OF LOD^ 

0o

co4 z	 92 

7 

^ 

^^.^oe• ^ BOBBY ,TINDAL 

GOVERNOR

PEGGY M. HATCH 

SECRETARY 

*tate of loui!6iana 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIItONMENTAI. QUALITY


ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

April 9, 2014 

Regina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

m x = 

C Q '.^^ ^ T =r

^ 

R ^

r7

cn rr+0 

^ -- ^

Re: Input on Clean Air Act 111(d) emission standards 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) appreciates the 

opportunity to submit input on the upcoming Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d) emission 

standards for existing fossil fuel electric generating units. We also. appreciate the 

telephone call hosted by EPA on November 14, 2013 where EPA expressed interest in 

working with the State on flexible compliance options and clarified that carbon capture 

and sequestration (CCS) was not contemplated in this 111(d) exercise. This was a 

refreshing exchange which brought optimism that Louisiana, with its diverse energy 

portfolio, would have a seat at the table in the upcoming ruletnaking. 

While LDEQ does not support the development of greenhouse gas standards for 

existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, if EPA does decide to 

move forward, we believe it is essential that the final rule provide States with 

implementation flexibility and that the rules are structured in a manner that ensures the 

reliability of the nation's electric grid. 

The LDEQ appreciates EPA's role is to establish guidelines and procedures for 

the State to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) containing performance standards 

reflecting the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER). LDEQ urges that BSER be 

developed at the unit level. These initial comments also ask for guidelines that allow 

flexibility for States with diverse fuels and electricity demands to receive approval of 

their compliance options. It is important that reliable affordable energy supply remains 

available in Louisiana. It is not only important in the current landscape, but for the future 

of Louisiana to remain economically viable while achieving reductions in CO2. 

As you are aware, there is not an achievable "one size fits all" approach to COZ 

reductions and guidance from EPA shouldnot unduly limit the ability of States to come 

Post Office Box 4313 . Baron Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4313 • Phone 225-219-3181 . Fax 225-219-3309

www.deq.louisiana.gov
up with innovative compliance options. For example, these guidelines should aiso not 

limit the ability of the States to take into account COz reductions already achieved in the 

State at existing power plants, including unit retirements. These plants have made 

significant investments to comply with other environmental regulations and any 

guidelines that do not acknowledge this would strand these investments and place more 

financial burdens on ratepayers. 

The guidance should also provide mechanisms for an adaptable remaining useful 

life provision. Among factors to be considered by the EPA as part of the performance 

standards should be unit age, operational characteristics, equipment in-place, book value, 

future capital requirements, resource adequacy, tax base and other local impacts. Further, 

it will be important to recognize that remaining useful lives will vary considerably across 

existing coal fired units. 

EPA should incorporate substantial flexibility into the compliance guidelines, 

allowing for implementation by energy efficiency projects, renewable energy projects, 

regional or state market-based approaches, as well as conventional emission reduction 

approaches or a combination thereof. EPA should establish a method for crediting the 

emission reductions associated with energy efficiency and renewable energy projects 

both past and future. For example, utilities which receive and manage renewable power 

from individual customers such as from solar systems on individual homes should be 

afforded a method for being credited with the associated emission reductions. 

Compliance timelines in upcoming guidance should not be exceptionally 

prescriptive. Like many States, Louisiana has a mix of electricity sources and any 

construction investments in these plants would need to occur with limited interruption of 

electricity supply. A timeline where sources are forced to make reductions 

simultaneously to meet a strict compliance deadline would jeopardize constant reliable 

electricity. The ability of the States to have flexibility in compliance timelines and in the 

SIP development itself is a priority LDEQ would like to see in the upcoming guidance. 

As mentioned above, affordable reliable electricity for the state is erucial today 

and in the future. There should be flexibility in the timing for submission of a 

compliance plan to ensure adequate consideration of alternative approaches by all parties 

including state environmental agencies, public service commissions, and state legislative 

bodies. A short timeframe to consider alternatives and to submit an implementation plan 

following EPA's finalization of the rule will be difficult and may produce unintended 

consequences. 

In conclusion, the upcoming guidance should be based on what is actually 

achievable at existing units with the option of utilizing existing fuel at these sources such 

that utility ratepayers are not saddled with an extraordinary economic burden and/or 

reliability concerns. The guidance should be clear as to how the BSER guidelines eould 

ultimately be translated into SIPs and elearly indicate the factors to be considered by EPA 

in SIP approval. EPA should also consult with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as necessary to ensure that the integrity of the grid is not compromised by 

any GHG standard and to explore ways to minimize costs to the nation's consumers. 

Again, LDEQ appreciates the opportunity to provide these initial comments and 

look forward to working with you on this important rulemaking. 

Sincerely,

^ 

Sam L. Phillips 

Assistant Secretary 

SLP:APP
^S O 0 

m ^ N 

W Z O^ O H 

W 1 E!^ a 

Q	I Ntt) 

^i

0 N 

co ^ t	O ^ f`')


NOO 

4M.O,,5^ ^ 

00iJdse13wOO


VeW sselO lsAid


POSaJd

(A M 

'LL+I M 

^

N M M O W yw 

J m 

aF-- ^ zZ 

w a ^m z2 O ^ ^x 

^

O m zC) w

rT, a

A0 J 

^ *

Q	_


f^7 

^ 

t^ 

^ 

^ 

U	 ^ z	—_ w — 

C7	 — 

a! ^	 — 

O z 3 

H O • 

^F-Iz H U — 

^n W W 

H H ^D	 — 

zOz 

H P+' w O 

q ^ ^ ^ 

^ ^ ^ o	 i "a H t--H 

x W ^ U

!S^ 

^	 ^ 

p..^'	

a Q	 ? "i 

Uw' U) z ^ s U H z O 

^ z w C7 ^^ 

^waz	 ^`!