 2, the interim goals for many states are so stringent almost all of the required emission rate 

reductions required by the Proposed Rule must be achieved in the first year in the 10-year 

interim goal compliance period. The commenters stated that for example, for 11 states, EPA 

assumes that over 75 percent of the total reductions required by 2030 would be achieved by 

2020. The commenters provided Table 1, which calculates percentage of total (2030) reduction 

predicted in 2020. 

Commenters explained that States with emission levels that are above their interim goals in the 

first part of the compliance period will not be able to achieve reductions sufficient to offset those 

emissions later in the compliance period. The commenters stated that this is evident from the 

calculations presented in EPA's technical support documents, which project that many states 

would make dramatic changes in generation resource dispatch to achieve near or full compliance 

with the interim goals in 2020. The commenters stated that the resulting emission rate reduction 

trajectory resembles a cliff - emissions decrease sharply early in the compliance period and then 
181

remain largely unchanged through 2030. The commenters provided Table 2, which shows graphs 

for 4 states reflecting each state's predicted annual rates of emissions reductions. The 

commenters stated that EPA's proposed schedule for implementing the rule leaves states with 

little or no flexibility to determine a different compliance path and avoid the compliance cliff. 

The commenters stated that EPA intends to finalize the Proposed Rule in 2015, which means that 

the earliest state implementation plans would be approved by EPA is 2017 or 2018. The 

commenters stated that at most, this schedule leaves 3 years for electric generating companies to 

achieve aggressive emission reductions and states to make sweeping changes to their existing 

electric generating, transmission, and distribution systems. The commenters stated that given the 

stringency of the interim goals, the proposed implementation schedule will force states to adhere 

to EPA's prescribed redispatch and coal-unit closures to achieve compliance with the goals.

Commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the interim goals and allow states to set graduated, 

state appropriate, compliance paths that achieve EPA's emission rate goals in 2030. The 

commenters stated that allowing states to set tailored compliance paths would avoid the 

compliance cliff created by the interim goals. In most states, the commenters stated the resulting 

compliance trajectory would likely look like a series of steps - rather than a cliff - as states move 

toward compliance with their final goals. The commenters explained that states have a strong 

economic incentive to gradually implement emission rate reductions so as to avoid abrupt 

changes in their electric generating, transmissions, and distribution systems. The commenters 

contended that a graduated compliance path would be far less burdensome to state and local 

economies and still achieve all of the 2030 emission rate reductions targeted by the Proposed 

Rule. The commenters stated that this approach also would be more consistent with the text of 

Section 111(d), which places the responsibility for implementing and achieving reductions on the 

states' taking into consideration the cost of achieving reductions, non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, energy requirements, and the remaining useful life of existing units. 

Further, the commenters noted that section 111(d) instructs EPA to establish a procedure for 

states to submit plans similar to the procedure in Section 110, which instructs states to establish 

schedules and timetables for compliance. The commenters stated that eliminating the interim 

goals would provide states with flexibility to set a compliance path that could include a mix of 

new construction, additional zero emission generation, redispatch to NGCCs, and retirement of 

existing sources.

Commenters stated that the current rule is based upon a hurried administrative process and 

flawed interpretations of statute. The commenters asserted that the CPP will maximize costs, 

suppress economic growth, and undermine reliability because of its expansive design, crafted 

without regard to costs, and its unrealistic assumptions about the workings of the U.S. electricity 

sector. The commenters asked that the Agency withdraw the CPP. In the absence of withdrawal, 

the commenters asked that EPA remove the draconian 2020 interim deadlines for compliance 

that the commenters asserted will inflict serious harm on States and the American people in the 

short-term.

Commenters stated that the EPA should also allow states to establish their own path to achieving 

the 2030 goal, and should allow states flexibility in establishing and reporting on milestones 

along this path.
182

Commenters stated that more time is needed after SIP submittal to address reliability risks. The 

commenters stated that the implementation schedule the EPA has proposed, beginning in 2020, 

does not leave an adequate amount of time after states submit their implementation plans to 

develop a compliance strategy and identify and address any reliability issues that may result from 

the strategy. The commenters recommended that the EPA eliminate the initial compliance period 

and allow the states to determine how to achieve an ultimate goal. The commenters stated that 

failure to allow adequate time between a state's SIP submittal and the beginning of 

implementation to address any reliability issues could force the implementation of a less than 

optimal compliance strategy because the optimal strategy could not be implemented in the time 

provided due to related reliability problems.

Commenters stated that EPA must abandon the interim targets it has proposed, as it will be 

impossible for states to meet those requirements. The commenters noted that the interim targets 

assume all of Building Blocks #1 and #2 will be completed by 2020, and this does not allow the 

time to accomplish these goals. 

Commenters noted that the EPA seeks comment on the approach to phase-in Building Block 2 to 

achieve a more gradual glide path, but the EPA does not provide any specific information on 

how it would determine an appropriate phase-in schedule for Building Block 2. The commenters 

stated that it is not realistic to assume that the EPA will be able to establish a phase-in for 

Building Block 2 to accommodate all of the concerns surrounding the permitting, technical, 

engineering, and infrastructure limitations associated with Building Block 2. The commenters 

stated that the flexibility that the EPA advertises with this proposed rule would be more credible 

if the interim goals were eliminated

The commenters stated that in its current form, the interim goal glide path is very specifically 

tailored to an exact combination of building blocks implemented by a precise schedule set by the 

EPA. The commenters noted that if a state were to vary from this combination of building blocks 

or schedule in even the slightest way, there is a high likelihood that the interim goals or final 

goals would not be able to be met. The commenters stated that elimination of the interim goals 

would promote the flexibility to implement building blocks, at a state or regional level, on a 

schedule that is appropriate given the individual factors contributing to that state or region's 

ability to reduce carbon emissions. The commenters argued that states or regions should be able 

to determine this schedule in their implementation plans and not be mandated to meet interim 

goals as long as the timeline proposed in the SIP (and approved by the EPA) includes appropriate 

measures taken to ensure compliance with the 2030 goals. 

Another commenters stated that the EPA should extend the interim 2020 target to 2030. The 

commenters stated that the median GHG emission reduction target in 2020 is 66 percent and 

Arizona has the highest reduction requirement at 90 percent. The commenters that these severe 

reductions in such a short time frame are not a "glide-path," but a cliff. The commenters noted 

that reports by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), MISO, PJM, and 

ERCOT all confirm that the interim 2020 target poses significant concerns to reliability and 

unnecessary high costs that industrial consumers would preferentially pay. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA eliminate the interim target and only set a final target in 2030.
183

The commenters noted that electric generation, transmission, and natural gas pipelines are 

capital-intensive and there are lengthy permitting, planning, and construction time frames 

necessary to get the facilities in place in a timely fashion. The commenters stated that giving 

states more time to comply would have the impact of lowering total costs of compliance while 

still achieving the GHG reductions.

In addition, commenters also stated that eliminating the interim compliance period and allowing 

states to set an emissions reduction glide path to 2030 provides a workable approach for meeting 

the environmental objectives of the proposed rule and further minimizes the probability of 

successful legal challenges regarding the apparent Clean Air Act provisions specifying states' 

roles in developing the standards. The commenters noted that states and their stakeholders will 

evaluate cost-effective measures and timing of those measures that work best for the state and 

minimize impacts to energy costs and reliability. The commenters suggested that states should be 

allowed to include the following in their compliance plan submitted to EPA for approval:

• A state specific emissions reduction trajectory that meets the 2030 target.

• A plan for reporting on progress toward the final 2030 target.

The commenters argued that states should also be provided the maximum flexibility to make 

changes to the compliance plan that are due to unforeseen circumstances and that impede a 

state's progress towards achieving the 2030 goal. The commenters explained that this approach 

preserves the ultimate goal of reducing CO2 emissions from affected sources by 2030, while 

providing the states with the authority and flexibility needed to set their own glide path taking 

into consideration local issues and constraints such as natural gas infrastructure, synchronization 

with state energy policies, avoidance of stranded assets avoidance, and other state specific 

concerns.

Commenters requested that the interim goal be eliminated or delayed. At a minimum, the 

commenters requested that EPA extend the timeline for submittal of state plans and for initial 

compliance with the rule. 

The commenters contended that the timeline provided to develop, implement and comply with 

the proposed rule is woefully inadequate. According to the commenters, the complexities 

inherent to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the amounts required will take monumental 

efforts and cooperation between the many stakeholders in Kansas and, perhaps, regionally. In 

addition, the commenters argued that the interim goals proposed are too harsh and occur too 

quickly. The commenters said Kansas needs to achieve the vast majority of total required 

emission reductions by 2020. The commenters noted that this is only two or three years after 

approval of a state plan. The commenters further noted that nearly 90 percent of required 

reductions must be achieved by 2025.

Commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the interim deadlines. 

The commenters noted that many state regulators and most of the regulated industry agree that 

the timelines expressed in the proposed rule are extremely aggressive, particularly when 

considering the unique and precedent-setting nature of the proposal. Even if state agencies are 
184

able to re-allocate necessary resources away from other environmental and energy programs, the 

commenters said it may be impossible to meet U.S. EPA's proposed deadlines. In recognition of 

this fact, the commenters argued that EPA should eliminate the interim deadlines.

Given the unprecedented scope of the proposed rules, and the huge uncertainty as to the effect of 

the required changes on the nation's electric grid, commenters stated that eliminating the interim 

limits makes good common sense. The commenters noted that it will take many years to 

thoughtfully plan for and implement the massive changes required under the CPP while ensuring 

that reliable electricity can continue to be provided in all areas of the country. Rather than rush 

these changes by requiring states to make the majority of reductions commencing in 2020, the 

commenters said EPA should acknowledge both the enormity of the challenge and the 

uncertainty that lies ahead, by providing states and companies a longer lead time to develop and 

implement strategies.

Comment 3: Comment recommending eliminating the interim compliance period and interim 

target, and that the EPA re-evaluate the compliance timeframes while considering the remaining 

useful life of the affected EGUs that have recent or soon-to-be installed air pollution controls. 

Response 3: The EPA shares the commenters’ goal of avoiding stranded assets. Although 

nothing in section 111(d) explicitly bars a guideline that results in some facilities becoming 

uneconomic before the end of their useful lives, the EPA nonetheless has striven to design the 

guidelines so as to give states flexibility to develop plans that allow power companies to recover 

their investments in generation units. These guidelines permit states to use a rate or mass CO2 

emission goal, and that each of these pathways allow states multiple design choices. Under either 

pathway, states can take into consideration remaining useful life and seek to avoid stranded 

assets. Discussion of these topics is included in sections VIII.C and VIII.G.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP, and in section 5.11 of this document. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that EPA states that the period of 2020-2029 will help states minimize 

stranded assets, taking into account the age of the coal fleet. The commenters stated the period of 

2020-2029 is not adequate to prevent stranded assets in the case of plants retrofitted to meet the 

compliance requirements of the MATS rule. The commenters stated that several utility 

stakeholders have stated that the interim period forces an impending "compliance cliff" 

beginning in 2020 that does not consider potential stranded assets and does not afford them the 

requisite time to prepare for compliance by properly going through their integrated planning 

process. The commenters noted that with the flexibility provided for Section 111(d) compliance, 

it should be the state's role to determine how it complies with the ultimate 2030 standard. 

Therefore, the commenters strongly recommended eliminating the interim compliance period 

and interim target. 

The commenters stated that Kentucky ratepayers will be burdened with a $4.5 billion price tag 

for compliance with the MATS rule if these retrofitted plants are not allowed to operate. The 
185

commenters noted that these plants are assumed to have a remaining useful life of 20-30 years 

after modification. The commenters noted for example, the PSC recently approved a request for 

a Kentucky facility, which would have been shuttered in 2015 under the recently finalized 

MATS rule, to spend an estimated $1.26 billion on new technologies to become compliant. The 

commenters noted that the work is under construction today, and as a result of this investment, 

the facility will have an additional useful life of at least 30 years, through 2045. The commenters 

stated that stranding this asset and others would place an unfair cost on Kentucky ratepayers 

while compromising reliability. The commenters stated that this is particularly significant since 

these compliance costs are accruing as a direct result of previous EPA actions. Therefore, the 

commenters strongly recommended that EPA re-evaluate the compliance timeframes while 

considering the remaining useful life of the affected EGUs that have recent or soon-to-be 

installed air pollution controls. 

Comment 4: Comments urging the EPA to abandon the interim target approach in favor of a 

mid-course review process with the states. Comments stating EPA should give states discretion 

to develop individualized plans for the 2020-2029 time period that establish programs and 

measures that set a state on a compliance path that will achieve compliance with their 2030 

emission standards and would avoid the compliance cliff created by the proposed interim 

standards. Comment suggesting that EPA give states the time necessary to achieve the significant 

realignment in electric utility regulation that the Plan requires. Comment suggesting leaving the 

states to determine if interim goals should be included in a state's implementation plan. Comment 

recommending that EPA remove the cumulative averaging requirement. Comment stating that 

certain zero-emitting projects, which otherwise could become significant components of a state's 

compliance plan, may not be able to come online in time to assure a uniform rate of progress 

during the interim period. Comment stating that the CPP should account for the considerable 

planning that will be require to implement and enforce the rule by allowing additional time for 

states to develop State Implementation Plans and by removing the interim goal deadline of 

2020. Comment stating that the EPA's suggestion that interim goals could become more flexible 

based on infrastructure expansion requirements or book life of affected EGUs does not 

acknowledge that 2030 is the earliest that a compliance obligation can go into effect. Comment 

asking the EPA to reconsider the compliance schedule that it has proposed and recognize that the 

tremendous effort needed to reach the goals will take more time than the EPA has assumed, and 

asking the EPA to reconsider whether its interim goals are necessary at all, given the long-term 

nature of the EPA's climate change goals, and instead consider allowing states to establish their 

own interim targets.

Response 4: The EPA agrees with the commenters that states and regional planning groups 

require additional time to formulate and enact their plans, and that additional time prior to 

meeting a goal is beneficial toward the success of the overall rule. However, we disagree with 

the commenters’ assertion that interim targets should be abandoned, or that non-binding interim 

goals would provide the structure necessary to ensure the success of this rule. To that end, the 

final rule requires that interim CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals be 

met for the interim period of 2022-2029, and for the three interim step periods (2022-2024, 

2025-2027, 2028-2029). The final rule allows states that choose to meet a state CO2 emission 

goal the flexibility to define an alternate trajectory of emission performance between 2022 and 
186

2029 to the interim step levels specified in the rule. States have the option of meeting goals of 

the state’s choosing for the three interim step periods instead of meeting the interim step goals 

provided in the emission guidelines, as long as meeting the state-determined interim step goals 

will still result in the interim state CO2 emission goal being met on an 8-year average or 

cumulative basis and the 2030 state CO2 emission goal is achieved. Additional discussion on 

these topics can be found in sections VIII.B, VIII.E, and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

The EPA shares the commenters’ concerns regarding the workability of the proposed interim 

goals and we are addressing comments by making changes to state goals and goal-setting 

methodology. Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner that addresses the revised timing of the interim 

period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect the averaging of 

estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See 

section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance rates are less 

stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of emission 

reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section V.

The final guidelines also contain changes to avoid certain inconsistencies between the goalsetting methodology and accounting of reductions under state plans that could have made state 

goals less achievable for some states. When assembled together, these changes help to ensure 

that the state goals established in the final guidelines are achievable considering cost, and that 

states can consider the range of available emission reduction methods that the final guidelines 

allow and choose the best way to achieve their state goals. A discussion of state plan timing and 

flexibility of available programs can be found in sections VIII.E and VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The EPA agrees with the commenters that states and regional planning groups need flexibility in 

formulating their plans and in this package the EPA is finalizing the state measures plan type as 

one option to accommodate state choices and allow states to rely upon a variety of measures in a 

way that meets the statutory requirements of CAA section 111(d). See Section VIII.C.3 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The EPA does not agree with the commenters who called for elimination of the interim goal. 

The EPA believes that interim goals are appropriate to ensure that state 111(d) plans require the 

emission reductions that are achievable, as required by the statute. Also, tracking emission 

performance against the interim steps and interim goal will enable states and EPA to assess on an 

ongoing basis whether plans are performing satisfactorily and, if not, to take remedial actions 

promptly (with the type of remedial action depending on plan type).

.
187

Clarification regarding the interim goal periods and the 2030 final goal has been provided in 

another comment in this section. Regarding the commenters’ concerns about the BSER and 

front-loading of the state and regional plans, the final rule includes added flexibility for states 

and regional planners, including such things as credit for early action and allowing the use of 

mass-based reductions that are designed to alleviate these concerns and allow states and regional 

planners more options when assembling their plans.

We disagree with commenters that the interim goals are likely to negatively affect reliability. 

The EPA has considered potential reliability concerns in developing the final guidelines and has 

built in methods to protect reliability. See Section VIII.G.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

Regarding remaining useful life, see section VIII.G.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the interim target and mathematical averaging process for measuring 

compliance that EPA proposes for 2020-2030 are unworkable, and lead to severe energy market 

dislocations and job losses in the early years of the program. The commenters respectfully urged 

EPA to abandon the interim target approach in favor of a mid-course review process with the 

states, similar to the mid-course review incorporated in the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714, 

July 1, 1999) and related guidance on reasonable progress goals. The commenters stated that the 

mid-term 2018 review process that EPA and NHTSA established in the Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (77 FR 62624, 

October 15, 2012) provides another relevant precedent. In the alternative, the commenters noted 

the EPA could allow states to set non-binding interim goals. 

The commenters stated that experience with the acid rain program, the regional haze program, 

and similar multi-year emission reduction programs demonstrates that emissions tend to be 

reduced on a linear glide path consistent with the availability of engineering, financing, and labor 

resources. The commenters asserted that the abrupt and painful job and coal market dislocations 

that EPA projects for 2020 could be mitigated by eliminating the interim target in favor of a midcourse review process or similar mechanism.

Commenters asserted that the EPA should allow states the discretion to develop individualized 

plans that establish state-specific criteria and state-specific compliance paths. The commenters 

explained that the EPA has proposed interim emissions standards that are so stringent that many 

states will be required to achieve most of their CO2 emissions reductions by 2020. The 

commenters noted that, given EPA's proposed timetable for the approval of state plans, this 

would leave states with, at most, approximately 2.5 years to implement required CO2 reduction 

measures; a task that will be extremely difficult or impossible to achieve without severe 

economic disruption and reliability concerns in many regions. The commenters stated that rather 

than mandating enforceable interim standards, the EPA should give states discretion to develop 

individualized plans for the 2020-2029 time period that establish programs and measures that set 

a state on a compliance path that will achieve compliance with their 2030 emission standards. In 

particular, the commenters stated that the EPA must allow each state to make its own 

determination as to which measures can be implemented on a time table that is manageable for 

the state, but leads to achievement of the 2030 standards. In evaluating such interim state plans, 

the commenters stated that the EPA should consider certain procedural and substantive criteria. 
188

The procedural criteria would ensure that the plans are credible and enforceable, and the 

substantive criteria would ensure that the plans consider factors important to controlling CO2 

emissions from the power sector. The criteria should serve as the basis for an inquiry into 

whether a state plan adequately demonstrates that it will lead to compliance, but should not be 

considered required elements for every state plan due to each state's different circumstances and 

the individualized nature of each state's final CO2 standards.

Commenters requested removing the interim goals and giving states time to achieve the 

necessary realignment in electric utility regulation. 

The commenters noted that, in calculating its state rate-based CO2 emission performance goals, 

EPA assumed that BSER building blocks 1 and 2--reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired 

steam EGUs by 6% through heat rate improvements, and redispatching to achieve a 70% average 

capacity factor at existing and under-construction NGCC units--would be achievable by 2020. In 

contrast, the commenters noted that EPA also assumed that building blocks 3 and 4 would

require a "ramp-up" to achieve "full effects." 

The commenters further noted that EPA assumed that the amount of renewable energy (RE) in 

each state would grow each year by a regional RE growth factor, which it calculated as the 

constant growth necessary to bridge the gap between regional RE generation in 2012 and the 

regional average renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements for the year 2020. According 

to the commenters, EPA also assumed that energy efficiency (EE) savings in each state would 

increase by 0.2% each year until they reached an incremental annual EE savings rate of 1.5%. 

Because of the need to ramp up RE and EE efforts over time, the commenters noted that EPA 

proposed interim goals that each state would need to achieve "on average over the 10- year 

period from 2020-2029..." The commenters noted that each state would then need to achieve its 

final goal from 2030 onward. 

Even if EPA's assumptions were correct, the commenters argued that EPA has misgauged the 

amount of time that states will require to achieve the emission reductions assumed under 

building blocks 1 and 2. The commenters noted that EPA's timeline assumes that it will approve 

or disapprove state plans by June 30, 2017, giving states only 2+ years before the beginning of 

the interim performance period. However, the commenters stated that planning, designing, 

engineering, permitting, fabricating, and constructing new natural gas pipeline infrastructure and 

other infrastructure enhancements would require longer lead times, and the competition among 

NGCCs across the nation simultaneously seeking the necessary consultants, contractors, and 

materials will undoubtedly cause further delays. The commenters indicated the same competition 

for labor and materials will, no doubt, delay many coal-fired EGUs' efforts to accomplish 

necessary heat rate improvements, and coal unit retirements and the increased NGCC capacity 

factors needed to meet the CO2 goals beginning in 2020 also raise significant electricity 

transmission and reliability concerns. In order to avoid recklessly endangering the reliability of 

the electric system through an abrupt shift from coal- to gas-fired generation, the commenters 

contended that EPA needs to provide the states and the owners and operators of critical 

infrastructure with much longer time frames to make a transition of this magnitude and 

complexity.
189

The commenters also argued that EPA's state interim goals are largely unnecessary. The 

commenters referred to EPA's statement that states and affected EGUs are already undertaking 

many or most of the measures that make up EPA's proposed BSER:

• EPA finds that "[a]verage deployment of RPS supported renewable capacity from 2007-

2012 has exceeded 6 GW per year." 

• EPA reports that "[i]n 2012, RE accounted for more than 56% of all new electrical 

capacity installations in the U.S."

• EPA also reports that, according to a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, "efficiency programs are 'poised for dramatic growth over the course of the 

next 10 to 15 years[.]"

According to the commenters, if these studies and projections are correct, states are moving 

towards increased RE and demand-side EE even without the proposed command-and control 

interim plan goals. For all of these reasons, the commenters suggested that EPA should remove 

the interim state goals from the Clean Power Plan, and give states the time necessary to achieve 

the significant realignment in electric utility regulation that the Plan requires. 

Commenters suggested that the interim targets be eliminated from the proposed rule, leaving the 

states to determine if interim goals should be included in a state's implementation plan. 

Commenters noted that the proposed rule requires state-specific emissions goals for reducing 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector. The commenters further noted that EPA 

is proposing two alternatives, each of which has a two-part goal structure--a state must meet the 

"interim goal" on an average calculated over the interim goal period and a "final goal" must be 

met at the end of that period and thereafter. The commenters argued that the proposed rule's 

stringent interim compliance goal for both alternatives is too aggressive. In order to meet the 

requirements of the Alternative 1 interim compliance goal average, the commenters indicated 

states would have to implement modifications to affected generating units early in the 

compliance period. In the case of Nebraska, the actual 2012 fossil fuel state emissions value of 

2,162 lbs/net MWh would have to be reduced to 1,596 lbs/net MWh, or a 26.2% reduction. The 

commenters estimated this equates to approximately 83% of the overall rate reduction being 

necessary in the very early years of the compliance period. The commenters contended that the 

final rule should recognize the need to phase in emissions reduction requirements at an 

appropriate rate over the 10 year interim period. The commenters cited comments from the 

American Public Power Association (APPA), which stated:

• One of the most onerous elements of the Proposal is the interim reduction requirement 

that states must meet starting in 2020. This reduction is required a mere two years after 

state submittal, and EPA approval, of a state's compliance plan. For most states, this 

requirement is not simply a pro-rata based step towards the state's 2030 final reduction 

requirement. Often referred to as a "cliff", the interim requirement is, rather, a drastic 

reduction constituting a significant percentage of the final 2030 requirement ... If not 

eliminated, the interim requirement will result in huge stranded costs for utilities that will 

be borne ultimately by consumers.
190

Commenters recommended that EPA remove the cumulative averaging requirement and forgo 

the concept of an interim goal. 

The commenters said this 10-year averaging approach actually requires states to follow a specific 

pathway (glide path) to achieve the required rate reduction through 2030. The commenters said 

it does not allow states to choose an option that is more difficult and time-consuming to 

implement and would significantly reduce CO2 rates, but not until later in the interim period. 

The commenters noted such an example would be building non-emitting generation sources. The 

commenters indicated that a state must implement some measures during the early years of the 

interim period or face non-compliance. The commenters believed the interim goal concept is not 

flexible and is prohibitive to states that want to take early action or delayed action but still meet 

the goal.

Commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the interim reduction goal and allow states to 

determine their own glide path. The commenters stated that one of the most onerous elements of 

the Proposal is the interim reduction goal that states must begin meeting in 2020. The 

commenters noted that in a significant departure from prior Section 111 rules, EPA mandates a 

highly prescriptive implementation framework, requiring states to meet aggressive near-term 

CO2 goals and demonstrate compliance with those goals over a 10-year averaging period (2020-

29) prior to the final compliance goals in 2030. The commenters stated that while EPA stresses 

flexibility as a key element of the Proposal, the Agency has proposed to make mandatory the 

minimum pace of implementation. The commenters stated that Congress created a framework of 

cooperative federalism throughout the CAA. The commenters suggested that this careful federalstate balance is central to the Act and EPA should respect that balance with regard to compliance 

trajectories. 

The commenters stated that the obligations to begin meeting the interim goal start a mere 2 years 

after state submittal, and EPA approval, of a state's compliance plan (and even sooner if a state 

obtains an extension). The commenters stated that while it may seem as if this is not an onerous 

step because the interim goal must be met on "average" over a 10-year period, the reality is that 

unless draconian reductions are made by January 1, 2020, the interim goals cannot be achieved 

in most states. The commenters stated that the interim goal is not simply a pro-rata based step 

towards the state's 2030 final reduction requirement. The commenters stated that often referred to 

as a "cliff," the interim goal requirement is, rather, a drastic reduction constituting a significant 

percentage of the final 2030 requirement. 

The commenters referred to Table 18 which shows the percentage CO2 reduction by state 

interim versus total. The commenters stated that the drop from the 2012 fossil fuel generation 

CO2 emissions rate to the interim goal is a significant percentage of the final goal, and because it 

must be done so soon after a state plan is finalized, constitutes an almost impossible burden to 

meet at all, let alone in a cost-effective or efficient manner. The commenters stated that if not 

eliminated, or significantly adjusted, "these front-end-loaded" interim goals will result in huge 

stranded costs for utilities that will be borne ultimately by consumers. 
191

The commenters stated that the 10-year averaging period put forth in EPA's Proposal between 

the interim and final goals does little to relieve the situation. The commenters provided for 

example, if Minnesota were to delay emissions reductions even a single year, it would need to 

maintain an emissions rate below the final requirements for the remaining 9 years of the 

compliance period. The commenters stated that in the NODA EPA proposed letting states adjust 

their timelines and interim requirements to avoid the serious implications from mandatory large 

scale fuel switching on system reliability, resiliency, infrastructure, and electricity cost. The 

commenters agreed that this flexibility is necessary to avoid many of the serious possible 

consequences of this Proposal including addressing the minimal relief provided by allowing 

states to meet their targets on average over the 10 year period.

The commenters stated that a federally-imposed interim goal is not necessary. The commenters 

noted that in its public statements, EPA continuously stresses that the goal of the Proposal is to 

reduce overall CO2 emissions 30 percent by 2030. The commenters stated that in addition to 

eliminating the interim goal, the Agency should allow the states to set their own "glide path" for 

compliance with the 2030 final goal. The commenters argued that states must be able to 

determine the enforceable emission reduction trajectory to reach that goal for several reasons. 

The commenters stated that many states have already adopted measures that EPA has included in 

its BSER determination (e.g., RPS and demand-side management programs). The commenters 

stated that these programs have both rate and reliability implications that must be taken into 

account in determining the timing for a state's implementation of EPA's final performance 

standard. The commenters noted that the states are uniquely positioned to address these 

considerations and craft an appropriately gradual trajectory.

The commenters noted that states are also best positioned to determine resource adequacy 

implications of implementation timing. For example, The commenters noted that states and 

regional planning entities are best able to assess existing natural gas transportation infrastructure 

(including interstate and distribution pipeline and storage capacity), as well as natural gas supply 

and market conditions to determine whether they would be adequate to support the 70 percent 

state-average capacity factor ceiling for existing NGCC capacity targeted by EPA. 

According to the commenters, states can better: 1) examine existing electric transmission 

infrastructure to determine whether it would be adequate to support the broad regional or interregional dispatched-based substitution of NGCC generation and increased renewable generation 

contemplated by the Proposal; 2) assess potential limitations on a state's ability to influence 

economic dispatch of generation to implement their plan; 3) determine and apply the remaining 

useful life of existing coal-fired (and other) generation resources, particularly where affected 

sources have made significant investments in such resources to comply with other environmental 

regulations (e.g., MATS, Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)); 4) plan for any legislation 

that may be required; and 5) determine state-specific economic impacts of the interim path and 

timing.

Therefore, the commenters stated that EPA should allow states to set their own appropriate pace 

for implementation prior to the final 2030 performance goals. The commenters suggested that 

while states may need to adopt some interim standard to ensure they are on track to meet the 

2030 goals, states should be permitted to adjust the glide path to 2030, taking into account 

further analysis of appropriate factors. The commenters asserted that States are best suited for 
192

this role because they have a unique ability to evaluate reduction opportunities and expected 

timelines.

Commenters argued that EPA has proposed interim emissions standards that are so stringent that 

many states will be required to achieve most of their CO2 emissions reductions by 2020. Given 

EPA's proposed timetable for the approval of state plans, the commenters said this would leave 

states with, at most, approximately two-and-a-half years to implement required CO2 reduction 

measures, a task that will be extremely difficult or impossible to achieve without severe 

economic disruption and reliability concerns in many regions--including those in which the 

commenters’ company operates. Rather than mandating enforceable interim standards, the 

commenters recommended that EPA should give states discretion to develop individualized 

plans for the 2020-2029 time period that establish programs and measures that set a state on a 

compliance path that will achieve compliance with their 2030 emission standards. In particular, 

the commenters said EPA must allow each state to make its own determination as to which 

measures can be implemented on a time table that is manageable for the state, but leads to 

achievement of the 2030 standards. Under this approach, the commenters said states would 

determine moderated compliance paths that achieve state-appropriate final emission rate goals by 

2030 to be approved by EPA as required by the statute. 

The commenters contended that allowing states to set tailored compliance paths would avoid the 

compliance cliff created by EPA's proposed interim standards. The commenters said that in most 

states, the resulting compliance trajectory would look like a series of steps--rather than a cliff--as 

states move toward compliance with their final standards. The commenters argued that states 

have a strong economic incentive to implement emission rate reductions so as to avoid abrupt 

changes in their electric generating, transmission, and distribution systems. The commenters 

indicated that a smoother compliance path would be far less burdensome to state and local 

economies and still achieve the majority of the emission rate reductions targeted by the proposed 

rule.

The commenters said this approach also would be more consistent with the text of section 

111(d), which places the responsibility for identifying and achieving reductions on the states--

taking into consideration the cost of achieving reductions, non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, energy requirements, and the remaining useful life of existing units. The 

commenters further noted that section 111(d) instructs EPA to establish a procedure for states to 

submit implementation plans similar to the procedure in section 110, which instructs states to 

establish schedules and timetables for compliance. The commenters included the following 

potential objective criteria that EPA could use to evaluate state glide-path plans:

• The procedural criteria would ensure that the plans are credible and enforceable, and the 

substantive criteria would ensure that the plans consider factors important to controlling 

CO2 emissions from the power sector. The criteria should serve as the basis for an 

inquiry into whether a state plan adequately demonstrates that it will lead to compliance, 

but should not be considered required elements for every state plan due to each state's 

different circumstances and the individualized nature of each state's final CO2 standards.

Commenters stated that the proposed Clean Power Plan raises a number of significant timing 

issues due to the deadlines that EPA has set for compliance with the interim and final goals in 
193

each state. The commenters were concerned that EPA has not allowed enough time for affected 

entities to comply. In particular, the commenters said EPA's proposed interim goals are likely 

unachievable, given the limited amount of time allowed for compliance. The commenters asked 

EPA to reconsider the deadlines in its proposal to ensure sufficient time is available for states 

and utilities to comply with EPA's section 111(d) program. In particular, the commenters

recommended that EPA eliminate the unnecessarily stringent interim goals and allow states to 

design their own interim targets in light of state-specific circumstances.

Commenters requested that states be given greater flexibility in the glide paths to meet their 

interim and final goals. 

The commenters noted that EPA identified a process in the proposed emission guidelines by 

which a state can demonstrate progress toward meeting its final emission rate goal prior to the 

final compliance year. The commenters said this involves a demonstration that progress along a 

glide path is being made within a certain percentage of the yearly progress milestone, beginning 

in 2020. The commenters believed that this process is flawed because certain zero-emitting 

projects, which otherwise could become significant components of a state's compliance plan, 

may not be able to come online in time to assure a uniform rate of progress during the interim 

period. The commenters noted that any major commercial energy project would likely affect a 

state's specific rate of progress during this period. Therefore, the commenters asked that the final 

rule provide greater flexibility in the glide paths that states must demonstrate to meet their 

interim and final goal.

Commenters said that the EPA should defer to the states to establish the Clean Power Plant 

(CPP) glide path achieving the CPP 2030 target, and that interim targets should be removed. 

Commenters stated that the time needed to plan and deploy the infrastructure necessary to 

support CPP compliance warrants the elimination of the interim target period it stipulated for 

2020 through 2029, and instead the EPA should defer to the states to establish measures needed 

to achieve the EPA's CPP 2030 target. Commenters said the EPA's current glide path is "front 

loaded" by requiring most states to provide the Blocks 1, 2 and 3 compliance by 2020 and 

enabling gradual deployment of efficiency measures through 2030. Commenters said this 

approach fails to recognize the time necessary to build out utility infrastructure necessary to 

achieve compliance with the CPP, and ignores the ongoing integrated resource planning 

underway in Minnesota that has provided for early deployment and ongoing measures for 

Minnesota electric utility greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Commenters argued that the current interim target date of 2020 does not actually act as an 

interim date and in reality serves to effectively require the shutdown of coal facilities by 2020. 

The commenters noted that the proposed rule sets state-specific CO2 emission rate goals that 

EPA based on an assessment of the amount of emissions that can be reduced at existing fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs through the application of BSER required under section 111(d). The 

commenters further noted that EPA proposed that the state-specific goals be achieved no later 

than the year 2030. However, the commenters said EPA also proposed interim goals that states 

must meet beginning in 2020 and be phased in over the 2020-2029 phase-in period. This time 

period is unrealistic and unachievable for several reasons. While EPA has provided the final goal 

for achievement of state-specific rate goals in 2030, the commenters said that, in practice, the 
194

proposed rule's interim goal phase-in period of 2020-2029 actually requires implementation of 

BSER Building Block 2 (BB2) and compliance with emission limitations far sooner. The 

commenters contended that the proposed rule's timeline is unreasonable and unrealistic based on 

the time it will take states to submit approvable state plans and implement adequate 

infrastructure improvements. The commenters said the interim goal should be abolished and 

EPA should instead provide states with actual flexibility to establish appropriate increments of 

progress and emission reduction improvement. 

Commenters recommended that EPA eliminate the aggressive interim goals and allow each state 

to determine its own interim reductions and glide path toward achieving the 2030 goal and 

maintaining that final goal thereafter. 

The commenters stated that, as currently proposed, the 2030 final goal established by EPA will 

be challenging for states to meet. The commenters noted that each state faces its own unique 

challenges with respect to generation mix, transmission infrastructure needs, natural gas supply 

constraints, market demands and limitations, and legal and political roadblocks, all of which 

hinder development and implementation of a state plan and achievement of the final goal. The 

commenters contended that EPA proposed an aggressive interim goal, which for Kansas is a 

rate-based standard of 1578 lbs CO2/MWh averaged over the years 2020- 2029. The commenters 

argued that compliance with the interim goal is almost as stringent as compliance with the final 

2030 goal, which for Kansas is nominally 1499 lbs CO2/MWh. According to EPA's projections, 

the commenters indicated Kansas would need to achieve over half of the required emissions 

reductions by 2020, a mere two to three years after approval of a state plan, and almost 90 

percent of the required reductions by 2025. 

Commenters contended that EPA should eliminate the interim goals and allow state plans to 

determine the ramp-up schedule to 2030 full compliance, to allow flexibility and consideration of 

circumstances and timing issues unique to each state.

Commenters suggested that EPA eliminate the interim goal and let states establish a glide path to 

final compliance.

The commenters contended that the proposed rule's emission reduction goals are front-loaded, 

potentially resulting in unintended consequences that could impact their utilities' ability to 

provide affordable and reliable energy to their customers. While noting that states would have 

until 2030 to comply with the rule's final emission goals, the commenters indicated that 

Wisconsin's interim goal would require the state to be over 87 percent of the way toward this 

final goal during the decade beginning in 2020. While compliance with the interim goal would 

be measured on a 10-year average basis between 2020 and 2029, the commenters noted that any 

delay in reducing emissions in the early years of this period would have to be compensated for 

by reducing emissions below the final goal in the later years. 

Since the state's plan may not be approved by EPA until as late as the middle of 2019, the 

commenters contended that requiring such a significant emission reduction beginning only a half 

year later is not realistic. Therefore, the commenters recommended that the EPA's final 

guidelines should eliminate the interim goal (2020-2029) and allow states to establish a glide 

path to the 2030 final goal. At a minimum, the commenters recommended that EPA's Clean 
195

Power Plan should not require reductions any sooner than five years from EPA's final approval 

of a state plan (or regional plan).

Commenters stated that the implementation of the four blocks making up BSER do not fit neatly 

into the limited time frame of implementation and compliance. The commenters also stated that 

the proposed rule gives the states no authority to alter the glide path if the state encounters such 

obstacles as a lack of natural gas capacity, lawsuits over renewable resource or transmission 

construction, or lack of customer investment into energy efficient equipment in their homes or 

businesses. The commenters said these are issues that must be solved in order for the plan to 

move ahead at all, and they are issues that are beyond the control of the states or the utilities. The 

commenters contended that states must retain the authority and control to set milestones or 

compliance periods that meet what is actually achievable given the make-up of the states' electric 

energy use profiles, generation and transmission capacity, and the ability for the state and state 

utilities to transition with the least amount of negative impact on customer rates and reliability. 

According to the commenters, the problems created when the proposed rule allows only one year 

for the development of a state plan (or two years for a multi-state plan) are only compounded 

when states run into the rigid and unrealistic 2020-2029 glide path. For states to fully develop 

and adopt a practical, well-modeled, and reliable plan, the commenters said they must be 

empowered to control the interim targets within the interim 2020-2029 period.

The commenters also contended that it is only by granting states control of the glide path that 

EPA can honor its pledge to allow states to consider the remaining useful life of existing power 

plants in their plans. The commenters noted that section 111(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the 

Administrator to take into account remaining useful lives. According to the commenters, EPA 

provided no mechanism in the Clean Power Plan to do so, and the rigid timelines and specific 

mandatory goals associated with them take away from the states any potential way to tailor their 

rules to the specific units in their state. The commenters argued that EPA must give states the 

authority to develop specific and meaningful plans to ramp up compliance during the 2020-2029 

glide path to meet the final goal established in 2030.

Commenters argued that EPA's interim goals do not actually act as interim achievement goals 

and the "flexible implementation" claimed by EPA is largely illusory; therefore, the commenters 

contended that EPA's interim goal must be abolished. The commenters noted that EPA's proposal 

requires that states achieve its CO2 emission performance levels on average over the ten-year 

period from 2020-2029. In practice, the commenters said this requires that states meet the 

performance levels as soon as 2020 in order to avoid having to make drastic reductions in later 

years to comply with the average. The commenters noted that EPA acknowledged this necessity 

by stating, "states with currently existing programs and policies, and states that put in place new 

programs and policies early, will be better positioned to achieve the goals." Therefore, in order to 

meet these interim goals, the commenters indicated states will be required to implement 

extremely aggressive emission reduction efforts starting in 2020; according to the commenters, 

any shortfalls in reductions starting in 2020 will otherwise have to be made up by later-year 

emission reductions that will have to be substantially below EPA's projected average emission 

rates, resulting in significant over-compliance. 

The commenters argued that EPA's BB2 is another example of the illusory nature of EPA's 

proposed "flexible" implementation schedule between 2020-2029. The commenters noted that, 
196

under BB2, EPA proposed re-dispatch from steam generators using coal, oil, or natural gas to 

existing NGCC units operating at up to a target 70% utilization effective in January 1, 2020. For 

some states, such as Arizona, the commenters noted that this re-dispatch accounts for the most

significant emissions reductions from the four possible Building Blocks. The commenters noted 

that EPA calculated the state emission reduction goals assuming that both BB1 and BB2 will be 

fully implemented by 2030. In practice, the commenters said this assumption requires states to 

implement the relevant infrastructure to comply with Building Block 2 by 2020, or soon after, 

because delaying complete implementation of BB2 will significantly increase state emission 

rates between 2020-2029, further forcing states to achieve more aggressive and drastic emission 

reductions in the latter years of the 2020-2029 timeframe. The commenters said this result could 

even force states to exceed emission reductions required under the Final emission targets for 

2030 and beyond.

The commenters argued that this fast approaching aggressive interim deadline is clearly 

unattainable for states, especially Arizona, and must be removed from the Final Rule. The 

commenters noted that ADEQ has already put EPA on notice that it will face significant 

challenges in attempting to comply with the stringent interim and final goal timeline. The 

commenters further noted that ADEQ has extensively documented that EPA's interim goal will 

remove any flexibility for Arizona to comply with EPA's guidelines. According to the 

commenters, Arizona faces unique challenges in making the necessary changes to comply with 

the goals. The commenters said Arizona's proposed emission reduction of almost 52% is one of 

the most stringent under EPA's proposed rule. According to the commenters, EPA compounded 

the difficultly of this emission reduction by requiring over 95% of these reductions by the 

interim compliance goal of 2020. The commenters said this requirement leaves Arizona utilities 

with no option but to shut down coal-fired capacity and re-dispatch to natural gas (BB2) in 2020 

because the implementation or utilization of Building Blocks No. 3 or No. 4 will likely occur too 

late to aid compliance with the 2020 interim goal.

Instead of reliance on an interim goal, the commenters said EPA should remove the interim goal 

and allow states the flexibility to actually determine reasonable progress goals. By maintaining 

the final goal of 2030, EPA can still ensure states will reach necessary emission reductions but

the added flexibility will allow states to create state plans and implement infrastructure 

improvements that will not threaten the economic viability or reliability of the state's electric 

power system, the utilities affected by this rule and the associated fossil fuel-fired unit 

improvements, and the customers relying on affordable and reliable power supply.

Commenters argued that the glide path approach is too confining and should be eliminated. The 

commenters contended that states should have flexibility to establish appropriate interim 

reduction schedules aligned with state characteristics. The commenters said the interim 

compliance period may be well intended, but its design--particularly the interim 10-year average 

goal--actually serves to limit state flexibility. In order to satisfy the 10-year average goal. The 

commenters noted that a significant number of states need to achieve reductions before the start 

of the interim compliance period in 2020. The commenters further noted that many states must 

achieve over 50 percent or more of their 2030 emission goals by 2020. The commenters 

indicated that, as stated in the goal, Colorado would have to achieve 78 percent of its final goal 

by 2020, South Dakota would have to achieve 82 percent, and Wyoming 51 percent. The 

commenters concluded that, contrary to EPA's stated intent of providing states flexibility in 
197

setting 2030 emission goals, the interim compliance average goal creates more compliance 

challenges than it solves. 

According to the commenters, eliminating the interim compliance goal and allowing states to 

determine their own reduction glide paths and milestones to achieve the 2030 goals--subject to 

EPA approval and annual compliance reporting--would provide states with real flexibility in 

designing state plans while reducing emission rates. The commenters said this approach would 

allow states to determine not only which actions and measures to pursue to reduce emission 

rates, but also to choose a reasonable schedule for implementing those measures consistent with 

providing safe, reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible power to customers. 

Importantly, the commenters said this would provide states and utilities sufficient time to 

complete needed infrastructure development (including expansions and upgrades of both electric 

and natural gas transmission systems) to accomplish changes in dispatch between coal-based and 

natural gas-based units and increase deployment of renewable generation. The commenters 

indicated it also would provide states, electric utilities and other regulators time to assess the 

significant changes to the interconnected power system that will be required to achieve the 2030 

goals, while respecting system requirements necessary to maintain reliability. The commenters 

noted that states would also be able to better manage the impact of the program on customer 

rates. Finally, the commenters noted that real flexibility helps states achieve reductions while 

ensuring the continued provision of affordable and reliable electric power.

Commenters stated that the 2020-2029 interim performance requirements in the proposed rule 

should be eliminated to allow adequate time to reliably achieve compliance. The commenters 

stated that application of the 2020-2029 interim emissions performance period and the associated 

interim emissions performance levels established in the proposed rule (the "interim performance 

requirements") will negatively impact reliability and resource adequacy in the Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator (MISO) region starting in 2020. The commenters stated that the 

interim performance requirements create an untenable and infeasible timeline for reliable 

compliance, and would cause states and MISO member companies to make decisions on a 

severely truncated timeline. The commenters suggested that EPA eliminate the interim 

performance requirements when the final rule is issued, and instead, allow states to submit plans 

for EPA's approval that specify interim compliance objectives to best fit their circumstances. 

The commenters explained that sufficient time is required to engage in rational planning, 

construction and integration of cost- effective resource and infrastructure solutions that maintain 

reliable and efficient delivery of electricity. Commenters stated that as an example, the MISO 

Multi-Value Transmission Projects (MVPs) approved in 2011 resulted from 5 years of 

stakeholder work to develop cost-effective solutions to meet state-driven public policy 

requirements, such as renewable energy standards. The commenters stated that many of the 

resulting transmission projects are still in the development, regulatory approval and construction 

phases, but once complete, the MVPs will provide value to consumers for many years to come.

The commenters’ initial analysis of the proposed rule shows that nearly 80 percent of the total 

emission reductions must be met by 2020. The commenters stated that the earliest a state plan 

could be approved is 2017, but in the likely event that states request additional time, it is possible 

that many states will not have approved plans until 2019. The commenters stated that since 

action will be needed by 2020 to achieve the interim emissions performance levels, there will not 
198

be nearly enough time to plan for long-term cost-effective replacement capacity, transmission 

upgrades, and natural gas delivery infrastructure that will be needed to maintain reliability and 

resource adequacy. 

The commenters argued that the interim performance requirements are likely to have a negative 

impact on electric system reliability which encompasses several components. First, the 

commenters stated that there must be enough energy (measured in megawatt-hours), available to 

meet demand, on a regional and local level. Second, the commenters stated that local 

transmission ancillary services, such as voltage support (VARs) and frequency support (Hz), are 

needed to maintain a reliable transmission system and move energy on the electric system. The 

commenters noted that these ancillary services can be provided by electric generating units or 

components of the transmission system. Third, the commenters stated that resource adequacy 

must be ensured, which means that there must be enough generation capacity (in megawatts) to 

serve peak demand plus with capacity in reserve to account for unexpected circumstances such 

as generation and transmission outages (the planning reserve margin). Finally, the commenters 

stated that reliability requires that the operation of generating units and the transmission system 

are flexible enough to be able to call on generating units and move energy, with ancillary 

services, where it is needed at a moment's notice. 

The commenters stated that the MISO region already faces identified reliability challenges 

associated with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The commenters stated the 

MISO region relies on coal-fired generation as the predominant electricity resource. MISO has 

been conducting quarterly surveys with our generation owners for three-and-a-half years to 

assess potential impacts of the MATS rule. The commenters stated the survey results show that 

between 10 and 12 gigawatts of coal-fired generation capacity will retire by 2016 to meet the 

MATS requirements. As a result, commenters added, resources available to the MISO region 

will be at, or potentially below, the planning reserve margin starting in the summer of 2016. 

Commenters stated MISO expects that resource availability will remain close to the planning 

reserve margin for the foreseeable future. 

The commenters’ initial analysis indicates that up to 25 percent of the remaining coal capacity in 

MISO (14 gigawatts in addition to the 10 to 12 gigawatts of retirements expected due to MATS) 

could potentially retire in order to comply with the proposed rule. The commenters stated that 

retiring capacity will need to be replaced at the time it comes offline to avoid reliability and 

resource adequacy issues. Yet to comply with the interim performance requirements, the 

commenters stated that a significant amount of retirements (approximately 11 gigawatts) would 

need to occur in the 2020 timeframe which is well before sufficient replacement capacity can be 

placed into service.

The commenters stated that new combined cycle natural gas generation is the most probable 

option to replace retiring coal- fired plants and comply with the proposed rule. The commenters 

has observed that the process to get this type of unit into operation typically takes at least 5 years 

from a developer's decision to proceed. The commenters stated that the current natural gas 

delivery and storage system in much of the MISO region was not developed to support use of 

natural gas electric plants as base load generation so new natural gas infrastructure is very likely 

to be necessary. Likewise, the commenters stated that additional electric transmission 

infrastructure will be needed to reliably interconnect the new generation to the electric grid, 
199

further increasing the time needed to construct new generation. The commenters’ experience 

with electric transmission expansion planning demonstrates that 6 to 10 years are needed to 

develop comprehensive plans that account for future uses of the system to optimize transmission 

expansion.

The commenters stated that time is also needed to gain regulatory approvals. The commenters 

stated that the sizable investments required for new generation and transmission infrastructure 

require a high level of certainty in order to obtain financing and regulatory approvals. The 

commenters noted that if state plans are not finalized until 2017 at the earliest and in 2018 or 

2019 for many, then regulatory certainty will not exist soon enough to reliably achieve the 

interim performance requirements.

The commenters stated that using 2018 as a starting point for finalization of state plans, and a 6 

year timeline for new infrastructure, new generation capacity would not be available until 2024 

under the best circumstances. Without those capacity additions, the commenters stated that the 

MISO region will face serious resource adequacy issues, which translate into reliability issues. 

The commenters stated that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation has identified 

potential reliability concerns surrounding the proposed rule, including concerns that the proposal 

will result in problems related to load and resource balance, voltage support and frequency 

support, and the commenters’ preliminary studies validate these concerns starting in the 2020 

timeframe. The commenters stated that the interim performance requirements create an 

unrealistic timeframe for action.

The commenters stated that EPA appears to recognize this concern, with the October 28, 2014 

Notice of Data Availability. The commenters stated that EPA proposes to address concerns by 

providing credit for actions taken before 2020, and phasing in Building Block 2 (natural gas unit 

re-dispatching) over time. According to the commenters, these proposals indicate a directional 

improvement, but do not fully address the concerns with the interim performance requirements. 

The commenters stated that these approaches may introduce additional complexity by creating 

more variables that will not be finalized until state plans are approved in the 2017-19 period. The 

commenters stated that a better approach would be to eliminate the interim performance 

requirements. The commenters stated that EPA can achieve visibility as to how states will make 

incremental progress toward meeting the final performance level through review and approval of 

state plans.

The commenters stated that, at best, the interim performance requirements will force state 

regulators and generation owners to make hasty and perhaps uncoordinated decisions, which will 

erode the value of MISO's transmission planning process and reduce the overall value of 

economic dispatch of the system, thereby unnecessarily increasing electric costs to consumers. 

At worst, the commenters stated that this timeline will force decisions that pit environmental 

compliance against electric reliability. The commenters stated that additional time to develop and 

implement compliance strategies will allow for better planning, including the ability for MISO to 

work with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), stakeholders and regulators on the 

development of plans and to implement process changes and market rules to preserve the 

benefits of economic dispatch while maintaining reliability. 
200

The commenters requested that EPA eliminate the interim performance requirements in the final 

rule. Consistent with the language in the proposed rule that allows states to propose "other 

periods that ensure regular progress," the commenters recommend that EPA allow states to 

submit plans for EPA's approval that specify the interim compliance objectives that best fit their 

circumstances. The commenters requested that this approach will provide EPA with reasonable 

assurance that states are on a path to achieving compliance with their final performance levels. 

The commenters requested that EPA also consider a reliability safety valve (RSV) to address 

reliability concerns that may arise during implementation of the final rule. The commenters

stated that they support the RSV concept in the ISO/RTO Council's comments on the proposed 

rule.

Commenters stated that their company operates its fleet of electric generating facilities to meet 

customer load based on economic dispatch as required by the South Carolina Public Service 

Commission. The commenters stated that prudency of operation requires utilities to operate its 

lowest cost generators using real variable costs. The commenters stated that even purchased 

power must meet an avoided cost criteria with an accepted cost basis. The commenters stated 

that the variable costs that apply are primarily driven by the market cost of fuel. To that end, the 

commenters stated that they have built their base-load electric generating capacity to be equally 

balanced between coal, gas and nuclear once the new nuclear units are completed. The 

commenters stated that they expect the nuclear units would be operated at full capacity, due to 

their lower bus bar costs, which would generate roughly 60% of the load; while the remaining 

base-load generation would typically be dispatched using coal or gas depending on their relative 

fuel costs. The commenters stated that the proposed rule would not only preclude the economic 

benefits of dispatching generation in this manner but the load demands themselves would make 

tracking compliance with a carbon intensity rate extremely difficult. 

Therefore, the commenters suggested that the Clean Power Plan should account for the 

considerable planning that will be required to implement and enforce the rule by allowing 

additional time for states to develop State Implementation Plans and by removing the interim 

goal deadline of 2020. 

Commenters supported eliminating the interim goals. 

The commenters cited the comments that MISO filed with EPA on November 25, 2014, which 

noted that "Application of the 2020-2029 interim emissions performance period and the 

associated interim emissions performance levels established in the proposed rule (the 'interim 

performance requirements') will negatively impact reliability and resource adequacy in the MISO 

region starting in 2020. The interim performance requirements create an untenable and infeasible 

timeline for reliable compliance." The commenters supported elimination of interim goals, 

stating they are a cliff and not a glide path. Assuming that state compliance plans can be 

submitted and approved in 2016 (which is impossible), the commenters noted utilities and 

cooperatives would have only three years to come into compliance in order to meet interim 

goals. The commenters contended that state compliance plans are much more likely to be 

approved in 2018 and beyond, which the commenters said will force immediate compliance. The 

commenters said compliance would become even more difficult in states with lower emissions 
201

rate goals. According to the commenters, EPA's suggestion that interim goals could become 

more flexible based on infrastructure expansion requirements or book life of affected EGUs does 

not acknowledge that 2030 is the earliest that a compliance obligation can go into effect. The 

commenters said flexibility in the compliance schedule for interim goals does not change this 

fact.

Commenters argued that states and the electric utility industry need more time to comply. 

The commenters noted that adjusting the deadlines for submission and approval of state 

implementation plans without adjusting the deadlines for compliance would not make sense 

because the rule could then require compliance with a plan that has not yet been approved or 

even submitted. Therefore, the commenters asked EPA to extend the deadlines for compliance 

by at least an amount commensurate to any extension of the deadline for development of the 

plan. However, regardless of whether EPA extends the deadline for the submission of state plans, 

the commenters argued states and the electric utility industry will still need more time between 

approval of the state plan and the compliance deadline than EPA's proposal would currently 

allow.

Although EPA's message to the public focused more heavily on the final compliance date of 

2030, the commenters contended that it is the interim goal for 2020-2029 that will present the 

most significant challenge for states and the electric utility industry. The commenters noted that 

in New Mexico, EPA's proposed interim goal would require the state to reduce its current 

average emission rate of 1,798 lb/MWh down to 1,197 1b/MWh by 2020, so that the state will be 

in position to meet the interim goal of 1,107 lb/MWh averaged over the 2020-2029 period and 

the final goal of 1,048lb/MWh by 2030. The commenters said the effect of these goals will be to 

require New Mexico to cut its emission rate by a third and thus achieve 80 percent of the 

required reductions by the year 2020.

The commenters noted that EPA's proposal explains that the interim goal is merely an average of

years 2020 through 2029, and thus does not necessarily require immediate compliance in 2020. 

However, the commenters also noted that, with the aggressive assumptions in EPA's proposed 

interim goals, any failure to meet the emission rate that EPA expects in 2020 will likely render 

compliance with the average interim goal nearly impossible, since there will not be enough time 

to make up the difference. As such, the commenters contended that the year 2020 does, in effect, 

mark the first point of compliance that states must consider in developing a plan for complying 

with the entire program. The commenters noted that the 2020 compliance requirement will begin 

a mere two and a half years after submission of final state plans, and only one and a half years 

after the submission of any final multi-state plans, and argued that those timeframes do not allow 

for the time that EPA will need to formally approve (or disapprove and revise) those plans. 

Given all that EPA expects to happen in that short compliance window, the commenters said 

additional time is warranted.

The commenters also noted that the interim goals themselves are quite stringent. Based on the 

assumptions EPA used to develop its interim goals, the commenters noted that states must fully 

complete two of the four building blocks by 2020, that is, states must achieve a six percent heat 

rate improvement at existing coal-fired generators and "re-dispatch" NGCC units to a seventy 

percent capacity factor (displacing coal), or find some other means to achieve the equivalent 
202

level of emission reductions. However, the commenters contended that EPA provided little basis 

for its belief that these significant efforts can be fully completed in the short period of time 

between adoption of the final state plans and the year 2020, and noted that EPA admitted that the 

other building blocks will take even longer to implement. The commenters also contended that 

EPA's analysis does not appear to recognize that the first two building blocks are inconsistent, 

i.e., decreased dispatch of coal-fired units will actually cause the heat rate of those units to rise, 

making it much more difficult to achieve the six percent improvement that EPA expects, 

particularly in the short compliance window allowed.

The commenters were concerned that EPA's expectation that states can fully implement the first 

two building blocks by 2020 is overly aggressive. The commenters did not expect San Juan (the 

state's primary source of coal-fired generation) to be capable of achieving a 6 percent heat rate 

improvement at all, which would require the state to make even greater efforts re-dispatch its 

NGCC units. The commenters also indicated that accomplishing EPA's 70 percent assumption by 

2020 will be difficult, as it would potentially require the construction of new gas transmission 

infrastructure. According to the commenters, planning, permitting, and constructing new gas 

pipelines is a lengthy process that can often take between two and ten years, depending on the 

location, potential environmental impacts, and public opposition.

The commenters specifically noted that a pipeline project typically involves several timeconsuming steps, including obtaining right-of-way easements, preparing environmental studies, 

accommodating public involvement, and construction of the pipeline itself. The commenters said 

the complexity of the process will also depend heavily on land ownership. The commenters 

noted that, in New Mexico, nearly 56 percent of the land area is public land, with the majority 

owned by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of 

Defense. The commenters also noted that Indian Country comprises nearly 10 percent of the 

area. As a result, the commenters said the likelihood that any new supply gas pipelines needed to 

implement EPA's Clean Power Plan will cross Federal or Indian Country is very high, thus 

requiring a "Federal action" that triggers various administrative requirements under the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act. According to the commenters, even projects that only cross 

private lands must still comply with Clean Water Act permitting requirements and the 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act, which can involve considerable time and effort.

To the extent any new pipeline project is deemed to have the potential for adverse impacts on the 

environment under these laws, the commenters contended that potential measures to mitigate 

adverse environmental effects must be considered, including measures to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce, or compensate for the impact. The commenters pointed out that those 

requirements can add to the complexity, length, and cost of the project. At each step along the 

way, the commenters said the public must be allowed an opportunity to review, comments, and 

express opposition to the project, which can delay progress even further. The commenters 

contended that for EPA to expect that the new gas pipeline capacity needed to re-dispatch New 

Mexico's NGCC units to a 70 percent capacity factor can be completed within a few short years 

ignores these significant, time-consuming hurdles that will likely preclude completion of any 

new infrastructure projects prior to 2020.
203

Even if New Mexico is able to achieve the necessary reductions expected by EPA's initial 

interim compliance goal for 2020 using building blocks 1 and 2, the commenters was also 

concerned that EPA's proposed "glide-path" from 2020 to 2030 for New Mexico will be difficult 

to maintain, given the aggressive assumptions EPA has made for building blocks 3 and 4. As 

an example, the commenters noted that, just like additional time will be needed to construct gas 

pipelines needed to implement building block 2, additional time may be needed to construct 

electricity transmission infrastructure needed to implement building block 3 to integrate new 

renewable resources. The commenters noted that construction of new transmission lines will 

involve many of the same concerns expressed above with regard to new natural gas pipelines. 

Without those improvements, the commenters said new renewable energy generation may not be 

able to reach demand centers, and other resources may not be able to provide sufficient support 

for the new renewable generation when it varies in availability.

Based on these concerns, the commenters asked EPA to reconsider the compliance schedule that 

it has proposed and recognize that the tremendous effort needed to reach EPA's goals will take 

more time than EPA has assumed. Alternatively, the commenters asked EPA to reconsider 

whether its interim goals are necessary at all, given the long-term nature of EPA's climate change 

goals, and instead consider allowing states to establish their own interim targets.

Comment 5: Comment suggesting that the EPA should eliminate the interim compliance period 

and allow States to focus their plans solely on identifying efficient and cost effective approaches 

to achieving the final compliance targets by 2030.

Response 5: The EPA shares the commenters’ concerns regarding the workability of the

proposed interim goals. Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has 

adjusted the start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to 

establish their own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that 

an interim period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary 

planning exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance 

rates. The EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation 

to address the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 

2020 as proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each 

year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance 

rates because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over 

time, as explained in section V. 

The final guidelines also contain changes to avoid certain inconsistencies between the goalsetting methodology and accounting of reductions under state plans that could have made state 

goals less achievable for some states. When assembled together, these changes help to ensure 

that the state goals established in the final guidelines are achievable considering cost, and that 

states can consider the range of available emission reduction methods that the final guidelines 

allow and choose the best way to achieve their state goals. A discussion of state plan timing and 

flexibility of available programs can be found in sections VIII.E and VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.
204

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA must eliminate its interim compliance targets. The commenters 

stated that EPA significantly underestimates the time that States will need to implement the 

emission reduction programs contemplated by the proposed rule. Due to a combination of 

legislative, regulatory, and infrastructure challenges, the commenters stated that it will be 

infeasible for States to achieve the interim compliance targets set by EPA, particularly in the 

earlier years of the interim compliance period. The commenters stated that, in light of the steep 

emission reductions that EPA projects beginning in 2020, States that cannot meet those initial 

targets will be forced to undertake much more extensive and costly emission reductions in the 

later part of the interim compliance period in order to meet EPA's overall emission reduction 

target. The commenters stated that in order to make up for higher emissions at the beginning of 

the interim period, States may have to impose emissions limits that are even more stringent than 

the final 2030 targets set by EPA at the end of the interim period in order to meet EPA's average 

interim target. The commenters stated that rather than requiring States to mandate expensive 

emission reductions that will likely be more stringent than the final 2030 compliance targets, 

EPA should eliminate the interim compliance period and allow States to focus their plans solely 

on identifying efficient and cost effective approaches to achieving the final compliance targets. 

First, the commenters stated that EPA's proposed timeline for the submission of State 

implementation plans is unreasonable. Even under the best circumstances, States will need far 

more than 2 years to complete all of the legislative and regulatory actions necessary to develop 

comprehensive implementation plans for the entire electricity sector. The commenters stated that 

policy differences within legislatures and regulatory agencies could further delay the 

development of implementation plans in many States. Finally, the commenters noted that EPA's 

review of those plans will add further delay. The commenters stated that EPA routinely takes 

more than a year to approve SIPs under Section 110, and frequently takes more than 2 years to 

do so. Because the content of a State's implementation plan will remain uncertain until after EPA 

approval, the commenters stated that this lengthy review process will further delay investments 

in the projects and infrastructure necessary to comply with EPA's emission reduction targets. The 

commenters stated that such investments will be delayed even further in the event that EPA 

disapproves a State plan and must then develop a federal implementation plan in its place.

Second, the commenters stated that even after an implementation plan is approved, it will take 

States and regulated entities several years to develop the infrastructure necessary to reduce 

overall CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. The commenters stated that the new natural 

gas pipelines that will be needed to ensure a sufficient supply of gas to run NGCC facilities at a 

70% capacity factor can be expected to take several years to construct. As an example, the 

recently announced Atlantic Coast Pipeline - which will run 550 miles from West Virginia to 

North Carolina - is expected to take a minimum of 4 years to complete construction, assuming 

that there are no problems during the permitting process. Likewise, the commenters stated that 

new transmission lines needed to connect existing NGCC facilities and new renewable energy 

facilities to demand centers currently served by coal-fired EGUs will take many years to 

complete. For example, the commenters stated that Texas' CREZ project, which involved 

installation of new transmission lines needed to transmit 18.5 MW of wind power from west 

Texas and the Texas panhandle to key population centers, took more than 6 years to construct 

after legislative approval. Likewise, "[i]n the SPP region, as much as eight and a half years to 
205

study, plan for and construct new transmission facilities has been required." The commenters 

stated that these projects - and the time needed to complete them - are not unusual and represent 

the types of infrastructure investments that will be needed to achieve the aggressive emission 

reduction goals proposed by EPA. The commenters stated that under the circumstances, it is 

highly unlikely that a State could enact new legislation, develop an implementation plan, obtain 

EPA approval, and complete massive infrastructure projects in less than a decade. Thus, the 

commenters stated that even if EPA completes the rulemaking on schedule, States would not be 

prepared to implement significant portions of their plans until 2025, or halfway through the 

interim compliance period.

The commenters stated that EPA cannot dismiss the challenges this will pose for achieving the 

interim emission reduction targets by simply asserting that States can require more aggressive 

emission reductions at the end of the interim compliance period. The commenters stated that the 

emission reductions required by EPA are far from gradual because EPA assumes that Building 

Blocks 1 and 2 will be fully implemented at the beginning of the interim compliance period in 

2020. The commenters stated that EPA assumes, on average, 63% of the final emission 

reductions will be achieved by 2020. The commenters stated that EPA may be technically correct 

that, because the interim compliance period evaluates average emissions over a 10-year period, a 

State that is unable to meet these aggressive emission reductions in the early years of the interim 

compliance period can make up for that shortfall by imposing more stringent emission reductions 

in the latter years. However, the commenters stated that this may not be possible in practice, as it 

will force States to "over comply" in the latter years of the interim period by achieving emission 

reductions that are well below EPA's projections for those years. The commenters stated that not 

only will such over-compliance result in a significant increase in compliance costs, it will likely 

force States to impose emission reductions at the end of the interim compliance period that will 

exceed the final emission reduction targets that would be applicable to the States beginning in 

2030. According to the commenters, it makes little sense to require a State to exceed the final 

emission reduction targets for a year or more simply because it was infeasible to achieve EPA's 

proposed emission reduction targets for the earlier years of the interim compliance period.

Recognizing that infrastructure challenges will make the interim compliance deadlines infeasible 

in many circumstances, the commenters noted that EPA suggests in the October 30, 2014 Notice 

of Data Availability, "a phase-in schedule could be developed for Building Block 2 on the basis 

of whether, and to what extent, any additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., natural gas 

pipeline expansion or transmission improvements) are needed to support more use of existing 

natural gas-fired generation." However, the commenters stated that the approach proposed in the 

NODA is inadequate to address the significant obstacles with the proposed compliance schedule. 

Given the economic, technological, and legal complexities of large-scale infrastructure projects, 

the commenters stated that it would be unreasonable for EPA to force States to commit to a 

specific schedule for these projects at this initial stage of the Section 111(d) process. The 

commenters stated that, under such a phase-in approach, any legal challenge or unforeseen 

complication during the construction process could threaten a States' ability to comply with a 

phase-in interim target. The commenters stated that the NODA does not provide significant 

flexibility beyond natural gas infrastructure issues (e.g. the time needed for legislative and 

regulatory action to prepare implementation plans) to enable the necessary time to achieve the 

interim compliance goals. The commenters suggested that EPA withdraw the interim compliance 
206

goals and allow States to focus exclusively on developing a pathway to achieve the final 

emission reduction targets by 2030.

Comment 6: Comment agreeing with the EPA that allowing States to use multi-year compliance 

periods will allow States to address short-term challenges (e.g., facility shut-downs that could 

cause temporary emissions increases through changes in electricity dispatching). However, the 

comment states that the proposed timeline for compliance is unreasonable and recommends 

eliminating the interim compliance entirely and extending the deadline for States to submit 

implementation plans for the 2030 compliance period. Comment objecting to the proposed rule's 

targets and timelines in light of the magnitude of the reductions required, the new infrastructure 

contemplated, and the regulatory approvals needed throughout the compliance process.

Comment supporting the EPA's proposal to measure compliance with emissions targets with 

multi-year compliance periods, however, if the EPA elects to retain the interim compliance 

period, the comment supports the EPA's proposal to have a single compliance period covering 

the entire interim period and asserts that under no circumstances should the EPA adopt an 

incremental period that is shorter than 5 years.

Response 6: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the use of multi-year 

compliance periods, and agrees with the commenters that states and regional planning groups

should be provided a great deal of flexibility to formulate their plans and develop workable glide 

paths toward the 2030 goal. The EPA does not agree that an incremental period shorter than 5 

years is useful, however, and we are finalizing this rule with three interim steps during the 8-year 

interim period as stepping stones to the final 2030 compliance, and averaging over 2-year final 

reporting periods. We are finalizing this rule with a great deal of added flexibility both in terms 

of program options and in regard to the timing of interim and final goal milestones. We disagree 

with the commenters’ assertion that the interim compliance period should be set aside entirely. 

A full discussion of state plan timing and flexibility of available programs can be found in 

sections VIII.B, VIII.E, and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding 

the establishment of interim goals can be found in section VIII.B of the final rule preamble. 

Discussion surrounding time needed to include new infrastructure in state plans can be found in 

sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble.

The EPA disagrees with the comment that multi-state plans may require Congressional approval 

under the Interstate Compact Clause for the reasons stated in the Legal Memorandum 

accompanying the final rule.

Regarding the comment that the EPA must allow any State a 2-year extension for the deadline to 

submit a State implementation plan, regardless of whether the state intends to pursue a single- or 

multi-state plan, we are allowing states to request a 2-year extension of the Sept. 6, 2016, 

submittal deadline even if they develop single-state plans. See Section VIII.E.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
207

Commenters agreed with EPA that allowing States to use multi-year compliance periods will 

allow States to address short-term challenges such as facility shut-downs that could cause 

temporary emissions increases through changes in electricity dispatching. 

However, commenters stated that EPA's proposed timeline for compliance is unreasonable. The 

commenters supported EPA's proposal to extend the deadline for states to submit implementation 

plans. The commenters noted that to meet the proposed emissions reduction targets, States will 

necessarily have to look beyond the fence line when preparing implementation plans and will 

likely require at least 2 years to prepare such complicated plans. According to the commenters, 

even the extensions will likely prove too short for many States. The commenters noted that 2 

years will not provide sufficient time to pass legislation and then complete a rulemaking process 

to prepare such a complicated State plan for states requiring legislative fixes to implement 

certain parts of the proposed standard. The commenters noted that in some States it may not be 

clear which agency should be responsible for preparing the implementation plan, and resolving 

these issues will also add time to the process. The commenters indicated that these problems are 

magnified for States with part time legislatures. The commenters provided for example, Texas' 

next legislative session is scheduled to end on June 1, 2015, the same day EPA was directed to 

finalize this rule. According to the commenters, unless Texas were to call an emergency session, 

it would not be able to enact any legislative fixes until 2017 - a mere 6 months before state plans 

are due. The commenters stated that without legislative action, the state could not show 

satisfactory progress toward developing a state plan by the 2016 compliance deadline or sign an 

MOA to participate in a multi-state plan. 

The commenters stated that multi-state plans may require Congressional approval under the 

Interstate Compact Clause.

The commenters stated that any delays will create challenges to meeting the interim guidelines. 

According to the commenters, without a timely state plan in place, it is unlikely that regulated 

entities will have sufficient time to meet the earliest compliance targets for 2020 and similar 

years. Thus, the commenters stated that costly and inefficient over-compliance would be 

necessary in later years to meet the average emissions rate. According to the commenters, even if 

this were possible, it would dramatically increase the compliance costs and other impacts of the 

rule.

To avoid these implementation challenges, the commenters suggested that EPA should eliminate 

the interim compliance entirely and extend the deadline for States to submit implementation 

plans for the 2030 compliance period. Further to provide equal treatment for all States, the 

commenters argued that the EPA must allow any State a 2-year extension for the deadline to 

submit a State implementation plan, regardless of whether the state intends to pursue a single- or 

multi-state plan.

In principle, commenters can support the concept of a phased-in compliance target and multiyear compliance effort. However, the commenters objected to the proposed rule's targets and 

timelines in light of the magnitude of the reductions required, the new infrastructure 

contemplated, and the regulatory approvals needed throughout the compliance process.
208

Commenters supported EPA's proposal to measure compliance with emissions targets with 

multi-year compliance periods. If EPA decides to proceed with State-wide emission reduction 

targets, the commenters urged EPA to incorporate sufficient flexibility to ensure that any shortterm, unforeseen challenges will not prevent the States from achieving their emission reduction 

targets. First, the commenters agreed with EPA that compliance with the final emission reduction 

goals should use a three-year rolling average. The commenters stated that EGU efficiency and 

emissions rates can vary over time, with relatively predictable patterns over the course of a year. 

The commenters stated that, at a minimum, the compliance period must be measured in years. 

However, in a State-wide plan, the commenters stated that EPA must also account for potential 

deviations from expected electricity demand-such as the unusually cold winter in 2014-that can 

alter projected electricity use and dispatching and, therefore, overall emissions rates. Likewise, 

the commenters stated that EPA must account for the potential for longer-term outages at 

individual facilities due to routine maintenance or unexpected malfunctions that can also alter 

projected electricity dispatching over long periods of time. The commenters stated that adopting 

a multi-year compliance option will reduce the noise in yearly emissions data and help ensure 

that States do not fail to comply with the State-wide emission reduction targets due to unforeseen 

events outside of their control. 

For the same reasons, if EPA elects to retain the interim compliance period, the commenters 

supported EPA's proposal to have a single compliance period covering the entire interim period. 

Id. (proposed 40 CFR 60.5775(c)(2)). In addition to the year-to-year challenges described above, 

the commenters noted that State-wide emissions during the interim period will be even more 

unpredictable, as States, affected EGUs, and potentially voluntary third-party participants will all 

be undertaking efforts to reduce emissions each year during the interim period. The commenters 

stated that no matter how carefully a State may plan its trajectory toward compliance with the 

final standards, it is unreasonable to expect that States will be able to strictly adhere to targets set 

by EPA or by he States in their implementation plans. The commenters stated that EPA's 

proposed 2-year incremental compliance periods are too short to account for the inevitable 

deviations that will occur during implementation. See Id. (proposed 40 CFR 60.5775(c)(1)). 

While the commenters disagreed that incremental compliance periods are needed at all, the 

commenters asserted that under no circumstances should EPA adopt an incremental period that is 

shorter than 5 years. The commenters stated that anything shorter will add unnecessary 

regulatory complexity for States with sound implementation plans that nevertheless experience 

short-term challenges.

Comment 7: Comments supporting extending the time periods for achieving interim and final 

goals and suggesting to move back the interim goals (e.g., to 2021-2031), and from 2030 to 2031 

for the final goal. Comment suggesting that the EPA allow states that require new infrastructure 

investments a minimum of 10 years to reach the interim goal, or eliminate the interim goal.

Commenters stating that the EPA cannot expect changes (i.e., HRIs, EE/RE) of this magnitude to 

be accomplished in a 10-year timeframe.

Comment stating that 18 months from final state plan approval (not accounting for the inevitable 

legal challenges) to implementation is far too short, expressing concern about the interim goal 
209

"cliff," and concluding that allowing more flexibility to the states to allow for plants that are 

otherwise environmentally compliant to run for their remaining useful lives beyond 2030 or 

extending the final goal date would set in motion meaningful CO2 reductions while protecting 

consumers from the costs of unnecessary deadlines. Comments suggesting that the EPA provide 

the states until 2035 to achieve compliance with any emission reduction targets, and that the EPA 

should abandon the interim targets it has proposed.

Comment stating that the EPA's proposed timelines for compliance with the clean power plan are 

not possible, and that new generation resources and other required infrastructure cannot be 

designed, constructed, and integrated in 10 to 15 years. 

Comment recommending: 1) that interim goals be eliminated and states be given the flexibility to 

establish their own interim targets; and 2) that states be afforded the flexibility to extend the 

2030 target date as necessary to allow the orderly retirement of existing coal plants.

Response 7: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start 

date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own 

emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period 

beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises 

and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA 

determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the 

revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

The initial compliance date of 2022, coupled with the fact that the 2030 standard is phased in 

over the subsequent eight years, affords affected EGUs the benefit of having an extended 

planning period before they need to incur any significant obligations. We are finalizing that, 

where needed, states may take the period through September 2018 to develop their final plans; 

affected EGUs will be able to work with the states during that period to develop compliance 

approaches. States will also have the flexibility to select their own emissions trajectories in such 

a way that certain emission reduction measures could be implemented later in the interim period 

(again, provided that their affected EGUs still meet the interim performance rates or interim goal 

over the interim period as a whole). As a result, if the affected EGUs in those states need to incur 

any expenses before the adoption of the final state plans, those expenses need not be more than 

minimal. Some states that already have established programs for limiting CO2 emissions from 

power plants may be able to adopt and submit to the EPA state plans by September 6, 2016. In 

those states, sources will already have developed compliance approaches to meet state law 

requirements. Other states that may decide to submit plans by September 6, 2016, may be 

expected to work with their affected EGUs to determine a reasonable compliance approach, in 

light of the fact that compliance is not required to begin until 2022. It is also possible that some 

states will submit neither final state plans nor initial submittals by September 6, 2016, and that 

the EPA will promulgate federal plans. Sources in those states will have more than five years to 

meet their 2022 compliance obligations, a lengthy period that will afford them the opportunity to 
210

plan before incurring significant expenditures. These periods of time are consistent with current 

industry practice in changing generation or adding new generation.

Further discussion surrounding time needed to include new infrastructure in state plans can be 

found in section VIII.G of the final rule preamble. Additional discussion surrounding the 

establishment of interim goals, the length of the interim period, and the length of interim steps,

can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.F of the final rule preamble. Commenters’ concerns 

regarding generation shifts and lead times for generation are addressed in section V.D of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. See Sections V.A.6 and VIII.K regarding new nuclear generation. See 

Section VIII.G.1 regarding remaining useful life.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported extending the time periods for achieving interim and final goals, in order 

to provide Indiana with better opportunity and greater flexibility to establish measures consistent 

with preserving the reliable and reasonably priced energy needed to support economic growth in 

the state.

Commenters suggested that the compliance dates for the interim goal and final goal should be 

moved back at least one year, from 2020-2029 to 2021-2030 for the interim goal (if the 

commenters’ suggestions to change the interim goal are not adopted), and from 2030 to 2031 for 

the final goal.

Commenters suggested that EPA allow states that require new infrastructure investments a 

minimum of 10 years to reach the interim goal, or eliminate the interim goal. The commenters 

noted that 84 percent of Minnesota's total carbon reduction would occur by 2020 under the EPA's 

proposal. The commenters expected that both additional infrastructure and unit retirements with 

replacements would be a part of Minnesota's compliance plan. The commenters stated that 

Minnesota must have the flexibility to meet timelines while maintaining reliability and assessing 

prudent investment. The commenters stated that they share MISO's concerns that the need to take 

action by 2020 may impede states' ability to implement least-cost compliance strategies and may 

degrade reliability. 

The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule's interim goal should be more flexible given 

Minnesota's recent experience with the time requirements of Xcel Energy's Metropolitan 

Emission Reduction Program (MERP) initiative for coal-to-gas replacement and the CapX2020 

transmission initiative - each of which took years to plan, develop, permit, construct and bring 

into operation. The commenters stated that Xcel Energy's MERP initiative began in 2001 and 

was completed in 2009. The commenters noted that Minnesota's portion of the CapX2020 

initiative began with the planning phase in 2004, and the construction of those lines is still 

ongoing.

Commenters stated that the EPA acknowledges a state's circumstances and choice of emission 

reduction strategies may affect the timing and that certain emission reduction measures and 

programs (e.g., HRIs) are generally easier to implement in the near term, while others (EE/RE) 

may require several years to implement because of the time necessary to establish the proper 

infrastructure if a state does not already have such programs in place. The commenters stated that 

the 10-year performance period is intended to "allow states flexibility for timing of program 
211

implementation as the state ramps up its programs to achieve the final performance level." The 

commenters noted that states are heading into unchartered territory if this proposal is 

implemented as structured, that measures and programs necessitated under this proposal will 

likely take significant time to implement (if they even can be implemented), and that there must 

be mechanisms to afford states more time if needed. 

The commenters stated that attempting to force fit the Section 111(d) rules is inappropriate and 

cannot be achieved in the timeframe suggested by the EPA, as evident in the Southwest Power 

Pool's October 9, 2014 comments on this proposal requesting at least a 5-year extension on the 

interim goals in order to reduce their modeled reliability impacts and violations of reliability 

standards. The commenters stated that the EPA cannot expect changes of this magnitude be 

accomplished in a 10-year timeframe.

Commenters noted that the proposed CPP regulations call for submittal of each state plan as late 

as June 2017, with the allowable 1 year extension, and June 2018 as part of a multi-state 

agreement, after which the EPA would have up to 1 year to approve the plan. The commenters 

noted that a final single state plan could be approved as late as June 2018. Regardless of the 

timing of EPA approval of the state plan, the commenters noted that the CPP requires 

compliance to begin January 1, 2020, as the ramp down begins. The commenters stated that 18 

months from final state plan approval (not accounting for the inevitable legal challenges) to 

implementation is far too short. The commenters stated that considering that nuclear generation's 

reliable, base-load, carbon free energy must be an important part of the plan, even the 10 or so 

years from final plan approval to implementation of the 2030 standards is too short. The 

commenters stated that the planning cycle for nuclear, from site selection and permitting through 

construction still exceeds 10 years. The commenters stated that it is unrealistic to expect that 

utilities will take action and spend their customers' money without absolute clarity as to what the 

final approved state plan will require. The commenters noted that investing significant time and 

resources for a regulation that is still being revised and has yet to withstand a serious legal 

challenge is not a prudent use of our customers' money. As a municipal utility, the commenters 

stated that it is their obligation to meet the electric needs of our community by the lowest-cost, 

environmentally responsible means available. As a not-for-profit utility, the commenters stated 

that the most reasonable way to keep costs down for our customers is to use our existing 

resources to their maximum potential, not by abandoning plants before the end of their useful 

life. The commenters stated that their coal units, on average, have expected useful lives 

extending 15-20 years beyond the initial proposed compliance date of 2020. 

The commenters included a graph of the CO2 emission rates in lbs per MWh over time period 

2012-2030 titled: "Interim and Final Goals -Stringency/Timelines." The commenters expressed 

concern about the interim goal "cliff." The commenters stated that meeting the numeric goals and 

the proposed dates for the interim and final goals will be difficult and unnecessarily costly. The 

commenters noted that the EPA has proposed an average state of Florida interim goal of 794 

lbs/MWh for 2020-2029 and 740 lbs/MWh in 2030. The commenters explained that if the state 

were required to meet these targets, 1800 MW of their existing solid fuel capacity that would not 

ordinarily have been retired by 2020 will be threatened. The commenters noted that, while the 

State is required to meet the goal as a whole, one way they might contribute to meeting the state 

goal is with significant re-dispatch or retirement of all of its solid fuel capacity and with purchase 
212

of replacement power. The commenters noted that there is currently insufficient transmission 

infrastructure to accommodate such an import into their service territory.

The commenters asserted that that Clean Power Plan as proposed is not prudently attainable in 

Florida. The commenters stated that the speed at which the plan is proposed to be implemented 

and the great reduction in CO2 emissions required makes the Clean Power Plan interim goal as 

proposed exorbitantly costly to attempt to attain between 2020 and 2029. The commenters stated 

that if this plan is finalized and enforced as proposed, it will shift electric utilities away from 

reliable, base load solid fuel units to base load natural gas fired combined cycle units with simple 

cycle combustion turbine units filling the intermediate load gap and cycling to manage the 

electric system. The commenters stated that this sudden shift would cause a market rise in the 

demand for, cost of, and delivery time for the construction of the required new units. The 

commenters stated that at 2014 market demand levels for these units, a minimum lead time of 30 

months, 36 months and 10 years could be expected for combustion turbine, NGCC and nuclear 

units, respectively. The commenters stated that to have gas fired units in place in the quantity 

needed to meet the 2020-2029 average, the utility would need a plan of action underway and 

need rate payer funds before a final rule would be in place. The commenters stated that at best, a 

new nuclear decision and build could be facilitated to help meet the 2030 target. However, the 

commenters stated that the CPP only counts increased generation from existing NGCC and the 

five nuclear units currently under construction (none in Florida) in its formula for meeting the 

state goals, such that generation from "new" NGCC and "new" nuclear would not be given credit 

toward meeting the goal.

The commenters concluded that allowing more flexibility to the states to allow for plants that are 

otherwise environmentally compliant to run for their remaining useful lives beyond 2030 or 

extending the final goal date would set in motion meaningful CO2 reductions while protecting 

consumers from the costs of unnecessary deadlines. The commenters stated that each state 

should define the glide path within its state plan for that state to meet the final goal

Given the extensive legal, regulatory, and physical changes that must occur first, commenters 

suggested that EPA provide the states until 2035 to achieve compliance with any emission 

reduction targets, and EPA should abandon the interim targets it has proposed, as they will be 

unachievable for states to meet. Commenters also requested that EPA allow the states to adopt 

compliance deadlines based on the remaining state-determined useful lives of each of the 

designated existing facilities.

Commenters requested that the final compliance deadline be extended to at least 2035.

The commenters noted that, under the emission guidelines as proposed, states will be required to 

take unprecedented steps to regulate the generation, transmission, and use of electricity not just 

within their borders but, in many cases, beyond them as well. The commenters indicated these 

efforts will most likely require the passage of new state legislation authorizing such actions, the 

development of state rules to implement those statutory authorities and detailed assessments on a 

utility-by-utility, source-by-source basis of what reductions can be obtained, while still ensuring 

a reliable and affordable electric supply for the states' citizens. The commenters further noted 

that any efforts to negotiate and implement interstate plans are likely to be even more 

complicated and time-consuming. According to the commenters, the generation and the 
213

transmission of electricity through RTOs is not confined to state boundaries. Given the amount 

of work to be done, the commenters urged EPA to extend the final compliance deadline by five 

years, from 2030 to at least 2035, to account for the more realistic timeframes. 

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposed timelines for compliance with the Clean Power Plan 

are not possible. The commenters stated that the EPA's Clean Power Plan requires compliance 

within 10 to 15 years but this deadline is not achievable. The commenters stated that once the 

EPA issues its final rules in June of 2015, Kansas will need at least 2 years to conclude a 

stakeholder process to determine the following: 

• Jurisdictional utilities and the SPP must individually and jointly run re-dispatch models to 

determine the lowest-cost option(s) and the most viable option(s) for compliance. These 

re-dispatch model runs will be highly complex and will most likely involve hundreds of 

discrete scenarios and will take and estimated six months to a year to run. 

• The commenters must then review and analyze the re-dispatch scenario results and 

conduct stakeholder meetings and hearings in order to determine the best course(s) of 

action. 

• Once the Commission has issued an Order approving the new generation mix for its 

jurisdictional utilities, the utilities can work with KDHE to develop a compliance plan or 

plans. 

The commenters stated that because of the complexities involved and the fact that generation 

mix is jurisdictional; they cannot be rushed into a quick decision on these issues by an 

excessively aggressive schedule set by the EPA. 

The commenters stated that the EPA has demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of the 

electrical system which is outside its area of expertise. The commenters noted for example, the 

EPA discusses its proposed changes to the generation mix in broad simplistic language such as 

"All of these measures are components 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 grid and the fungibility of electricity and electricity services, they 

displace or avoid the need for generation from those sources and thereby reduce 

the emissions from those sources." 

The commenters stated that the EPA is under the mistaken belief that the mix of electric 

generation can simply be modified over a 10 to 15 year period because electricity is "fungible." 

The commenters stated that the EPA does not recognize the fact that the current electric grid has 

developed over the past 100 plus years and the modern grid has expanded over the past 40 plus 

years. 

The commenters stated that generation resources are located very specifically to accommodate 

load requirements and balance the system. The commenters stated that closing coal plants or 

significantly reducing their output will require thorough engineering studies to determine what 
214

type of new generation - nuclear, NGCC, or renewable - should be selected, the location of the 

new generation, availability of fuel, and transmission constraints. The commenters stated that 

new generation resources and other required infrastructure cannot be designed, constructed, and 

integrated in 10 to 15 years. 

Commenters argued that EPA should eliminate the interim goals and give states the flexibility to 

set their own interim targets.

Although the rule was published in June of 2014 and the interim goals begin in 2020, the 

commenters noted that states have only two to four years to comply (following the current EPA 

timeline). The commenters further noted that for some states the interim goals in 2020 will be 

more difficult to meet than the more strict 2030 goals due to the limited amount of time for 

utilities to respond to a finalized state plan. As an example, the commenters cited the 

following statement in the proposed rule, "Building Block 3 is based on shifting generation from 

affected fossil units to new RE generating capacity, which is added over time, and new or 

preserved nuclear capacity, all of which is expected to be in place by 2020." The commenters 

said this will give states that choose the multi-state approach potentially only 2 years to comply 

with a 2020 interim target that may include the construction of new RE or new natural gas

combined cycles. The commenters contended that this is not enough time to implement such 

compliance efforts. 

Though the commenters believe a multi-state plan is necessary for reliable and cost effective 

implementation, if individual state plans are maintained, the commenters said states should be 

given much more flexibility to implement their own compliance plans. The commenters

recommended that interim goals be eliminated and states be given the flexibility to establish their 

own interim targets. The commenters also recommended that states be afforded the flexibility to 

extend the 2030 target date as necessary to allow the orderly retirement of existing coal plants (if 

deemed appropriate for compliance) consistent with their remaining useful lives so as to avoid 

reliability and resource adequacy concerns as well as customer cost impacts. According to the 

commenters, forcing a rigid interim and final goal timeline(s) will result in costly short term 

fixes rather than the long-term solutions EPA is seeking.

Comment 8: Comment stating that giving states more flexibility and longer time frames to phase 

in the reductions will enable states to put in place stronger plans while at the same time meeting 

the EPA's overall reduction goals by 2030.

Response 8: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the Building Block approach 

as proposed. We also thank the commenters in support of added flexibility and time allowed for 

state and regional plan formulation in the final rule. Details of the added flexibility can be 

found in section VIII.C and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The EPA has adjusted 

the start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish 

their own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 
215

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

We disagree with the commenters that emissions from new NGCC units covered under 111(b) 

should be approvable as CO2 reduction measures under the final emission guidelines. New, 

modified, and reconstructed EGUs covered under the CAA section 111(b) final Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units rule are not approvable sources of electric generation for adjusting the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU under a rate-based state plan. As discussed in section VII.D of 

this preamble, a key concern under this rule is leakage to new units that are not covered by the 

emission guidelines. Emissions leakage, or increased CO2 emissions due to increased utilization 

of unaffected sources, is contradictory to objectives of this rule and should, therefore, be 

minimized. Allowing affected EGUs to adjust their emission rates as a result of lower-emitting 

new NGCC units not covered under this section 111(d) rule would not mitigate leakage 

concerns, and could even exacerbate the situation. Consequently, new EGUs covered under the 

CAA section 111(b) rule are not allowable measures in state plans because the EPA believes it 

would result in increased emission leakage. See Section VIII.K.1.b of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the EPA's Clean Power Plan aims to reduce the majority of Texas's 

current carbon emission rate by the year 2020 with approximately 39% over the 2012-2020 time 

period and the remaining 5% by 2030. The commenters believed that giving states more 

flexibility and longer time frames to phase in the reductions will enable states to put in place 

stronger plans while at the same time meeting the EPA's overall reduction goals by 2030. 

The commenters agreed with the flexibility that the proposed rule provides to states to also allow 

for carbon reducing strategies that are not explicitly identified in the Building Blocks. 

Specifically, the commenters supported the use of new NGCC units as a compliance measure. 

The commenters indicated that new NGCC units are part of their company's long term 

generation plan and provide carbon reducing benefit and should be counted towards compliance. 

In addition, the commenters indicated that repowering a coal unit into an NGCC unit should also 

be counted towards compliance. According to the commenters, both new NGCC units and 

repowering older coal units into NGCC provide meaningful measureable reductions in carbon 

intensity and should be options available to utilities. As an example, the commenters pointed out 

that if their company repowers the Deely coal-fired unit after retirement in 2018, the unit should 

be able to remain in the section 111(d) program without regard to when the repowering begins so 

that it can earn credit for the reductions achieved through the repowering.
216

Comment 9: Comment suggesting that the EPA should give strong consideration to eliminating 

the interim target goals for the states, or alternatively give allow for: the gradual phase-in of heat 

rate improvements under Building Block 1; credit for early CO2 emission reductions; and phase 

in Building Block 2 over time rather than assuming the achievement of full re-dispatch by 2020.

Response 9: The EPA agrees with this and other commenters’ positions that states and regional 

planning groups need additional flexibility in formulating their plans. In this package the EPA is 

finalizing a variety of measures to accommodate state choices in meeting the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 111(d). The commenters’ concerns about treatment of early 

actions are further addressed by changes from proposal to the BSER assumptions and the 

methodology used by the EPA to establish the CO2 emission performance levels and rate-based 

state CO2 goals in the emission guidelines. 

Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the 

interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions 

trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 

2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the 

implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the 

interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of 

the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect 

the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 

2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance 

rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section 

V. 

The EPA recognizes the value of such early actions, and in this final rule is providing states with 

discretion to credit reductions from the activities, implemented from 2013 onward, in the context 

of both mass-based and rate-based plans. The EPA believes that the broad categories of 

measures listed in the final rule address the wide range of actions that are available to reduce 

CO2 emissions from affected EGUs under a rate-based state plan. We also believe that the 

addition of a mass-based state plan option provides a great deal of added flexibility to help states 

and regional planning groups manage such concerns and develop a glide path to 2030 that works 

best for their plan(s). Additional information on these topics can be found in section VIII.G.2 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The EPA shares the commenters’ concerns regarding the workability of the proposed interim 

goals and we are addressing comments by making changes to state goals and goal-setting 

methodology. The final guidelines also contain changes to avoid certain inconsistencies between 

the goal-setting methodology and accounting of reductions under state plans that could have 

made state goals less achievable for some states. When assembled together, these changes help 

to ensure that the state goals established in the final guidelines are achievable considering cost, 

and that states can consider the range of available emission reduction methods that the final 

guidelines allow and choose the best way to achieve their state goals. A discussion of state plan 

timing and flexibility of available programs can be found in sections VIII.E and VIII.G of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.
217

Regarding the commenters’ concerns about the BSER and front-loading of the state and regional 

plans, the final rule includes added flexibility for states and regional planners, including such 

things as credit for early action and allowing the use of mass-based reductions that are designed 

to alleviate these concerns and allow states and regional planners more options when assembling 

their plans.

The EPA does not agree with the commenters who called for elimination of the interim goal. 

The EPA believes that interim goals are appropriate to ensure that state 111(d) plans require the 

emission reductions that are achievable, as required by the statute. Also, tracking emission 

performance against the interim steps and interim goal will enable states and EPA to assess on an 

ongoing basis whether plans are performing satisfactorily and, if not, to take remedial actions 

promptly (with the type of remedial action depending on plan type).

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that EPA should give strong consideration to eliminating the interim target 

goals for the states. 

If EPA does not abandon the interim goals, the commenters suggested that the following changes 

outlined in the NODA, which were designed to reduce the negative consequences of requiring an 

interim goal within the context of Building Block 2, should both be adopted in the final 

guidelines: (i) allow credit for early CO2 emission reductions; and (ii) phase in Building Block 2 

over time rather than assuming the achievement of full re-dispatch by 2020. The commenters 

contended that full credit for early actions that result in reduced CO2 emissions before the 

compliance period begins in 2020 should be allowed. The commenters indicated that would not 

alone significantly alleviate the negative consequences of the proposed interim goals, however. 

The commenters noted that the timeline between final state plan approval (which, for many 

states, may not occur until mid-2018 or later) and 2020 is far too short for states to implement 

significant action that would encourage implementation of early emission-reducing measures to 

address the interim goal. Therefore, the commenters said EPA should also allow re-dispatch 

under Building Block 2 to be phased in, rather than requiring full implementation by 2020. The 

commenters said EPA should also allow for the gradual phase-in of heat rate improvements 

under Building Block 1. According to the commenters, the types of efficiency improvement 

measures that might be required by the final rule will take a significant amount to time to 

implement, given the need for proper planning, design, contracting and scheduling of outages for

affected units. The commenters noted that, under the proposal, every coal-fired EGU not retired 

is expected to implement these measures by 2020. Given the extremely tight schedule this 

presents, after accounting for the necessary approval of state plans, the commenters indicated the 

2020 deadline could present problems for system reliability.

The commenters contended that EPA should allow the states to determine how quickly Building 

Block 2 may be phased in. The commenters said each state should have the authority to define its 

own glide path using criteria such as costs, energy impacts, and the remaining useful life of 

affected sources (the statutory mandate under the CAA). The commenters noted that EPA 

suggested that an appropriate phase-in schedule could be based on "whether, and to what extent, 

any additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., natural gas pipeline expansion or transmission 

improvements) are needed to support more use of existing natural gas-fired generation," or on 
218

avoiding stranded investments considering the "book life" of generating assets. The commenters 

disagreed, arguing that, practically speaking, states are in a much better position than EPA to 

assess such factors and determine an appropriate phase-in schedule. The commenters said the 

book life of an asset is not an appropriate means of implementing the statutory mandate. The 

commenters argued that book life is an accounting concept that addresses depreciation, and is not 

an appropriate metric for measuring or for addressing within the context of CAA section 111(d) 

the remaining useful life of an asset; the commenters said that must be determined by the states 

on a case-by-case basis.

For the above stated reasons, commenters believed EPA's proposed schedule is unrealistic. 

Therefore, the commenters strongly urged EPA to extend the schedule for states to meet their 

final goals to no earlier than 2035, while eliminating the interim goals and allowing states to 

determine the emission reduction trajectories that work best in meeting their final goals in the 

most equitable, cost effective and efficient manner possible. The commenters said EPA could 

still require states to make certain showings as a means of assuring that states are making 

satisfactory progress and putting in place the necessary legislation, regulations or other 

mechanisms needed to make the required reductions.

Comment 10: Comment recommending allowing the states to set their own glide paths to meet 

the rule's compliance objectives with a directive that continued generation by public power 

entities be fostered.

Response 10: The EPA agrees with the commenters that state and regional planners need added 

flexibility and to this end the EPA has adjusted the start date for the interim period to 2022, and 

is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions trajectory during the interim 

period. Because of the additional time provided before the beginning of the interim plan 

performance period, the EPA has determined that additional assurance that states are making 

progress in implementing the plan between the time of the state plan submittal and the beginning 

of the interim period is appropriate. This application of the BSER over the 2022-2029 interim 

period provides the state with substantial latitude in selecting its own emission reduction glide 

path over that period, as discussed in detail in sections V.C, V.D, V.E, VIII.D, and VIII.E of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP. To the commenters’ directive that continued generation by public 

power entities be fostered, the EPA cannot provide such a directive in the final rule as it may 

take away flexibility from other state and regional plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed rule is likely to have a profound effect on the energy sector 

and especially on municipal utilities. The commenters adopted the comments of the APPA and 

MMEA and supported the comments of the State of Michigan and specifically supported and 

recommended allowing the states to set their own glide paths to meet the rule's compliance 

objectives with a directive that continued generation by public power entities be fostered. The 

commenters stated that methods for fostering the continuation of generation by public power 

may include exempting small EGUs, providing more flexible emission budgets or emission rates 

for municipal units, or allowing additional credits to municipal entities for their existing units, 
219

renewable energy sources or energy efficiency projects. The commenters said that states are 

best positioned to design a plan that promotes public power.

Comment 11: Comment stating that the EPA should allow additional time for implementation of 

state plans so that states can overcome barriers with infrastructure changes, NSR permitting, and 

multi-state plans. Also, the comment recommends that the EPA should allow states the discretion 

to develop individualized plans for the 2020-2029 timeframe.

Response 11: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ concerns regarding additional time needed 

for infrastructure, permitting, legislation and multi-state plan development. Based on this and 

other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the interim period to 

2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions trajectory during 

the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 2022 provides 

sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the implementation of 

measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the interim rates in a 

manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of the interim 

compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect the 

averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-

2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance rates 

are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of emission 

reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section V. 

See sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional response to 

this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that the EPA should allow additional time for implementation of state 

plans. The commenters stated that as proposed, the rule would not provide sufficient time for 

implementation. The commenters noted that if EPA acts on state plans within 12 months of their 

submittal, states would receive approval by June 30, 2017, giving states at most only 2.5 year to 

implement their plans before the performance period begins in 2020. The commenters noted that 

if EPA takes longer to act on state plan submissions, states would have even less time. The 

commenters expressed concern about this outcome, in light of EPA's record on approval of SIPs 

under Section 110 of the CAA. The commenters noted that the EPA has taken years to take final 

action on some SIPs (e.g., in 2011, EPA had failed to act on 69 Section 110 SIPs within 12 

months).

The commenters asserted that states need additional time to implement the emissions reduction 

measures that must be included in state plans to achieve the significant reductions required by 

2020. The commenters noted that implementation will require states to overcome multiple 

barriers, including, but not limited to, the following:
220

Infrastructure changes: The commenters noted that states will need time to invest in 

infrastructure to account for changes in dispatch, such as new natural gas pipelines and new 

electrical distribution and transmission systems. For states requiring new generation to 

comply with Building Block Two, the commenters noted that time will be needed for the 

siting, planning, design, permitting, and construction of new generation resources and 

supporting infrastructure.

New Source Review permitting: The commenters stated that heat rate improvement projects 

at coal-fired EGUs like those anticipated under Building Block One may trigger permitting 

requirements, including NSR permitting. Assuming that NSR permitting does not deter heat 

rate improvement projects entirely, the commenters stated that the permitting process may 

significantly delay implementation of such projects. The commenters stated that re-dispatch 

to NGCCs, as anticipated under Building Block Two, also may implicate NSR permitting. 

The commenters stated that some existing NGCC units currently have permit limitations on 

their generation, which were taken to avoid NSR permitting requirements. The commenters

stated that these units would not be available to support re-dispatch unless their permits are 

revised, which could trigger NSR requirements, including the installation of BACT, or 

technology to meet the LAER and emissions offsets. The commenters stated that this process 

is unlikely to be completed by 2020. The commenters stated that it typically takes more than 

a year to obtain a NSR permit, and a permit application could not even be submitted until 

after all necessary analyses have been completed, including air quality analyses and control 

technology evaluations.

Multi-state plans. The commenters explained that states that choose to coordinate in 

developing a multi-state plan would have even less time to implement their plans than states 

developing individual plans. The commenters stated that EPA is not proposing additional 

time for implementation of multi-state plans, even though the Agency proposes to allow an 

additional year for development of multi-state plans. Since the performance period starts in 

2020 for all states, states developing a multi-state plan would have even less time for 

implementation. This discourages states from coordinating with other states. The commenters

stated that the shorter timeframe also would impact the types of multi-state programs that 

coordinating states could implement (e.g., a multi-state cap-and-trade program would require 

significant time for implementation). The commenters noted that states would need to 

negotiate allowance and revenue allocations. The commenters stated that additional time 

would be needed to allocate the allowances and for companies to determine how to comply 

with the program (e.g., adjusting operations to comply with their allocation, or to identify 

sellers of allowances), which is a time-consuming process. The commenters noted for 

example, California signed a cap-and-trade program into law in 2006, but the program did 

not take effect until 2012, and even then, regulated entities' compliance obligations were 

delayed by one year to 2013.

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposed implementation period does not allow sufficient 

time for states to address these issues, especially since EPA's proposed goal-setting methodology 

sets such stringent interim goals that states will need to achieve the majority of their required 

CO2 emission reductions by 2020. The commenters agreed with other commenters that this 

defeats EPA's intended goal of providing states flexibility in how they may achieve the required 

emission reductions. The commenters stated that rather than providing states flexibility, EPA is 
221

constraining states' choices. The commenters noted that in setting the interim goals, EPA 

assumed that the emission reductions from Building Blocks One and Two would be achieved at 

the beginning of the 10-year interim period. As a result, the commenters noted that almost all of 

the emission rate reductions would be required to be achieved in the first year of the 10-year 

interim period. The commenters noted that in 11 states, EPA assumed that over 75 percent of the 

total reductions required by 2030 would be achieved by 2020. The commenters explained that 

states whose emission levels exceeded their interim goals in the first part of the compliance 

period simply would be unable to achieve reductions sufficient to offset those emissions later in 

the compliance period.

The commenters recommended that rather than mandating enforceable interim goals, EPA 

should allow states the discretion to develop individualized plans for the 2020-2029 time period 

that establish state-specific criteria and state-specific "glide paths" that would lead to compliance 

with their 2030 emission goals. The commenters suggested that the EPA should allow each state 

to make its own determination as to which measures can be implemented, on a schedule that is 

manageable for the state, but still achieves the final state goal in 2030. The commenters 

suggested that the EPA should adopt a compliance mechanism under which states could count 

pre-2020 avoided CO2 from existing RE and EE measures towards interim performance goals. 

According to the commenters, this in addition to delaying the start of the compliance period or 

allowing states to set their own compliance glide paths, would alleviate the burdens associated 

with implementing state plans by 2020. Alternatively, the commenters urged the EPA to extend 

the time period for implementation of state plans prior to the start of the compliance period to 

allow states sufficient time to implement their emission reduction programs.

Comment 12: Comment suggesting that the EPA allow the states to develop rate of progress 

compliance plans, abandon the interim state goal requirement, and allow a flexible and 

reasonable glide path toward the state goal that considers affordability and reliability.

Response 12: The EPA disagrees with the concept of abandoning interim goals, but does agree 

with allowing states to develop flexible and workable glide paths that suit individual state plan 

needs or multi-state planning needs. Based on this and other comments we have received, the 

EPA has adjusted the start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for 

states to establish their own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has 

determined that an interim period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to 

undertake necessary planning exercises and for the implementation of measures towards 

achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to 

proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of the interim compliance period 

(beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated 

emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section 

V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance rates are less stringent 

than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of emission reduction 

potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section V. 

See section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional response to this comment.
222

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters described numerous considerations for development of legislation and regulations 

in Illinois and Missouri to implement the CPP, and considerations related to developing the state 

plan. The commenters concluded that EPA has not considered the time and resources needed for 

these actions, and that the interim goal should be abandoned in favor of a flexible glide path.

Commenters noted that in the proposal, states must already require "affected EGUs" to monitor, 

measure, report, and keep records of CO2 emissions. Proposed 40 CFR 60.5805; 79 FR 34954. 

The commenters noted that subject to any limitations within state law, the state may develop

additional regulations that would limit CO2 emissions from its affected EGUs. The commenters

stated that presumably, no new legislative authority would be required for a state to adopt such 

regulations.

The commenters noted that in Missouri, regulations are developed by the Missouri DNR and 

adopted by the Missouri Air Commission while in Illinois, regulations are developed by Illinois 

EPA and adopted by the Pollution Control Board. The commenters noted that these agencies 

could establish emissions limitations and/or technology requirements and identify the emission 

sources to which they apply. Presumably, the commenters stated that the regulations could 

consider classifications of EGUs as well as the "useful life" of any affected EGU, as provided for 

in Section 111 of the CAA. The commenters suggested that these regulations should also include 

emissions monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The commenters noted that 

regulations probably would also include some state permitting requirements and would identify 

the state's authority to enforce them. The commenters stated that these rules would likely be 

subject to notice, hearing, and public comment.

The commenters noted that determining what reductions from affected EGUs are required to 

meet the state goal will require investigations, planning and coordination at the state level which 

may not be authorized by state laws. The commenters listed numerous issues that may require 

state legislative direction and development of regulations in both Illinois and Missouri.

The commenters noted that the state plan must include a glide path, known as a rate of progress 

demonstration in other CAA programs, that demonstrates when and what reductions are expected 

by implementation of the plan. The commenters stated that this element of the plan would 

demonstrate how the various actions to be taken in the state will result in achievement of the 

state goals in an incremental fashion along the so-called "glide path." The commenters stated that 

because this will be a state-led, state-developed program, the useful life of existing resources will 

be considered, and the impact of retirements, changes in dispatch, and newly constructed units, 

as directed by the CAA.

The commenters noted that the state must provide for a ministerial process to collect and process 

the data necessary to demonstrate compliance. For a program as far-reaching as the CPP, the 

commenters stated that familiarity with large amounts of data and the ability to quantitatively 

show how each action is expected to reduce emissions or the rate of emissions will be required. 

The commenters stated that this entity must then collect and analyze the data to track progress, 

suggest corrective measures, and eventually demonstrate compliance to EPA.
223

In summary, the commenters noted that the EPA has provided the broad outline of a state plan in 

the proposed rule, but has not considered the time and massive state resources necessary to 

comply with the CPP. The commenters noted that in order to align EPA goals and state policies 

and laws, the EPA must allow the states to develop rate of progress compliance plans, and EPA 

must abandon the interim state goal requirement. The commenters stated that the CPP must 

allow a flexible and reasonable glide path toward the state goal that considers affordability and 

reliability.

Comment 13: Comment stating that the EPA should eliminate the proposal's interim goals and 

defer to the state the task of setting interim goals because the state is better equipped to evaluate 

how quickly efforts under each building block can be implemented in accordance with EPA's 

proposed BSER. Comment suggesting allowing states to set reasonable rates of progress, in 

which case interim goals would be unnecessary and suggesting that the EPA provide for more 

flexible time frames for implementation when finalizing the proposed rule, with specific 

recommendations for changes.

Response 13: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ request to set aside interim goals, but 

does agree that state plans should have additional time and flexibility for development. Based on 

this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the interim 

period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions 

trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 

2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the 

implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the 

interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of 

the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect 

the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 

2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance 

rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section 

V. 

See sections VIII.B, VIII.C, VIII.D, VIII.E, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP for 

additional discussion of these topics.

We agree with the commenters that states should have the opportunity to modify state plans, 

subject to EPA approval and so long as those plans continue to satisfy the requirements of 

section 111(d) and EPA's emission guidelines. See Section VIII.E.7 of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the interim compliance goal should be eliminated and states should 

have the authority to set the emissions "glide path."
224

Despite the warnings from the expert authorities on grid reliability, the commenters noted EPA's 

claims in its proposal that there will be sufficient time to achieve the interim and final emission 

rate goals. However, the commenters indicated most of the reduction in emissions for many 

states appears to take place by 2020, the date by which EPA expects states to complete the "redispatch" from coal-fired units to natural gas units. The commenters noted that by the time that 

the state plans are submitted and approved, there will be only two or three years left before those 

significant reductions are expected in 2020. In light of this short compliance window, the 

commenters questioned whether EPA has allowed adequate time to address the natural gas 

transmission and distribution infrastructure challenges associated with such significant increases 

in the dispatch of existing NGCC units. 

According to the commenters, section 111(d) clearly allocates to the states the authority to 

provide for the implementation and enforcement of the standards of performance for any existing 

source in a state plan adopted under EPA's emission guidelines. In spite of that clear separation 

of authority, the commenters said EPA's proposal seeks to impose specific interim goals that 

define a particular rate of progress in reaching the final emission guideline established by EPA 

for 2030. In doing so, the commenters said EPA has severely limited state flexibility in 

implementing EPA's proposal. In fact, the commenters indicated many states would have to 

achieve the majority of the required emission reductions by 2020, even though the final goal 

would still be a decade away. The commenters contended that EPA should eliminate the 

proposal's interim goals and defer to the state the task of setting interim goals because the state is 

better equipped to evaluate how quickly efforts under each building block can be implemented in 

accordance with EPA's proposed BSER. 

According to the commenters, eliminating the interim compliance goal and allowing states to 

determine their own reduction glide paths and milestones to achieve the 2030 goals would enable 

states to choose a reasonable schedule for implementing the emission reduction measures 

consistent with providing safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible power to 

customers. The commenters contended that states and utilities would then have more time for the 

completion of any needed infrastructure developments (including expansions and upgrades of 

both electric and natural gas transmission systems) to facilitate the significant changes in energy 

resources expected by EPA. According to the commenters, allowing states the opportunity to set 

their own milestones along the glide path would also would provide states, electric utilities, and 

other regulators time to assess the significant changes to the interconnected power system that 

will be required to achieve the 2030 goals. In addition, the commenters said the final guidelines 

should clarify that states will have the opportunity to modify their plans as needed to account for 

unexpected circumstances, subject to EPA approval and so long as those plans continue to satisfy 

the requirements of section 111(d) and EPA's emission guidelines.

Commenters suggested allowing states to set reasonable rates of progress, in which case interim 

goals would be unnecessary.

The commenters noted that EPA's rules specify that states may set forth their compliance 

schedules for designated facilities. The commenters further noted that the state can choose to 

adopt EPA's "guidelines" for implementation or can choose to adopt its own. According to the 

commenters, courts have recognized that the state is in charge of setting its compliance 

timetable. 
225

Because Congress did not establish compliance deadlines for section 111(d), as it did with 

section 111(b), but did require EPA to consider remaining useful life, energy and cost 

considerations, the commenters said one would expect the deadlines to be more realistic, yet 

EPA allows a 30-year averaging time frame for new coal-fired power plants to meet the stringent 

new standard, while instituting the "carbon cliff" in the CPP. Given EPA's oft-stated rationale for 

the CPP that each state has different resources and policy implementation, the commenters said 

one would also expect the rule would allow the states themselves to establish a realistic rate of 

progress given the unique nature of each state's legislative and regulatory environment and the 

makeup of the generation units located within the state. The commenters stated that EPA should 

modify the rule to require states to set reasonable rates of progress, thereby eliminating the need 

for interim goals.

According to the commenters, the federalist approach of the CAA recognizes that states are the 

front-line implementers for emission sources within their jurisdictions. The commenters 

specifically noted that when enacting this law, Congress found that "air pollution prevention... 

and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of states and local 

governments" and that federal financial assistance and leadership is essential for the 

development of cooperative federal, state, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air 

pollution."

Unless EPA finds that the states are not properly demonstrating reasonable progress toward 

attainment of the goal, the commenters said there is no need for strict interim deadlines, and if 

EPA does make such a finding, then it has the authority to require an additional showing that the 

state's plan will achieve the goal and/or to impose a Federal Implementation Plan. The 

commenters contended that EPA has conflated these distinct steps and in so doing runs 

roughshod over the division of responsibilities created by Congress in the CAA.

Commenters stated that the proposed timeline to implement the existing source performance 

standard in 2020 should be revised. 

To illustrate, the commenters noted that RGGI states began a stakeholder-based analytical 

process in September 2010 which led the development of a revised model rule in February 2013. 

According to the commenters, each of the RGGI states then adopted the model rule through their 

own administrative processes so that the revision program rules could go into effect on January 

1, 2014. The commenters noted that the overall process required 3+ years. According to the 

commenters, further complicating this process is the need for additional electric and gas 

transmission and/or renewable generation resources in order for the RGGI states to meet system 

reliability requirements while maintaining emissions under the revised cap. The commenters 

alluded to a recent analysis by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which states 

"The EPA and states, along with industry, should consider the time required to integrate potential 

transmission enhancements and additions necessary to address impacts to reliability from the 

proposed Clean Power Plan," and the commenters stated that the experience of their members 

underscores this assessment. The commenters noted that industry estimates for construction 

sequences suggest that both gas and electric transmission lines can take from four to ten years to 

site, permit, and construct, and even large scale renewable projects (such as wind farms) can take 

several years to permit and to construct. The commenters noted that retiring less efficient, 
226

higher-emitting plants will likely also be part of states' compliance strategies, and these changes 

can take years to effect as well.

The commenters suggested that the EPA provide for more flexible time frames for 

implementation when finalizing the proposed rule. Inasmuch as 2030 is the ultimate target for 

reductions, the commenters suggested that the final rule could require that states meet the 2030 

goal but reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirement for the 2020 to 2030 "glide path" by 

requiring states to report progress toward their 2030 goal beginning two years after the final 

approval of their respective plans. The commenters indicated each such report could include a 

demonstration of "reasonable forward progress" and an assessment of the viability of the plan 

towards the 2030 goal. The commenters also suggested that EPA eliminate the requirement to 

demonstrate compliance with the 2020 interim target--and particularly the requirement that such 

compliance should be calculated as an average of the five years from 2020 to 2025. While 

intended to provide flexibility to states in their implementation timeline, the commenters said the 

requirement to average the five years actually increases the burden on states which are 

transitioning away from higher-emitting resources in early years by requiring them to "make up" 

for all of those emissions in later years. According to the commenters, such a flexible approach 

would allow for a variety of compliance approaches among the various states and would help to 

minimize the possibility that EPA would need to implement a Federal Implementation Plan in 

the event that a particular state could not meet the 2020 deadline.

Comment 14: Comment suggesting that the EPA grant states authority to build their own interim 

target pathway; however, if the EPA does instead establish a federally enforceable glide path 

(e.g. by ramping in Blocks 1 and 2 as suggested in the NODA) it is critically important for EPA 

to design this glide path to address the reliability concerns identified in these comments and by 

NERC and RTOs.

Comment stating that the EPA's final guidelines should provide states sufficient time to conduct 

reliability assessment and resource adequacy studies and to implement changes in order to 

support proper planning and system transition with the least disruption.

Comment stating that the interim goals seek to do too much too soon and fail to provide the 

necessary time to integrate safety, reliability, environmental protection, and affordability into an 

achievable action plan, and the interim goals should be eliminated.

Response 14: The EPA agrees that states and regional planners must develop credible and 

workable plans, including demonstrable glide path expectations and attainable interim goals.

Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the 

interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions 

trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 

2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the 

implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the 

interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of 

the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect 
227

the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 

2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance 

rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section 

V. 

Discussion surrounding time needed to include new infrastructure and protection of system 

reliability can be found in section VIII.G, while discussion surrounding the BSER and Building 

Blocks 1 and 2 can be found in preamble sections V.C and V.D of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that EPA grant states the authority to build a credible interim target 

pathway. The commenters noted that under the Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions 

(CICS) proposal, states would build a credible, workable, enforceable glide path to their final 

target based on existing or new state policies, programs, and procedures covering the power 

sector. The commenters noted that the state would propose this glide path to EPA as part of their 

state compliance plan. The commenters noted that states would rely on existing policies such as 

integrated resource planning, renewable portfolio standards, efficiency programs, plant 

retirement plans, nuclear uprate programs, and any other credible programs that reduce emissions 

and are state-enforceable. 

The commenters stated that the EPA would have the ability to accept or reject the plans based on 

the credibility of the proposal, but would not have the authority to mandate specific interim 

target levels, as long as the final target level is reached. The commenters referred to the 

comments of the CICS for more details.

The commenters stated that the EPA would secure many benefits to U.S. electricity consumers 

by deferring to the states and allowing greater interim target flexibility. The commenters noted 

that reliability of the U.S. power sector would be maintained, as states would not be scrambling 

to meet an arbitrary and too-short deadline. The commenters stated that costs would be much 

better managed under this approach, as states could account for stranded costs better, and utilities 

would be able to optimize the timing of their emissions reductions which may allow, for 

instance, more time to invest in new RE rather than a potentially more expensive gas re-dispatch 

compliance pathway. The commenters noted that if states had greater discretion over their states'

interim glide paths, they may be better positioned to contemplate regional cooperation in their 

state compliance plans.

Moreover, the commenters noted that states and utilities often exceed the goals of environmental 

regulations, so greater interim target flexibility should not be assumed to carry with it a loss of 

environmental benefits. The commenters provided as one example, Xcel Energy is now far 

beyond its renewable standard requirements in several states because those state renewable 

standards allowed flexibility to buy RE when the time is right. 

The commenters appreciated EPA's acknowledgement in the October 30 NODA (79 FR 64543) 

of the challenges created by the stringent interim targets, and efforts towards creating a smoother
228

and less disruptive "glide path" and stated that this is moving in the right direction. While the 

commenters urged EPA to consider the CICS proposal of allowing states to create an enforceable 

glide path, the commenters stated that if EPA does instead establish a federally enforceable glide 

path (e.g. by ramping in Blocks 1 and 2 as suggested in the NODA) it is critically important for 

EPA to design this glide path to address the reliability concerns identified in these comments and 

by NERC and RTOs.

Commenters stated that the EPA's final guidelines should provide states sufficient time to 

conduct reliability assessment and resource adequacy studies and to implement changes in order 

to support proper planning and system transition with the least disruption. The commenters 

contended that eliminating the interim goals and allowing states to establish their own specific 

glide path to the 2030 final goal could provide the time needed for these steps. At a minimum, 

the commenters said EPA must recognize the need for case-specific extensions where reliability 

critical units are needed for "must-run" situations.

Commenters argued that the amount of time that EPA provided for achieving its proposed (and 

unlawful) redesign of the electricity sector is unreasonable and imprudent. The commenters 

stated that EPA's interim performance goals that begin in 2020, in particular, requiring 

significant reductions in CO2 emissions in just a few short years, are a substantial threat to 

electricity reliability and do not permit the type of prudent decision-making and planning that 

must occur. 

According to the commenters, the electric generation sector has long recognized four key 

principles: safety, reliability, environmental protection, and the economics of providing 

affordable electricity to the public. The commenters said it is in no one's best interest to operate a 

company, or even a single EGU, in a manner that would neglect these key tenets. Indeed, in 

contemplating any operational or structural change at the unit or system level, the commenters 

noted that owners, operators, and policymakers must carefully plan such actions to ensure that 

the proper focus remains on all four key principles. The commenters believed that all 

stakeholders, including regulators such as EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ), PUCT, among others, must strike a balance among these principles. 

Notwithstanding their concerns about the numerous legal and technical problems with the 

proposal, the commenters asked that EPA eliminate the interim goals that begin in 2020. The 

commenters argued that the interim goals seek to do too much too soon and fail to provide the 

necessary time to integrate safety, reliability, environmental protection, and affordability into an 

achievable action plan.

Comment 15: Comment suggesting the EPA allow a "safety valve" for electric reliability and 

undue economic impacts, and that the EPA replace the 2020 compliance cliff with a system for 

reasonable progress toward 2030 emission goals.

Response 15: The EPA agrees with the commenter that system reliability and economic impact 

are concerns to be addressed in formulating state and regional plans for compliance with the 

CPP. 
229

Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the start date for the 

interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own emissions 

trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period beginning in 

2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises and for the 

implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the 

interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the revised timing of 

the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They reflect 

the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in the interim period (i.e., 

2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The interim performance 

rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, as explained in section 

V. 

We agree with commenters that the final rule should contain a reliability “safety valve.” A 

discussion of system reliability including the “safety valve” concept can be found in section

VIII.G of the final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the 2020 compliance cliff, and provide a 

reasonable and workable time for the establishment of state plans and for compliance by 

regulated electric generators. The commenters suggested EPA allow a "safety valve" for electric 

reliability and undue economic impacts. The commenters suggested EPA replace the 2020 

compliance cliff with a system for reasonable progress toward 2030 emission goals.

Comment 16: Comment that the front-loaded glide path proposed in the rule fails to provide 

sufficient time to implement Blocks 2, 3 and 4 such that reductions could be made in a timely 

fashion to meet the interim and the final reduction mandates, and arguing that states should be 

given full control over setting the interim goals for 2020-2029.

Response 16: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

The commenters’ concerns about a front-loaded glide path and Building Blocks 2, 3, and 4 are 

further addressed in sections V.D and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Section 
230

VIII.G.2 of the final rule preamble contains the EPA’s response to the commenters’ concern 

regarding the flexibility of state plans. We disagree with commenters that the emission 

guidelines encroach on state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment; see section 

VIII.G.5 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that, by setting an initial interim goal in 2020 which requires, on average, 

approximately 80% of the full reduction to be achieved in that year, EPA denied to states any 

flexibility to craft a rule that will be able to take into account its unique situation, let alone the 

specific issues facing individual EGUs (such as remaining useful life), utilities, or ratepayers. 

The commenters said the front-loaded glide path proposed in the rule fails to provide sufficient 

time to implement Blocks 2, 3 and 4 such that reductions could be made in a timely fashion to 

meet the interim and the final reduction mandates. The commenters noted that this viewpoint is 

widely held throughout the industry, including not only utilities, but also Regional Transmission 

Organizations/Independent System Operators/Regional Coordinating Entities (collectively 

referred to as RTOs) and states. The commenters noted that both MISO and SPP have also called 

for an extension of the 2020 date for initial compliance and the associated glide path. Likewise, 

the commenters noted that the State of Iowa has also advocated that the interim goal be 

eliminated, or at the very least, start no earlier than 2025. Instead, the commenters argued that 

states should be given full control over setting the interim goals for 2020-2029. Finally, the 

commenters argued that EPA encroached on state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth 

Amendment when it devised a scheme that took away from states the traditional authority 

reserved to them to regulate such matters within their own borders. 

Comment 17: Comment supporting the EPA's proposal to allow credit for early action, 

generally, and encouraging the EPA to allow states to develop their own interim targets that 

represent a more reasonable glide-path towards EPA's ultimate emission reduction goal.

Response 17: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. While we intend that the rule provides a 

great deal of flexibility, EPA retains the right of approval for all state and regional plans with the 

intent that state and regional plans may utilize varied and creative approaches to setting and 

meeting their goals but that these plans must be demonstrably workable and the goals achievable 

with the outlined practice(s). An outline of EPA plan approval process is found in section VIII.E

of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of crediting of early action. For the final 

emissions guidelines’ approach to early action, see section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
231

Commenters supported EPA's Notice of Data Availability (NODA), published October 30, 2014, 

which proposed to allow states some relief from the interim goals. As noted by the 

commenters, EPA's NODA cites several comments received from stakeholders that explain how 

"states in which building block 2 results in large amounts of the overall required CO2 reductions 

relative to other building blocks" may have difficulty meeting the interim goals, since EPA has 

assumed that building block two will be completely implemented by 2020. The commenters 

noted that New Mexico is one of those states--over one third of the emissions rate reduction 

required by EPA's goal calculation is expected to come from building block 2 alone. To 

implement building block two, the commenters said New Mexico's natural gas combined cycle 

units must double their capacity factor, which will be difficult in the relatively short compliance 

window allowed. 

As noted by the commenters, EPA's NODA discusses two options for resolving the concern 

associated with the interim goals--(1) allow early credit for some actions and (2) allow a more 

gradual implementation of building block 2 consistent with the approach to phasing in the 

implementation of building blocks 3 and 4. The commenters supported EPA's proposal to allow 

credit for early action generally--states should receive credit for actions that reduce emissions, 

regardless of when they are taken, and states that have taken early action should not be placed at 

a disadvantage as compared to states that have not made similar efforts. However, the 

commenters stated that EPA's NODA does not provide sufficient detail to explain how 

encouraging states to act even earlier will help resolve the concerns over the interim deadlines 

that are already too tight. The commenters stated that EPA's proposal to allow a more gradual 

implementation, on the other hand, would directly address the concern that some states may find 

compliance with the interim goals difficult in light of the short window of compliance between 

adoption of state plans and in the beginning of the interim compliance period in 2020. The

commenters included a graph titled: "New Mexico's CO2 Emissions Rate and Section 111 (d) 

Compliance Gap," to illustrate the impact that the interim goals have on the stringency of EPA's 

proposal for New Mexico. The commenters said that the graph shows how the sharp drop-off 

associated with the interim goals could place New Mexico in noncompliance in 2020, despite 

significant early reductions made by the state prior to that year. With a more gradual glide-path 

to EPA's ultimate goal in 2030, the commenters said New Mexico would have until 2026 to 

implement new actions and measures before its projected "base case" emission rate would be 

higher than the proposed interim goal.

The commenters encouraged EPA to allow states to develop their own interim targets that 

represent a more reasonable glide-path towards EPA's ultimate emission reduction goal. The 

commenters also encouraged EPA to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on that glide-path, 

despite the discussion in the NODA that suggests the glide-path should specifically take into 

account the speed with which specific transmission projects can be completed or the "book 

value" of the generation assets and any recently installed pollution control equipment. The 

commenters recommended that EPA maximize the flexibility allowed states in the development 

of their plans and avoid any attempt to restrict the means by which states achieve EPA's ultimate 

emission reduction goals.
232

Comment 18: Comment suggesting that, once a state implementation plan has been approved, 

the environmental reviews and related infrastructure permitting procedures needed to implement 

the plans should be combined and accelerated, and urging the EPA to be flexible in setting 

interim deadlines on the 'glide path' to compliance.

Response 18: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

A discussion surrounding time needed to include new infrastructure in state plans can be found 

in section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding the establishment 

of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Revisions 

to infrastructure permitting processes are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the 

EPA expects that issues such as these will be part of the dialogue among state and federal 

agencies as the CPP is implemented. In addition, the agency observes that recommendations of 

the Quadrennial Energy Review (available at http://energy.gov/epsa/quadrennial-energy-reviewqer) are designed to help address infrastructure needs associated with the ongoing evolution of 

the nation’s electricity system.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters requested that the EPA utilize its relationships within the Administration and with 

independent agencies to seek to rationalize and streamline project review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which, when duplicative, can consume significant amounts of 

time and expense. The commenters suggested that, once a state implementation plan has been 

approved, the environmental reviews and related infrastructure permitting procedures needed to 

implement the plans should be combined and accelerated. The commenters recognized that the 

President's Council on Environmental Quality has the ability to encourage such changes, which 

seem to be appropriate in pursuit of CO2 reductions. Given their Members' experience in 

planning and constructing transmission, including regional lines to facilitate public policy such 

as renewable portfolio standards, the commenters urged the EPA to reevaluate whether the CPP 

allots time in its compliance processes sufficient for development of the large-scale transmission 

that Building Blocks 2 and 3 necessitates. The commenters provided for example, the "MultiValue Projects" in MISO were approved for inclusion in the RTO's regional transmission 

expansion plan in 2010 and 2011. The commenters noted that while some of the smaller projects 
233

have been constructed and are in service, the larger projects are either still making their way 

through state regulatory processes or are being constructed, with some not expected to be in 

service until 2019. Furthermore, the commenters noted that the transmission planning process is 

an iterative one that is based upon several successive and therefore incremental additions to the 

integrated generation and transmission systems. The commenters stated that it is very unlikely 

that a single 10-year plan can ever be executed upon to serve what is now only a sequence of 

imagined generation solutions. 

The commenters noted that, under the proposed CPP, states will be required to meet interim 

emission rate goals between 2020 and 2029 and final goals by 2030. The commenters noted that 

compliance plans must be submitted to the EPA between 2016 and 2018, depending on the 

proposal. Recognizing that there is no time to waste if CO2 reductions are to meet the EPA's 

target by 2030, the commenters nevertheless urged the EPA to be flexible in setting interim 

deadlines on the 'glide path' to compliance, particularly when transmission development is 

critical to the state plan's accomplishment. The commenters stated that the time and upfront 

expense it will take transmission owners and developers to adequately develop and vet the 

projects in local and regional planning processes, obtain the necessary state and federal permits, 

and construct the needed transmission facilities can often exceed that of any other energy 

infrastructure. The commenters stated that planning, obtaining necessary stakeholder feedback, 

gaining regulatory approval, constructing, and placing into service the necessary transmission 

facilities is a long lead-time process. The commenters noted that this problem is exacerbated by 

the multiplicity of state and federal regulatory agencies that are invariably involved in deciding 

whether a project is in the public interest in terms of its engineering, aesthetic impacts, effect on 

protected resources, the financial capabilities of its sponsor, its benefits compared to those of 

competitors, ability to provide reliability, economic, or public policy benefits, and the extent to 

which it impacts federal lands or more than one state - a common phenomenon for this interstate 

network. The commenters stated that transmission owners and providers that ultimately aim to 

provide transmission facilities under a state or regional plan should be consulted about the 

obstacles standing in the way of transmission additions that will interconnect the shifting 

generation fleet with loads, the efficiencies they can produce, and the other benefits a stronger 

grid will provide.

Comment 19: Comments recommending that the EPA divide the ten-year period into two fiveyear compliance periods.

Response 19: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that five-year averaging periods are 

sufficient for development and meeting interim goals. We have revised the proposed 10-year 

interim period to 8 years, and are finalizing a requirement of three averaging periods during the 8 

years and averaging every two years during the final period. See Section VIII.F of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. Additional discussion of state plan flexibility is included in sections 

VIII.C, VIII.F, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding the 

establishment of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule 

preamble.
234

The EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to 

address the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 

2020 as proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each 

year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance 

rates because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over 

time, as explained in section V. 

Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals in state plans can be found in sections

VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We are not finalizing any position with respect to the implications of the 8-year review of the 

NSPS with respect to possible future revision of this guideline; it is unnecessary to address this 

issue at this point in time. Therefore, these comments are generally moot.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that EPA has proposed a ten-year averaging period between 2020 and 2029 

for states to achieve the interim emission rate target. The commenters said strong interim targets 

are essential in order to deliver near-term reductions in carbon pollution and begin to transition 

the power sector away from high-emitting infrastructure and towards lower polluting resources, 

and deploying investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. In order to ensure that 

states are making appropriate progress towards the interim target, the commenters recommended 

that EPA divide the ten-year period into two five-year compliance periods.

Commenters stated that states do not need more than a few years to fully deploy emission 

reduction programs. The commenters urged EPA to break its interim compliance period, which 

is currently proposed as 2020-2029, into two 5-year periods to provide greater clarity as to the 

timing of emission reductions. In addition, the commenters recommended that EPA reevaluate its 

BSER determination at least every 8 years, starting when states submit compliance plans in 2016 

and continuing indefinitely beyond the proposed final compliance period. The commenters stated 

that this standard is consistent with the requirement in Section 111(b) and, given EPA's current 

rulemaking schedule, would require the Agency to finalize a reevaluation of the BSER no later 

than 2024. The commenters stated that the Agency should indicate that states may be required to 

submit updated compliance plans to meet modified targets based on the revised BSER, and state 

updates in 2025 would meet this obligation for the first review. 

With advanced energy technologies fast improving and their costs falling, commenters stated 

that it is difficult for EPA in 2014 to accurately predict their emission reduction potential in 

2030. The commenters also noted that the long initial compliance period (2020 to 2029) may 

create some uncertainty about the timing of implementation, which could hinder 

investment. Commenter supported the idea that EPA break the initial compliance period into 

two 5-year periods, and conduct periodic reviews of the standard to reflect the increasing 

capabilities of emission-reducing advanced energy technologies. Under this approach, the 

commenters indicated that goals for 2026 and 2030 would be established in the final rule but 

could be changed based on the periodic review that would be completed in 2024.
235

Commenters stated that immediate carbon emission reductions are needed to address the impacts 

of climate change. The commenters noted that EPA has proposed a 10-year averaging period 

between 2020 and 2029 for states to achieve the interim emission rate target. However, to ensure 

that states are making appropriate progress towards the interim target, the commenters 

recommended that EPA instead provide two 5-year interim compliance periods. The commenters 

stated that strong interim targets are essential to deliver near-term reductions in carbon pollution 

and to transition the power sector towards lower-polluting infrastructure, deploying investments 

in renewable energy and energy efficiency that will create jobs and increase economic activity. 

The commenters stated that EPA itself noted that "certain emission reduction measures and 

programs "are generally easier to implement in the near term." The commenters stated that these 

two 5-year periods will improve transparency by creating verifiable and enforceable short-term 

targets, while encouraging states and power companies to focus on those efficiency, renewable 

energy, and other clean-energy advancements which are immediately achievable.

The commenters stated that EPA should commit to reevaluate the "best system of emission 

reduction" (BSER) over time, and the interim 5-year compliance period would provide an ideal 

point for reevaluation. The commenters stated that reexamining the BSER at the mid-way point 

of the compliance period would ensure that it continues to reflect the system that can maximize 

reductions in carbon pollution considering cost, energy requirements, and impacts on other 

health and environmental outcomes, as required by the Clean Air Act.

The commenters stated that EPA should commit to the first reevaluation of state targets by June 

2020, (a) to review the targets for 2025 and 2030 and revising them as appropriate to reflect upto-date data on the technological and economic reduce power sector CO2 emissions, and (b) to 

set appropriate targets for the 5-year period beginning in 2035. By June 2025, the commenters 

stated that EPA should complete a second review and revision cycle, reviewing the targets for 

2030 and 3035 and setting targets for 2040, and so forth.

Comment 20: Comment stating that the EPA should allow states flexibility to develop their 

glide path, and determine compliance during the interim performance period based on a 3 or 5-

year running average comparison of actual to projected performance.

Response 20: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that five-year averaging periods are 

sufficient for development and meeting interim goals but agrees that three-year averaging 

periods are sufficient during the beginning of the interim period. We have revised the proposed 

10-year interim period to 8 years, and are finalizing a requirement of three averaging periods 

during the 8 years and averaging every two years during the final period. See Section VIII.F of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. Additional discussion of state plan flexibility is included in 

sections VIII.C, VIII.F, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion 

surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the 

final rule preamble.

The EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to 

address the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 

2020 as proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each 
236

year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance 

rates because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over 

time, as explained in section V. 

Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals in state plans can be found in sections 

VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow states flexibility to develop their glide path, and 

determine compliance during the interim performance period based on a 3 or 5-year running 

average comparison of actual to projected performance. The commenters stated that the proposal 

allows states flexibility to define the trajectory of emission performance between 2020 and 2029, 

as long as the interim emission performance level is met on a 10-year average or cumulative 

basis and the 2030 emission performance level is achieved. The commenters noted that the 

trajectory of emission performance is critical because in the proposal it will be compared to 

actual cumulative performance each year for the prior two years starting in 2022. The 

commenters noted, according to EPA's proposal, if the actual emissions performance rate for the 

state is higher than the projected emission rate by 10 percent (or 8 percent if corrective measures 

are not adopted as part of the state plan), this triggers additional reporting requirements, 

development or implementation of corrective measures, and possible plan modification and 

resubmission for re-approval. The commenters stated that this is a significant workload when 

states face a situation that will likely be corrected by the following year, simply due to the 

variability of year to year electricity demand. The commenters stated that if annual reporting 

during the interim performance period is part of the final rule, it should use a 3 or 5 year 

averaging period for comparing actual to projected emission performance. The commenters 

stated that Washington's hydropower dominated generation system experiences significant year 

to year variability which results in equally variable fossil generation. The commenters stated that 

using a 3 or 5 year averaging period to determine compliance during the interim performance 

period would be a more representative reflection of state performance and would smooth out the 

year to year variability. The commenters noted that a 3-year average is used for determining 

compliance after the interim performance period and is also used when calculating design values 

and determining compliance with NAAQS.

Comment 21: Comment stating that the compliance deadline of the first phase should not begin 

until 3 years following the January 1st after the EPA approves a given state or multi-state plan, 

and supporting maintaining a long-term (e.g., 10-year) interim goal period, with Phase II (final 

goals) commencing not sooner than 10 years after the first phase begins.

Response 21: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 
237

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the interim period should be 10 years or that 

interim period performance should be averaged over 10 years. We have revised the proposed 10-

year interim period to 8 years, and are finalizing a requirement of three averaging periods during 

the 8 years and averaging every two years during the final period. See Section VIII.F of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. Additional discussion of state plan flexibility is included in sections 

VIII.C, VIII.F, and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding the 

establishment of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule 

preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule has established a very ambitious program for 

decreasing CO2 emissions from the electric power sector, and for the approval and 

implementation of enforceable measures on all entities regulated under a state's plan. The 

commenters stated that the EPA needs to provide regulated entities with sufficient time to 

implement the control measures which will be required under the state plans. 

The commenters stated that under the CAA, the EPA and states have considerable discretion in 

setting appropriate compliance deadlines for meeting the CO2 performance standards that states 

must establish. The commenters stated that neither the statute nor EPA's implementing 

regulations prescribe any specific deadline for compliance with applicable performance 

standards. The commenters referred to 40 CFR 60.22(c), "[T]he emission guidelines and 

compliance times ... will be proposed for comment upon publication of the draft guideline 

document, and after consideration of comments will be promulgated ... with such modifications 

as may be appropriate." As a result, the commenters stated that the EPA has broad discretion to 

specify the compliance schedules for any particular source category in the federal emission 

guidelines, including different timetables for different types of facilities where appropriate. 

Accordingly, the commenters stated that the compliance deadline of the first phase should not 

begin until 3 years following the January 1st after EPA approves a given state or multi-state plan. 

The commenters supported maintaining a long-term (e.g., 10-year) interim goal period, with 

Phase II (final goals) commencing not sooner than 10 years after the first phase begins.
238

Comment 22: Comment asking for clarification of whether EPA means for state plans to 

identify a yearly, or a rolling 2-year average performance level, and suggesting that annual (or 

rolling 2-year) performance levels must be considered estimates for planning purposes only.

Response 22: The agency is finalizing discrete 2-year periods for the final goal performance 

periods to reflect the following considerations. Commenters suggested that rolling performance 

periods, which were proposed to allow for annual emission performance checks, be replaced by 

discrete periods to reduce the workload of administering the program for states. The agency has 

accepted that suggestion. Discrete periods of two years allow for checking plan performance 

every two years; discrete periods of three years would allow checking plan performance only 

every third year. The agency believes that 3-year periods are appropriate for interim step 1 and 

step 2 while states are initiating or ramping up their programs. For final goal performance 

periods, the agency believes that requiring checks and reporting on plan performance every two 

years, rather than every three years, better assures that emission performance consistent with the 

final EGU emission rates or state goal is being maintained through providing more frequent

assessment of whether corrective measures or the backstop are needed. The two-year periods 

will help to smooth out year-to-year variability in emission performance.

A discussion of interim periods and associated goals can be found in sections VIII.B, VIII.C, and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that section 60.5740(a)(3)(iii) of the proposed rule language indicates that for 

the interim plan performance period, state plans must identify the emission performance levels 

anticipated under the plan during "each year 2020 through 2029." The commenters noted that 

section 60.5775(c)(1) indicates that the state plan must include increments of emissions 

performance within the interim performance period for "every 2-rolling calendar years." The 

commenters asked for clarification of whether EPA means for state plans to identify a yearly, or 

a rolling 2-year average performance level. 

The commenters did not necessarily object to the inclusion of annual or rolling 2-year average 

performance levels in the state plans, and noted that the identification of such levels can be a 

useful tool in planning, and can help states and EPA to better manage compliance timelines when 

dealing with the long implementation deadline of the Clean Power Plan proposal. However, the 

commenters stated that the long implementation period makes it difficult to produce precise and 

accurate annual performance projections - particularly when compliance with Clean Air Act 

requirements must also align with the complexities of energy planning. The commenters 

suggested that annual (or rolling 2-year) performance levels must be considered estimates for 

planning purposes only.

Comment 23: Comment arguing that the EPA's Plan should have multi-year compliance periods. 

Comment recommending that the rule use discrete three-year periods for compliance 

reconciliation instead of the rolling-average approach proposed.
239

Response 23: The agency is finalizing discrete 2-year periods for the final goal performance 

periods to reflect the following considerations. Commenters suggested that rolling performance 

periods, which were proposed to allow for annual emission performance checks, be replaced by 

discrete periods to reduce the workload of administering the program for states. The agency has 

accepted that suggestion. Discrete periods of two years allow for checking plan performance 

every two years; discrete periods of three years would allow checking plan performance only 

every third year. The agency believes that 3-year periods are appropriate for interim step 1 and 

step 2 while states are initiating or ramping up their programs. For final goal performance 

periods, the agency believes that requiring checks and reporting on plan performance every two 

years, rather than every three years, better assures that emission performance consistent with the 

final EGU emission rates or state goal is being maintained through providing more frequent 

assessment of whether corrective measures or the backstop are needed. The two-year periods 

will help to smooth out year-to-year variability in emission performance.

A discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that EPA's Plan should have multi-year compliance periods. The 

commenters stated that the three year compliance period under the RGGI program is a good 

model, and similar mechanisms should be allowable under the EPA's Plan in order to provide 

flexibility in meeting the EPA's requirements.

Commenters noted that the RGGI states currently use a three-year control period to measure 

generators' compliance with the rule. The commenters pointed out that this multi-year approach 

allows generators to account for weather variations that may occur in a single year and mitigates 

price spikes in the CO, allowance market due to those natural changes. The commenters 

recommended that the rule use discrete three-year periods for compliance reconciliation instead 

of the rolling-average approach proposed.

Comment 24: Comment requesting that EPA add provisions to the final version of the rule to 

facilitate the use of RGGI as a CPP compliance mechanism.

Response 24: The EPA agrees that RGGI and other similar programs may be applicable state 

and regional planning formats. However, these types of emission budget trading programs must 

be submitted as the state measures plan type, rather than the emission standards plan type. See 

sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.J.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters requested that EPA add provisions to the final version of the rule to facilitate the 

use of RGGI as a CPP compliance mechanism, stating in this case that the CPP compliance 

period in RGGI states should be based on emissions over a three-year period as is the case for 

RGGI compliance.
240

Comment 25: Comment suggesting that the final rule could require that states meet the 2030 

goal but reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirement for the 2020 to 2030 "glide path" by 

requiring states to report progress toward their 2030 goal beginning 2 years after the final 

approval of their respective plans, that EPA could eliminate the requirement to demonstrate 

compliance with the 2020 Interim target, and expressing particular concern with the assumption 

that the full re-dispatch of NGCC units according to Building Block 2 is feasible on "day one."

Response 25: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

The EPA disagrees with the commenter that simple reporting of “reasonable progress forward” is 

sufficient to demonstrate that plans are workable and on track with a glide path toward 2030. 

Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in section VIII.B of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding time needed to develop state and 

regional plans can be found in section VIII.E of the final rule preamble. 

We are finalizing a state plan submittal deadline of Sept. 6, 2016, and allowing states to request a 

2-year extension deadline if they provide an initial submittal and 2017 update, along with other 

requirements. See Section VIII.E.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The final emission guidelines contain a variety of measures to protect electric reliability. See 

section VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The final guidelines also contain measures 

besides implementing a federal plan to help states with approved state plans meet their CO2 

emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals if they get off-track during the interim 

period. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that if EPA issues the final rule in June 2015, state plans must be submitted 

by June 2016 or by June 2017 or 2018 for multi-state plans. The commenters stated that it may 

not be possible to complete all of the required procedural steps in time to make the appropriate 

filings. 
241

During a recent reset process, the commenters stated that the RGGI states began a stakeholderbased analytical process in September 2010 which led the development of a revised model rule 

in February 2013. According to the commenters, each of the RGGI states then adopted the model 

rule through their own administrative processes so that the revision program rules could go into 

effect on January 1, 2014. The commenters stated that this overall process required 3.5 years.

The commenters stated that further complicating this process is the need for additional electric 

and gas transmission and/or renewable generation resources in order for the RGGI states to meet 

system reliability requirements while maintaining emissions under the revised cap. The 

commenters noted that a recent analysis by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

states "The EPA and states, along with industry, should consider the time required to integrate 

potential transmission enhancements and additions necessary to address impacts to reliability 

from the proposed Clean Power Plan" and the commenters’ experience underscores this 

assessment. The commenters noted that industry estimates for construction sequences suggest 

that both gas and electric transmission lines can take from 4 to 10 years to site, permit, and 

construct, and even large scale renewable projects (such as wind farms) can take several years to 

permit and to construct. The commenters stated that retiring less efficient, higher-emitting plants 

will likely also be part of states' compliance strategies, and these changes can take years to effect 

as well.

The commenters suggested the EPA provide for more flexible time frames for implementation 

when finalizing the proposed rule. The commenters suggested that as 2030 is the ultimate target 

for reductions, the final rule could require that states meet the 2030 goal but reduce the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirement for the 2020 to 2030 "glide path" by requiring states to report 

progress toward their 2030 goal beginning 2 years after the final approval of their respective

plans. The commenters stated that each such report could include a demonstration of "reasonable 

forward progress" and an assessment of the viability of the plan towards the 2030 goal. The 

commenters argued that EPA should eliminate the requirement to demonstrate compliance with 

the 2020 Interim target - and particularly the requirement that such compliance should be 

calculated as an average of the 5 years from 2020 to 2025. While intended to provide flexibility 

to states in their implementation timeline, the commenters stated that the requirement to average 

the 5 years actually increases the burden on states that are transitioning away from higheremitting resources in early years by requiring them to "make up" for all of those emissions in 

later years. According to the commenters, such a flexible approach would allow for a variety of 

compliance approaches among the various states and would help to minimize the possibility that 

EPA would need to implement a Federal Implementation Plan in the event that a particular state 

could not meet the 2020 deadline. The commenters expressed particular concern with the 

assumption that the full re-dispatch of NGCC units according to Building Block 2 is feasible on 

"day one," and agreed with the suggestion put forth in the October 28th supplemental notice to 

phase these targets in over time.

Comment 26: Comment stating that while the interim goals would be demonstrated on a 10-year 

average from 2020 to 2029, Texas would still be required to make the majority of CO2 

reductions by 2020 in order to comply with the interim goal, that the EPA has not provided any 
242

quantifiable basis in terms of actual climate effects to justify the interim goals and the rule as a 

whole, and urging the EPA to remove the interim goals from the rule.

Response 26: The EPA disagrees with this comment that the interim goals should be removed 

from the rule. The EPA has modified the interim goals in response to comments and our further 

consideration. The interim period covers the years 2022-2029 and includes illustrative interim 

steps for the periods of 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029. States have the flexibility to use 

different steps than those included in the final rule if the state demonstrates in its state plan that 

the values chosen for the 3, 3, and 2 year increments are equivalent to the interim goal included 

in the final rule for the 2022-2029 period. See section VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP

for discussion of the statewide goals. For more information regarding glide paths and the interim 

dates see section I.A. of the final rule preamble. We are including a discussion surrounding the 

establishment of interim goals in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Section 

II.B of the final rule preamble discusses climate impacts from GHG emissions and sections 

VII.A and VII.B of the final rule preamble provide additional information on state CO2 

performance goals.

For a response to the comment concerning early action, please see section VIII.B of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that while the interim goals would be demonstrated 10-year average from 

2020 to 2029, Texas would still be required to make the majority of CO2 reductions by 2020 in 

order to comply with the interim goal. The commenters stated that EPA's IPM runs support this 

conclusion. The commenters stated that using the EPA's IPM projection of base case versus 

policy case for Option 1 (the proposed state goals) and the state-by-state approach, 

approximately 77% of the necessary CO2 reductions are expected to occur by 2020. The 

commenters stated that this is largely due to the EPA's assumption that the re-dispatching under 

Block 2 can be implemented by 2020. The commenters stated that this is an incorrect assumption 

by the EPA. The commenters stated that in the October 30 NODA on the proposed rule, the EPA 

notes stakeholders’ concerns with the interim goals. The commenters noted that the EPA states 

that it was their intent that the interim goals would provide "a reasonable glide path" to 

compliance with the final goals. The commenters stated that the interim goals do not represent "a 

reasonable glide path" and would instead result a near-term extreme drop-off in the states' 

emission rates. The commenters asserted that the EPA has failed to consider the proximity of the 

interim goals to the final goals. The commenters stated that using the EPA's assumptions, and 

including Texas' renewable energy, Texas is starting at 1,284 lb/MWh. Texas' interim goal of 

853 lb/MWh is only 62 lb/MWh higher than the final goal of 791 lb/MWh. The commenters 

stated that the interim goal represents approximately 87% of the reduction from 1284 lb/MWh to 

791 lb/MWh. The commenters stated that because Texas' interim goal is so close to the final 

goal, if the state delays making reductions during the 2020 - 2029 period then the state will be 

forced to over-control beyond the final goal in the later years of the interim period in order to 

meet the interim goal. 
243

The commenters stated that in the October 30 NODA, the EPA takes comment on ways to 

address concerns on the interim goals, such as using a phase-in of Block 2. The commenters 

stated that while phasing-in the assumed implementation of Block 2 might provide some 

flexibility and reduce the stringency of the interim goals, the EPA is not qualified to determine 

what implementation rate is feasible for any particular state. The commenters noted that the EPA 

also suggests that credit for early reductions might also be a means to decrease the reductions 

needed during the 2020 - 2029 interim period. However, the commenters stated that the EPA has 

not explained in the NODA how such credit would be applied toward compliance with the 

interim goals or what early measures would be deemed creditable. Therefore, the commenters 

asserted that states have no basis for evaluating whether the credit for early action the EPA is 

contemplating would be sufficient to address their concerns with the interim goal. Furthermore, 

the commenters argued that states would presumably have to make these early actions federally 

enforceable in order to receive such credit; however, the states would have no guarantee that the 

EPA will actually approve the early measures as creditable.

The commenters stated that EPA must give generators and regulators the time needed to properly 

assess, adjust and plan to account for continued reliability, safe and economical operation while 

advancing environmental goals. The commenters suggested that the EPA should completely 

eliminate the interim goals that begin in 2020 and address significant concerns in a new 

proposal.

Comment 27: Comment stating that the proposed timing of interim targets does not adequately 

allow for merchant units to increase dispatch to levels assumed under the Clean Power Plan, that 

elimination of the interim targets will allow for some of these types of units to roll off of longterm agreements and more smoothly transition to an environmental dispatch scheme, and 

requesting that the EPA clarify how units in this situation may be required to meet a specific 

emission limit and or capacity factor to help the state comply with its emissions target.

Response 27: The EPA is sensitive to situations where energy generated in one state is delivered 

to another state and has included flexibility in the final rule to provide states and regional 

planning groups a more straight forward approach to including such eventualities in their plans. 

Sections VIII.B.2 and VIII.J of the final rule preamble of the CPP include a discussion on state 

plans and multi-state planning options. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed timing of interim targets does not adequately allow for 

merchant units to increase dispatch to levels assumed under the Clean Power Plan. The 

commenters stated that fundamentally, Building Block 2 requires a shift in the dispatch of EGUs 

from an economic model to an environmental one. The commenters stated that they have 

ownership in four combined cycle natural gas units in New York, Texas, Illinois and Arizona 

which are unregulated and sell capacity and energy into the merchant market, and the 

commenters lack direct control over dispatch of its NGCC units. The commenters noted, as is 

common in the merchant market, these types of facilities are routinely under long-term contract 

and under dispatch control from those utilities receiving the power from these units. The 
244

commenters provided for example, their Yuma natural gas combined cycle facility is located in 

Arizona but under a long-term contract with a regulated utility in California. As such, the 

commenters stated that they have no control over the dispatch of this unit and the state of 

Arizona cannot rely on this unit to run at the levels anticipated by the Clean Power Plan. In 

addition, the commenters noted that if Arizona desires to have in-state control of the dispatch of 

this facility after the existing contract expires, they would be restricted to offering the facility to 

off-takers only within the state and potentially not receive competitive offers from other buyers 

in the region, including those buyers out of state. The commenters stated that this could place the 

facility at a competitive disadvantage against other similar units in the region and put the unit at 

additional risk of closure, making state compliance with this rule even more difficult. As a result 

of these limitations, the commenters stated that elimination of the interim targets will allow for 

some of these types of units to roll off of long-term agreements and more smoothly transition to 

an environmental dispatch scheme. In addition, the commenters requested that the EPA clarify 

how units in this situation may be required to meet a specific emission limit and or capacity 

factor to help the state comply with its emissions target.

Comment 28: Comment opposing any glide path that allows a state plan to backload its

reductions in the end of the compliance period.

Response 28: The EPA is finalizing this rule with added flexibility provided to state and regional 

planning groups to help alleviate some complexities in formulating workable plans that include 

BSER building blocks and other approaches. We are also finalizing that states must include 3 

interim steps in during the interim period of 2022-2029 that we are finalizing. The EPA is 

retaining the right to review and approve or reject all state and regional plans and expects states 

and regional groups to provide plans that demonstrate workable approaches to meeting glide path 

expectations all along the way through the interim periods toward 2030. Review of these plans 

is intended to prevent over-reliance on back loaded concepts or other ‘late-wins’ such as those as 

the commenters mention. A discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be 

found in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA's original proposal and the NODA seek comment on the interim 

compliance period from 2020-2029. The commenters noted that some stakeholders assert that in 

2020 the sudden onset of the heat rate improvements from Building Block 1 and the re-dispatch 

to natural gas requirements from Building Block 2 create a "cliff" and the 10-year averaging 

period in the proposal may not be sufficient for states to achieve compliance with interim goals. 

The commenters stated that in the NODA, EPA expresses two potential ways to address this: (1) 

phase in the requirements of Building Blocks 1 and 2 over the 10 year period; and/or (2) devise a 

scheme for issuance of early reduction credit for actions taken prior to 2020 that can be used to 

facilitate compliance with interim goals. 

Commenters opposed any glide path that allows a state plan to backload its reductions in the end 

of the compliance period. The commenters expressed serious concerns that in such a 

circumstance, if the state is not achieving the emission reductions expected in the state plan, that 
245

the EPA would not be able to enforce a sufficient change to the state compliance plan to achieve 

the shortfall in emission reductions without compromising grid reliability. 

Comment 29: Comment requesting that the final emission guidelines provide procedures under 

which states that have demonstrated their efforts to attain the emission reduction targets but have 

not achieved those targets by that deadline can request and obtain extensions of time within 

which to meet those targets, and suggesting that the EPA grant extensions of up to five years to 

applying states that demonstrate that they have been making good faith efforts to implement the 

guidelines and are on glide paths to compliance.

Response 29: The EPA is providing language in the final rule for contingent issues that arise 

from emergency and natural disaster, however we are not providing accommodation for States or 

regional planning groups to fall short of interim or final goals. The EPA will be available to 

review and discuss planning with states and regional groups and provide guidance, including 

outreach to other Federal groups to aid in resolution of difficult or complex planning concerns. 

Discussion of state plan flexibility is included in sections VIII.F and VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. The final guidelines also contain measures to help states with approved 

state plans meet their CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals if they get 

off-track during the interim period. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Section VIII.H of the final rule preamble includes discussion of 

resources for states to consider during plan development.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters argued that the proposed rule makes no provision for Iowa, if it is unable, despite 

its best efforts, to meet the final emission reduction goals by the final compliance year. The 

commenters requested that the final emission guidelines provide procedures under which states 

that have demonstrated their efforts to attain the emission reduction targets but have not achieved 

those targets by that deadline can request and obtain extensions of time within which to meet 

those targets. The commenters suggested that EPA grant extensions of up to five years to 

applying states that demonstrate that they have been making good faith efforts to implement the 

guidelines and are on glide paths to compliance.

Comment 30: Comments discussing the negative consequence of overly stringent early emission 

requirements, that driving large numbers of coal plants into sudden retirement creates very real 

risks of a resource adequacy crisis in some regions, that a true glide-path trajectory will better 

allow states to nurture a much lower-carbon mix of resources than the EPA's abrupt 2020 

"compliance cliff," and that the 2020 "lock in" of gas replacements for coal that will result from 

the EPA's dramatic early compliance problems will not only lock out renewables, it will also not 

be well suited to supporting their integration.
246

Response 30: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

Regarding the commenters’ concerns about stranded assets, we have finalized in this rule a 

number of flexible measures that allow states and regional planning groups to consider 

renewable energy sources. We are also including additional timing allowances for state and 

regional planning groups to assemble and enact their plans, as well as more flexibility in 

allowing credits for early reductions and developing a workable glide path toward 2030 

compliance. Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in sections

VIII.B and VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Discussion of state plan flexibility are 

addressed in section VIII.F of the final rule preamble. Discussion of how a state may 

demonstrate reductions through the use of an emissions rate plan that utilizes CCS can be located 

in section VIII.G.1 of the final rule preamble. Discussion of resources for states to consider in 

formulating plans is outlined in section VIII.H of the final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters discussed the negative consequence of overly stringent early emission 

requirements. The commenters stated that significant emission reductions from existing power 

plants in coal states will come primarily from reduced generation from coal plants, and in turn, 

coal plants whose output falls dramatically are at high risk for economic retirement as the value 

of generation falls relative to fixed operating and maintenance costs. Thus, the commenters

stated that significant early emission reduction requirements should be seen as leading to 

significant early coal retirement. The commenters stated that it is well understood that the 

emission reductions needed to effectively address climate change will require the elimination of 

most CO2 emitted by coal plants, but it does not follow that the sudden elimination of coal plants 

is an effective way to address climate change. The commenters stated that driving large numbers 

of coal plants into sudden retirement creates very real risks of a resource adequacy crisis in some 

regions, which in turn is likely to result in the following cascading series of events: 

• The rapid deployment of large amounts of new, long-lived baseload natural gas assets; 

• The prolonged delay of large scale deployment of renewable and other essential clean 

energy technologies; and 
247

• Excessive power sector dependency on a single (fossil) fuel and the lock-in of excessive 

CO2 emissions for several decades.

Commenters stated that a true glide-path trajectory will better allow states to nurture a much 

lower-carbon mix of resources than the EPA's abrupt 2020 "compliance cliff." The commenters 

expressed concern about the rule's impact on reliability with rapid fossil fuel plant retirements 

and emphasized how EE and RE does not mitigate this impact. The commenters stated that 

slowing the rate of coal retirements is only a partial fix, and that it is equally important for EPA 

to anticipate and support a less carbon intensive set of solutions to the key BES constraints.

The commenters stated that one such set of solutions that is increasingly broadly anticipated is to 

rely on renewable energy resources increasingly for energy production, while focusing on natural 

gas resources primarily as a source of reliability. The commenters explained that instead of 

directly replacing coal's energy production, new gas facilities would increasingly function as 

capacity resources, standing ready to ramp up when the wind stops blowing, ramp down when 

the sun comes up, and otherwise bridge the gap between clean base-load resources -- comprised 

of CCS, nuclear and hydro -- and intermittent renewables, while also helping integrate 

controllable load and distributed clean energy resources, including storage. The commenters 

noted that there are several studies from the NREL that provide ample data and technical context 

for a renewables-centric, reliable BES. The commenters noted that NREL's 2012 "Renewable 

Energy Futures Study" (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/) and 2013 "Western Wind and 

Solar Study Phase 2" (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55588.pdf) publications show faststart, simple-cycle gas combustion turbines are highly effective resources for backing up 

significant penetrations of renewable energy. In addition, the commenters noted that these 

studies show that high levels of wind and solar generation may significantly displace combinedcycle generators.

The commenters stated that this approach would dramatically reduce CO2 by substituting a 

portfolio of renewable energy production -- such as solar during the day, wind at night -- for coal 

and gas energy production, while preserving reliability by relying on flexible gas capacity to 

meet load and provide other system reliability needs, such as voltage support, only when and as 

needed. Importantly, the commenters noted that it takes a different kind of gas generating 

equipment (efficient combustion turbines or hybrid turbine combined-cycle technologies 

sometimes called "CC-fast" or CCF) to perform such reliability and integration services than it 

does to replace coal plants by running efficiently at 70% capacity factors (typically the largest, 

most fuel efficient, and least operationally flexible combined-cycle units). Thus the commenters 

stated that the 2020 "lock in" of gas replacements for coal that will result from the EPA's 

dramatic early compliance problems will not only lock out renewables, it will also not be well 

suited to supporting their integration.

The commenters stated that such a system is inherently flexible and forward-looking. Because 

the CT and CCF equipment is designed for intermittent, as-needed operation, the commenters 

stated that it can continue to provide the capacity needed for reliability, even as storage, 

controllable load and other innovations over time reduce the amount of energy it actually needs 

to produce. The commenters stated that such resources can anticipate a long life of ensuring 

reliability while supporting continuous emission reductions. By contrast, the commenters stated 

that combined-cycle units designed exclusively for high capacity factor base-load power 
248

production would be stranded by additional emission reduction requirements, or else would 

require expensive revamping to provide primarily reliability services in a world where increasing 

amounts of energy come from intermittent renewable resources and non-carbon emitting baseload technologies. 

The commenters stated that such systems capable of ensuring the BES's reliability and operating 

constraints are met, while supporting its continued de-carbonization, are the key to overcoming 

the inefficiency inherent in the Proposal. The commenters stated that such a system allows the 

lifetime or committed emissions from new gas units to be minimized, thus achieving the lowest 

possible overall power sector emissions.

The commenters stated that EPA's prediction of new combined-cycle power plants could be 

expected to add 1.7 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during their economic lifetime -- more 

than even a conservatively high estimate of the 1.5 billion tons the retiring coal plants might emit 

under the "glide path" alternative. The commenters stated that a smaller fleet of CT / CCF gas, 

coupled with far more renewables and clean distributed energy resources could support 

reliability and low cost power equally well, while producing far less committed carbon than 23 

GW of new combined-cycle.

The commenters provided for example, 11 GW of CT / CCF, running at an average annual 

capacity factor of 12% and emitting 1000 pounds of CO2 per MWH, would produce only about 

170 million tons of CO2 between 2020 and 2050 - only about 10% of the committed CO2 of the 

23 GW EPA predicts, thus avoiding 1.5 billion ton less. The commenters noted that a variety of 

analyses show that CTs would be more useful than CCGT in integrating high levels of renewable 

resources, and that CTs in these circumstances would have relatively low capacity factors. The 

commenters provided figures that highlight how a high penetration of solar and wind generation 

resources can displace a significant amount of combined-cycle natural gas units, while gas CT 

generation increases slightly to provide supporting, dispatchable capacity. 

The commenters stated that, importantly, under the simple but reasonable assumptions used 

above, a state plan that achieves this low level of committed emissions under the glide path 

approach would completely offset the 1.5 billion tons of additional emissions from existing 

plants the glide path would allow by avoiding the precipitous retirement of coal plants due to the 

Proposal's 2020 compliance "cliff." 

The commenters stated that the implications are significant: EPA can achieve comparable or 

greater emission reductions just from the directly affected units through implementing a true 

glide path as it can from the more precipitous, front loaded emission reduction trajectory in the 

Proposal. In addition, the commenters stated that this approach should result in far fewer power 

sector emissions over time as such gas - renewable combinations are more broadly deployed 

across the US power sector, along with other innovations such as the widespread adoption of 

post combustion CCS with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at well-suited coal plants. The 

commenters stated that forced retirement in 2020 or shortly thereafter could seriously deplete the 

candidates for such CCS.
249

Comment 31: Comment stating that the EPA has strongly front loaded the first interim targets 

and that this is very likely to remove the need for additional renewable deployment since load 

requirements will be fully satisfied for years to come.

Response 31: Based on this and other comments we have received, the EPA has adjusted the 

start date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their 

own emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim 

period beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The 

EPA determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address 

the revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

Regarding the commenters’ concern about stranded assets resulting from this rule, we have 

included additional flexibility in the final rule that alleviates some of the concerns raised by the 

commenters, depending on how a particular state or regional planning group structures their 

plan. Discussion of state plan flexibility are addressed in sections VIII.C., VIII.F, and VIII.G of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA has strongly front loaded the first interim targets presumably to 

achieve reductions quickly in an effort to gain reductions without regard for real impacts on 

states. The commenters noted that the interim target for many states are as high as 95% of the 

2030 target and in excess of 84% for virtually all states. The commenters stated that this type of 

requirement will lead either to a failure to comply or states having to make short term decisions 

for which the state will incur long term negative impacts. The commenters stated that, while 

rapid deployment of natural gas combined cycles this will be a good short term solution, these 

investments will, if EPA and EIA's future power projections are correct concerning low growth 

in electricity consumption in future years, leave states with generators having an investment 

portfolio that will satisfy generation well into the decade of the 2020s without need for additional 

generation since these new NGCCs are a solid 30 year investment expectation. The commenters 

stated that this in turn is very likely to remove the need for additional renewable deployment 

since load requirements will be fully satisfied for years to come.

Comment 32: Comment stating that a single CPP compliance year should be avoided because it 

prevents the regulated community from applying practical flexibility mechanisms that allow 

compliance to bridge across unusual or cyclic events like long term maintenance outages, 

economic cycles or unusual energy demand events.
250

Response 32: The EPA agrees with the commenters and we are finalizing this rule to include 

three year interim compliance periods followed by two year compliance periods to demonstrate 

plan effectiveness in meeting the 2030 goal, and beyond. Discussion surrounding the 

establishment of interim goals can be found in section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that a single CPP compliance year is should be avoided because it prevents 

the regulated community from applying practical flexibility mechanisms that allow compliance 

to bridge across unusual or cyclic events like long term maintenance outages, economic cycles or 

unusual energy demand events. The commenters recommended that EPA allow states to 

establish a series of consecutive years for determining future compliance with EPA's finalized 

CPP rule, allowing for averaged compliance over the period. States should have the discretion to 

provide for sufficient time to support achievement of overall CO2 emission reduction objectives 

while bridging past unusual events that can unnecessarily add to the cost for compliance or 

impede the delivery of superior, long term greenhouse gas emission reduction measures.

Comment 33: Comment suggesting that the EPA eliminate the interim compliance goal and 

focus on the 2030 goal, and that even without the interim average compliance goal, the EPA still 

will review and approve proposed state plans and emission reduction glide paths.

Response 33: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the interim compliance 

goal(s) should be eliminated. 

Based on this and other comments we have received, however, the EPA has adjusted the start 

date for the interim period to 2022, and is retaining the flexibility for states to establish their own 

emissions trajectory during the interim period. The EPA has determined that an interim period 

beginning in 2022 provides sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning exercises 

and for the implementation of measures towards achieving the performance rates. The EPA 

determined the interim rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to address the 

revised timing of the interim compliance period (beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as 

proposed). They reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates for each year in 

the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). See section V.A.3.g of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the final 2030 emission performance rates 

because the amount of emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases over time, 

as explained in section V. 

Based on commenter input and our final determination of the BSER, the EPA has adjusted the 

interim period to include 2022-2029, is establishing three interim performance periods creating a 

reasonable trajectory from 2022 to 2030, and is also retaining the flexibility for states to establish 

their own emission reduction trajectory during the interim period. See section VIII.B of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
251

Commenters suggested that EPA eliminate the interim compliance goal and focus on the 2030 

goal. The commenters stated that even without the interim average compliance goal, EPA still 

will review and approve proposed state plans and emission reduction glide paths. The 

commenters stated that the EPA can disapprove proposed plans and glide paths that do not meet 

the minimum requirements and that do not demonstrate satisfactorily how the 2030 goals will be 

achieved. The commenters noted that allowing states to design emission reduction glide paths as 

part of their state plans does not deprive EPA of this authority and responsibility. Further, the 

commenters noted that other elements of EPA's proposed approach to state plans ensure that

states make reasonable and verifiable progress toward the 2030 goal, report that progress to EPA, 

and take corrective measures if needed. Ultimately, the commenters noted that if states do not 

show progress toward the 2030 goal, the EPA could call for a state to revise its compliance plan 

or implement its own federal plan. 

The commenters noted that the requirements for state plans are detailed and rigorous. First, the 

commenters noted that the proposed guidelines require that states demonstrate continuous

progress towards the 2030 goal and verify their performance through annual reporting of 

emission performance to EPA. The commenters noted that, starting in 2022, states would be 

required to submit annual reports detailing plan implementation and progress, including a 

comparison of actual plan performance against projected plan performance. In this way, the 

commenters noted that the EPA can monitor if states are making progress toward the 2030 goals 

and whether states are achieving reductions consistent with the proposed glide paths.

Second, the commenters noted that the guidelines require that state plans must include periodic 

programmatic milestones to show progress toward implementation, and these milestones are 

required to have specific dates for achievement which prevents states from delaying reductions. 

The commenters noted that state plans also must identify additional measures that they will adopt 

and enforce in the event that an annual emissions progress report shows that the state's emission 

performance is not within 10 percent of the emissions performance path projected in the state 

plan. See id. The commenters stated that these corrective measures would have to be 

implemented soon after a state report indicated that reductions were not being achieved 

consistent with the glide path, further ensuring that states could not delay reductions and that 

progress continues to be made toward the 2030 goals. 

Comment 34: Comment stating that the EPA's attempts to rectify the many fatal flaws in its 

proposal by issuing a Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") is unsuccessful.

Response 34: The agency places great value on the public notice-and-comment process that it 

has used multiple times in developing the CPP. The agency takes note of these commenters’ 

view on the length of the public comment periods, and will continue to consider such concerns in 

future rulemakings. However, the agency received many detailed and useful public comments on 

the NODA, the original CPP proposal notice and other CPP-related notices. Based on these 

comments, the agency has substantially revised the proposal. These revisions refine the agency’s

approach to defining the BSER and the approach used to calculate CO2 emission performance 

rates and state goals. They also improve the flexibility and workability of the state plan 
252

provisions of the emission guidelines. The final emission guidelines create a strong and workable 

framework for states to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining a strong, reliable, and 

economical electrical generation sector. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA's attempts to rectify the many fatal flaws in its proposal by issuing 

a Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") is unsuccessful. The commenters stated that the NODA 

primarily considers three over-arching topics: (1) the proposed glide path for emission reductions 

from 2020-2029; (2) the methodology used in the design of the building blocks; and (3) the 

application of the building blocks in calculating and implementing the goal-setting equation. The 

commenters stated that despite the short timeframe EPA provides for commenters to consider the 

NODA, making meaningful comment essentially impossible, it is apparent that the NODA does 

nothing to make EPA's proposal more reasonable, and if anything, the NODA makes the 

proposed rule even less workable, as EPA even acknowledges that some of the changes on which 

it seeks comment "would yield more stringent state goals." The commenters stated that EPA's 

issuance of additional information on November 13, 2014, only serves to add to the multitude of 

issues in EPA's proposal.

Comment 35: Comment stating that if the EPA feels meeting the glide path and interim targets 

is important, then the burden of proof is on the Agency to show why.

Response 35: The CPP is a rule implementing section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The agency’s 

determination of the interim goal and the final goal reflect the levels of emission performance 

levels achievable through the best system of emission reduction, and therefore are required by 

the Act. As a result, the interim goal is not optional.

The agency strongly disagrees with the commenter on the significance of emission reductions 

from the EGU sector, including during the interim period. The CPP is an important component 

of the U.S. climate strategy and is important to U.S. efforts to encourage other nations to reduce 

emissions as well. See the final CPP preamble for more on the significance of this rule.

The CPP provides flexibility states to investigate their options and develop reasonable plans that

follow the state’s chosen emission reduction trajectory to meet the interim goal and the final goal

starting in 2030s.. The interim steps provide emission performance check points to allow for 

prompt action in the event that the state plan is off track. Recognizing that plan modifications 

may be needed to address unforeseen circumstances, the CPP allows for periodic review, 

assessment and adjustment(s) to promote meeting the final goal on time. See Sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that if EPA feels meeting the glide path and interim targets is important, then 

the burden of proof is on the Agency to show why. The commenters stated that this proposed 

rule aims to reduce by 30% the CO2 emissions from an economic sector that is itself responsible 

for only 30% of U.S. output. The commenters stated that equates to a 9% reduction in US 
253

emissions and only 1.5% of global CO2 emissions. The commenters stated that accordingly, each 

year along the 2020-29 glide path represents an increment less than 1% of U.S. or 0.15% of 

global emissions. The commenters stated that to demonstrate why interim target levels are 

"important" EPA must show through cogent scientific means, the climate change benefit of 

achieving complete compliance in year "X" as opposed to year X+1, X+2, or X+10. 

Comment 36: Comment providing input related to EPA's request for comment on the 

requirement that state plans include a process and schedule for implementation of corrective 

measures, and a process for annual reporting.

Response 36: The EPA disagrees that a five year averaging period provides sufficient assurance 

that state or multi-state plans are meeting the final 2030 goal. A five-year performance period 

would allow for verification of plan performance, and remedial steps, only once every five years. 

Corrective measures and implementation of the backstop takes significant time once a plan 

performance deficiency is identified. For this reason, and additional reasons explained in RTC 

chapter 6.1.5, the agency is finalizing 3-year plan performance periods for interim steps 1 and 2, 

and 2-year plan performance periods for interim step 3 and the final goal.

To the extent that extenuating emergent circumstance results in plan insufficiency, we are 

including a process to handle that in the final rule. Discussion surrounding time needed to 

include new infrastructure in state plans can be found in section VIII.G.2 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. Discussion surrounding the establishment of interim goals can be found in 

section VIII.B of the final rule preamble. Discussion of emergency action can be found in section 

VIII.G of the final rule preamble. Additional response to comments on multi-year performance 

periods is contained in section 6.1.5.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters provided input related to EPA's request for comment on the requirement that state 

plans include a process and schedule for implementation of corrective measures, and a process 

for annual reporting. 

Commenters supported EPA's proposal to set compliance periods that are longer than 1 year 

because potential climate change impacts result from long-term accumulations, not from 

emissions in any particular year. The commenters stated that EPA is therefore able to establishwithout any significant adverse environmental detriment-multi-year periods for determining 

compliance with environmental standards. The commenters provided for example, a 10-year 

compliance period that EPA has proposed for the first phase is based upon providing affected 

electric utilities significant flexibility to operate their facilities and to phase in control measures, 

without reducing the effectiveness of the overall emission reduction program, assuming, of 

course, that the state's interim emissions rate goal is not so stringent that it deprives the state of 

the intended flexibility. 

With respect to the final state goals, the commenters urged the EPA to extend the averaging 

period for a state to demonstrate compliance with the final goal from 3 years to 5 years. The 

commenters stated that the additional time is needed to allow states to address short-term spikes 
254

in CO2 emissions due to extended shutdown of nuclear generation (both planned and forced 

outages), as well as other exceptional events that may be beyond the control of the state. The 

commenters stated that the 10-year interim compliance period should be implemented with a 

cumulative average after year 5, and states should have substantial flexibility in determining their 

benchmarks during the interim compliance period, allowing the state to determine a feasible path 

towards the final goal.

6.1.5 Program implementation milestones, tracking of emission performance, and 

corrective measures

This section discusses requirements for state plans to establish and track program 

implementation milestones, to track plan emission performance, and to provide for corrective 

measures or federally enforceable backstop requirements on EGUs to be implemented in the 

event that state plan performance is deficient. Also included is discussion of related state 

reporting requirements; other comments on state reporting requirements are discussed in section 

6.3.10.

This section also discusses the concept of self-correcting plans versus non-self-correcting plans. 

In the proposal, EPA suggested that some types of plans are “self-correcting” in that they 

inherently would assure interim performance and full achievement of the state plan’s required 

level of emission performance, assuming full compliance by affected EGUs, through 

requirements that are enforceable against affected EGUs.

Note that the focus of this section is on state plan performance. Questions about EGU 

compliance with emission standards, associated EGU reporting requirements, and enforcement 

against EGUs or other parties subject to state plan requirements are addressed elsewhere in this 

document.

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection that are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: General comments on means of oversight of state implementation and plan 

performance

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the EPA should engage in interim 

reviews and milestones for state plans to ensure that they are on course and that state plans 

should contain milestone requirements for tracking actual plan performance. See Sections 

VIII.D.2.a and VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We also agree that state plans that include measures besides federally enforceable requirements 

for affected EGUs must include periodic program implementation milestones and emission 

performance checks and a means of ensuring achievement of the emission standard. We are 

finalizing the option of a “state measures” plan type, which would include state-enforceable 

measures that may apply to entities besides affected EGUs. We are also finalizing requirements 
255

that all state plans include periodic emission performance checks and that state measures plans 

include program implementation milestones with annual reports and a backstop to ensure full 

achievement of the emission standard if the state measures do not achieve it. See Sections 

VIII.D.2 and VIII.C.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We also agree that plans should include corrective measures to be implemented if mid-course 

corrections are necessary. In addition to the backstop requirement for plans that rely on state 

measures, we are finalizing corrective measures requirements for plans that rely only on 

measures on affected EGUs but whose plan design does not mathematically assure achievement 

of the CO2 emission performance rates or CO2 emission goals, assuming full compliance by 

affected EGUs. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA should engage in interim reviews and milestones for state plans 

to ensure they are on course. The commenters supported EPA's proposed 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. The commenters stated that, 

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 

commenters suggested that 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. 

Comment 2: Comments stating that the CPP needs safeguards and binding milestones to keep 

states on track to achieve critical pollution reductions by 2030.

Response 2: The final guidelines contain multiple features that help to ensure the accountability 

of each state for adopting and implementing a plan that is consistent with Clean Air Act section 

111(d).

The guidelines set EGU performance rates and state goals to ensure that each state is required to 

adopt emission standards consistent with the national requirements established by section 111(d), 

and also provide for monitoring of state plan implementation by the EPA. For state plans that 

rely only on measures on affected EGUs but whose plan design does not mathematically assure 

achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates or CO2 emission goals, assuming full 

compliance by affected EGUs, the guidelines establish requirements to monitor and correct 

implementation of the plan during the 2022-2029 interim performance period. These 

requirements involve program implementation milestones, tracking of actual emission 

performance under the plan, reporting, and corrective action if triggered. The guidelines also 

establish the consequences in the event that an approved state plan is implemented yet fails to 

achieve EGU emissions performance that meets the state goal. See Section VIII.F of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.
256

The final guidelines clarify state goals for states and the public by providing both rate-based and 

mass-based goals for each state, which avoids concerns about whether the goals would be 

interpreted as intended. For states that rely on the state measures approach, the guidelines 

require the plan to provide federally enforceable backstop requirements that apply only to 

affected EGUs, which would be triggered if the state measures plan failed in practice to achieve 

a specified level of emission performance.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters stated that the CPP needs binding milestones to keep states on track for 

achieving critical pollution reductions by 2030. The commenters stated that the EPA must have a 

stronger oversight role to ensure that every state does its fair share to reduce carbon pollution. 

The commenters stated that even the best environmental standards can become largely 

meaningless if the public and EPA are not able to monitor compliance and enforce those 

standards. 

Commenters expressed concern that the rule relies on states to interpret targets, invent their own 

programs and enforce them, including states that are dominated by the absurd politics of climate 

change denial. Thus, the commenters stated that the rule invites weak targets to be further 

watered down or simply ignored.

Comment 3: Comments that states should be given flexibility on how they track performance in 

relation to state goals.

Response 3: The final guidelines provide states with flexibility to choose program 

implementation milestones appropriate to the type of plans that they are designing. At the same 

time, the guidelines provide certain emissions tracking requirements to enable states, the EPA 

and others to check whether (1) emission performance is improving as planned during the 

interim period, for specified plan types, and (2) to check at the end of each plan performance 

period, whether emission performance is consistent with the interim or final state goal, for all 

state plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Regarding goal performance tracking, commenters suggested that states should be given the 

flexibility to determine how to track performance. Commenters stated that the EPA should allow 

states flexibility in establishing and reporting on milestones along their path to the 2030 goal.

Comment 4: Comments suggesting that a simple annual report be submitted to EPA to track 

progress in meeting emission reduction requirements.

Response 4: The EPA agrees in part and disagrees in part with the commenters. The agency 

agrees with the concept of periodic reports to track the progress of the state plan toward meeting 

the interim goal. The agency also agrees with the concept of allowing states flexibility on their 
257

desired emission improvement trajectory to meet the final goal. The agency agrees that the state 

plan need not achieve a specified emission target in each year.

However, the agency believes that the rule needs to provide more specificity than the comments 

suggest on the circumstances in which corrective measures, in the case of emission standards 

plans, or the federally enforceable backstop, in the case of state measures plans, will be 

triggered. The final rule continues to require the state to specify its intended emission 

performance trajectory in advance, and to periodically check actual plan performance against 

anticipated plan performance. In addition, for rate-based plans, the agency observes that simply 

looking at emission rates will not account for avoided emissions at affected EGUs (due, for 

example, to new renewable energy generation or energy efficiency measures), so a report 

assessing progress toward a rate-based goal needs to reflect that information as well as actual 

emissions data. 

In the final rule, the EPA has modified the proposed requirements for state plan emission 

performance checks and reporting to balance two competing considerations: (1) our desire to 

minimize the administrative workload for states, and (2) the need to promptly identify deficient 

performance and initiate measures to remedy any significant emissions performance shortfall, to

maximize chances that the state can meet its interim goal on time. In the final guidelines, the 

performance comparison and notification is required three times during the 8-year interim 

period, and every two years during the final goal period, rather than annually as proposed.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

In March 2014 comments resubmitted following proposal, commenters stated that once a plan 

has been approved, EPA's role in monitoring the state's progress in meeting the emission 

reduction requirements of the program is simple: states should submit to EPA a simple annual 

report showing the jurisdictional units' current and expected emissions. The commenters 

suggested that report would also describe the state's emission trajectory to meet the compliance 

year mass emissions limit. The commenters suggested the state may submit further qualitative or 

quantitative analysis to demonstrate that it continues to meet its target. The commenters stated 

that the EPA would not need to require the state to achieve a specific emission limit by year as 

long as the emissions are reasonably following a trajectory that will result in the target being 

achieved in the compliance year(s).

Comment 5: Comments stating that the final guidelines must include clear language with 

respect to EPA's enforcement of the Clean Power Plan, including timetables and consequences 

for failure to meet compliance obligations, and suggesting that EPA apply enforcement 

discretion should the CPP become subject to protracted legal challenges.

Response 5: As the commenters recommend, the final guidelines include clear language about 

requirements for state plans regarding enforceability, milestones, regular plan performance 

checks, and corrective measures or federally enforceable backstop measures in the event that 

state plan performance is deficient. See sections VIII.D.2 and VIII.F of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP.
258

Regarding the suggestion that the EPA excuse failure to address interim targets in case litigation 

delays implementation, the EPA declines to address this issue at this time. In general, rules 

remain in effect during litigation unless and until a court stays their implementation. A court can 

grant a stay of a rule only when certain criteria are met. In the past, when a court has delayed 

implementation of an EPA rule but the rule ultimately was upheld, EPA has been known to 

adjust rule deadlines to account for the stay.

As discussed in section VIII, after considering comments on the proposed portfolio approach, 

EPA is not finalizing that approach. Therefore, these comments are moot. Instead of the 

proposed portfolio approach, EPA is finalizing an option to submit a “state measures” plan type, 

under which a mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or entirely achieved through state 

measures that impose requirements on entities other than affected EGUs and that are not 

included in the federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided the state submits standards of 

performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the form of a federally enforceable 

“backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail to achieve the required CO2 

emission performance level. See section VIII.

With respect to the comments that the EPA must ensure that only those entities who have full 

control over the reduction measures are held responsible: First, the EPA believes that the term 

“full control” is not sufficiently nuanced to accurately reflect the issues involved with the 

interconnected electricity system. For example, the EPA has endeavored in these guidelines to 

facilitate state rate-based and mass-based emissions trading programs, which can be designed to 

create economic incentives for increasing renewable energy generation and end-use energy 

efficiency. As has been well demonstrated through the acid rain sulfur dioxide trading program 

and subsequent trading programs to reduce interstate air pollution, these programs can create 

markets for emission-reducing actions and can enable EGUs to purchase allowances or credits to 

demonstrate compliance. The commenters might or might not agree that these successful trading 

programs meet the “full control” test suggested by the commenters, but they have been well 

accepted by the power sector, and such systems put EGUs in a position to achieve increased 

renewable energy and end-use energy efficiency through purchase of allowances. Also, the 

guidelines give states flexibility to adopt a wide range of program designs. See sections VIII.C 

and V.B.3.ii of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

Regarding the comment that the EPA must allow self-correcting measures if the final guidelines 

include “enforcement against any entity with a compliance obligation during the interim period if 

a milestone is missed,” we note that in the final rule, the EPA has refined its approach to selfcorrecting and non-self-correcting plans based on more specific consideration of different plan 

types and public comments. The agency does not use the term “self-correcting” in the final 

preamble because many found it confusing. The term was intended to refer to those types of 

emissions standards plans that mathematically assure that the plan performance level will be 

achieved when all affected EGUs are in compliance with their federally enforceable emission 

standards, regardless of electricity production and electricity mix. The EPA has determined that 

periodic checks of plan performance are warranted both for emission standard plans and for state 

measures plans to ensure that there is a mechanism for identifying plan deficiencies and to 

ensure that the goals of the emission guidelines are in fact achieved
259

Emission standards type plans that that mathematically assure achievement of the CO2 emission 

performance rates or CO2 emission goals regardless of generation amount or generation mix, 

assuming full compliance by affected EGUs, are not required to include a requirement for 

corrective measures in their state plans. Relevant to the question of whether plan revisions might 

be needed to rectify shortcomings in such plans, the EPA intends that planned revisions to the 

part 60 implementing regulations will clarify (among other things) whether the EPA has 

authority to call for plan revisions under section 111(d) when a state’s plan is not complying with 

the requirements of this guideline, and if so, precisely what procedures should apply. The EPA is 

proposing these revisions to the section 111(d) implementing regulations in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the federal plan. The EPA is not taking final action now on this issue or 

the related change to the implementing regulations. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the final guidelines must include clear language with respect to EPA's 

enforcement of the Clean Power Plan, including timetables and consequences for failure to meet 

compliance obligations. The commenters stated that, in particular, the rule should be 

strengthened by the inclusion of additional interim milestones and compliance reviews, as well 

as steps that will be taken in the event of state failures to attain the goals in their approved plans. 

The commenters recommended:

• Regular review of state plans should occur throughout the time horizon of the 

Clean Power Plan. The commenters urged EPA to review the states' 

implementation of their compliance plans every 5 years.

• Automatic provisions for corrective actions to address compliance failures should 

be specified in the Clean Power Plan as well as in each approved state compliance 

plan.

Commenters stated that the EPA proposed the emission limit plan approach and the portfolio or 

state commitment plan approaches. The EPA must ensure that only those entities who have full 

control over the reduction measure(s) in a state’s compliance plan are held responsible for 

meeting that goal. For example, if a state chooses to utilize a specific level of RE generation in 

its compliance plan, the owner/operators of an affected fossil fuel-fired EGU with no control 

over the RE resources should not be responsible for meeting the RE generation goal. The EPA 

must address the penalty structure for non-compliance as it relates to the withholding of funding 

for EE programs. Utilities and other third parties should not be penalized for non-compliance if 

the cause was inadequate funding from the state.

EPA must make it clear in the final rule that there would not be enforcement against any entity 

with a compliance obligation during the interim period if a milestone is missed. Commenters 

said, EPA must allow for self-correcting measures if this were to occur. 
260

Commenters suggested the EPA apply enforcement discretion with respect to compliance with 

interim targets should the CPP become subject to protracted legal challenges that delay 

implementation.

Comment 6: Comment addressing benchmarking progress during the interim compliance 

period (2020-2029).

Response 6: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final guidelines should include 

evaluation of state progress toward the state goal during the interim period. The EPA concluded 

that a single review at the mid-point of the interim period would not be sufficient to ensure 

timely identification of plan deficiencies and a prompt remedy. The final guidelines require state 

plans to establish three interim step goals during the 8-year interim period, to require reports of 

the plan’s emission performance after each of these periods, and to implement corrective 

measures or federally enforceable backstop measures under certain circumstances. For the full 

response to this comment, please see sections VIII.D and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters addressed benchmarking progress during the interim compliance period (2020-

2029). The commenters advised the EPA to request a mid-point review or evaluation of state 

progress towards meeting its goals and plan implementation. The commenters stated that this 

will allow states to more effectively plan and comply with the rule, and will also create certainty 

for stakeholders such as affected EGUs, state agencies, and other affected entities that may be 

impacted by state compliance plans. In addition, the commenters stated that this flexibility will 

give states and EPA an opportunity to take corrective measures as needed throughout the 

compliance period in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

Comment 7: Comments suggesting that the EPA should require states to report the reasons for 

deficient performance, and that these should be made public.

Response 7: For plans subject to corrective measure requirements, the final guidelines require a 

state’s plan revision submission to explain how the corrective measures will remedy the problem 

that that caused the shortfall. The submission will be a public document. See section VIII.F.3 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA has not justified its proposal that a state would only have to 

determine and report its reasons for deficient performance if it elects to wait until after it 

discovers the deficiency before incorporating the plan's corrective measures into its regulations. 

Id. The commenters stated that information about the cause of the shortcoming would have 

significant value. The commenters stated that publishing the reasons for deficient performance 

could provide early notice to other states and the public of problems that may surface in many 
261

plans, such as lower-than-expected benefits from certain energy efficiency incentive programs 

for particular kinds of equipment. The commenters stated that the benefits this information 

outweigh the modest analytical and reporting burden that it may impose on states who have 

experienced a plan deficiency, and the EPA should require all states that report a deficiency to 

make public its cause.

Commenters recommended that states should report the reasons for deficient performance.

Comment 8: Comments noting that a state's failure to comply with the interim and final targets 

will ultimately not be realized until 2029 and 2030 respectively.

Response 8: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final guidelines should include 

evaluation of state progress toward the state goal during the interim period. The final guidelines 

require state plans to establish three interim step goals during the 8-year interim period, to 

require reports of the plan’s emission performance after each of these periods, and to implement 

corrective measures or federally enforceable backstop measures under certain circumstances. 

For the full response to this comment, please see sections VIII.D and VIII.F of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that a state's failure to comply with the interim and final targets will 

ultimately not be realized until 2029 and 2030 respectively. The commenters asked the EPA to 

consider and comment on how a state's compliance will be tracked and measured prior to the 

compliance target dates. Additionally, the commenters asked the EPA to explain how and when 

it might move against a state that is not on track to meet the interim or final target and what such 

remedies might entail. 

Comment 9: Comments stating that the state reporting requirements identified in proposed 

section 60.5815 make the performance levels identified in state plans essentially binding, and 

that annual emission check requirements are unnecessarily onerous. 

Response 9: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that state reporting requirements and 

emission checks would make a state’s anticipated state plan performance levels during the 

interim period “essentially binding.” We observe that (1) the proposal allowed a state to miss its 

planned level by up to 10 percent before corrective measures were required, and (2) the 

provisions were designed to require prompt action to identify and remedy deficient performance 

to improve chances that the state could, despite the deficiency, achieve the interim goal. The 

agency acknowledged in the proposal that it often may take a state some time to identify, adopt, 

and implement corrective measures that would reduce emissions significantly.

In the final rule, the EPA has modified the proposed requirements for state plan emission 

performance checks and reporting to balance two competing considerations: (1) our desire to 

minimize the administrative workload for states, and (2) the need to promptly identify deficient 
262

performance and initiate measures to remedy any significant emissions performance shortfall, to

maximize chances that the state can meet its interim period goal on time. We are also finalizing 

that, for states with corrective measures requirements (under the emission standards plan type) or 

backstop requirements (under the state measures plan type), the corrective measures and 

backstop are triggered if actual emission performance is deficient by 10 percent or more relative 

to the performance levels that the state has chosen to specify in its plan for the interim step 1 

period (2022-2024) or the interim step 2 period (2025-2027), versus any deficiency for the 

interim period overall. The final guidelines thus give states some leeway to meet their interim 

step goals.

We agree with the commenters that annual emission checks are unnecessarily onerous. In the 

final guidelines, the performance comparison and notification is required three times during the 

8-year interim period, and every two years during the final period, rather than annually as 

proposed. State measures plans, which rely on measures on entities other than affected EGUs, 

are additionally required to report annually on the status of implementation of federally 

enforceable emission standards (if applicable) and state measures, and must include a report of 

the periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. The EPA 

believes that annual state reporting of progress toward milestones (not emissions performance) is 

appropriate for state measures approach due to the flexibility inherent to the approach, including 

the potential use by the state of a wider variety of state measures, responsible parties, etc. This 

reporting frequency will also increase the degree of certainty on plan performance for states 

pursuing the state measures approach.

For further description of the relevant final guideline provisions and rationale, see sections 

VIII.C.3, VIII.D.2, and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the state reporting requirements identified in section 60.5815 make the 

performance levels identified in state plans essentially binding, because states whose emission 

performance is greater than 10 percent in excess of projected plan performance must specify/take 

corrective actions to be taken to ensure required interim plan performance. Commenters stated 

that such annual requirements are unnecessarily onerous and unrealistic, particularly when 

dealing with such long-term implementation periods. Commenters stated that if EPA means to 

establish some binding mid-course performance requirements (in addition to the interim targets it 

proposes), commenters stated that a more reasonable approach would be to require states to 

identify the average performance expected by, say 2025 (midway through the implementation 

period), and submit a mid-course review evaluating the state's performance up to that point and 

requiring corrective actions if needed. 

Comment 10: Comments related to concept of self-correcting plans versus non-self-correcting 

plans

Response 10: In the final rule, the EPA has refined its approach to self-correcting and non-selfcorrecting plans based on more specific consideration of different plan types and public 
263

comments. The agency does not use the term “self-correcting” in the final preamble because 

many found it confusing. The term was intended to refer to those types of emissions standards 

plans that mathematically assure that the plan performance level will be achieved when all 

affected EGUs are in compliance with their federally enforceable emission standards, regardless 

of electricity production and electricity mix. The EPA has determined that periodic checks of

plan performance are warranted for both emission standard plans and for state measures plans to 

ensure that there is a mechanism for identifying plan deficiencies and to ensure that the goals of 

the emission guidelines are in fact achieved. The EPA also has streamlined some of the required 

information submittals in light of reporting burden comments raised in relation to related 

guideline requirements (see, e.g., Response to Comments section 6.3.10).

In response to commenters who said self-correcting plans do not need to contain program 

milestones during interim period, the EPA agrees. The final rule does not require program 

milestones during the interim period for emission standards plans that mathematically assure that 

the plan performance level will be achieved when all affected EGUs are in compliance with their 

federally enforceable emission standards, such as a rate-based emission standards plan that 

makes all affected EGU subject to the uniform EGU performance rates in the guideline (or more 

stringent emission rates), or an emission standards plan consisting of a mass-based budget 

trading program that has a budget equal to, or more stringent than, the state’s mass-based goal.

An emission standards plan that applies rate-based CO2 emission standards to individual affected 

EGUs, or to sub-categories of affected EGUs, at a lb CO2/MWh rate higher than the CO2 

emission performance rates or the state’s rate-based CO2 goal in the emission guidelines, does 

not mathematically assure that the plan performance level will be achieved when all affected 

EGUs are in compliance with their federally enforceable emission standards. Such plans are 

subject to certain reporting requirements. See Section VIII.D.2.b of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

For emissions standard type plans, the EPA also considered consequences in the event emission 

performance fails to meet the performance criteria just described for state measures plans. The 

final guidelines contain corrective measures requirements for certain emission standards plans --

those that do not mathematically assure that the plan performance level will be achieved when all 

affected EGUs are in compliance with their emission standards, regardless of electricity 

production and electricity mix. Corrective measures requirements apply, for example, to 

emission standards plans that include standards on affected EGUs that differ from the emission 

performance rates in the guidelines and emission standards plans that pair a rate-based plan 

performance level with mass-based standards on affected EGUs. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. 

The corrective measure requirements do not apply to other emission standards plans (i.e., selfcorrecting plans), which contain federally enforceable standards on affected EGUs that 

mathematically guarantee full plan performance if all EGUs comply. Sub-par plan performance 

occurs only if EGUs are in non-compliance. Relevant to the question of whether plan revisions 

might be needed to rectify shortcomings in this type of plan, the EPA intends that planned 

revisions to the part 60 implementing regulations will clarify (among other things) whether the 

EPA has authority to call for plan revisions under section 111(d) when a state’s plan is not 

complying with the requirements of this guideline, and if so, precisely what procedures should 
264

apply. The EPA is proposing these revisions to the section 111(d) implementing regulations in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking for the federal plan. The EPA is not taking final action now on 

this issue or the related change to the implementing regulations.

In response to commenters who noted the importance of automatic consequences if a state plan 

using the “portfolio” or “state commitments” approach fails to achieve its goal, the EPA 

observes that the final guidelines do not finalize either approach. However, the EPA did finalize 

a “state measures” plan type. For the state measures plan type, the EPA has taken the approach 

suggested by the commenters. State measures plans must require federally enforceable backstop 

requirements for affected EGUs to take effect if actual CO2 emission performance fails to meet 

the level of emission performance specified in the plan over the 8-year interim performance 

period (2022-2029), or for any 2-year final goal performance period, or if the state fails to meet a 

programmatic milestone. The plan also must require the backstop to take effect if actual 

emission performance is deficient by 10 percent or more relative to the performance levels that 

the state has chosen to specify in its plan for the interim step 1 period (2022-2024) or the interim 

step 2 period (2025-2027).

In response to commenters who said the state, after missing a programmatic milestone, should be 

given the opportunity to report the cause and accelerate implementation, the EPA observes that 

the final rule calls for the state measures plan backstop to be triggered in the event a 

programmatic milestone in a state measures plan is missed. On the question of whether the state 

should be allowed, after missing a programmatic milestone, to accelerate implementation before 

the EPA would take any enforcement action, the potential consequence of missing a 

programmatic milestone under a state measures plan is triggering the backstop, not enforcement 

action against a state. Under an emission standard plan, the consequence of a state plan not 

meeting the state goal is triggering of corrective measures. The corrective measures must

compensate for the deficiency to ensure that the EGU performance rates or state goal will be 

met. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

In response to comments that corrective measures for failure to meet interim milestones are 

unnecessary if the final goal is met in 2030, the EPA disagrees. The EPA observes that both the 

interim goal and the final goal reflect the BSER that is required under section 111(d). Therefore, 

the overall level of performance during the interim period as a whole is not optional, even though 

the guidelines provide states with flexibility to define their own glide paths for improving 

emission performance during that 8-year period.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the concept of "self-correcting" state plans. For plans that are not selfcorrecting, the commenters also supported that if a milestone is missed during the interim period, 

the state would have the opportunity to identify any delay to EPA, explain the cause, and 

describe the steps the state will undertake to accelerate subsequent implementation to achieve the 

planned improvement in emission performance before EPA would take any enforcement 

measures.

Commenters stated that 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 
265

required level of emission performance through requirements that are enforceable against 

affected EGUs. The commenters agreed 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, the commenters noted that 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. The commenters agreed 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.

Commenters stated that in either the "portfolio approach" or the "state commitment approach," it 

will be important to ensure the state plan includes corrective measures that take effect 

automatically if a state is unable to demonstrate the required emission reductions. The 

commenters stated that this self-correcting component ensures that affected EGUs are not 

responsible for emission reductions if a state fails to implement measures that are designed to 

reduce generation demand and are outside of the control of an EGU. 

The commenters stated that it is also important that the final rule make clear that if a milestone is 

missed during the interim period, the state would have the opportunity to identify any delay to 

EPA, explain the cause, and describe the steps the state will undertake to accelerate subsequent 

implementation to achieve the planned improvement in emission performance before EPA would 

take any enforcement measures. The commenters stated however, that if a state failed to 

demonstrate that it met the interim goal at the end of the compliance period, it would be subject 

to enforcement.

Commenters questioned the EPA's proposal that non-self-correcting state plans are required to 

have program implementation milestones to ensure progress during the 2020-2030 interim 

period. The commenters noted that the EPA would require states to annually submit their 

performance data, and starting in 2022 to include a comparison of emission performance 

achieved for the preceding 2 years. The commenters noted that the EPA also proposed to require 

that a report be submitted and corrective measures taken if an interim emission check indicates 

that actual emission performance of affected entities is not within 10 percent of the performance 

projected in the state plan. 

The commenters stated that if the goal is met by 2030, the requirement to undertake corrective 

measures if interim milestones are not met is unnecessary. The commenters noted that 

establishing and enforcing milestones with too short of a compliance period creates an 

unnecessary burden on the states. Rather than working towards the final 2030 emission goal, the 

commenters stated that the EPA is creating multiple goals set throughout the interim period, and 

imposing the consequence of corrective measures should the goals not be met.
266

Comment 11: Comments stating that state plans may not be able to be "self-correcting" given so 

many variables beyond state control, and that the EPA should allow states maximum flexibility 

to adjust their state plans to account for major changes in the assumptions underlying state plans 

or the costs or impacts of those plans.

Response 11: The EPA agrees that states may find that future developments may prompt states 

to decide to modify their state plans. The final rule preamble discusses “Modifications to an 

approved state plan” at section VIII.E.7.a of the final rule preamble of the CPP. In addition, the 

final guidelines require all emission standards plans to provide for corrective measures in the 

event that plan performance is deficient during the interim period or any final period, or by 10 

percent or more during interim step 1 or 2. The guidelines also provide for a “reliability safety 

valve” to address the possibility that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe 

stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a 

state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk 

to reliability. The reliability safety valve will allow a state to modify the emission standards for 

such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See sections VIII.F.3 and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

Relevant to the question of whether plan revisions might be needed to rectify shortcomings in 

plans are self-correcting, the EPA intends that planned revisions to the part 60 implementing 

regulations will clarify (among other things) whether the EPA has authority to call for plan 

revisions under section 111(d) when a state’s plan is not complying with the requirements of this 

guideline, and if so, precisely what procedures should apply. The EPA is proposing these 

revisions to the section 111(d) implementing regulations in the notice of proposed rulemaking 

for the federal plan. The EPA is not taking final action now on this issue or the related change to 

the implementing regulations.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that state plans may not be able to be "self-correcting" given so many 

variables beyond state control. 

Given that the practical development and production of electricity is subject to so many variables 

beyond state control, the commenters argued that a state plan must have the ability to adjust to 

actualities and unexpected and unintended consequences that are experienced "on the ground" 

some of which cannot be anticipated. The commenters stated that simply suggesting that state 

plans be "self-correcting" does not provide the necessary mechanism to allow for changes to 

state plans.

Comment 12: Comments stating that to supplement federal enforceability, corrective measures 

are necessary to ensure that plan deficiencies are fixed swiftly and soon after they occur.

Response 12: See section VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this 

comment, particularly discussion of corrective measures and federally enforceable backstop 

requirements for EGUs. Also, note that the EPA intends that planned revisions to the part 60 

implementing regulations will clarify (among other things) whether the EPA has authority to call 
267

for plan revisions under section 111(d) when a state’s plan is not complying with the 

requirements of this guideline, and if so, precisely what procedures should apply. The EPA is 

proposing these revisions to the section 111(d) implementing regulations in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the federal plan. The EPA is not taking final action now on this issue or 

the related change to the implementing regulations.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

To supplement to federal enforceability, commenters stated that corrective measures are 

necessary to ensure that plan deficiencies are fixed swiftly and soon after they occur. The 

commenters expressed concern, however, that EPA underestimates the full value of corrective 

measures. The commenters noted under the proposed rule, "self-correcting" plans need not 

include corrective measures. The commenters noted that the EPA in the proposal described selfcorrecting plans as those which "would assure interim performance and full achievement of the 

state plan's required level of emission performance through requirements that are enforceable 

against affected EGUs." 79 FR 34907. However, the commenters noted that just because an 

emission standard in a state plan may be enforceable against affected EGUs does not mean that 

violations of the standard will actually be enforced in a way that assures the state plan's emission 

performance goals are achieved (e.g., an enforcement action may result only in civil penalties 

and not in reductions in future emissions from an EGU). In that case, the commenters noted that 

the excess emissions from the violating EGU may throw the state off course from achieving a 

performance goal. The commenters stated that future year requirements for affected EGUs in the 

state plan may need to be adjusted to correct this deviation, and such adjustments are 

functionally no different than the corrective measures EPA has proposed for any plans that are 

not self-correcting. 

Comment 13: Some commenters indicated that section 111(d) does not authorize or require state 

plans to include corrective measures.

Response 13: We disagree with the commenters that because section 111(d) does not contain 

explicit provisions regarding corrective measures, the EPA is not authorized to require them. See 

section VIII.F.3.a of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

We also disagree that EPA lacks authority to set the trigger at a particular percentage. As 

detailed in the legal memorandum, section 111(d) is silent on the issue of a trigger and the 

percentage that should be used for it. There is therefore a gap in section 111(d) that EPA may 

reasonably fill. It is reasonable to set a trigger percentage at ten per cent that applies across all 

state plans, for several reasons. First, as explained in the legal memorandum, the doctrine of 

administrative convenience allows EPA to set bright-line rules. It would be difficult for EPA to 

administer state plans during the approval process if each state had freedom to set its own 

percentage, especially in the absence of a standard by which evaluate a state’s particular 

percentage. We note that the commenters does not provide any standard, but just suggests that 

states have complete flexibility to choose. This is unworkable. It would lead to inconsistent 

outcomes between EPA actions on state plans, which would be arbitrary and capricious. EPA 

must have some standard by which to judge whether a plan is satisfactory, and EPA is entitled to 
268

set a bright-line test so long as the line that is drawn is reasonable. It is reasonable to use a 

percentage as a trigger, because an absolute value would in essence penalize states with more 

affected EGUs as compared with states with less affected EGUs.

The agency’s rationale for choosing the level of 10 percent for the trigger value for corrective 

measures and backstop requirements for interim step 1 and step 2 is described in section VIII.F.3 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that EPA requested comment on whether state plans should be considered 

"self-correcting," which is described as a plan that includes measures or actions (e.g., emission 

limits that apply to affected EGUs and ensure full plan performance) that take effect 

automatically if the plan's required emission performance level is not met by a specified 

milestone. The commenters noted that EPA alternatively requested 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 commenters stated that if BSER is properly applied, 

only "achievable" emissions reductions can be a part of it. Accordingly, the commenters argued 

that there should not be a need for the plan to include corrective measures that automatically take 

effect if a goal is not met. The commenters stated that failure of a source to meet BSER would be 

a violation and should be handled as an enforcement action. The commenters stated that there is 

no authorization in section 111(d) to deviate from the CAA's enforcement scheme by providing 

anticipatory corrective measures in a state plan. The commenters noted that existing state 

enforcement mechanisms that EPA has recognized to be sufficient to support federal 

enforcement are already in place in most states to deal with non-compliance issues.

Commenters noted that EPA proposes that state plans must be either "self-correcting" or contain 

milestones, periodic checks, and corrective measures. The commenters stated the Proposed 

Guidelines do not provide in-depth discussion of what EPA is considering, apart from the 

suggestion that corrective measures that are included in a state plan should be triggered by a 10

percent deviation from projected performance, and corrective measures that would be included in 

a plan amendment to be submitted after such a deviation should be triggered by an eight percent 

deviation from projected performance. The commenters stated that EPA is free to make these 

policy suggestions to the states, but nothing in section 111(d) authorizes the Agency to 

micromanage these policy choices.

Comment 14: Regarding failure to meet an interim or final plan goal, commenters stated that 

EPA does not have the authority to specify requirements for contingency measures or 

consequences beyond those identified in Section 111(d)(2). 

Response 14: We disagree with the commenters that the EPA does not have the authority to 

specify requirements for contingency measures or consequences. EPA has the authority to 

specify requirements for contingency measures under section 111(d)(1). The commenters’ 

citation to section 111(d)(2) is beside the point. Section 111(d)(2) specifies EPA’s authority in 

two circumstances – when a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, and when a state fails to 
269

enforce the plan. Neither of these is the same circumstance as when a state submits a satisfactory 

plan, EPA approves it, and the state implements and enforces it, yet the plan, for reasons such as 

unpredicted changes in the distribution of power generation, fails to achieve the rates or goals. 

To take into account that possibility, EPA has the authority (as described in the preamble in 

section VIII.F.3.a and detailed in the legal memorandum) under 111(d)(1) to require corrective 

measures. Thus, the commenters’ citation to 111(d)(2) is not relevant.

In addition, we asked for comment on whether EPA should require corrective measures to be 

already adopted in the plan submittal and ready to take effect on triggering, or whether states 

should instead be given the opportunity to revise their plans to address the deficiency that lead to 

the failure to achieve the rates or goal. Because deficiencies may result from a variety of 

problems, EPA has decided that the latter should be the case – in other words, once corrective 

measures have been triggered, states should have a reasonable amount of time to submit a plan 

revision that addresses the deficiency. However, if a state is able to promulgate a corrective 

measure that can in advance account for deficiencies and submit that corrective measure as part 

of the plan, EPA will consider that satisfactory as well. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters noted that the EPA is seeking comment on what consequences, apparently in 

addition to contingency measures, should be imposed in the event of plan failure. The 

commenters noted that specifically, the EPA states they believe the emission guidelines should 

specify the consequences and requests comment on "how the consequences should vary 

depending on the reasons for a deficiency." The commenters disagreed, questioning EPA's 

authority to specify requirements for contingency measures.

Comment 15: Commenters opposed inclusion of a requirement "to achieve additional emission

reductions to offset any emission performance deficiency that occurred during a performance 

period for the interim or final goal" as a consequence for failing to meet a state goal. 

Response 15: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that requiring corrective measures for 

certain plan types imposes emission reduction requirements that are more stringent than the 

application of BSER. Please first see our description in section VIII.F.3.a of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for the legal basis for the requirement that corrective measures make up the 

shortfall. 

In addition, the commenters are mistaken in saying that requiring states to make up for the 

shortfall after their plan fails to achieve the rates or goals is, in essence, requiring better-thanBSER performance. If there is a shortfall, then in fact the plan has failed to achieve BSER to 

that point. Requiring the shortfall to be made up restores plan performance to BSER levels. It is 

reasonable for EPA to require that, over the long run, the plan perform at BSER levels.

In addition, the consequences for failing to achieve the rates or goals are not a policy decision 

left up to the states. (In essence, this is a form of an argument made by commenters on EPA’s 

1975 implementing regulations – that EPA has no authority to set any substantive standards 
270

under section 111(d) – set in the context of failure to achieve the goal. EPA rejected those 

arguments.) EPA has the authority to promulgate emission guidelines under which states submit

plans that establish standards of performance which achieve BSER. Thus, EPA has authority to 

ensure that the plans will in fact achieve BSER.

Regarding comments stating the difficulty of forecasting certain parameters, we have addressed 

any such concern by not requiring that corrective measures be adopted and ready to implement in 

advance of triggering. The states have flexibility to decide how to amend their plans to address 

the deficiency and to make up the shortfall. In addition, states have the flexibility to modify their 

plans at other times.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that attempting to impose emission reduction requirements more stringent 

than the application of BSER is inconsistent with the CAA. Commenters stated that the 

consequences of a failure to meet a state goal are policy decisions left to the states. 

Commenters stated that EPA does not have the authority to require reductions beyond BSER be 

implemented under any circumstance. The commenters stated that, on one hand, EPA stated that 

they desire to provide flexibility and allow states to develop their own glide path for reductions 

and then, on the other hand, EPA considered providing a strict regulatory framework for 

potentially requiring beyond-BSER reductions and requiring them in a specified time frame.

Commenters stated that developing a plan under this proposal would require significant 

assumptions about parameters that are very difficult to forecast. The commenters noted that the 

parameters being contemplated by EPA under this proposal are ones that key organizations that 

have worked in grid reliability, electricity forecasting, and EE/RE development have had limited 

success implementing with any degree of accuracy, but EPA is now asking states to take the 

reign. The commenters contended that there must be flexibility to understand that in a plan such 

as this, adjustments may be necessary in the future and that states need flexibility in determining 

when and how those adjustments are made.

Comment 16: Commenters argued that EPA's proposed contingency measures are beyond the 

Agency's authority under Section 111(d) and not even necessary. 

Response 16: Regarding commenters’ general assertion (referencing partial and conditional 

approval), we generally disagree with comments that the EPA lacks authority to adopt 

mechanisms from section 110 into section 111(d) emission guidelines. Please see the discussion 

in section VIII.E.9 of the final rule preamble of the CPP, and in the legal memorandum of the 

phrase “procedure similar to that under section 110 of the Act.” We also disagree that the EPA 

necessarily cannot adopt as a requirement for a state section 111(d) plan any substantive 

requirement that is similar to a substantive requirement elsewhere in the Act (in this particular 

case, corrective measures for section 111(d) state plans as compared to contingency measures in 

SIPs under part D of title I). As explained in section VIII.D.2.d.(1) of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and in the legal memorandum, although a substantive requirement elsewhere in the Act 

does not provide direct legal authority to the EPA to create a similar requirement under section 
271

111(d)(1), if the substantive requirement makes sense in the context of a gap in section 111(d)(1) 

that EPA must fill, it may be reasonable for the EPA to fill that gap with a similar requirement. 

We disagree that the EPA’s requirement for corrective measures is precisely the same as 

contingency measure requirements for SIPs under part D of title I. As explained in section 

VIII.E.9 of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the legal memorandum, corrective measures 

are different in two respects: 1) unlike contingency measures, corrective measures do not need 

to be adopted as part of the plan at time of submittal; and 2) corrective measures are expected to 

achieve the rates or goals, unlike part D contingency measures which are tied to reasonable 

further progress and are not expected to bring an area into attainment. 

With respect to the time needed for adoption of corrective measures, we have selected a 

reasonable timeframe that allows for state processes to take place. We did not state that it was 

necessarily the case that states would have to go through legislative or rulemaking processes to 

adopt corrective measures, although that is a possibility. 

The commenters are correct that previous section 111(d) emission guidelines and the 1975 

implementing regulations have not required corrective measures. However, none of those 

actions addressed whether the EPA has authority to require corrective measures for the types of 

state plans that we are allowing in these guidelines. Thus, the previous actions are irrelevant on 

this issue. The issue is whether the statute is ambiguous or silent on the topic, and if so whether 

the EPA’s interpretation is reasonable. As discussed in section VIII.F.3.a of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP, and in the legal memorandum, the phrase “provide for implementation and 

enforcement” is silent on this topic, and therefore there is a gap that EPA may reasonably fill. 

Thus, we disagree with the comment that the EPA lacks authority to require corrective measures. 

Regarding the commenters’ reference to section 111(d)(2), the EPA has the authority to specify 

requirements for contingency measures under section 111(d)(1). The commenters’ citation to 

section 111(d)(2) is beside the point. Section 111(d)(2) specifies the EPA’s authority in two 

circumstances – when a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, and when a state fails to enforce 

the plan. Neither of these is the same circumstance as when a state submits a satisfactory plan, 

the EPA approves it, and the state implements and enforces it, yet the plan, for reasons such as 

unpredicted changes in the distribution of power generation, fails to achieve the rates or goals. 

To take into account that possibility, the EPA has the authority (as described in the preamble in 

section VIII.F.3.a and detailed in the legal memorandum) under 111(d)(1) to require corrective 

measures. Thus, the commenters’ citation to 111(d)(2) is not relevant.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters noted that the EPA proposed to require corrective measures be implemented as 

expeditiously as practical if a state is not within 10 percent of the performance projected during 

interim period performance checks. The commenters noted that the EPA is proposing to give 

states a choice regarding when to adopt into regulation the corrective measures that the state plan 

identifies for implementation in the event that state plan performance is deficient: either adopting 

prior to plan submittal in a manner that enables a state to implement the measures 

administratively without further legislation/rulemaking, or adopting after the deficiency is 

discovered. However, the commenters noted that EPA proposes that if the latter is chosen, then 
272

contingency measures would be required when a state is not within 8% of the performance 

projected where the purpose "is to identify a gradually developing deficiency in plan 

performance earlier in time...legislative and/or regulatory action...will take significant time." The 

commenters argued that this proposed rule is very similar to the structure of Section 110 SIP 

requirements, which exceeds EPA's authority under Section 111(d) with respect to partial and 

conditional approval. 

First, the commenters stated that they were not under the impression that all requirements a state 

elects for their Section 111(d) plan would necessitate each element be implemented through 

legislation or rulemaking (e.g., taking credit for certain EE or RE programs). Therefore, the 

commenters stated that it should not be necessary that any contingency measures require 

adoption into legislation or regulation as would be expected under a Section 110 SIP.

Second, the commenters disagreed that contingency measures are even necessary. The 

commenters stated that no other Section 111(d) plan has yet to ever require contingency 

measures. The commenters argued that section 111(d) plans are not Section 110 SIPs and the 

EPA does not have the authority to impose Section 110 SIP requirements on states under this 

rule. The commenters disagreed with EPA's statement that Section 111(d) is not specific on the 

point of consequences when actual emission performance under a plan is not met. The 

commenters noted that section 111(d)(2) specifies the EPA's authority in cases where a state fails 

to submit a satisfactory plan or to enforce the provisions of a plan. The commenters stated that it 

is evident the CAA did not contemplate contingency measures would be necessitated under 

Section 111(d) as under Section 110.

Comment 17: Comments related to whether state plans should contain mechanisms to correct 

automatically for shortfalls.

Response 17: We agree with the commenters that remedies are needed in the event that a state 

plan does not achieve the required level of emission performance. We disagree that state plans 

must necessarily be structured to correct automatically for shortfalls, although a state may submit 

such a plan. While the commenters’ recommendation may be one way to address shortfalls, we 

are taking a different approach. For the state measures plan type, we are requiring that the state 

either (1) design its federally enforceable backstop requirements for EGUs to adjust to eliminate 

any shortfall from a prior performance period, or (2) submit a plan revision to address the 

shortfall. For the emission standards plan type, if the plan does not mathematically assure that 

the required level is met if EGUs fully comply with their federally enforceable standards, the 

plan must require corrective measures and making up the shortfall. As explained in the Legal 

Memorandum, where there is a gap in the statute to fill, and there are multiple possible solutions 

to filling the gap, EPA may pick a particular one so long as it is reasonable. In this case, EPA’s 

solution is reasonable, as it addresses the issue of shortfall without requiring states to identify in 

advance all the possible reasons for a deficiency and address them through already adopted 

corrective measures.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
273

Commenters suggested that states should have some flexibility to achieve emissions reductions 

over a multi-year period, but the schedule should ensure that emissions reductions are achieved 

as soon as possible and that state plans contain mechanisms to automatically correct for 

shortfalls. 

Comment 18: Comments supporting an approach that includes plan revision requirements that 

are triggered if a state fails to achieve its interim goal (within a reasonable margin) and after a 

reasonable time for implementation.

Response 18: We agree with the commenters’ general support for the approach of a plan 

revision as a corrective measure, and with the two reasons given for it: taking advantage of the 

latest technological developments, and allowing states to take into account their current 

circumstances. We disagree with the commenters that emission reducing activities that are 

planned, imminent, or “in the works” should be taken into account in determining whether the 

obligation for corrective measures is triggered. Such activities are presumably not yet accounted 

for in the state plan and have not been submitted to EPA for approval. Thus, even absent the 

trigger, the state has a pending obligation to provide a revised demonstration and/or revise other 

provisions in the state plan to reflect these planned activities. So, even in the circumstances 

described by the commenters, it is reasonable for EPA to require a plan revision regardless of 

planned emission reduction activities.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the EPA proposed that states could elect to wait to adopt into regulation 

corrective measures identified in the plan until after a plan performance deficiency is discovered. 

The commenters stated that utilizing a plan revision approach versus implementation of 

predetermined corrective measures would allow the states to take advantage of the latest 

technological developments and to take into account the current circumstances facing the 

individual state.

Instead of corrective measures that automatically take effect, commenters supported an approach 

that includes plan revision requirements that are triggered if a state fails to achieve its interim 

goal (within a reasonable margin) and after a reasonable time for implementation. The 

commenters stated that any determination that a plan revision is necessary should include 

consideration of emission reducing activities or actions that are in the works or that are imminent 

so as to not require an unnecessary revision or implementation of unnecessary corrective 

measures. The commenters stated that any such plan revision requirements should allow a 

reasonable amount of time for the development and implementation of the revision.

Comment 19: Comments addressing the milestone approach and performance checks for the 

alternative 5-year performance period. 
274

Response 19: The EPA did not finalize the alternative five-year performance period referenced 

by the commenters. The other aspects of this comment are addressed later in this section (6.1.5)

of this document.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment 6:

Commenters noted that the EPA 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. The commenters recommended that states should 

be allowed the flexibility to propose milestone approaches and emission performance checks that 

are proportional and consistent with the compliance measures they adopt, including corrective 

action measures they propose to take in the event that performance departs from expectations. 

The commenters stated that significant energy elements such as transmission upgrades may take 

seven to 10 years to develop; corrective action that requires such elements must be triggered 

sufficiently far in advance to allow for their cost-effective and orderly implementation.

Comment 20: Comments arguing that states should be allowed the flexibility to propose 

milestone approaches and emission performance checks that are proportional and consistent with 

the compliance measures they adopt.

Response 20: We finalizing a requirement that emission standards plans include a requirement

for the state to enact and/or implement corrective measures if triggered. We are allowing states 

the flexibility to include in their plans provisions that will automatically take corrective action if 

the plan does not achieve the rates or goals; however, we are not requiring that. States may 

choose not to include specific provisions in their plans, but in the absence of approved provisions 

that are capable of automatically addressing the deficiency, the state will have to provide a plan 

revision to address the deficiency. 

In addition, as described in section 6.1.4 above, we are giving states flexibility in identifying 

milestones for the interim step 1, 2 and 3 periods. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment 21 (20):

Commenters addressed EPA's request for comment on whether the process for implementing 

corrective measures should include the adoption of new plan measures and subsequent 

resubmission of the plan to the EPA for review and approval, or whether the process should 

specify the implementation of measures that are already included in the approved plan in the 

event that the projected level of performance is not being achieved. 

The commenters argued that states should be allowed the flexibility to propose milestone 

approaches and emission performance checks that are proportional and consistent with the 

compliance measures they adopt, including corrective action they propose to take in the event 

that performance departs from expectations. The commenters stated that resubmission of State 

Plans and additional EPA approvals should not be required absent material modifications of 

plans.
275

Comment 21: Projected greenhouse gas emission performance data should be used to trigger 

adoption of corrective actions, including contingent new plan measures. Corrective action 

triggers should be proportional to the shortfall, and the timing should occur sufficiently far in 

advance to allow cost-effective implementation of measures needed to eliminate the shortfall and 

bring the plan into compliance.

Response 21: The agency believes that actual plan performance is a more reliable indicator than 

projected performance data for determining whether corrective measures are needed. The 

agency does not agree that the emission performance triggers used to determine when to take 

corrective measures should necessarily be proportional to the shortfall because state plans are 

required to achieve the EGU performance rates or statewide goals; failure to achieve the required 

level triggers consequences as described in Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. However, the agency agrees that the size of the shortfall is relevant in determining how to 

remedy the shortfall.

On timing, in the final rule, the EPA has modified the proposed requirements for state plan 

emission performance checks and reporting to balance two competing considerations: (1) our

desire to minimize the administrative workload for states, and (2) the need to promptly identify

deficient performance and initiate measures to remedy any significant emissions performance 

shortfall, to maximize chances that the state can meet its interim goal on time. In the final 

guidelines, the performance comparison and notification is required three times for the 8-year 

interim period, and every two years during the final goal period, rather than annually as 

proposed.

The agency recognizes that some measures take longer than others to implement. The EPA has 

designed the rule with long time horizons that provide flexibility for different types of emissions 

reducing measures in state plans, and enable states to consider ways to create incentives for both 

short-term and longer-term actions that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions cost effectively. 

States also are granted flexibility to modify their plans so that strategies can be modified over 

time. If a plan performance deficiency develops, however, the rule calls for expeditious 

remedies and for making up the shortfall as expeditiously as practicable because of the 

importance of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters addressed EPA's request for comment on the point at which corrective measures 

would be triggered, such as at the end of a multi-year plan performance period if emission 

performance is not met, or at specified interim stages within a multi-year plan performance 

period. Commenters also noted that the EPA requested 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 commenters stated that projected greenhouse gas emission performance data should be used 

to trigger adoption of corrective action, including contingent new plan measures. The 

commenters stated that triggers and timing should be proportional to the degree of shortfall and 

the nature of the corrective actions incorporated in the State Plans. The commenters stated that, 

as significant energy elements such as transmission upgrades may take 7 to 10 years to develop, 
276

corrective actions that require such elements must be triggered sufficiently far in advance to 

allow for their implementation.

The commenters stated that energy systems require, and regularly deploy, long-term planning for

reliability needs based on projected demand and supply scenarios. The commenters stated that 

greenhouse gas emission scenarios can be projected in advance consistent with energy system 

planning, allowing for orderly planning of corrective action and sufficient lead time for the most 

cost-effective and efficient solutions. The commenters stated that actual emission performance 

data may come too late to allow implementation of the most cost-effective corrective action or to 

optimize new or modified energy system elements that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 

in contrast, projected data used at the time that energy system elements are planned could allow 

the least-cost, most effective responses.

Comment 22: Comment supporting the EPA's proposal that a report and corrective measures 

would be required if actual emissions (or emissions rates) fall short of planned levels by more 

than 10 percent starting in 2022. Commenters supported different percentages in the actual 

emission performance that would need to exceed the level of emission performance specified in 

the statewide plan as the trigger for corrective actions or for submitting a revised plan, while 

other commenters did not agree with any of the percentages and could not support requiring 

contingency measures in a section 111(d) plan.

Response 22: The EPA is finalizing the proposed corrective measures trigger of 10 percent 

exceedance of the level of emission performance specified in the statewide plan during interim 

period step 1 and step 2 and the proposal that the corrective measures must make up for the 

shortfall. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

We are not finalizing a requirement that corrective measures be specified as part of the state plan 

submittal because the ability to tailor measures to the specific issues that arise would be more 

effective than corrective measures designed in advance. Instead, the final guidelines allow states 

to specify corrective measures once they are triggered. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The EPA notes the variety of commenters’ views as to the percentage that actual emission 

performance would need to exceed the level of emission performance specified in the statewide 

plan to trigger corrective measures, including support for the proposed trigger of a 10 percent 

exceedance and both a lower and a higher trigger. We have decided to finalize the level of the 

trigger at 10 percent. For the agency’s rationale, see Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP.

The EPA disagrees that the trigger for corrective measures should be higher than 10 percent 

because nature or mechanical failure can lead to variations of more than 10 percent. To address 

the possibility that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe stress on the 

electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a state plan may 

not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to reliability, 

we are finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to modify the emission standards 
277

for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See Sections VIII.F.3 and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

With respect to comments on year-to-year fluctuations in generation, generation mix and 

emissions, the EPA notes that the final guidelines contain multi-year performance periods. The 

agency also notes that states can take into account the potential for such fluctuations in designing 

their plans to ensure that emissions performance will meet the EGU performance rates or state 

goals. As just noted, we also are finalizing a reliability safety valve that is available under certain 

circumstances. 

In response to a commenters who said two-year periods would be too short a sample period for 

determining whether corrective action is needed during the interim period, the EPA notes that 

this comment is addressed by the fact that the final rule calls for 3-year emission checks for 

interim step 1 and interim step 2, and for an 8-year emission check at the end of the interim 

period. 

The EPA agrees with commenters that the ability to develop measures necessary to address 

specific issues that arise would be more effective than binding a state to corrective measures 

designed in advance. For this reason, the final guidelines do not require states to include specific 

corrective measures in their state plan submittals and instead allow states to specify corrective 

measures once triggered. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

Regarding commenters’ suggestion that the final rule allow states to update their plan during the 

interim period, the final guidelines permit certain plan modifications. See Section VIII.E.7 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Many commenters expressed views on the appropriate trigger for requiring a state to implement 

corrective measures.

Commenters noted that EPA requested comment "for plans with corrective measures adopted 

into regulation prior to complete plan submittal..." "whether actual emission performance 

inferior to projected performance by ten percent...is the appropriate trigger for requiring a state 

to report the reasons for deficient performance and to implement corrective measures. We are 

also soliciting comment on the range of five to fifteen percent." 

Commenters supported the EPA's proposal that a report and corrective measures would be 

required if actual emissions (or emissions rates) fall short of planned levels by more than 10 

percent starting in 2022. The commenters supported requiring additional actions and a modified 

compliance plan to make up for the emissions performance deficiency if a state fails to meet its 

interim or final goals. Similarly, the commenters supported the proposal that state 

implementation plans include contingencies if the enforceable emissions limits on EGUs do not 

achieve the required emissions performance level.

Commenters supported the approach that has been applied in the Acid Rain Program, and 

suggested that states be required to go above and beyond, to achieve additional emission 

reductions to offset any deficiency during a performance period.
278

Some commenters recommended that the appropriate trigger level for a revised plan be 10 

percent, while other commenters did not agree with any of the percentages and could not support 

requiring contingency measures in a section 111(d) plan.

Commenters recommended that states should be required to implement corrective measures if 

actual emission performance is inferior to the projected performance by eight percent or more, as 

proposed. According to the commenters, a lower percentage would allow even earlier 

identification of a trajectory that is falling short of targets. The commenters noted that State 

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. 

The commenters stated that this allows for a faster and more efficient approach and ensures 

compliance by the target date. The commenters stated that a higher percent emission 

performance deviation trigger is appropriate when corrective measures are adopted into 

regulation prior to complete plan submittal.

Commenters stated that the trigger for corrective measures must be set low enough to assure 

compliance. The commenters noted that although the agency has proposed a 10 percent 

deficiency as the trigger for corrective measures, it has solicited comment on a range of values, 

suggesting that 5 to 15 percent may be appropriate for states with corrective measures adopted 

into their regulations and 5 to 10 percent for states without codified measures. According to the 

commenters, because many states are unlikely to adopt plans that over-comply with EPA's goals, 

it is important to keep states as close as possible to the emission reduction trajectory laid out in 

their implementation plans. The commenters noted that even a five percent deficiency may prove 

impossible to overcome without additional plan measures to make up the deficit in subsequent 

years. 

Similarly, commenters stated that the EPA should set the trigger for requiring corrective 

measures by a state at higher than the proposed 10 percent limit for annual deficient 

performance. The commenters stated that Montana's output from affected utilities has varied by 

more than 20 percent in recent years because of a maintenance shutdown at one of the large coalfired generating units in one year and a large hydro runoff event in another year. The 

commenters stated that nature (e.g. weather patterns) or mechanical failure can lead to natural 

variations greater than 10 percent from what was expected, and that such events should not 

trigger the implementation of corrective measures.

Likewise, the commenters argued that the proposed alternative of an 8 percent limit on a state's 

deficient performance is too low of a trigger point. The commenters suggested that the final 2030 

goal should be the most important target; how states reach that goal is less important. The 

commenters recognized that corrective action measures are important but requested the final rule 

provide for states to update their plan during the interim period as conditions and earlier 

assumptions change.

Commenters stated that corrective measures should not be required unless a state is more than 10

percent above its average emission goal in any year after year 5 of the interim 10-year period.
279

If EPA chooses to keep the interim goal, commenters recommended that states show compliance 

with plan projections within a higher percentage, such as 30%, during the early years and 

narrowing to 10 percent closer to 2029. 

Commenters stated that the EPA's 10 percent trigger seems arbitrarily low. The commenters 

stated that failing to meet a milestone within 10 percent seems highly likely, which according to 

the EPA, will require the state to take corrective measures. The commenters stated that, if a 

trigger is determined to be necessary, a twenty-five percent trigger for corrective measures is 

more reasonable than the 10 percent trigger, and would allow for unforeseen considerations and 

fluctuations in emissions. The commenters stated that a trigger for corrective measures should 

only be required if it is highly likely that the final 2030 goal will not be met and that’s an 

emissions exceedance of 10 percent of the milestone is not indicative that a state will fail to 

achieve its 2030 goal.

However, in choosing to adopt this method, commenters noted that the EPA proposes that the 

trigger for corrective measures be based on actual emission performance that is "inferior to 

projected performance by eight percent." The commenters noted that the EPA provides that an 

eight percent trigger is justified to identify a gradually developing deficiency earlier in time, and 

account for the lengthy period for states to adopt legislative and/or regulatory action. The 

commenters stated that a trigger based on actual emissions is preferred over the alternative; 

however, the commenters stated that an eight percent threshold is too low. The commenters 

stated that the ability to develop measures necessary to address specific issues that arise would 

be more effective than binding a state to corrective measures designed in advance and may not 

truly address the issue causing a state to not achieve its emission targets. Additionally, the 

commenters stated that even with the option to tailor corrective measures after an issue is 

identified, an eight percent trigger is not indicative that a state will fail to meet its 2030 goal and 

warrant corrective actions.

Commenters noted that under proposed 40 CFR 60.5815(b), the EPA proposes a 10 percent 

trigger for corrective actions, based on the biennial reports. Commenters stated that these 

biennial reports would provide too small of a sample size and would not warrant the automatic 

triggering of corrective measures.

Comment 23: Comments stating that the EPA should clarify that contractual requirements for 

Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) projects to guarantee equipment performance

could be satisfactory corrective measures.

Response 23: The final guidelines call for certain types of plans to provide for corrective 

measures in the event of an emission performance deficiency over the interim period or during 

any final reporting period, or a performance deficiency of 10 percent or more during interim step 

1 or 2. The EPA expects that corrective measures could be designed to remedy a problem 

causing the performance deficiency and/or add additional measures to the plan to increase the 

emissions reductions the plan will achieve. Although the agency is making no determination in 

this rulemaking about particular corrective measures, the final guidelines do make qualifying 

energy efficiency measures eligible to be included in state plans. In the event of a state plan 
280

deficiency leading to state submission of corrective measures, the EPA will make judgments 

about whether a state’s proposed corrective measures are sufficient and consistent with these 

guidelines. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA should clarify that contractual requirements for Energy Savings 

Performance Contract (ESPC) projects to guarantee equipment performance - such as are 

commonly included in ESPC projects - could be satisfactory and appropriate corrective measures 

for CPP purposes.

Comment 24: Comment suggesting that the EPA should strive to avoid exercising its section 

111(d) authority to enforce a federal plan, and that the EPA does not have the authority to require 

or enforce renewable energy standards, customer energy efficiency programs or other clean 

energy programs.

Response 24: The EPA has been encouraging states, and will continue to encourage states, to 

adopt and implement effective plans under section 111(d). The EPA views the federal plan as a 

backstop in the event a state fails to fulfill its obligations under the law to submit a satisfactory 

plan. The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

For the purpose of responding to this comment EPA will assume the commenters, by using the 

word “enforce,” were referring to EPA’s authority to enforce an approved state plan under 

section 111(d)(2)(B), and by using the word “implement,” was referring to EPA’s authority to 

promulgate a federal plan under section 111(d)(2)(A). With respect to EPA’s authority to 

promulgate a federal plan, we are not doing so in these emission guidelines. Thus, we do not 

need to respond to the comment about the scope of EPA’s authority to promulgate and 

implement a federal plan. 

With respect to the commenters’ concerns that EPA is requiring corrective measures for certain 

types of plans that EPA is offering as alternatives to adopting the uniform rates, we note that 

plans may fail to achieve the rates or goals for reasons outside of a state’s control. For example, 

actual power generation may differ from what the state projected. This scenario is not the result 

of a state’s failure to enforce its plan and therefore is not the type of situation that would trigger 

EPA’s authority under section 111(d)(2) to enforce the state’s plan. The EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the final guidelines should allow for multi-year averaging periods; use an 

exceedance threshold as an early warning measure if states are off-target; and work with states to 

revise plans with additional reduction measures to achieve the final target. See Section VIII.F.3 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

In a March 2014 comment resubmitted following proposal, commenters suggested that the EPA 

should strive to avoid exercising its 111(d) authority to enforce a federal plan and work to 
281

encourage states to implement their approved plans effectively. The commenters suggested that 

EPA should allow for a multi-year (e.g., 3 to 5-year) compliance period; use an exceedance 

threshold as an early warning measure if states are off-target; and work with states to revise plans 

with additional reduction measures to achieve the final target. 

As authorized by Section 111(d), the commenters stated, EPA may exercise its authority to 

implement a federal plan if a state refuses to enforce its approved plan. However, the 

commenters stated that EPA must recognize the limits of its authority in implementing such a 

federal plan. The commenters stated that, most importantly, the EPA does not have the authority 

to require or enforce renewable energy standards, customer energy efficiency programs or other 

clean energy programs; only states and their economic regulators are in a position to address 

such measures. The commenters stated that the EPA should do what it has clear authority to do: 

regulate power plants subject to Section 111(d).

Comment 25: Comments recommending, for state plans that are not self-correcting, that the 

EPA leverage its experience with contingency measures in state attainment plans under CAA 

section 110 to develop and administer the corrective measures of the CPP.

Response 25: The EPA considered requiring state plans to include pre-adopted contingency 

measures, but did not select that approach. Because plan performance deficiencies may result 

from a variety of problems, for emission standards plans that do not mathematically ensure that 

the required state plan performance level will be met if affected EGUs comply with their 

federally enforceable emission standards, regardless of the amount of generation or generation 

mix, EPA decided that once corrective measures have been triggered, states should have a 

reasonable amount of time to submit a plan revision that considers the reasons for the deficiency 

and the amount of emission reduction shortfall, and addresses the deficiency. Also, based on past 

experience, we anticipate that some states may find it difficult, in developing plans to meet their 

goals, to adopt simultaneously special contingency programs that would take effect only in the 

event the plan proves insufficient. However, states are given the option of including adopted 

corrective measures in their original plan submissions. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

We disagree with the commenters’ general characterization of contingency measures as 

providing a means for a state to reach compliance. Under EPA’s interpretation of the general 

contingency measure provision in section 172(c)(9), states are not expected to adopt and submit 

measures that will fully bring the area into attainment; however the measures are expected to be 

fully adopted and ready to implement when submitted as part of an attainment plan. As 

described in section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP, corrective measures under 

these guidelines are not expected to be fully adopted and ready to implement when the plan is 

submitted, but they are expected to bring the state into compliance by fully addressing the 

deficiency in the state plan so that the rates or goals are achieved and the shortfall is made up. 

While the commenters’ suggestion may be one approach that would be permissible under section 

111(d), when there are multiple ways in which a gap in the statute can be filled, EPA is entitled 

to pick one so long as it is reasonable. EPA’s choice of corrective measures that are dissimilar to 

part D contingency measures is reasonable. 
282

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

For state plans that are not self-correcting, commenters recommended that EPA leverage its 

experience with contingency measures in state attainment plans under CAA Section 110 to 

develop and administer the corrective measures of the CPP. According to the commenters, 

contingency measures in attainment planning serve the same purpose as corrective measures in 

the CPP in that they provide a means for the state to reach compliance if the implemented 

required measures fail to achieve attainment or make reasonably further progress towards 

attainment by the applicable date. The commenters noted that EPA has approved a number of 

different approaches to contingency depending on the specific circumstances of a state. The 

commenters recommended that EPA allow for such flexibility in the final CPP corrective 

measures provisions, to the extent that flexibility does not interfere with timely goal 

achievement. The commenters indicated that corrective measure requirements should not be so 

loose as to allow a state that fails to meet its goal to continue business as usual for the affected 

sources. The commenters stated that EPA's policies and practices for reasonable further progress 

and attainment demonstrations under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA (as they relate to 

ozone nonattainment areas) provide a practical approach to state compliance with the CPP goals.

Comment 26: Comments suggesting that the final guidelines adopt an expansive definition of 

corrective measures that includes methane reductions achieved by gas distribution companies.

Response 26: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that out-of-sector offsets such as 

reductions in methane emissions from natural gas LDC facilities may be counted toward meeting 

a CO2 emission performance level for affected EGUs or a state CO2 goal, because out-of-sector 

offsets are not connected to the electrical grid and so cannot reliably address 

stack CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. See Sections V.B.3.c and VIII.K.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. Any corrective measures would be adopted as part of the state plan and 

therefore must conform to the same limitations as the rest of the plan. See Section VIII.F.3 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP. 

We disagree with the commenters that there is a nexus between natural gas LDC facilities and 

affected EGUs such that reductions in methane emissions from LDC facilities are not out-ofsector. However, state plans (including potential corrective measures) may accommodate 

emission budget trading programs that may include out-of-sector GHG offsets, which we are 

finalizing as an option under the state measures plan type. See Sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.J.2.d 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that the final guidelines adopt an expansive definition of 

corrective measures that includes methane reductions achieved by gas distribution companies. 

The commenters stated that the proposed guidelines provide that, unless a state compliance plan 

has "self-correcting" measures, the plan must specify "corrective actions" (sometimes referred to 

in the guidelines as "corrective measures"). See proposed 40 C.F.R. Section 60.5815(b), 79 FR 

34955. The commenters stated that under the guidelines, a state would be required to implement 
283

"corrective actions" during a compliance period if there was a discrepancy between the actual 

emissions performance of the state's affected EGUs and the projected performance under the 

plan. The commenters stated that if the plan specifies and authorizes the corrective actions up 

front---i.e., when the plan is submitted to EPA---then the corrective actions would have to be 

implemented if there was a discrepancy of 10 percent or more. The commenters noted that if the 

plan provides that the state will determine and adopt the corrective actions only after the 

discrepancy is identified, then the trigger would be 8 percent. See id.; see also 79 Fed. Reg. at 

34,907. The commenters stated that the proposed guidelines do not otherwise define or prescribe 

what types of measures could constitute a "corrective action." 

The commenters recommended that EPA allow states broad discretion to specify the types of 

abatement measures that can be "corrective actions." In particular, the commenters recommended 

that the Agency should allow such "corrective actions" to include quantifiable and verifiable 

reductions in methane emissions from natural gas LDC facilities. The commenters noted that 

methane is a recognized greenhouse gas, and gas LDCs around the country are carrying out 

innovative emission reduction projects. The commenters stated, for example, the Natural Gas 

Downstream Initiative involves five power companies (Consolidated Edison Company of New 

York, National Grid, Pacific Gas & Electric, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Xcel 

Energy) focusing on reducing methane leaks by encouraging programs that accelerate 

investments in infrastructure and promote outstanding operations, including modernizing their 

systems and utilizing next generation technologies.

The commenters stated that the proposed guidelines likely would not allow states to include LDC 

methane reduction projects as part of the foundational "enforceable emission reduction 

measures" in their plans because such projects do not directly affect the emissions performance 

of affected EGUs. See 79 FR 34910. However, the commenters stated that EPA notes that 

emission limits for affected EGUs that are included in state plans could include provisions that

provide the ability to use offsets for compliance. Id. The commenters stated that if EPA is willing 

to allow individual units to use offsets for compliance with emissions limits, it would be 

reasonable to provide states with similar flexibility by allowing them the broad discretion to 

specify LDC methane reductions, or other similar measures, as "corrective actions."

The commenters stated that it is important to recognize that corrective actions play a limited and 

contingent role in the achieving the proposed emission rate goals. The commenters stated that a 

state would implement a "corrective action" only if the state's EPA-approved compliance plan 

was not performing as both the state (and EPA) projected---despite full implementation of that 

plan.

However, according to the commenters, if state plans are not performing as projected, it would, 

by definition, mean that the state would have to look beyond the electric-sector measures that the 

state previously had included in its compliance plan because they were determined to be practical 

and cost-effective. The commenters stated that limiting the state's "corrective actions" only to 

further power-sector measures could mean forcing the state to adopt measures it had already 

rejected as too costly or as requiring other system changes that may take several years to 

implement. By contrast, the commenters noted that allowing already-achieved reductions in LDC 

methane emissions to count as "corrective actions" would provide a cost safety valve and could 

produce reductions immediately.
284

Furthermore, the commenters stated that it is important to recognize that in many states there is a 

nexus between LDC facilities and affected EGUs, where utilities are the common denominator. 

The commenters stated that the proposed guidelines already contemplate a major role for utilities 

as the entities that will carry out state compliance plans. The commenters stated that many of 

these same utilities also own natural gas distribution facilities and therefore can implement 

methane reduction projects. In other words, the commenters stated that allowing LDC methane 

reductions as "corrective actions" only implies broadening the scope of permissible measures to 

the entire utility sector; it does not imply opening the door to the entire universe of potential 

offsets from forests, farms or other sectors of the economy.

For the foregoing reasons, the commenters argued that the final guidelines should find that an 

approvable state compliance plan could define "corrective measures" to include verifiable LDC 

methane reductions. The commenters stated that such a finding would not deprive EPA of its 

authority to review and approve any state plan that included methane reductions as a corrective 

measure. Further, the commenters noted that EPA would retain the authority to review 

compliance reports that indicated that methane reduction corrective measures had been triggered 

and used.

Comment 27: The corrective measures provisions should be able to take into account 

extraordinary, uncontrollable natural events, extreme circumstances, or an energy emergency 

beyond the state’s control that could result in non-compliance with the projected performance 

targets.

Response 27: We agree with the commenters that the final emission guidelines should include a 

mechanism for states to approach EPA with requests to obtain short-term extensions or 

modifications due to extraordinary, uncontrollable events and guidance to the states on how they 

can account for such events. The EPA recognizes the possibility that certain circumstances 

beyond a state’s control or an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe stress on 

the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a state plan 

may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to 

reliability.

Therefore, we are finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to modify the 

emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. The reliability safety valve will 

allow such EGUs to operate under the modified emission standards rather than the emission 

standards specified in the relevant state plan for that time period (including an exceedance that 

would otherwise trigger corrective measures), while still requiring the CO2 emission 

performance rates or the state CO2 emission goal to be met. While use of the reliability safety 

valve would preclude an applicable event from triggering corrective measures during the safety 

valve period, the state must still make up for any emission reductions that were lost during the 

safety valve period. See Sections VIII.F.3 and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The final guidelines also permit certain plan modifications. See Section VIII.E.7 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.
285

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that corrective measures and other compliance and reporting mechanisms 

should be robust but take into account extraordinary, uncontrollable natural events or extreme 

circumstances. 

Commenters recommended specifying more clearly whether corrective measures will kick in if 

circumstances beyond the states control result in non-compliance with the projected performance 

(e.g., extreme weather events, low emitting EGU equipment failures, and natural gas supply 

issues).

Commenters stated, EPA should account for events beyond a state's control that could result in 

plan noncompliance. Commenters said, such events could include natural disasters, weather 

disruptions affecting fossil fuel utilization, and human-induced catastrophic events. Commenter 

said, the final rule should have provisions that exclude demonstrated emission increases resulting 

from exceptional events.

Commenters stated, EPA acknowledges that there are scenarios under which an approved state 

plan might fail to achieve a level of emission performance by affected EGUs that meets the state 

goal. Commenters said, EPA should account for events beyond a state's control, in the final rule, 

that could result in plan noncompliance.

Commenters stated, such events could include natural disasters, weather disruptions affecting 

fossil fuel utilization, and human-induced catastrophic events. Commenters said, the Cabinet 

urges EPA to include in the final rule provisions that emission increases resulting from 

exceptional events will be excluded from state compliance demonstrations. Commenters said, an 

example of such a measure currently in use can be found when EPA allows a waiver on the use 

of summer blend fuels in non-attainment areas due to unforeseen supply disruptions. 

Commenters requested that EPA include a provision in the rule to allow states to suspend state 

plan requirements in the event of an energy emergency. The commenters stated entities subject 

to enforceable requirements under the state plan would still be subject to potential private citizen 

lawsuits for non-compliance.

The commenters suggested that the compliance process include a mechanism for states to 

approach EPA with requests to obtain short-term extensions or modifications due to 

extraordinary, uncontrollable events. The commenters noted that such a mechanism could help 

EPA set and hold states accountable to tough targets rather than set less strict targets to 

accommodate extreme events. Moreover, the commenters recommended that EPA provide 

guidance to the states on how they can account for extraordinary and uncontrollable events that 

negatively impact compliance or a mechanism for a state to demonstrate emission rates above the 

state standard were due to unforeseeable and uncontrollable natural events. For example, the 

commenters suggested that EPA could expand the threshold for triggering corrective measures to 

a 15 percent difference in actual to projected performance, based on the three or five year 

averaging period described above. Alternatively, the commenters suggested that EPA could give 

states more time to respond and develop additional requirements or make plan modifications.
286

According to the commenters, for states like Washington that are dependent upon a hydroelectric 

system, droughts and the variance in seasonal snow runoff create dramatic annual shifts in the 

amount of hydropower available to the state. The commenters stated that in these situations the 

utility must ensure the reliability of the grid by running more generation from carbon emitting 

resources. The commenters did not suggest a broad-based escape path to avoid the reduction 

targets, but simply urged some flexibility in enforcement and time for corrective action as a 

complement to the setting of strict targets.

Commenters noted that the proposed rule requires that all state plans, including multi-state plans, 

identify enforcement measures for affected entities, and the commenters requested that states be 

allowed to make adjustments to address unforeseen events. Although the proposal asserts that it 

provides states with flexibility, the commenters stated that it does not provide any flexibility for 

addressing unanticipated changes and events that might occur after plan approval that will 

significantly impact the ability of the state to achieve its objectives under the plan. The 

commenters stated that such an occurrence should not automatically result in federal 

enforcement or subject an entity with a compliance obligation to citizen lawsuits. The 

commenters stated that the plan must be modified to allow states to make adjustments to their 

enforcement plans when they demonstrate a justifiable reason to alter the level of performance 

required under the approved plan.

Comment 28: Comments suggesting that the EPA should grant extensions of up to 5 years to 

applying states that demonstrate that they have been making good faith efforts to implement the 

guidelines and are on glide paths to compliance.

Response 28: We disagree with the commenters that the final emission guidelines should 

provide procedures for states to obtain extensions of up to five years to meet the final state goals. 

The EPA is providing numerous resources to help states develop state plans that will be able to 

achieve the EGU emissions performance rates or state goals by 2030, including a toolbox of 

decision support resources at: http://www2.epa.gov/ www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox. The 

state plan decision support section of the toolbox includes information to help states evaluate 

different approaches and measures they might consider as they initiate plan development. See 

Section VIII.H of the final rule preamble of the CPP. In addition to finalizing the emission 

guidelines, the EPA is proposing a model rule that may be adapted to serve as a model rule for 

emission standards under a state plan. The final guidelines also allow states to modify a state 

plan that needs revision, and includes measures to help states with approved state plans meet 

their CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals if they get off-track. See 

sections VIII.E.7 and VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

However, we recognize that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe stress on 

the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a state plan 

may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to 

reliability. We are therefore finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to modify 

the emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days, as described in the response to 

the previous comment and in sections VIII.F.3 and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.
287

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the proposed rule made no provision for states that are unable, despite 

best efforts, to meet the final emission reduction goals by the final compliance year. According 

to the commenters, the final emission guidelines should provide procedures under which states 

that have demonstrated their efforts to attain the emission reduction targets but have not achieved 

those targets by that deadline can request and obtain extensions of time within which to meet 

those targets. The commenters suggested that EPA should grant extensions of up to 5 years to 

applying states that demonstrate that they have been making good faith efforts to implement the 

guidelines and are on glide paths to compliance.

Comment 29: Comments recommending that no corrective measures be required so long as a 

State is reasonably close to its performance goal should the actual emissions only modestly 

exceed the performance goal without the influence of intervening unanticipated factors.

Response 29: The EPA recognizes that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a 

severe stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements 

in a state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable 

risk to reliability. We are therefore finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to 

modify the emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days while still requiring the 

CO2 emission performance rates or the state CO2 emission goal to be met. See Sections VIII.F.3 

and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The EPA disagrees with the commenters that corrective measures should not be required if a 

state plan fails to achieve the levels of performance required by the emission guidelines for the 8-

year interim period or the two-year final goal performance periods. These levels are the average 

or aggregate levels of emission performance that the EPA has determined reflect application of 

the BSER, and are not optional. Therefore, the EPA has determined that corrective measures – or 

in the case of state measures plans, federally enforceable backstop requirements for affected 

EGUs – should be required if a state plan fails to achieve those levels. States should adopt plans 

that are designed to ensure that the required emission performance levels will be fully achieved. 

The EPA notes that this position is consistent with the position that the agency proposed.

The EPA draws a distinction between the 8-year interim period and final goal emission 

performance requirements, which are levels that the agency defines as reflecting application of 

BSER under section 111(d), and the interim step 1, 2 and 3 performance levels, which define the 

state’s chosen emission reduction trajectory to meet the 8-year interim goal. The agency 

observes that the emission guidelines give states the ability to select their own emission 

reduction trajectory for the interim step 1 (2022-2024), step 2 (2025-2027) and step 3 (2028-

2029) period. The guidelines contain emission levels for interim steps, presented both in terms 

of emission performance rates for the two subcategories of affected EGUs and in terms of state 

goals, expressed both as a rate and as a mass. A state may adopt emission standards for its 

sources that are identical to these interim emission performance rates or, alternatively, adapt 

these steps to accommodate the timing of expected reductions, as long as the state’s interim goal 

is met over the eight-year period.
288

Accordingly, the EPA views the function of the step 1 and step 2 emission levels in the state plan 

as benchmarks that serve as check points to ascertain whether the state plan is on track to achieve 

the 8-year interim goal, and if not, to remedy that situation through – depending plan type --

corrective measures or implementation of federally enforceable backstop requirements for 

affected EGU. For interim step 1 and step 2, the agency is requiring state plans to trigger 

corrective measures or backstop provisions if actual emission performance is deficient by 10 

percent or more relative to the state plan’s specified levels of emission performance for the step 1 

and step 2 periods. The rationale for the 10 percent level is provided in section VIII.F.3 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The agency has determined that actual emissions performance that does not meet a state plan’s 

specified level for interim step 3 is not a basis for mandatory corrective measures or backstop 

requirements. The reasons for this decision is that if a state plan achieved better-than-planned 

emission performance during the interim step 1 and step 2 periods, actual emission performance 

during the step 3 period could fail to meet the step 3 level specified in the plan, yet the state plan 

could might still meet the EGU performance rates or state goal for the 8-year interim period. The 

emissions check due on July 1, 2030, compares actual emission performance with plan-specified 

emission performance levels for 2022-2029 and 2028-2029. As explained above, failure of the 

state plan to achieve the level required by the emission guidelines for 2022-2029 triggers 

corrective measure or backstop requirements. The function of the 2028-2029 emissions check is 

to provide the state, the EPA and the public with information on how recent emissions 

performance compares with emissions performance during the step 1 and step 2 periods. This 

data will show whether emission performance is recently improving or not, and by how much.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that the State or individual utility performance goal (as applicable) 

be adjusted accordingly with no penalty attached where actual emissions exceed the performance 

goal due to unanticipated circumstances such as economic conditions, severe weather, or 

necessary postponement of planned retirements. The commenters recommended that no 

corrective measures be required so long as a State is reasonably close to its performance goal 

should the actual emissions only modestly exceed the performance goal without the influence of 

intervening unanticipated factors.

Comment 30: Comments suggesting that EPA should provide a means by which states can be 

excused for missing the goals identified in their approved state plans if those goals are missed 

due to "exceptional events.” For similar reasons, a 3-year rolling average should apply for 

compliance prior to 2030 in the same way that it was proposed for compliance after 2030.

Response 30: We recognize that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe 

stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a 

state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk 

to reliability. We are therefore finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to 

modify the emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days as described in sections 

VIII.F.3 and VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP.
289

The final guidelines are responsive to the suggestion that the final guidelines should use multiyear periods for purposes of determining whether state goals are met. For state measures plans, 

the final guidelines require states to identify interim steps (interim step goal 1 for 2022-2024; 

interim step goal 2 for 2025-2027; interim step goal 3 for 2028-2029), and a final goal for twoyear performance periods in 2030 and beyond. See Section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The agency is finalizing discrete 2-year periods for the final goal performance periods to reflect 

the following considerations. Commenters suggested that rolling performance periods, which 

were proposed to allow for annual emission performance checks, be replaced by discrete periods 

to reduce the workload of administering the program for states. The agency has accepted that 

suggestion. Discrete periods of two years allow for checking plan performance every two years; 

discrete periods of three years would allow checking plan performance only every third year. 

The agency believes that 3-year periods are appropriate for interim step 1 and step 2 while states 

are initiating or ramping up their programs. For final goal performance periods, the agency 

believes that requiring checks and reporting on plan performance every two years, rather than 

every three years, better assures that emission performance consistent with the final EGU 

emission rates or state goal is being maintained through providing more frequent assessment of 

whether corrective measures or the backstop are needed. The two-year periods will help to 

smooth out year-to-year variability in emission performance.

States must demonstrate that affected EGUs achieved the final performance rates, or the state’s 

interim step goal or final goal, on average during each multi-year reporting period. The multiyear performance periods for measuring actual plan performance against the performance rates 

or state goals allow states some flexibility in light of year-to-year variation in seasonal operation 

of affected EGUs, and inclusion of RE and demand-side EE efforts. See Section VIII.F.2 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that EPA should provide a means by which states can be excused for 

missing the goals identified in their approved state plans if those goals are missed due to 

"exceptional events," including particularly unfavorable weather conditions that make 

compliance unduly difficult, threaten reliability, or result in unacceptable cost consequences for 

customers. 

The commenters stated that unusual weather can occur in any year and significantly alter the 

emissions profile of the electric sector in all regions of the country. The commenters stated that 

the vulnerability of the electricity system to the impacts of extreme weather events is especially 

pronounced in the Pacific Northwest, due to the hydropower system. The commenters stated that 

the EPA presumably understood the likelihood of weather variances resulting in unexpected 

emissions results, and accordingly proposed the 3-year rolling average for compliance after 

2030. The commenters recommended that a 3-year rolling average should also apply prior to 

2030. 

Commenters stated EPA should permit RGGI to keep its current 3-year block compliance period 

rather than a 3-year rolling compliance period, as long as the RGGI states can demonstrate that 
290

the program will achieve the required levels of stringency on the timeframe required in the final 

emission guideline. 

In addition to this rolling average, the commenters suggested that the EPA should provide an 

allowance for the impact on unusual or "exceptional" events that significantly interfere with a 

state's ability to achieve its emissions goals for reasons beyond the state's control. The 

commenters noted that current climate models predict, with significant confidence, changes in 

seasonal stream flow that would lower hydropower generation and increase fossil generation and 

emissions. The commenters noted that while state plans might be expected to take expected 

changes in weather events into account, unexpected, exceptional events, by their nature cannot 

be predicted or planned for. As a result, the commenters stated that the EPA should develop a 

compliance approach that acknowledges the impact that extreme weather events, such as a 

drought in the Pacific Northwest, could have on the electric system and emissions.

Commenters stated that a catastrophic event could occur such as the failure at a base-load 

generating plant. The commenters stated that in order to maintain grid reliability it could be 

necessary to increase fossil fuel electric generation to meet electricity demand. The commenters 

stated that such an occurrence does not lend itself well to contingency plans since by the time 

such measures would be implemented the catastrophic event may be corrected. The commenters 

noted that such an event occurred in 2003 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula when a 345 MW coalfired base-load plant was flooded due to the failure of a dam and went out of service for a period 

of time. The commenters stated that the power loss was shored up by the import of very large 

diesel generators and running other EGUs in the area as base-load plants. The commenters noted 

that an event such as a major storm could also affect wind farms or other types of facilities and a 

similar situation could occur. It is for this reason that the commenters recommended that EPA be 

flexible in defining a catastrophic event and be specific on how to address such possibilities 

within a state plan.

Comment 31: Comments suggested that EPA should not require states to implement corrective 

actions if they exceed projected emissions in a single year and arguing that if states are required 

to implement corrective actions immediately upon missing a single annual emission check, they 

may be forced to resort to more disruptive, short-term, expensive corrective measures.

Response 31: The EPA agrees that the test for whether state plan performance is off-track 

should not rely on a single year of data, and is finalizing multi-year plan performance periods.

See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

To address the possibility that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe stress 

on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a state plan 

may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to 

reliability, we are finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to modify the 

emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See Sections VIII.F.3 and 

VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
291

Commenters suggested that EPA should not require states to implement corrective actions if they 

exceed projected emissions in a single year. The commenters stated that like the Proposed Rule's 

assumptions that certain building blocks could be implemented all at once in 2020, EPA's 

proposed "corrective action" policy could also lead to severe implementation and reliability 

issues. The commenters stated that this requirement would severely limit utilities' and states' 

abilities to manage unexpected inter-annual fluctuations in the supply and demand of electricity. 

The commenters noted for example, in some states, it is possible that the outage of a single 

nuclear facility for several months, or the occurrence of an unexpectedly long or hot summer 

could lead emissions or emission rates to rise by 10 percent or more over a 1- or 2-year period. 

Similarly, the commenters noted that greater-than-expected economic growth could lead a state 

to temporarily exceed its own emission projections over a 2-year period. The commenters noted 

that states and utilities traditionally adjust to such events by engaging in long-term planning and 

by making prudent investments in generation and transmission. However, because planning, 

permitting, and constructing new generation, transmission, or pipeline infrastructure can take 

years, the commenters noted that states and utilities may not be able to address these unexpected 

changes in supply or demand within the timeframe of an annual emission check. The 

commenters noted that NERC estimates that new pipeline capacity requires a 3-5 year planning 

horizon, while new transmission typically requires a 10-15 year outlook. 

The commenters argued that if states are required to implement corrective actions immediately 

upon missing a single annual emission check, they may be forced to resort to more disruptive, 

short-term, expensive corrective measures. The commenters explained that requiring states to 

implement such potentially severe corrective actions to address single-year variations in 

emission performance could severely affect electric reliability and economic development in the 

state. According to the commenters, it would also conflict with EPA's sensible policy of granting 

states the flexibility to manage their emissions on a multi-year basis. The commenters stated that 

by requiring corrective actions any time a state fails its annual emission check, the Proposed 

Rule will severely limit states' and utilities' abilities to take responsible, long-term steps to adapt 

to unexpected changes in electricity markets in ways that make sense from a reliability and 

economic sense. According to the commenters, such a requirement is not necessary to achieve 

EPA's long-term emission reduction goals, and would introduce significant, unnecessary, and 

potentially costly constraints on states' and utilities' ability to manage the inevitable inter-annual 

fluctuations in electricity markets and emissions.

Comment 32: Comments related to corrective measures/contingency measures – Timing and 

process issues.

Response 32: The EPA agrees with commenters that giving states the choice either to include 

specific corrective measures in the state plan submittal or to wait until after a deficiency is

discovered gives states flexibility to better target the corrective measure to directly address the 

cause of the deficiency. For this reason, the final guidelines do not require states to include 

specific corrective measures in their state plan submittals and instead allow states to specify 

corrective measures once triggered. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.
292

We agree with commenters that the final guidelines should not make the implementation of 

corrective measures that states have already identified in their plans unenforceable, and we are 

giving states the option to include specific corrective measures in their state plan submittals. 

However, we disagree with the commenters that to effectively serve their intended purpose, all 

types of corrective measures must be actionable when a state submits its plan to EPA. We note 

that we are finalizing the option of a “state measures” plan type, which would include stateenforceable measures that may apply to affected EGUs and other entities. With a state measures 

approach, the plan must also include a specific backstop of federally enforceable standards on 

affected EGUs that fully meets the emission guidelines and that would be triggered if the plan 

failed to achieve on schedule the required emission reductions. See Section VIII.D.2.c of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP. For the “emissions standard” plan type, in which all measures are 

federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, however, we disagree that the balance 

between automatic deployment of corrective measures and the opportunity for states to tailor 

corrective measures to the specific circumstances argues for requiring specific corrective 

measures to be included in the state plan submittal. Instead, the final emission guidelines provide 

states with a 24-month period to submit a state plan revision containing corrective measures and 

a 6-month period to then implement the measures once approved by the EPA. See Section 

VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

A number of commenters expressed view on specific issues involving the timing of adoption of 

corrective action measures, the timing of implementation of corrective action measures, and the 

process for instituting corrective action measures.

Commenters supported EPA's proposal for corrective measures, which allows states a choice to 

either adopt corrective measures into the state plan or into regulations prior to submitting the 

plan, or wait until after a deficiency is discovered. The commenters noted the latter option gives 

states flexibility to better target the corrective measure to directly address the cause of the 

deficiency.

Some commenters disagreed that corrective measures should be adopted prior to complete plan 

submittal. Commenters argued that this would be a time consuming and needless diversion of 

limited resources.

Commenters stated that to effectively serve their intended purpose, corrective measures must be 

actionable when a state submits its plan to EPA. The commenters noted that the agency has 

proposed to leave to the states the decision whether to adopt corrective measures into their 

regulations prior to submittal, or whether to wait until after a deficiency is discovered before 

taking legislative or administrative action to codify the corrective measures in the plan. The 

commenters noted that the proposed rule offers that "it may be challenging for states to fully 

adopt corrective measures in advance to address the possibility that their plan will not perform 

as projected." 79 FR 34907. However, the commenters explained that even if states have 

difficulty identifying potential corrective measures, EPA has not identified what about the mere 

codification of those measures (in tandem with the adoption into state codes of other plan 

provisions) poses a special challenge. Furthermore, the commenters stated that the EPA 

recognizes that "[l]egislative and/or regulatory action to adopt corrective measures after a 
293

deficiency is discovered will take significant time." Id. The commenters stated that there is no 

reason to allow states to delay the adoption of corrective measures until after a deficiency occurs, 

or to make the implementation of corrective measures that states have already identified in their 

plans unenforceable. By analogy, the commenters noted that the Act requires SIPs for 

nonattainment areas to "provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken" if 

the area fails to make timely progress toward attainment of standards, and further requires that 

such measures "shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator." 42 U.S.C. 

7502(c)(9)(emphasis added). The commenters stated that the same sort of approach is warranted 

for the section 111(d) plans at issue here, if they are to ensure the "best system" of emission 

reductions. 

Comment 33: Comment stating that the EPA must establish a deadline for states to begin 

implementing corrective measures once their actual emissions or emission rate exceeds 

projections, and that the deadline for implementing corrective measures could be included by 

each state in the state plan rather than defined by EPA to accommodate differences in states' 

legislative and rulemaking timelines and processes.

Response 33: The EPA agrees that we must establish a deadline for states to begin 

implementing corrective measures once triggered, and we agree in part that this deadline could 

be included in each state’s plan. We are finalizing a requirement that a state that triggers 

corrective measures must notify the EPA of this triggering in its state report (which each state 

must submit no later than July 1 of the year following the end of each interim period or final 

period), and that the state then must submit a plan revision containing corrective measures to the 

EPA as expeditiously as practicable and within 24 months if the state plan does not already 

contain corrective measures to be enacted if triggered. The 24-month time period allows time to 

identify corrective measures and make rule changes through state regulatory processes. The state 

must implement corrective measures within 6 months of the EPA’s approval of a plan revision 

adding them. States may choose to include corrective measures (to be implemented if triggered) 

in their final plan or to include a deadline for implementing corrective measures submitted as a 

plan revision within 6 months after EPA approval of the modified plan, but not later. Because the 

EPA will take 6 to 12 months to approve the state submittal, the 6-month deadline for 

implementing corrective measures in practice gives states 12 to 18 months from the time of 

submittal. The agency believes that this time period is appropriate based on past experience with 

implementing a variety of programs.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA must establish a deadline for states to begin implementing 

corrective measures once their actual emissions or emission rate exceeds projections. According 

to the commenters, although the agency has not proposed such a deadline in the rule proposal, 

see 79 FR 34952 (proposed 40 CFR 60.5740(a)(7)(ii), requiring only that state plans include "a 

process and schedule for implementing such corrective measures"), it suggests that 2 years after 

a state reports a deficiency in its annual performance update may be a suitable deadline. 79 FR 

34912. The commenters noted that because states will likely have notice of the deficiency well in 
294

advance of the reporting date, an additional 2 years for implementing corrective measures is 

unnecessary and irrational. The commenters stated that the Act requires immediate triggering of 

contingency measures where nonattainment areas fail to meet progress targets, and there is no 

reasoned basis for allowed a more delayed approach under section 111 plans. The commenters 

noted that only the incremental corrective measures would need to be implemented anew, not the 

entirety of the plan. The commenters stated that any delay longer than 6 months would therefore 

be excessive for undertaking corrective action. 

Commenters stated that the deadline for implementing corrective measures could be included by 

each state in the state plan rather than defined by EPA to accommodate differences in states' 

legislative and rulemaking timelines and processes. 

Comment 34: Comments related to the criteria or “trigger” for correction action and the extent

of corrective action.

Response 34: The EPA has clarified requirements for corrective measures in the final guidelines, 

as suggested by commenters. For state plans subject to corrective measure or backstop 

requirements, EPA agrees with commenters that that a plan revision or backstop requirements 

must both ensure meeting plan emission performance requirements in the future and make up the 

past shortfall in emission reductions. Emissions reductions to make up the past shortfall must be 

achieved as expeditiously as practicable. As with the measures in original plan submissions, any 

revised or new emission reduction measures adopted through plan revisions must be quantifiable, 

verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, and enforceable, and are subject to monitoring and 

reporting requirements. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Under the final guidelines, the remedies for plan performance deficiencies vary depending on the 

type of state plan. The EPA is finalizing the option of a “state measures” plan type, which would 

include state-enforceable measures that may apply to affected EGUs and other entities. With a 

state measures approach, the plan must also include a specific backstop of federally enforceable 

standards on affected EGUs that fully meets the emission guidelines and that would be triggered 

if the plan failed to achieve on schedule the required emission reductions. Past shortfalls can be 

made up either through the design of the backstop EGU requirements or through a plan revision. 

See Section VIII.D.2.c of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the “emissions standard” plan 

type, in which all measures are federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, however, the 

guidelines provide states with 24 months to submit a state plan revision containing corrective 

measures and 6 months to then implement the measures once approved by the EPA. See Section 

VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The agency disagrees with the commenters that the final guidelines should require state plans to 

include fully adopted corrective measures, that the measures should be adequate to provide at 

least double the trigger deficiency, or that the plans should be required to include an additional 

menu of contingency measures that will be triggered progressively if the doubled trigger 

percentage is not sufficient to compensate for the full shortfall. The EPA has explained earlier in 

this RTC section (6.1.5) why it is not requiring state plans to include adopted contingency 

measures. The approach of requiring corrective measures to achieve at least double the corrective 
295

action trigger level would not work for all plan performance periods. The guidelines require 

state plans to fully achieve the 8-year interim performance level and the final goal performance 

levels; there is no percentage trigger for corrective measures or backstop in the event those levels 

are not achieved. Therefore, consistent with the commenters’ general concern, the EPA is 

adopting an approach to making up shortfalls that does not depend on the corrective measure 

trigger percentage. The backstop requirements or plan revision must make up the full amount of 

the shortfall, and must do so as expeditiously as practicable. See Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that corrective measures must be available to remedy plan deficiencies, but 

that the EPA has not specified any minimum requirements. 79 FR 34952 (proposed 40 CFR 

60.5740(a)(7)(ii)). The commenters noted that the agency also seeks comment on whether 

corrective measures must be sufficient to remediate deficiencies or merely to ensure the future 

achievement of the state's goals. See 79 FR 34908. The commenters stated, at a minimum, 

corrective measures must serve to fully remedy any shortfall in plan performance as measured 

over the 2-year period over which EPA will evaluate states' progress in meeting their goals. 

Therefore, the commenters stated that if EPA retains its proposed 10 percent deficiency as the 

trigger for corrective measures, states must develop corrective measures that achieve 

improvements in excess of 10 percent of their annual targets. Otherwise, the commenters stated 

that the corrective measures would not fully correct the deficiency that triggered them. To ensure 

the availability of sufficient corrective measures to avoid the need for a SIP call, the commenters 

suggested that the EPA should require state plans to include fully adopted corrective measures 

adequate to provide at least double the deficiency trigger percentage for each year of the plan, 

plus an additional menu of contingency measures that will be triggered progressively if the 

doubled trigger percentage is not sufficient to compensate for the full shortfall. 

The commenters stated that the EPA must also clarify that the criteria for corrective measures are 

as rigorous as those concerning plan measures that are not contingent on a deficiency (e.g., the 

effectiveness of the corrective measures selected for inclusion in the plan should be evaluated 

through the same process that states use for other plan projections: they must be quantifiable, 

verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, and enforceable). Additionally, the commenters stated 

that the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for corrective measures must be 

sufficient to assure compliance. 

Comment 35: Commenters supported the EPA's proposal requiring a report, outlining 

corrective measures, be submitted to EPA should a state's emissions (under a mass-based 

approach) or emissions rates fall short of projected levels by more than 10 percent starting in 

2022, and recommending that the EPA require interim reporting during the CPP's 2020-2030 

timeframe.

Response 35: We agree with the commenters that the final emission guidelines should require 

states to report triggering of corrective measures (or, under the state measures plan type, the 

backstop) and interim reporting during the interim period. See section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 
296

preamble of the CPP. The interim reporting period will begin in 2022 and contain interim step 

periods from 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029 for the reasons outlined in sections V.A.3.g

and VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported EPA's proposal requiring a report, outlining corrective measures, be 

submitted to EPA should a state's emissions (under a mass-based approach) or emissions rates 

fall short of projected levels by more than 10 percent starting in 2022. With regard to the 

frequency of reporting, the commenters suggested that a 10-year time period would be too long 

for compliance with interim goals and could lead states to forego near-term action, and, thus, 

create an over-reliance on actions at the end of the 10-year period. According to the commenters, 

such a risky strategy would create the possibility that states could fail to achieve compliance if 

they were unable to "make up" savings at the end of the compliance period, which could occur 

for any number of reasons. Therefore, the commenters and the joint energy efficiency 

stakeholders in their separate comments related to EM&V issues recommended that EPA require 

interim reporting during the CPP's 2020-2030 timeframe so that states can demonstrate their 

progress towards their stated energy efficiency goals and associated avoided emissions targets. 

The commenters recommended that such interim reporting be on a three-year basis (e.g., starting 

in 2022, 2025, 2028 and 2030). The commenters noted that this reporting cycle would be 

consistent with some state multi-year program planning cycles, and would also allow states to 

align their program impact evaluation cycles with such reporting as practicable.

Comment 36: Commenters stated that corrective measures can significantly reduce compliance 

problems, but only if EPA provides more detailed minimum requirements for such measures. 

Response 36: The final guidelines clarify requirements for corrective measures. See section 

VIII.F.3 of final rule preamble of the CPP, and responses to similar comments above in this RTC 

section (6.1.5), for EPA’s response to comments suggesting greater specificity on corrective 

measure requirements and greater transparency on causes of emission reduction shortfalls during 

a plan performance period. See Section 6.1.4 of this document for responses to similar comments 

on interim goals and glide path.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal to have states build corrective measures into their 

plans is an essential strategy for reducing the risk of non-compliance with the unusually long 

averaging times in the Clean Power Plan. The commenters stated that absent some mechanism 

for ensuring that states remain on track, the proposed 10-year compliance period creates the 

potential for a pile-up of violations in 2030, when a final determination of compliance with 

interim goals is made. The commenters stated that for EPA to wait until then to require the 

development of additional plan measures would unnecessarily delay emission reductions, and the 

need for states to incorporate remedial measures into their plans would only add to this delay. 

The commenters noted that failure to achieve projected emission performance in the early years 

of a state plan may also indicate structural problems with the plan (e.g., inaccurate modeling 
297

results) that could render compliance with the state goals impossible. Moreover, the commenters 

stated that there is a risk that many state plans will defer making the most significant cuts until 

the later years of the interim period because EPA proposes to allow states to define their own 

emission reduction trajectories between 2020 and 2029. The commenters stated that 

procrastination of this nature, together with any unaddressed failures to achieve the more modest 

early reductions, could lead to a critical shortage of available measures in the later years to 

ensure compliance with EPA's targets. 

The commenters stated that additional requirements for corrective measures are crucial if they 

are to be effective compliance tools. The commenters stated that the EPA must expand corrective 

measures to all plans, set minimum thresholds and standards for the adoption, activation, and 

implementation of these measures, and provide greater transparency in exposing the causes of 

any deficiencies in state plan performance.

6.1.6 Consequences if actual emission performance of a state plan does not meet state goal

Note: This section addresses comments on requirements for corrective measures in the event 

implementation of a state plan fails to achieve the state emission goal during any performance 

period. Note that the previous section includes comments on corrective measures in the event 

that the state plan does not meet its planned emission improvement trajectory during the interim 

period, comments on uncontrollable events that prevent a state from meeting its goal, and 

comments on corrective measures in general.

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: Comments stating that the consequences of failing to attain performance goals are 

not well defined, and requesting that EPA clarify the consequences and entities held liable under 

various state plan designs (i.e., fully enforceable plans, commitment plans, single state plans, full 

multi-state plans) if certain plan elements are not met.

Response 1: The final guidelines clarify the consequences in the event different types of state 

plans do not meet emission performance goals. For detailed discussion of the consequences if 

actual emission performance of a state plan does not meet the state goal, see Section VIII.F.3 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. This section discusses both emission standard plans and state 

measures plans, along with multi-state plans. 

In response to concerns about enforcement liability of affected entities, particularly if states are 

affected entities, the EPA notes that the final guidelines do not provide for portfolio approach 

plans or state commitment plans, so questions concerning consequences and entities held liable 

under those types of plans are now moot.

Under a state measures plan, only the emissions standards for affected EGU would be required to 

be federally enforceable. Any state-only enforceable requirements for other entities, potentially 
298

including the state, would not be subject to enforcement action under the Clean Air Act by the 

EPA or citizens. The state measures plan type must include a backstop of federally-enforceable 

measures on EGUs to be implemented if triggered. See Section VIII.C.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The final guidelines prohibit the EPA from applying sanctions to states whose emission 

performance does not meet the state goal. See section VIII.G.5 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

We agree with the commenters that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe 

stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a 

state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk 

to reliability, so we are finalizing a reliability safety valve that will allow a state to modify the 

emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See sections VIII.F.3 and 

VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

Additional general discussion of enforcement considerations is included in section VIII.D of the 

final CPP preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the consequences of failing to attain performance goals are not well 

defined. The commenters noted for example, unexpected or unavoidable circumstance such as a 

severe weather year or necessary unscheduled maintenance could result in failure to attain the 

goals. The commenters stated that whether these unavoidable circumstances lead to sanctions 

and/or a requirement to install additional generation or other infrastructure is unclear.

Commenters argued that EPA has been unclear about whom it would take enforcement action 

against if a state plan or multistate plan does not meet the emission standard. The commenters 

requested that EPA clarify the consequences and entities held liable under various state plan 

designs (i.e., fully enforceable plans, commitment plans, single state plans, full multi-state plans) 

if certain plan elements are not met.

Commenters stated that uncertainties regarding enforcement permeate the proposal regarding 

enforcement measures for affected entities. The commenters asked if a state fails to meet its 

targeted reduction through re-dispatch of NGCC by 2020 because of a lack of transmission 

capacity, does EPA (or do the other states, in the case of a multi-state plan) bring an enforcement 

action against the state? If EPA brings a federal enforcement action, would it be brought against 

all the participating states in the multi-state plan? What if customers in a state fail to subscribe to 

sufficient energy efficiency? What are the penalties for non-compliance? The commenters stated 

that these questions are significant and need clear answers from EPA in order to assist states in 

their decisions on whether to join one or more states in developing a multi-state plan.

Comment 2: Comment stating that where state goals are not achieved by 2030, individual 

natural gas- and coal-fired EGUs should be responsible for meeting the heat rate improvements 

relied on by EPA in setting state goals (e.g., 6%).
299

Response 2: The EPA does not agree with the commenters that if the state failed to achieve its 

2030 goal, the appropriate remedy would necessarily be to require EGUs to meet the heat rate 

portion of BSER on an individual facility basis. This approach would not achieve the full 

amount of reductions that reflect the BSER, and would mandate a particular emission reduction 

method, heat rate improvements, rather than enable the state to take advantage of the range of 

strategies available for achieving the level of reductions that reflects the BSER. The final 

guidelines define the consequences that the EPA believes are appropriate in the event an 

emission standards type plan or a state measures plan fails to achieve the EGU performance rates 

or state goal that applies in 2030 and thereafter. See section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Where state goals are not achieved by 2030, commenters stated that individual natural gas- and

coal-fired EGUs should be responsible for meeting the heat rate improvements relied on by EPA 

in setting state goals (e.g., 6%).

While, under the rule, states are free to distribute required emissions reductions among sources in 

any manner that will achieve the targeted reductions by 2030, the commenters recommended that 

EPA ensure that these long range targets are enforceable. As such, the commenters suggested 

that the emissions reductions EPA has calculated are possible based on heat rate improvements 

should be individually enforceable against coal- and gas-fired EGUs in the event that the state 

fails to achieve its 2030 goal. In effect, the commenters indicated this would mean that each 

individual EGU would be responsible for achieving a 6% improvement in heat rate under EPA's 

proposed approach, or a 10.08% improvement in carbon emissions under the commenters’ 

proposed approach. Because compliance will be measured as a three-year average, the 

commenters stated that EGUs experiencing an anomalous "bad year" at the end of the 

implementation period should still be able to meet this goal. To be effective, the commenters 

recommended that this standard include any simple cycle natural gas-fired EGU operating above 

relevant thresholds, such as one third capacity factor. According to the commenters, failing to 

make such requirements enforceable by EPA could provide an opportunity to evade the rule and 

thereby increase GHG emissions.

Comment 3: Comments noting that if states do not comply, then EPA can enforce against the 

state for missing the standards, but not for technical violations. 

Response 3: The EPA has designed the guidelines to provide broad flexibility to states in the 

design of their state plans. The final guidelines combine flexibility on means of achieving 

emission reductions with accountability for results. The guidelines provide for monitoring 

states’ implementation progress and provide that the situation will be remedied if implementation 

is not occurring or the emission reductions required by section 111(d) do not occur. See Sections 

VIII.D.2 and VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
300

Commenters asserted that states must have flexibility to implement CO2 compliance plans 

without EPA micro-managing implementation with countless federal requirements that cannot be 

enforced directly by EPA. According to the commenters, states should be able to commit to meet 

whatever performance standards are developed. The commenters stated that if states do not 

comply, then EPA can enforce against the state for missing the standards, but not for technical 

violations. 

Comment 4: Commenters supported strong enforcement measures for ensuring the carbon 

pollution targets are achieved. 

Response 4: The final guidelines contain provisions to ensure that EGU performance rates or 

state goals will be achieved. Emission standards plans will provide federally enforceable 

requirements for EGUs and will be subject to corrective measure requirements. State measures 

plans must include requirements that are enforceable by the state and also contain a federally 

enforceable backstop with requirements applicable to EGUs that would be triggered if actual 

emissions performance was deficient under the state measures plan. Certain emission standards 

type plans – those that do not mathematically assure that the national EGU performance rates or 

state goal is met -- are subject to requirements and deadlines for plan revisions to adopt 

corrective measures. The agency provides its rationale for not requiring automatic triggering of 

pre-adopted contingency measures for these plans in section VIII.F of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and section 6.1.5 of this RTC document. Consistent with the comment, the guidelines 

provide for periodic EPA review of state plan performance.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that state plans (especially in Pennsylvania) should include automatic 

provisions to correct any shortfall in emission targets that may occur, and severe penalties for 

failing to meet goals. The commenters suggested that a federal review of state programs should 

occur at least every 5 years.

Comment 5: Comment stating that the EPA should begin working immediately on a Federal 

Implementation Plan ("FIP") that would be ready to put in place upon a state's failure to achieve 

its goals on time.

Response 5: We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should directly put a federal plan 

into place if a state does not achieve the state emission performance goals on time. The federal 

plan that the EPA is concurrently proposing is for states that do not submit approvable state 

plans. The final guidelines call for certain types of plans to provide for corrective measures or a 

backstop in the event of an emission performance deficiency over the interim period or during 

any final reporting period, or a performance deficiency of 10 percent or more during interim step 

1 or 2. The consequence for a state depends on the type of state plan that the state has selected. 

We are finalizing the option of a “state measures” plan type, which would rely at least in part on

state-enforceable measures. With a state measures approach, the plan must also include a specific 

backstop of federally enforceable standards on affected EGUs that fully meets the emission 
301

guidelines and that would be triggered if the plan failed to achieve on schedule the required 

emission reductions. See Sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.D.2.c of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

For the “emissions standard” plan type, in which all measures are federally enforceable measures 

on affected EGUs, an exceedance triggers a requirement for a state to amend its state plan to 

enact corrective measures that will both put the state back on track to achieve the level of 

emission performance specified in the original state plan and make up for the shortfall. See 

Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We agree that the final emission guidelines should include interim goals and compliance dates to 

ensure continuous progress toward the goals. However, we disagree that the EPA should

determine the length of time given to states to implement corrective measures on a case-by-case 

basis and are providing a consistent timeframe for all states. See Section VIII.F of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the EPA should begin working immediately on a Federal 

Implementation Plan ("FIP") that would be ready to put in place upon a state's failure to achieve 

its goals on time. The commenters stated that this plan should be straightforward, and place 

responsibility for meeting the state's goals on the EGUs, with a fairly short time period for 

compliance. The commenters noted that presumably, all parties would have been working to date 

on carbon reductions. Therefore, the commenters suggested that interim goals and compliance 

dates could be staggered in short segments to ensure continuous progress toward the goals. The 

commenters did not support an 18 month period for a state to comply once it has failed to meet 

its goals. The commenters stated that the EPA should have the discretion to give the state a 

reasonable period of time to meet the goals that is specific to the state's circumstances or to put a 

FIP in place immediately that is directed at the EGUs.

Comment 6: Comments suggesting that section 110(k)(5) is a “SIP call”-like mechanism.

Response 6: We are not finalizing a section 110(k)(5) “SIP call”-like mechanism in this action. 

Please see the discussion in section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Also see 

section VIII.F.3 with regard to the consequences if actual emission performance does not meet 

the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal.

We generally disagree with comments that EPA lacks authority to adopt mechanisms from 

section 110 into section 111(d) emission guidelines. Please see the discussion in section VIII.E.9

of the final rule preamble of the CPP, and in the legal memorandum of the phrase “procedure 

similar to that under section 110 of the Act.” We also disagree that EPA’s authority with respect 

to deficient plans is limited to that in section 111(d)(2). As explained in response 15, section 

6.1.5, EPA also has authority under section 111(d)(1). Again, please see the discussion in 

section VIII.E.9 of the final rule preamble of the CPP, and in the legal memorandum of the 

phrase “procedure similar to that under section 110 of the Act” in section 111(d)(1). 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
302

Commenters opposed EPA's suggestion of promulgating "a mechanism under CAA section 

111(d) similar to the SIP call mechanism in CAA section 110" in order to address the failure of 

any state plan to achieve its emission goal.

Commenters stated that section 110 expressly authorizes EPA to initiate a SIP call when the 

Administrator finds that a SIP is "substantially inadequate." CAA section 110(k)(5). 

Commenters stated that there is no similar authority for section 111(d) plans. 

Commenters stated that EPA has the authority under section 111(d)(2) to only develop a plan 

where the state fails to submit an approvable plan or to enforce the state's plan where the state 

fails to do so. The commenters argued that EPA is once again attempting to turn the section 

111(d) regulation into a section 110 SIP-like plan in order to address the complexities of the 

proposal. The commenters stated that EPA lacks the basic authority to modify the section 111(d) 

program into a SIP program.

Comment 7: Commenters supported a mechanism under section 111(d) similar to the SIP call 

mechanism in Section 110.

Response 7: We are not finalizing a section 110(k)(5) “SIP call”-like mechanism in this action. 

Please see the discussion in section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Also see 

section VIII.F.3 with regard to the consequences if actual emission performance does not meet 

the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal.

With respect to commenters’ preference that a SIP-call like mechanism be used in the event that 

a plan fails to achieve the rates or goals, we agree that a SIP-call like mechanism would be a 

possible solution. However, as explained in the legal memorandum, where there is a gap in the 

statute to fill, and there are multiple possible solutions to filling the gap, EPA may pick a 

particular one so long as it is reasonable. In the case of corrective measures, it is reasonable to, 

instead of using a SIP-call like mechanism to trigger the state’s obligation to submit a plan 

revision, to simply require in this rule that the state give EPA a plan revision addressing the 

deficiency. If the state fails to submit a satisfactory plan revision, the EPA would have the 

authority to promulgate a federal plan, just the same as if a state failed to respond to a SIP-call 

equivalent. This addresses the concerns of the commenters and reasonably fills the gap in the 

statute. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that EPA promulgate a mechanism under 111(d) similar to the SIP call 

mechanism in Section 110, where 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). The commenters 

noted that if the state still 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).

Rather than imposing penalties on states, commenters stated that the EPA should follow a 

process similar to a "SIP Call" wherein, if a state fails to meet a milestone or goal as outlined in 
303

its state plan and corrective measures are not included in the plan, EPA will notify the state that 

it must revise the plan to make up for the deficiency and to meet the milestone or goal. If the 

state fails to do so, the commenters stated that the EPA would then issue a federal 

implementation plan. The commenters noted that these actions are corrective, while penalties are 

punitive. The commenters stated that corrective actions are more efficacious than punitive ones.

Commenters supported EPA's proposal to incorporate a mechanism similar to the SIP Call 

mechanism under Section 110 for State Implementation Plans. The commenters stated that the 

EPA must have an enforcement mechanism, particularly where the compliance schedule is 

aggressive and the necessary carbon reductions are so vital to the planet's health. As a result, the 

commenters did not support giving states a full 18 months to respond to a SIP call like 

mechanism. 

Comment 8: Comment regarding contingency measures in case of failure to meet state goal.

Response 8: See section VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP, and section 6.1.5 of this 

RTC document, for the EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the EPA has requested comment on whether consequences should 

include a requirement to trigger contingency measures. The commenters stated that a state plan 

should include contingency measures in the event the state goals are not met. The commenters 

stated that there is an anticipation that the state plan would be met for development of RE and 

implementation of EE programs; however, these plans would be projections of anticipated gains 

that would reduce CO2. The commenters stated that unforeseen events or obstacles to meeting 

those commitments could occur and there should be contingency measures identified to reduce 

CO2 emissions and bring the state back on track to meet the required overall goals. 

Comment 9: Comment stating that the state plan should identify possible corrective measures 

similar to a nonattainment SIP which could include new actions or ramping up measures already 

provided for in the state plan.

Response 9: The final guidelines are responsive to the commenters’ concerns. State measures 

plans must contain a federally enforceable backstop consisting of requirements on affected EGUs 

that would be triggered if the required emission reductions did not occur. The backstop is 

essentially a type of contingency measure identified in the plan (along with the fulfillment of 

BSER for state measures plans). Emission standards plans consist only of federally-enforceable

requirements applicable to affected EGUs that could be also enforced by states, the EPA or 

citizens. Certain emission standards type plans – those that do not mathematically assure that the 

national EGU performance rates or state goal is met assuming full compliance by affected EGUs

-- are subject to requirements and deadlines for plan revisions to adopt corrective measures. See 

section VIII.F.3 with regard to the consequences if actual emission performance does not meet 

the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal. The agency provides its 
304

rationale for not requiring pre-adopted contingency measures for these emissions standards plans 

in section VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP and section 6.1.5 of this RTC document.

The EPA agrees that if a failure occurs close to the 2030 date, it may be difficult for a state to 

meet its goal. However, the agency disagrees that the averaging time of the goal should be 

altered in cases of impending failure. For plans subject to corrective measures or backstop 

requirements, the final guidelines provide for triggering those requirements, and for making up 

the shortfall, in the event a state measures plan does not produce the required emission 

reductions.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the EPA requested comment on a process and schedule for implementing 

corrective measures if reporting shows the goals are not being met. The commenters stated that 

the state plan should identify possible corrective measures similar to a nonattainment SIP which 

could include new actions or ramping up measures already provided for in the state plan. The 

commenters stated that there should be a two-step process in this plan where the state provides 

progress reports. 

The commenters recommended that, when a state does not appear to be meeting the path at a 

reasonable time before 2030 (e.g., 3 or 5 years), the EPA should ask the state which measures 

will be implemented to be on track to meet the 2030 goal. The commenters stated that, if the 

failure to meet the goal is close to the 2030 date, the state should be allowed a 3-year averaging 

period to make necessary changes in the implementation plan so the goal can be met at that date 

and in the future.

Comment 10: Comments pertaining to state versus EGU responsibility in case of failure to meet 

the state goal.

Response 10: In general, a state would be required to implement corrective measures or

backstop requirements for affected EGUs, and to make up the shortfall, when an implemented 

plan fails to achieve the required emissions reductions. See section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. An affected EGU would be potentially subject to enforcement if it violated 

applicable requirements of a state rule. 

Regarding the question of whether affected EGUs would be penalized in the event that a state 

plan depends on increased renewable energy generation, but less renewable generation is built 

than planned, the EPA observes that the guidelines leave states much flexibility on the design of 

their requirements. Under a state measures approach, the final rule provides considerable 

discretion to the states in setting emission standards and related plan requirements for its affected 

EGUs. Consistent with longstanding practice under the Clean Air Act, if a regulated entity does 

not meet a requirement, the EPA will address the matter on a case-by-case basis, to determine the 

appropriate response and resolution. Ultimately, if a state measures plan does not produce the 

required emissions improvement despite affected EGUs complying with their state requirements 

under the plan, the guidelines would require the triggering of federally enforceable backstop 

requirements for affected EGUs to ensure that state goals are met. Based on the acid rain 
305

program and other experience, the EPA believes that such backstop requirements can be 

designed in ways that create effective markets that provide economic incentives for new 

renewable energy capacity and increases in end-use energy efficiency, enabling affected EGUs 

to meet their emission obligations.

A similar question was raised about whether affected EGUs would be subject to enforcement 

liability under a mass-based emission standards plan in the event that reductions in demand for 

fossil-generated electricity through increased renewable energy generation and increased energy 

efficiency do not materialize. The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in 

setting emission standards and related plan requirements for its affected EGUs. As just noted, 

EPA believes that the acid rain program and others demonstrate that programs can be designed to 

create effective markets that provide economic incentives for new renewable energy capacity and 

increases in end-use energy efficiency. If affected EGUs are in violation, consistent with longstanding practice under the Clean Air Act if a regulated entity does not meet a requirement, the 

EPA will address the matter on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate response and 

resolution.

Additional general discussion of enforcement considerations is included in section VIII.D.1 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters asked for clarification from the EPA on who may be ultimately liable for a state's 

non-compliance of an EPA approved SIP. The commenters noted that as designed the EPA has 

set emissions reductions targets for electricity generation within each state as a whole; 

historically however, the Clean Air Act has granted the EPA the limited authority to regulate 

pollutants from the emissions source. 

The commenters asked if the state will be penalized for not meeting the targets established in the 

SIP or will the individual emissions sources be liable under EPA's proposal. The commenters 

expressed concern that a state's failure to meet compliance obligations as a whole will be met 

with penalizing certain types of generation sources within that state even where energy 

efficiency improvement and emission reduction measures have been taken by these entities. For 

example, where a state's SIP relies heavily on the development and dispatch of renewable 

generation sources to meet its reduction targets, the commenters asked who is liable when the 

expected renewable sources are ultimately not developed or due to unfavorable economics are 

shut-down and/or dispatched less often and as a result the state fails to meet its targets. The 

commenters stated that complications are further manifest where one state claims compliance 

from renewable energy generation built out of the state. The commenters asked how this would 

be tracked to avoid double counting. The commenters asked if the same rules would apply to 

carbon heavy EGUs built in one state to supply demand in another state. Commenters asked that 

if states opt for mass-based plans that put compliance responsibilities entirely on affected EGUs, 

but demand reductions from RE or EE measures are necessary to support the mass reductions, 

what happens if those reductions don't materialize. The commenters asked if the affected EGUs 

are liable and what sort of compliance options do they have in this situation. 
306

Comment 11: EPA should provide guidance on when it would enforce a state plan or issue a 

federal plan. 

Response 11: For the consequences if actual emission performance does not meet the CO2 

emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal, see Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. For discussion of Tenth Amendment legal considerations regarding this 

rulemaking, see Section VIII.G.5 of the final rule preamble.

The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to implement the 

Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are beyond the 

scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said the EPA must provide clear guidance on when the EPA would enforce a state 

plan or measures therein, or issue a federal plan. Commenters stated if a state is not on track to 

meet its interim state goal (per the progress checks every two years), the EPA must explain how 

it will handle such situations, such as whether it would issue a federal plan or whether it would 

require the state to amend its plan. Commenters said based on the EPA's regulations, it appears 

the EPA would issue a revision to the state plan, see 40 C.F.R. Section 60.29, which raises 

questions about how the EPA could issue a federal plan that imposes obligations on sources 

outside the affected source category. Commenters stated the EPA does not have jurisdiction to 

directly implement renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Commenters said thus, the

EPA could not promulgate a federal plan that includes these measures without unlawfully 

commandeering state resources in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

6.1.7 Out-year requirements

This section addresses issues concerning out-year requirements including maintaining or 

improving the level of emission performance required by the emission guidelines. Commenters 

agreed that the state emission performance improvements must be permanent beyond 2030. 

Commenters were divided regarding provisions that would require increased reductions beyond 

2030, as well as future revisions of the guideline or an 8-year review of state goals similar to the 

NSPS review; however, EPA is not finalizing any position on these issues.

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: Multiple comments supporting the concept of permanence, where a state must 

maintain the required level of performance after the 2030 goal is met.

Response 1: With respect to the first set of comments, that Congress intended for the emission 

performance improvements required under section 111(d) to be permanent, and that EPA has set 
307

other section 111(d) emission limits to be met permanently, we agree. We discuss this basis for 

our decision to require continued maintenance of the goals after 2030 in section VIII.F.4 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP and the legal memorandum. 

With respect to commenters, we agree that the BSER-based performance rates or goals should be 

maintained after 2030. Commenters recommend that compliance with this be assessed through a 

3-year rolling average basis. We have not chosen this approach; our chosen approach 

accomplishes the same aim of maintaining performance and is reasonable. 

With respect to backsliding, we have finalized the requirement that state plan revisions must 

continue to achieve the rates or goals. In other words, state plans will be required to maintain the 

performance rates or goals after 2030 even if they are revised. We agree, as explained in section 

VIII.F.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP and legal memorandum, that section 111(d) state 

plans differ from attainment plans, in that title I contemplates potential relaxation of an 

attainment plan once an area has attained the NAAQS and is re-designated. To clarify, though, 

under section 110(a)(1) all SIPs must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS; thus we do not 

completely agree with the commenters’ characterization. 

The EPA disagrees that the permanence concept is not relevant to state measures. Comments on 

permanence of measures and permanence of plan performance are further addressed by sections 

VIII.D.2, VIII.F.4, VIII.I.2, VIII.J.2, and VIII.K.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Finally, with respect to comments on permanence of requirements in relation to the portfolio 

approach, the agency is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the concept of permanence, where a state must maintain the required 

level of performance after the 2030 goal is met. Commenters noted that Congress intended for 

the emission performance improvements required under Section 111(d) to be permanent, and 

EPA has set other Section 111(d) emission limits to be met permanently. 

Regarding permanent reductions, commenters stated that EPA should establish BSER-based 

state emission performance goals for affected EGUs that extend beyond the proposed planning 

period (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. The 

commenters suggested that a state should be required to compare actual plan performance 

against the final goal on a rolling 3-year average basis starting in 2030, and be allowed to 

implement corrective measures if necessary.

Commenters agreed that the EPA should require state emission levels to be maintained after the 

compliance period has ended. Therefore, the commenters recommended that EPA require 

emissions reductions achieved by existing sources under section 111(d) to be permanent 

reductions that remain in place after 2030.

Noting EPA's request for comment on out-year performance beyond 2030 of the state plan, 

commenters assumed that, much like a Section 110 SIP, there would be a requirement to prevent 

"back sliding" or a decrease in meeting the Section 111(d) commitments. The commenters stated 
308

that unlike the Section 110 SIPs there would not be a possible future attainment negating the 

need for maintenance. The commenters assumed that where Congress developed Section 111(d) 

the requirements would not end but would continue into the future, leading to the conclusion that 

the state plan would not sunset.

While commenters supported the concept of permanence, the commenters believe permanence 

can only be associated with direct emission limitations imposed at the affected EGU and cannot 

be extended to any other elements of a state's plan, such as RE, EE, nuclear preservation or 

redispatch. The commenters argued that states must have the ability to make adjustments to the 

plans as technology changes and unforeseeable events occur.

Comment 2: Multiple comments supporting further reductions in the state goals after 2030.

Response 2: We are not finalizing any provisions that would require increasing or increased 

emission reductions beyond 2030, with the exception that states may have to make up a shortfall 

in emission reductions from a previous plan period. We are also not finalizing any position on 

future revisions to this guideline or on the 8-year review of the NSPS. Therefore, these 

comments are generally moot. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported further reductions in the state goals after 2030. 

Commenters supported further reductions via future rulemaking beginning in 2025. The 

commenters noted that EPA's proposal requires states to maintain the 2030 emission 

performance level beyond 2030. The commenters strongly supported an approach where EPA 

periodically reviews and strengthens the BSER/state goals after 2030. The commenters 

recommended that these reviews occur at regularly defined intervals to reflect advances in 

technology and improvements in our scientific understanding of the level of mitigation needed to 

avoid catastrophic climate change impacts. The commenters suggested that EPA establish 

revised state goals that come into effect after 2030 in a future rulemaking started in the 2025 to 

2030 time period. The commenters stated that stronger goals should include continuity of actions 

by states and affected entities to achieve the 2030 goal. The commenters stated that tighter goals 

after 2030 should again allow for a period of time to achieve them, but not result in any 

additional reporting burden on the states or other affected entities.

Commenters supported further reductions through increased EE or RE. If the legal authority and 

resources exist to revisit state goals post 2030, the commenters recommended that EPA evaluate 

the nationwide deployment of RE and EE, and then determine the appropriateness of state goal 

setting methodologies based on RE and EE measures displacing existing fossil generation.

Commenters supported further emissions reductions consistent with Oregon's adopted 2050 

greenhouse gas reduction goal, which included ongoing complementary national actions to 

continue emissions reductions in all sectors beyond 2025 (for auto fuel economy standards) and 

2030 (for power plant emissions reductions) in the interests of sending a sustained, predictable 
309

long-term signal to US emissions sources - and to innovators in the US business and academic 

sectors - that aggressive ongoing reduction successes will be rewarded.

Commenters also supported further emission reductions, stating that the BSER of 2030 will 

likely allow for much greater emission reductions than BSER today. Therefore, the commenters 

stated that the standards set forth in the final rule should be updated periodically to reflect BSER 

as it changes. As a policy matter, the commenters stated that there is no reason to let progress 

stall out based on the arbitrary choice of 2030 as the year for the final goal. The commenters 

stated that emission standards are an important tool in fighting climate change, and the need for 

emission reductions will not end in 2030. Further, the commenters stated that the EPA should 

commit to regularly review the best system of emission reduction to ensure that it continues to 

reflect the system that can maximize reductions in carbon pollution considering cost, energy 

requirements, and impacts on other health and environmental outcomes, as required by the Clean 

Air Act.

Commenters stated that the EPA should provide for periodic updates of the standard in order to 

reflect the progress that is already taking place in emission reducing technologies, and will only 

accelerate in response to the EPA rule.

Commenters were optimistic that EPA would continue to build upon this rule and develop 

additional reduction requirements that continue in effect beyond 2030. The commenters stated 

that reducing carbon emissions will be an ongoing requirement, and it is not a problem that can 

or will be solved by 2030. The commenters noted that there are many sources of carbon 

emissions besides electric generating facilities, and the commenters hoped that this rule would 

lead to a larger effort to reduce carbon emissions from all sources.

Commenters stated that EPA must review and, if appropriate, revise BSER and the state targets 

at least every eight years.

Commenters stated, it is important that the standard be reviewed at least every eight years similar 

to the performance standard for new sources so that the reduction goals keep pace with the 

climate science, technological advancements, state utility market regulations, health and 

environmental sensitivities, overall costs and costs of renewable energy, and actual 

emission reductions (particularly from RE and EE which are difficult to forecast). Some 

commenters stated, the BSER's stringency should be increased over time. Some commenters

expressed concern over uncertainty or requested clarification with regard to periodic rule review 

by EPA.

Commenters said, while Section 111 does not require regular review and revision, nothing in the 

statute prohibits EPA from instituting periodic review for those sources to ensure that they also 

account for new technology developments. Commenters stated, prior EPA rulemaking 

interpretations and related case law have supported the EPA in exercising agency discretion 

where the Clean Air Act is ambiguous. Commenters said, 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). 
310

Commenters stated, section 111(d)'s duty to set standards for existing sources within a category 

is triggered by the establishment of standard for new sources within the category under section 

111(b). Commenters stated, given that the duty to set existing source standard under subsection 

(d) is directly linked to the duty to set new source standard under subsection (b), EPA must read 

the provision as a matter of plain meaning to trigger a review/revision requirement for existing 

source standards whenever review/revision falls due for new source standards. Commenters said, 

at the very least, EPA would be reasonable in reading the statute this way - to freeze existing 

source standards in place for all time irrespective of the need for continued emission reductions 

and irrespective of the occurrence of improvements in technology and costs would be highly 

unreasonable.

Some commenters stated, the review and update should start in 2025. Other commenters said the 

EPA could establish a similar review schedule to the RGGI program which is every three 

years. Other commenters stated, the legal obligation to review and, if appropriate, revise these 

standards would be, at the latest, in June 2023. These commenters recommended EPA review the 

standards on a five-year cycle, i.e., by June 2020 and each five years thereafter, breaking the 

proposed 10-year interim standard into two parts, with the 2025 standard establishing more 

ambitious targets for the second five-year period that reflects the full technological and economic 

potential for emission reductions. These commenters also recommended that EPA set post-2030 

standards on a five-year cycle, so that the 2030 standard would apply for the years 2030-034, and 

a standard would be set for each subsequent five-year period.

Comment 3: Multiple comments supporting a 8-year review of the state goals similar to the 

NSPS review required under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and recommending that the EPA be 

clear up front that goals will be revised in the future.

Response 3: We are not finalizing any provision that would require additional emission 

reductions after 2030; instead we are requiring that the 2030 goal be maintained. We are also not 

finalizing any position with respect to the implications of the 8-year review of the NSPS with 

respect to possible future revision of this guideline; it is unnecessary to address this issue at this 

point in time. Therefore, these comments are generally moot.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Multiple commenters supported 8-year review of the state goals similar to the NSPS review 

required under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). Some commenters recommended that EPA be clear 

up front that goals will be revised in the future. 

Commenters addressed EPA's request for comment: "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 
311

section 111(d)." The commenters stated that, 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. The commenters stated that 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 as well to capture the technological advance (new, innovative, or 

improved compliance tools have been adequately demonstrated). The commenters stated that 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 

commenters stated that the 8-year review concept should be applied to Section 111(d), or that 

EPA consider committing to review the BSER and resulting state targets for existing sources at 

least every 8 years.

Commenters stated that the section 111(d) guidelines should send a durable regulatory signal that 

greenhouse gas pollution from the power sector must be significantly reduced, and that further 

reductions will be required as systems of emission reduction further improve. According to the 

commenters, sending that signal requires setting meaningful endpoints for states to reach during 

the initial compliance period, and committing to regularly review (and, in all likelihood tighten) 

the guidelines over time. Although the commenters recognized that states may reach these 

endpoints at different times, the commenters stated that it was important the standards be clear 

that the endpoints, once reached, are ceilings. The commenters stated that emissions levels 

(whether set as mass ceilings or maximum emissions rates) cannot be allowed to rise above the 

target after the end of the initial compliance period. The commenters contended that reduction 

opportunities available with current adequately demonstrated systems will expand down the road 

as further deployment of existing clean technologies takes place. The commenters suggested that 

EPA be clear that it will be regularly revisiting its guidelines to assess new pollution control 

opportunities.

The commenters noted that section 111(b)(1)(B) and its implementing regulations already 

specify that EPA will review, and if appropriate, revise its new source regulations every 8 years 

and that it will publish draft and final existing source guidelines "[c]oncurrently upon or after" 

proposing new source standards. Although the rules thus anticipate revisions, the commenters 

recommended that EPA further clarify this review obligation by providing, by rule, that it would 

review and (if appropriate) revise its existing source standards by a date on the same 8-year 

timeline as applies to its new source standards. The commenters stated that this would be a 

sensible provision that would allow EPA to evaluate the power fleet as a whole in each review. 

The commenters noted that such regulatory deadlines are not unusual. In the greenhouse gas 

context, the commenters noted that the EPA included enforceable deadlines in its "tailoring" rule 

for major source permitting, requiring the agency to regularly revisit its rulemaking over time, as 

greenhouse gas regulation experience is gained. The commenters indicated that a similar 

course would be appropriate here where a review commitment would make clear to all parties 

that the emissions glide paths will continue to decline long after the first compliance period has 

passed.

The commenters stated that the EPA carbon standard is only the first step in curbing harmful 

emissions, and that emissions must continue to decline beyond 2030. Commenters noted that the 

consensus among climate scientists is that emission reductions of at least 80% are required by 

2050 in order to prevent the worst impacts of a changing climate. While the emissions from the 
312

electricity sector in New York and the other RGGI states have declined at a pace that would 

surpass that reduction target, the commenters indicated that EPA's projection that this rule will 

achieve a nationwide 30% reduction by 2030 is inadequate to place the nation's power sector on 

a trajectory to achieve the reductions needed by 2050. The commenters indicated that their 

recommendations to strengthen Building Blocks Two, Three, and Four would help by increasing 

national emission reductions. In the longer term, the commenters stated that EPA should make 

clear that additional reductions will be required after 2030. According to the commenters, such 

long term market signals are needed to provide the incentive for industry--and the states--to 

make the transformative investments in a highly efficient, low carbon electricity sector needed to 

achieve the emission reductions required by 2050. The commenters therefore recommended that

EPA signal its intention to establish more ambitious state targets for existing sources in future 

years, as part of the eight year reviews required under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA.

Similarly, commenters stated that under section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA reviews and, if 

appropriate, revises its standards of performance for new sources. The commenters stated that 

Section 111(d) does not require regular review and revision of the rule like section 111(b)(1)(B),

but because section 111(d) is silent on the issue, EPA has discretion to institute a periodic review 

of its standard for existing sources. The commenters argued that because section 111(d) is 

intended to capture reasonably anticipated regulatory and technological developments, it would 

be inconsistent with the statutory scheme for EPA not to revisit and update the BSER and state 

goals periodically. In addition, the commenters stated that periodic review would be consistent 

with the "no backsliding" policy set forth in the Clean Power Plan to ensure that emissions 

reductions are maintained during and after the compliance period. To ensure that state goals 

continue to be a reflection of the BSER, the commenters recommended that EPA treat the 2030 

goals as a default and review the final goals by no later than 2024 (some said by 2025), in 

addition to 8-year updates.

Further, the commenters stated that such an updating approach is consistent with the statute, with 

the kind of authority normally available to a regulatory agency, and with EPA's interpretation in 

past Section 111(d) rulemakings. The commenters stated that by contrast, 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). The 

commenters stated that an interpretation restricting EPA 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.

Commenters said existing source standards, like new source standards, should be updated to 

reflect development of cleaner and less costly new technologies in updated standards. The 

commenters noted that with the costs and performance of low carbon technologies improving 

rapidly, this type of review will be essential for ensuring we achieve the full potential for costeffective emission reductions. The commenters noted the experience of the nine states 

participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which recently tightened the cap 

on carbon emissions based on new data on cost and impacts of the program. Based on the recent 

dramatic growth of renewable energy and corresponding precipitous drop in costs, the 

commenters stated that it seems reasonable to assume that the economic calculations will have 

changed by the end of the compliance period, and that additional cost-effective reductions in 

CO2 should be included in the BSER. The commenters noted that, in the coming decade, several 
313

states, such as New York, California, and Minnesota, will likely update utility market regulations 

and structures as strategies with a goal of reducing carbon pollution. The commenters said the 

costs of wind and solar may drop faster or slower than expected, and energy storage technology 

will likely significantly improve. Thus the commenters strongly recommended that the EPA send 

a clear signal to states at the time of finalization of this rule that it is committed to this review 

and update process.

The commenters stated that the electricity market is in a very dynamic period and we have seen 

tremendous changes just within the last 5 years in terms of the cost-competitiveness of cleaner 

generation sources. The commenters stated that they expect that these changes will continue, 

especially with the incentives provided by the Clean Power Plan. According to the commenters, 

it is critical that the CPP be updated by 2025 to take account of technological and market 

advances, with the aim of achieving even deeper emission reductions in 2030 and beyond. 

The commenters stated that by 2025, it is also likely that our scientific understanding of the risks 

of worsening climate impacts will have advanced, creating a greater demand for steep emissions 

reductions. The commenters recommended that by 2025, the EPA should also establish emission 

reduction targets for the post-2030 period, for at least 2035 and 2040, to signal the continued

need to drive down emissions. 

Commenters suggested that the EPA reevaluate the BSER periodically and increase the 

stringency, as appropriate, and ensure compliance timing. The commenters noted that section 

111(b) of the Clean Air Act, under which EPA is proposing to regulate carbon emissions from 

new fossil-fired power plants, directs the agency, at least every 8 years, to review and, if 

appropriate, revise federal emission standards of performance for such sources to account for 

new technology developments. The commenters stated that while Section 111(d), which applies 

to existing fossil-fired power plants, does not require regular review and revision, nothing in the 

statute prohibits EPA from instituting such a review of periodic review for those sources to 

ensure that they also account for new technology developments. To that end, the commenters 

suggested that the EPA should commit to reviewing the BSER and resulting state targets for 

existing sources at least every 8 years.

Comment 4: Multiple comments opposing using the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 8-year NSPS 

review provision to set more stringent performance goals after 2030. 

Response 4: We are not finalizing any provision that would require additional emission 

reductions after 2030; instead we are requiring that the 2030 goal be maintained. We are also not 

finalizing any position with respect to the implications of the 8-year review of the NSPS with 

respect to possible future revision of this guideline; it is unnecessary to address this issue at this 

point in time. Therefore, these comments are generally moot. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters opposed using the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 8-year NSPS review provision to set 

more stringent performance goals after 2030. 
314

Commenters noted that EPA requested comment on whether it should establish BSER-based 

state emission performance goals for affected EGUs that extend further into the future. 

According to the commenters, under this alternative, EPA would apply its goal-setting 

methodology to 2030 and some specified date beyond. The commenters also pointed to EPA's 

statement that section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for EPA to review standards of performance for new 

sources every 8 years and if updating is necessary. The commenters did not support this 

alternative. The commenters noted that EPA is already proposing a plan requiring staged 

reductions over a 15-year period. The commenters argued that EPA has failed to show that the 

current 2030 projections have any resemblance to reality, and the commenters argued that 

additional projections beyond 2030 would only compound the current errors inherent in EPA's 

analysis. The commenters noted EPA's additional statement that, because they are determining 

emission performance based on BSER, it "raises the question of whether affected EGU emission 

performance should only be maintained--or instead should be further improved--once the final 

goal is met in 2030." The commenters did not see how the EPA could even justify the question. 

The commenters argued that the review process contemplated by the CAA is the process set in 

place to review the appropriateness of BSER at a single point in time. The commenters stated 

that EPA could not deviate from this process.

Commenters stated that the NSPS process for existing plants does not require automatic 

revisions every 8 years. The commenters noted that the NSPS process allows EPA to consider 

revisions to the standards every 8 years, but there has been some confusion as to whether this 

reconsideration and possible revision can occur automatically. The commenters argued that such 

action is not automatic.

Commenters stated that EPA has proposed that a state must maintain the required level of 

performance and requests comment on an alternative of requiring continued improvement. The 

commenters noted that the agency requested comment on the implications of the CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) 8-year NSPS review provision, if any, for CAA section 111(d). The commenters 

stated that, while EPA review and revision of an NSPS is permissible for new sources under 

section 111(b), section 111(d) does not authorize EPA to review and lower existing source 

standards at intervals in the future. The commenters stated that in 8 years, existing sources (those 

in existence as of January 8, 2014) will face the same difficulty in making improvements to 

structures and processes that are already in place that they face now. The commenters stated that 

such sources will also face the same possibility that section 111(d) seeks to avoid - becoming 

stranded assets. The commenters stated that the EPA must operate within the authority section 

111(d) gives it, which does not include expanding the authority EPA has under section 111(b) to 

"ratchet down" performance standards in the future.

EPA does not have the authority to revise its Section 111(d) procedures every eight years. 

Commenters stated, EPA does not have the authority to review and potentially revise Section 

111(d) requirements every eight years. Commenters stated, unlike the new source standards,

Section 111(d) is silent regarding whether EPA is to review its procedures, and this silence 

should not be interpreted as evidence of Congressional intent that the eight-year review period 

explicitly mandated under Section 111(b) also should be applied to Section 111(d). [Lamie v. 

United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 538 (2004).] Commenters said, doing so would "rewrite[e] 
315

rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted." [Id.] Commenters said, 

incorporating an eight-year review requirement into Section 111(d) would fundamentally alter 

the impact of Section 111(d) by requiring existing sources to continuously meet increasingly 

stringent standards rather than complying with an ESPS once. Commenters said, "Congress ... 

does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary 

provisions ... it does not hide elephants in mouseholes." [Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 

531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).] Commenters stated, if Congress had intended for existing sources 

regulated under Section 111(d) to meet increasingly strict standards on a set schedule, it would 

have established a timeline for EPA to review its procedures, as it did with the eight-year 

timeline for reviewing NSPS. Commenters said, considering the "particularization and detail" 

with which Congress provided the schedule for review of Section 111(b) standards, inferring that 

EPA's actions under Section 111(d) should be reviewed every eight years would amount to 

"enlargement" of Section 111(d) rather than "construction" of it. [Iselin v. United States, 270 

U.S. 245, 250 (1926).] Commenters said, as the Supreme Court also has noted, "where Congress 

includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another . . . , it is generally 

presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." 

[Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1933).] Commenters

stated, Congress' determination that standards for new sources should be periodically reviewed, 

while standards for existing sources are set just once, makes sense since existing sources retire, 

are modified, or are otherwise replaced by "new" sources, and gradually become obsolete so

updates are not needed.

Commenters stated, EPA lacks legal authority under section 111 to establish a subsequent BSER 

based on levels of improved performance. Commenters said EPA cannot re-issue an NSPS for 

new sources that have already gone through the process, and likewise, existing sources that have 

undergone a section 111(d) process cannot be forced to undergo it again. Commenters stated that 

Section 111(d) standards to date have been interpreted as a one-time standard.

Comment 5: Comment opposing establishing a deadline for the update of a state plan 10 years 

in advance, and that a state plan submittal requesting comment on an anticipation to update a 

state plan by 2025 seems appropriate.

Response 5: The EPA is not finalizing a requirement to update state plans for 2030 and beyond. 

The proposal presented for public comment the idea of requiring states to make a second 

submittal in 2025 showing whether their approved plan measures still appear sufficient to

maintain the final-goal level of emission performance after 2030. The EPA believes that 

decisions can be made in the future about plan updates in 2025 or beyond to ensure that 

approved plans remain sufficient to meet and maintain emissions performance consistent with 

the final goal.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
316

The commenters opposed establishing a deadline for the update of a state plan 10 years in 

advance. There should be an opportunity to update corrective measures, but establishing a 

deadline a decade in advance presumes that there will be enough information to establish or 

confirm plans. The commenters suggested that a state submittal requesting comment on an 

anticipation to update a state plan by 2025 seems appropriate since this could inform the EPA on 

the progress or anticipated challenges to the state plan.