15-1

Chapter 15

General Provisions

Contents

15.1 Co-located Non-emitting Sources........................................................................................ 2

15.2 Codifying the Proposed Regulations ................................................................................... 2

15.3 PCP Exclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3
15-2

15.1 CO-LOCATED NON-EMITTING SOURCES

Comment 15.1-1: Commenter 8952 states, the co-located non-emitting sources provision is 

highly convoluted. Commenter 8957 states, including co-located non-emitting sources of 

electricity in the calculation of the emission standard compliance provides an additional 

"efficiency" measure to allow EGUs to meet the emissions limitations by decreasing their 

lb/MWh CO2 emissions by increasing their net output. Commenter says, this provision will only

provide marginal benefit to the affected sources.

Response 15.1-1: Co-located units are not included in this final rule.

Comment 15.1-2: Commenter 0784 discusses United States CO2 emissions compared to emissions from 

other countries (China specifically). Commenter suggests that EPA, in partnership with the U.S. electric 

utilities and U.S. State Department, have a larger role in educating other nations on how to cost-effectively

reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning plants.

Response 15.1-2: This comment is beyond the scope of the present rulemaking.

Comment 15.1-3: Commenter 8957 disagrees with exempting net sales to the grid during a declared 

emergency for applicability purposes. Commenter states, this action would result in displacing wellregulated, well-controlled baseline power plants from the capacity market with uncontrolled distributed 

generation. Commenter says, baseline power plants that would normally be applicable under the proposed 

rule could evade applicability by only bidding one-third of their capacity to the market and selling the 

remaining two-thirds to the emergency demand response market.

Response 15.1-3: The EPA disagrees with the commenter and is retaining the exclusion of sales for 

emergency which is discussed more in section IX.B.2 of the preamble

15.2 CODIFYING THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Comment 15.2-1: Commenter 8957 states, codifying the proposed regulations in their respective subparts 

would make referencing the appropriate NSPS easier for state and local air pollution control agencies and 

the owners and operators of the affected facilities and minimize confusion. Commenter says there would be 

no need to reproduce definitions that are already contained in the respective subparts and if future data 

supports changing an emissions limitation for one type of fuel or technology, it can be addressed without 

opening the entire regulation to comment. Commenter says, codifying the proposed regulations in a new 

subpart would not cause undue burden to the owner/operator or the permitting agencies.

Response 15.2-1: As explained in section III.B of the final rule preamble, the EPA is combining the steam 

generator and combustion turbine categories into a single category of fossil fuel-fired electricity generating 

units for purposes of promulgating standards of performance for GHG emissions. The standards of 

performance for CO2 emissions will be codified in a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT.

Comment 15.2-2: Commenter 2864 states, the new rules must include flexibility for states and limitations 

on premature closings of EGUs. Commenter says the rule must include recognition of the significant 

investments in renewables, demand side management and natural gas EGUs already made by utilities, more 
15-3

time for new technologies to be developed and proven cost effective, and flexibility for utilities to look at 

system emissions versus plant by plant reductions.

Response 15.2-2: This comment is beyond the scope of the present rulemaking.

15.3 PCP EXCLUSION

Comment 15.3-1: Commenter 10660 states, EPA should maintain the pollution control project exclusion in 

its NSPS rulemaking. Commenter says, most environmental compliance projects would fall into this 

category and be deemed pollution control projects that are excluded from NSPS for modified units, 

allowing them to be regulated as existing units and therefore the current rulemaking should not affect this 

exclusion.

Response 15.3-1: The EPA’s action in the final rule does not change anything concerning what constitutes 

or does not constitute a modification under the CAA or the EPA’s regulations.

Comment 15.3-2: Commenter 9666 agrees with the EPA's proposal to exempt Subpart TTTT from 

sections 60.8 (addressing performance tests, notice of performance tests, performance test reports, and audit 

sample requirements), 60.11 (including compliance requirements and opacity requirements), 60.14 

(addressing modification), 60.15 (addressing reconstruction), 60.16 (priority list), 60.18 (addressing general 

control device requirements), 60.5570 and Table 2. 

Commenter 9666 states that the EPA should include the duplicate reporting to the EPA Regional 

Offices and delegated states under section 60.4 on the list of general provisions that do not apply

to Subpart TTTT, or to the proposed revisions to Subparts Da and KKKK.

Response 15.3-2: Section 60.5570 and Table 3 of the final rule indicate which of the General Provisions in 

sections 60.1 through 60.19 are applicable to EGUs affected under subpart TTTT. Sections 60.8, 60.11, 

60.13, 60.14, 60.15, 60.16, and 60.18 are not applicable to subpart TTTT. With regard to applicability of 

section 60.4 of the General Provisions, Table 3 to subpart TTTT specifiesthat section 60.4 does not apply to 

information reported electronically through ECMPS and that duplicate submittals are not required.

15.4 REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY

Comment 15.4-1: Commenter 10618 states this proposal will increase regulatory uncertainty because of its 

novel treatment of existing modified and reconstructed sources. As an example, EPA is relying on its 

purported authority to promulgate a "new source" standard that does not apply to "modified" units 

(notwithstanding the controlling definition of "new source" in Section 111(a)(2) of the CAA) during a 

period when other EPA regulatory initiatives will require existing coal plants to undertake physical and 

operational changes in order to achieve reductions in criteria pollutant emissions that are known to increase 

the hourly rate of CO2 emissions from coal-fired steam generators. EPA claims that such sources will be 

protected by the "pollution control project" exclusion in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5). EPA acknowledges that this 

exclusion (dating to 1975 in the NSPS program) is similar to a provision subsequently promulgated under 

the new source review regulations in Part 51, and that the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in New York v. 

EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2005), invalidated that similar provision in the new source review program. 

The questionable continuing validity of the pollution control exclusion may well force additional coal unit 
15-4

retirements, beyond the 38,000 MW already announced, even though EPA has acknowledged that it has 

insufficient information to develop standards that could apply to existing sources.

Response 15.4-1: EPA disagrees that this rule will increase regulatory uncertainty. EPA disagrees with the 

contention that EPA does not have the authority to set different standards for newly constructed sources and 

for modified sources. EPA’s authority to issue regulations setting different standards for newly constructed 

sources and for modified sources comes from section 111(b)(2), which authorizes EPA to distinguish within 

categories of sources. With respect to the commentors reference to the definition of “new source” in 

section 111(a)(2) and EPA’s reading of the definition of not including all modified sources, the language of 

the definition in section 111(a)(2) is that “new source” only includes modified sources that modify “after the 

publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under 

this section which will be applicable to such source. Finally, with respect to the portion of the comment 

concerning the pollution control project provision, EPA neither proposed nor is taking any final action with 

respect to that provision and therefore that portion of the comment is beyond the scope of this rule and 

requires no response.
16-1

Chapter 16

Rule Language

Contents

16.1 General................................................................................................................................. 2

16.2 Definitions............................................................................................................................ 2

16.3 Language Corrections........................................................................................................ 10
16-2

16.1 GENERAL

The EPA Must Correct Discrepancies between Subparts Da and TTTT

Comment 16.1-1: Commenter 10239 states, while the proposed alternative subpart TTTT is not 

intended to differ substantively from the proposed standards under Subpart Da, there are several 

discrepancies between the proposals that would produce materially different regulatory

obligations. The commenter says, EPA appears to propose facility-level regulation of coal-fired 

EGUs under Subpart Da, but unit-level regulation under Subpart TTTT. The commenter also 

says, it appears that the operative language for an affirmative defense for malfunctions was only 

included in Subpart TTTT and that there were no changes in Subpart Da to incorporate the 

affirmative defense. The commenter says, EPA must correct these discrepancies and provide an 

opportunity for public comment on the revised provisions.

Response 16.1-1: The EPA is finalizing provisions which only add the new subpart TTTT of 

part 60 in this rulemaking and so the coordination between CO2 standards between subpart Da 

and TTTT is not required. The emission standards in subpart TTTT are being finalized as unit 

level standards.

16.2 DEFINITIONS

The Rule Should Include Additional Guidelines for Calculating the Thermal Credit

Comment 16.2-1: Commenter 10682 states, while the definition of “Useful Thermal Output” in 

the proposed rule includes some additional detail that was not included in the April 2012 

proposal, EPA should also provide guidelines to help facilities calculate their useful thermal 

output. The commenter notes that EPA has already generated these materials, and should 

reference them in the final rule. With these additional details, EPA can assuage concerns that 

regulated entities may take credit for thermal energy that is not put to good use.

Response 16.2-1: The EPA has added detail and clarified in the final rule how to calculate useful 

thermal output by adding an equation in section 60.5540.

EPA Should Add a Definition of Industrial Unit to the Rule

Comment 16.2-2: Commenter 10682 notes EPA is seeking comment on whether it should 

exempt combustion turbines at industrial units from the emission limit under 111(b), while 

continuing to subject such units to other aspects of the standard of performance (i.e., monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements). The commenter says that such units would 

apparently be treated as utility units and subject to the emissions limit whenever they meet the 

threshold applicability limits (i.e., whenever the facility supplies more than one-third of its 

potential electric output and more than 25 MW net electric output to the grid per year over a 

three-year rolling average).
16-3

Commenter 10682 states the language in the proposed rule is unclear because while the proposed 

rule distinguishes between "combustion turbine utility units" and "combustion turbine industrial 

units," these terms are not defined. The commenter recommends that EPA define these terms so 

that regulated entities can better understand the applicability requirements. The commenter 

further notes that monitoring and record-keeping is necessary to identify years in which these 

units trigger the applicability requirements.

Response 16.2-2: The EPA has added detail in the applicability sections of the rule and clarified 

what applicable monitoring and recordkeeping EGUs have to do depending on what standard is 

applicable to them. The final rule has an operational element for an EGU to determine what 

emission standard is applicable and for more discussion on this topic see sections VIII.C. and 

IX.A.3 of the preamble.

Clarify the definition of CHP

Comment 16.2-3: Commenter 1586 supported the "line-loss" credit proposed for "combined 

heat and power" (CHP) facilities but expressed concerns that the proposed definition may

exclude facilities using hot oil heat exchangers and may also exclude "waste heat to power" 

(WHP) facilities; this commenter provided a draft definition for WHP facilities. Commenter 

1586 also stated that most CHP projects would not be subject to the proposed standard because 

CHP systems are often owned and operated by third-party developers and not by the thermal 

host. This commenter supported the proposed criteria that applicability is based on gross electric 

sales to the utility minus purchased power of the thermal host.

Commenter 10038 states EPA does not include a specific definition for CHP in the primary

proposal to retain separate categories for steam generating units and combustion turbines, but

instead relies on the current, yet inconsistent definitions of CHP in subparts Da and KKKK. The 

commenter recommends that EPA modify the definition of CHP in subpart KKKK regarding 

stationary combustion turbines to clarify that CHP includes units that produce useful thermal 

energy by any means.

Commenter 10038 states, EPA should include "bottoming-cycle units" in the definition of CHP 

and include a definition of "bottoming-cycling unit" consistent with that adopted in the CrossState Air Pollution Rule.

Response 16.2-3: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.

Subparts KKKK and TTTT definitions

Comment 16.2-4: Several commenters (9381, 9425, 9427, 9591, 9665, 9666, and 10039) 

identified issues related to definitions in subparts KKKK and TTTT. Four commenters (9427, 

9591, 9666, and 10039) recommended that EPA maintain the existing definition of stationary

combustion turbine in subpart KKKK instead of using the proposed definition. If EPA chooses to 

use a new definition for stationary combustion turbine, commenters 9427 and 10039 recommend

that EPA remove the steam turbine from the definition because it is not a necessary component 

of the combustion turbine and has no function relative to emissions. Commenter 10039 further 

noted the proposed definition also includes fuel heaters, other equipment, and control 
16-4

technology, but data used to establish performance standards for combustion turbines does not 

include emission data from these sources. The commenter (10039) also noted the definition of 

combustion turbine should not include this insignificant ancillary system where it could be 

interpreted that emissions from this system may need to be accounted for in compliance 

determinations under this proposed standard or for compliance by affected units subject to 

Subpart KKKK prior to this change. 

Commenter 9591 presented conflicting definitions of stationary combustion turbines between the 

current 40 CFR 60.4420, the Proposed 40 CFR 60.4420 (2012 revisions), and the Proposed 40 

CFR 60.4421 (2013 revisions) while commenter 9666 noted the proposed definitions in subparts 

KKKK and TTTT are slightly different. Commenter 9666 stated the proposed definition in 

subpart TTTT appears internally inconsistent in that it includes "control systems (except 

emissions control equipment)" but also includes "post-combustion emission control technology."

Commenter 10039 also stated EPA has included post combustion emission control technology in 

the definition of stationary combustion turbine though no other emission source categories exist 

where EPA defines the source to include post combustion emission control devices.

Commenter 9427 stated EPA should ensure that definitions and uses of terms relating to 

stationary combustion turbines are clear and consistent. Specifically, the commenter (9427) 

noted that clear and unambiguous terms are needed for "Potential Electric Output," "NetElectrical Output," "Net Electric Output," "Gross Electric Sales," "Gross Energy Output," 

"Utility Distribution System," "Utility Power Distribution System," "Electric Grid," and 

"Purchased Power”.

Commenter 9427 states, similar to the "potential electric output" proposed definition, the "base 

load rating" definition should enable "at the election of the owner/operator of the facility" to use 

or revise the base load rating to reflect actual heat input capacity or to reflect changes in the heat 

input capacity over time. Commenter says, the use of a base load rating different than the 

manufacturer's design heat input capacity could be based on methods such as a manufacturer's 

thermal performance test procedure or an ASME Performance Test Code (PTC), such as PTC 22 

for stationary combustion turbines, or another known industry standard, all at ISO conditions and 

using higher heating value of the fuel.

Commenter 9666 states, in Subparts TTTT and KKKK, EPA proposes a definition for combined 

heat and power facilities that uses "3 calendar year rolling average basis" to determine 

applicability but for Subpart Da, EPA does not propose any averaging period.

Commenter 9425 states, in Subpart KKKK EPA proposes to limit the definition of "base load 

rating" to combustion turbines and clarify that the definition does not include heat input from 

duct burners to heat recovery steam generating systems (HRSG). Commenter says, in Subpart 

TTTT EPA proposes to define "base load rating" for steam generating units as well as 

combustion turbines. Commenter says, if EPA intends the heat input to a steam generating unit 

to be included in determining "base load rating" for any unit (including a HRSG) under Subpart 

TTTT, then EPA should issue a proposal that explains why EPA has proposed to treat such units 

differently under Subparts KKKK and TTTT.
16-5

Commenters 9425 and 9666 state, the rationale for defining "combined cycle facility" in Subpart 

TTTT but not in Subpart Da should be clarified.

Commenter 9665 states, the current definition of IGCC in subpart TTTT does not include the 

"integrated equipment" addition. Commenter says, EPA should adopt the same revised definition 

of IGCC facility that it has proposed for Subpart Da. Commenter says, EPA should clarify that 

the definition encompasses the HRSG and any steam turbines used by the IGCC unit. 

Commenter says, the definition should specifically note that integrated equipment includes, but 

is not limited to, HRSGs. Commenter says, EPA should clarify that the definition extends to the 

output both to and from the steam turbine as well as any auxiliary equipment. Commenter says, 

EPA should also alter the definition to reference turbine engines in the plural.

Commenter 9666 states, EPA proposes to define "IGCC facility" in Subpart Da with respect to

CO2 to include "any integrated equipment that provides electricity or useful thermal output to 

either the affected facility or auxiliary equipment, "and states that it has proposed to include 

such equipment in the other facility definitions." Commenter says, although EPA has included it 

in the proposed definitions of "steam generating unit" in Subpart Da, section 60.46Da and in 

Subpart TTTT, and in the proposed definition of "stationary combustion turbine" in Subparts 

KKKK and TTTT, EPA has not proposed to include it in the definition of IGCC in Subparts 

KKKK and TTTT.

Commenter 9665 supports EPA's proposed waiver of the 50 percent solid-derived fuel 

requirement during periods of construction, startup, shutdown, and repair. Commenter says, EPA 

should remove from the IGCC definition, ""The Administrator may waive" language, and 

include the following declarative sentence: "The 50 percent solid-derived fuel requirement does 

not apply during period of the gasification system construction, startup and commissioning, 

shutdown, or repair."

Commenter 9381 states, EPA should consider interactions between the proposed revisions 

intended for the criteria pollutant provisions or Subpart KKKK and the GHG provisions 

proposed under Subpart KKKK to avoid conflict with the rule's intended focus on entirely new 

units.

Commenter 9666 states, EPA should review its proposed definitions for consistency both 

between the proposed subparts and in other NSPS affecting EGUs. Commenter says, EPA 

proposes numerous definitions in Subpart TTTT, some of which are similar (but not identical) to 

definitions in the corresponding provisions in proposed revisions to Subparts Da and KKKK, and 

to definitions in other subparts affecting EGUs. 

Commenter 9666 states, EPA proposes to add a definition of "base load rating" to Subpart 

KKKK or alternatively to Subpart TTTT. Commenter says, in Subpart KKKK, EPA proposes to 

limit the definition to combustion turbines and to make clear that the definition does not include 

heat input from duct burners to HRSG but in Subpart TTTT, EPA proposes to define "base load 

rating" for steam generating units as well as for combustion turbine. Commenter says, EPA must 

clarify why units are treated differently between Subpart KKKK and TTTT.
16-6

Commenter 9666 states, there is a difference in the definition of "coal" between Subpart TTTT 

and Subpart Da section 60.41Da. Commenter says, EPA should clarify the purpose of the 

different definitions between the two subparts.

Commenter 9666 states, EPA should clarify the purpose of the speciation for the "distillate 

oil" definition in Subpart TTTT which includes a limitation on the percent nitrogen by weight 

(0.05 weight percent).

Commenter 9666 states, EPA should clarify the reasoning for removing the references to SO2, 

NOx, and sulfur in fuel from the "excess emissions" definition in Subpart KKKK.

Response 16.2-4: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.

Gross Energy Output Definition

Comment 16.2-5: Commenter 10100 states, EPA should use the definition of "gross 

energy output" from 40 C.F.R. Section 72.2 to be consistent with what EGUs already report to 

EPA's Clean Air Markets Division pursuant to the Acid Rain Program.

Commenters 9425 and 9666 state, EPA proposes to define "gross energy output" differently for 

different EGUs. Commenter says, the definitions should be consistent and EPA should remove 

"minus any electricity used to power the feedwater pumps" from the definition of "gross energy 

output" and equations for calculating "gross energy output". Commenters say, EPA should not

incentivize how feedwater pumps are powered at an affected facility. Commenters say, EPA 

should change the definitions of "gross energy output" to reflect the formulas for calculating an 

affected facility's gross energy output. Commenters say, the Subpart Da definition of "gross 

energy output" should be changed from the "electric or mechanical output" to "the electric 

energy output plus mechanical energy output." Commenters say, the Subpart KKKK definition 

of "gross energy output" should be changed from "electric or direct mechanical output" to 

"electric energy output plus mechanical energy output."

Commenter 9666 states, EPA should define "mechanical output" or "useful thermal output" 

in Subparts Da and KKKK.

Commenter 9425 states, EPA proposes to define "net-electric output" in Subparts TTTT, KKKK, 

and for CO2 in Subpart Da. Commenter says, in Subparts TTTT and KKKK, EPA proposes a 

definition for combined heat and power facilities that uses a "3 calendar year rolling average 

basis" to determine applicability but for Subpart Da, EPA does not propose any averaging 

period. Commenter says, the rationale for this inconsistency is not clear.

Commenter 10606 states, the definition of gross energy output is unclear with regard to the 

precise meaning of the phrase "that is not used to generate additional electrical or mechanical 

output or to enhance the performance of the unit." Commenter says, the Proposed Rule is 

confusing because it uses several different terms i.e., "useful thermal output", "steam delivered to 

an industrial process for a heating application", "thermal energy made available for use", and 

"the energy recovered in thermal output." Commenter says, "EGU" should be used instead of 
16-7

"unit" in the definition and it needs to be clear that the phrase "is not used to generate additional 

electrical or mechanical output" applies to the EGU. 

Commenter 10606 states, the definition of "useful thermal output" appears to exclude electrical 

generation that may be inherent to an industrial process and not sold to a utility system, 

however the proposed rule and NSPS only apply to EGUs. Commenter says, a definition of 

useful thermal output should be included in the final rule stated as: 

"Useful thermal output means the thermal energy made available for use in any industrial or 

commercial process, or used in any heating or cooling application (i.e., total thermal energy

made available for processes and applications or to enhance the performance of the stationary

combustion turbine). Thermal output for this subpart means the energy in recovered thermal 

output measured against the energy in the thermal output at ISO conditions."

Commenter 10870 states, EPA should not revise the definition of "gross energy output." 

Commenter says, the definition should be the same as the current definition in 40 CFR 60, 

Subpart Da. Commenter says, any standard should be based on gross energy output, not net 

energy output. 

Commenter 10095 states, the definition should use "plus" instead of "or" in the phrase "the gross 

electric or mechanical output..." Commenter says, this change will reflect the proposal's gross 

energy output formulae used for compliance calculations. Commenter says, the phrase "minus 

any electricity used to power the feedwater pumps" should be removed from the gross energy

output definition for steam generating units and steam generating unit CHP facilities.

Commenter 10095 states, the formulae for calculating gross energy output contains the variable 

"H" defined as "enthalpy of steam at measured temperature and pressure relative to ISO 

conditions in Joules per kilogram (J/kg)." Commenter interprets this definition of "H" as 

enthalpy steam at measured temperature and pressure minus enthalpy of water at ISO conditions. 

Commenter says, EPA needs to confirm that this interpretation is correct.

Commenter 9666 supports EPA's acknowledgement that supplying steam for amine regenerating 

in a CCS system is categorized as "useful energy" and can be applied to the gross energy output 

calculation for compliance with the proposal. 

Response 16.2-5: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.

Annual Average Calculation

Comment 16.2-6: Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(g)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 60.4374(a)(1)(ii) 

and (iii), the annual average calculation presented is based on the undefined term "operating 

hour". Commenter says, the procedure to convert from operating hours used to calculate the 

monthly update to the 12 (or 84) month rolling average emissions is not clearly stated here or in 

60.46Da(c). Commenter says, EPA should show the calculation rather than utilize a narrative 

description of the calculation.
16-8

Commenter 10681 states, EPA should amend 60.41Da to include the necessary definitions to 

support this subsection such as operating hour, operating month, compliance period, everything 

in 60.46Da(k), etc.

Commenter 10681 states, the definitions proposed for 60.Da(k) should be moved to 60.41Da 

with the other definitions used in the subpart. Commenter says, the word formula given in 

60.46Da(k) for "Potential electrical output" should be replaced with the actual calculation.

Response 16.2-6: The EPA is only finalizing subpart TTTT in part 60. The EPA is finalizing 

only the requirement to meet emission limits on a 12-operating month rolling average and in 

addition the EPA has added details in the final rule with respect to operating hours and months

Turbine Definitions

Comment 16.2-7: Commenter 10681 states, EPA should change how it defines the difference 

between large, frame type combustion turbines and small aeroderivative turbines. Commenter 

says, EPA should utilize the definitions of combined cycle and simple cycle combustion turbines 

already included in 40 CFR 60.4420 rather than develop of new criterion.

Response 16.2-7: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.

Emergency Conditions

Comment 16.2-8: Commenter 10681 states, EPA should either explicitly define what constitutes 

an electrical emergency and what has to be documented by the RTO or ISO to allow operation in 

an emergency condition.

Commenter 9593 states support for the definition of emergency operations as proposed in the 

rule and the need for this provision to be included.

Response 16.2-8: The EPA is finalizing the definition of System Emergency in the final rule.

Definition of Affected Facility

Comment 16.2-9: Commenter 10681 states, the definition of affected facility differs between 

60.40Da and proposed 60.46Da(a). Commenter says, the definition for affected facility for 

60.46Da should be added to 60.40Da and clearly state that it is for use in implementing the 

requirements of 60.46Da.

Response 16.2-9: The EPA is not finalizing any requirements in subpart Da and has defined 

affected EGU in the new subpart TTTT of part 60.

Definition of EGUs

Comment 16.2-10: Commenter 8949 states, EPA generally refers to EGUs as fossil fuel-fired 

electric steam generating units (utility boilers and integrated gasification combined cycle units) 

and natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, focusing on coal-fired and natural gas-fired 
16-9

EGUs. Commenter says, although Subpart Da and the proposed EGU definition changes appear 

to apply to any "fossil fuel," it unclear whether or not the GHG thresholds would apply to 

recapture and combustion of byproduct off gas that is captured and combusted to generate 

electricity. 

Commenter 8949 asks, under the Proposed Rule, would only those EGUs that meet all three of 

the Subpart Da criteria be subject to the GHG NSPS, or would EGUs that meet any one of the 

three Subpart Da criteria be subject to the GHG NSPS? For those fossil fuels that are not coal or 

natural gas, how will those EGUs be treated? Will EPA identify a separate threshold for other 

fossil fuels in the Final Rule? How is byproduct off gas that is indirectly produced through fossil 

fuel mineral processing, captured, and reused for power generation to be considered with regard 

to GHG NSPS? Is this byproduct off gas to be treated the same as fossil fuels that are used solely 

for base load power production (as opposed to an off gas treatment mechanism that produces 

power as a byproduct)? Commenter says, EPA should clearly define which EGUs are covered by 

the GHG NSPS, particularly those for which their feedstock is neither coal nor natural gas. 

Commenter says, coverage for EGUs that are constructed specifically for capture and processing 

of byproduct off gases, and whose purpose is not primarily for sale of electric power but rather 

primarily for coverage of parasitic loads with nominal excess production, be excluded from the 

GHG NSPS.

Commenter 10554 states, the word "or" be included in the definition of EGUs so that the 

language would read "constructed for the purpose of supplying more than one-third of its 

potential electric output capacity to the grid or the unit actually supplies more than one-third of 

its potential electric output to the grid." Commenter says, this language would ensure that any 

unit that is either designed to supply more than one-third or actually sends more than one-third 

potential electric output to the grid are subject to the standards.

Commenter 9775 states, EPA does not justify the definition of EGUs which is a departure from 

the definition of EGU in 40 CFR 60.2.3. Commenter says, the proposed rule's EGU definition 

creates uncertainty about what facilities will be covered. Commenter says, it is unclear how the 

rule impacts other electric-generating systems. Commenter says, EPA should clarify what 

qualifies a facility to be an EGU, how fossil fuels will that are not traditional coal or natural gas 

power plants will be treated, and how the new rule will apply to product off-gas and other 

indirect power-production systems.

Response 16.2-10: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.

The Florida Keys Should Be Included In the Proposed Rule's Definition of NonContinental Areas and Excluded From the Proposed Standard

Comment 16.2-11: Commenter 9194 states, pipeline quality natural gas is not available in the 

Florida Keys and therefore should be included in the definition of non-continental areas and 

excluded from the proposed standard.

Response 16.2-11: See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.
16-10

2/5 (40 percent) Capacity Definition

Comment 16.2-12: Commenter 8952 states, a full exemption of simple cycle turbines is the 

most defensible and best solution because it would provide grid reliability by not arbitrarily 

removing a subset of the generating capacity from availability.

Response 16.2-12: The EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the rule with an 

applicability threshold of 25 MW with certain sales criteria thresholds. The EPA points the 

commenter to section IX.A.3 of the preamble for more detail on this topic

16.3 LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS

General Language Comments

Comment 16.3-1: Commenter 8955 states, that EPA should provide language in the final rule 

that incorporates an adaptive management approach to emerging/potentially applicable VCS 

technical standards that would appear after the rule is adopted.

Commenter 9597 supports EPA's restriction of the proposed standards to only the new 

construction of EGUs and calls attention of EEI's suggestions on language changes.

Commenter 10681 states, allowances in 502(b)(d)(B) of the CAA should be utilized to the fullest 

in amending the fee provisions in Part 70.

Commenter 9514 states, the proposed revision of Subpart Da omits reference to the source's 

design purpose while it is included in both Subparts KKKK and TTTT. Commenter says, EPA 

should retain the "constructed for the purpose" test for applicability under Subpart Da.

Commenter 7977 states, in 40 CFR 60.5509(a) the phrase "constructed for the purpose of" 

should be removed.

Commenter 3862 states, the rule language should replace the word "violation" with "prohibition" 

when discussing startup and shutdown.

Commenter 9514 states, EPA inadvertently omitted a third provision relating to the use of 

fuel consumption to estimate emissions. Commenter says, proposed 40 C.F.R. section 60.5535(c) 

refers to section 60.5525(c)(2) but the proposal does not contain a section 60.5525(c)(2).

Response 16.3-1: This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule.

Monitoring and Compliance Language

Comment 16.3-2: Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(I)(2) the concept of an operating month 

is raised, but is not related to operating hour or boiler operating day. Commenter says, the rule 

text says different things on what is being averaged to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

standard between paragraphs.
16-11

Commenter 10681 states, the proposed language in Part 60, Subpart KKKK should be revised to 

better coordinate with the existing monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping requirements and the 

treatment of cogeneration in the existing rule language. Commenter says, much of the 

compliance and calculation methodology for gross electrical output in Subpart KKKK could be 

eliminated by using existing requirements supporting the NOx limitation.

Commenter 10681 states, there are specific elements in both Subpart KKKK and 60.46Da that 

could be revised and clarifications made to the Subpart KKKK language. Commenter says, the 

Subpart KKKK is still unclear on the status of simple cycle combustion turbines and suggests 

that the final language be explicit on the treatment of simple cycle units used for other than 

peaking capacity. Commenter says, the simple cycle combustion turbine in 60.4420 could be 

amended to include a maximum hours per year or capacity factor to limit when a simple cycle 

turbine might be required to comply with the CO2 limitation.

Commenter 10681 states, it is unclear whether the 60.46Da(c) emission limits are based on a 12 

operating month, 12 calendar month, or 365 day rolling average. Commenter says, there is a 

missing connection in the language between the collection and calculation of hourly data in 

60.46Da(f) and (g) to the monthly determination of compliance under 60.46Da(c).

Response 16.3-2: The EPA is not finalizing changes to subpart Da and KKKK and the EPA has 

added information in the new subpart TTTT that addresses the commenters concerns.

Turbine Language

Comment 16.3-3: Commenter 9427 states, proposed rule section 60.4373(e) discusses 

apportioning gross load from a "common electric generator" and would require apportionment by

"using a plan approved by the Administrator." Commenter says, EPA should revise the wording 

to read "serve a common electric generator or a common steam turbine with an electric 

generator."

Commenter 9427 states, regardless of whether there is a common steam turbine and steam 

turbine electric generator, EPA should revise the end of the first sentence in section 60.4373(d) 

by adding the words "and any associated steam turbine generator."

Commenter 10681 states, EPA should clarify the applicability status for combustion turbines that 

fire refinery gas, natural gas or a mixture of refinery and natural gas, recognizing that 

refinery gas and natural gas are both fossil fuels.

Response 16.3-3: The EPA is not finalizing any changes to subpart KKKK of part 60 and is only

including the addition of the new subpart TTTT of part 60. Additionally, EGUs the EPA has 

finalized the definition of natural gas to include refinery gas thus EGUs that fire refinery gas are 

subject to the same applicability.

Carbon Utilization Language

Comment 16.3-4: Commenter 2741 states, EPA should include language that recognizes the 

viability and benefits of carbon utilization. Commenter suggests the following additions in 
16-12

Section 60.46Da: (h)(6) If your affected unit uses methods of carbon capture that convert carbon 

dioxide to other chemical forms to meet the applicable emission limit, you must demonstrate 

either one of the following fates of the carbon dioxide:(i) the carbon dioxide is permanently 

converted to other chemical forms and will not revert back to carbon dioxide under natural or 

typical conditions, or (ii) the carbon dioxide is converted to a carbon-sequestering product that 

will emit carbon dioxide only if used to supplant another product, such as a fossil fuel, the use of 

which would emit as much or more carbon dioxide as the carbon-sequestering product.

Commenter 2741 suggests the following additions to Section 60.46Da: (7) If your affected unit 

converts carbon dioxide emissions into other chemical forms and produces materials that 

supplant other commonly purchased products with a significant carbon footprint, you may

calculate your carbon dioxide emissions for purposes of achieving the GHG emission standard 

by subtracting supplanted emissions from your actual emissions only if you demonstrate: (i) your 

carbon-sequestering product replaces a product the manufacture or processing of which emits 

carbon dioxide, such as cement manufacturing or petroleum refining, (ii) your carbonsequestering product is introduced into commerce and thus actually supplants the purchase of a 

high-carbon product, (iii) the supplanted emission deduction from your actual emissions is 

calculated by multiplying the volume of carbon-sequestering product that you introduce into 

commerce by an accepted carbon dioxide emission factor for the manufacturing or processing of 

the supplanted product, and (iv) if the use or combustion of your carbon-sequestering product 

emits carbon dioxide at levels comparable to the emissions from the use or combustion of the 

supplanted product, the supplanted emission deduction for those products only includes 

emissions for the manufacture or processes of the supplanted product and not for the use or 

combustion of the supplanted product.

Commenter 2741 suggests the addition of the following language in Section 60.5555: (e) If your 

affected unit uses methods of carbon capture that convert carbon dioxide to other chemical forms 

in a way that are permanent under natural or typical conditions to meet the applicable emission 

limit, then you must report the volume of emissions that are permanently converted. (f) If your 

affected unit uses methods of carbon capture in which the carbon dioxide is converted to a 

carbon-sequestering products that will emit carbon dioxide only if used to supplant another 

product to meet the applicable emission limit, then you must report: (g) If your affected unit uses 

a deduction for supplanting the manufacture or processes of other products with your carbon 

sequestering products to meet the applicable emission limit, then you must report: (1) the carbon 

dioxide emission factor for the manufacture or processing of the supplanted product, and (2) the 

volume of carbon sequestering products that is introduced into commerce.

Commenter 2741 states, the purpose of the above language is enable an electricity generating 

facility to comply with the rule by calculating their actual emission reduction due to onsite 

capture.

Response 16.3-4: This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule.

PSD Permitting Language

Comment 16.3-5: Commenter 9504 states, EPA's proposal on page 1488 of the Notice to 

continue to interpret 51.166(b)(49) as if the definition of a "regulated air pollutant" does not 
16-13

affect the Tailoring Rule major source definitions is inadequate. Commenter says, the language 

of the regulation causes the definition of "major source" to revert to 100 and 250 tons when 

GHG's are regulated under an NSPS. Commenter says that EPA must amend the terms "NSR 

Regulated Air Pollutant" to avoid triggering PSD for any increase in GHGs at any type of source 

before EPA finalizes a New Source Performance Standard. Commenter says, Section 

52.21(b)(50) should add the phrase "other than GHG" to subparagraph (ii).

Commenter 9504 states, EPA should revise the regulation to prevent any future 

"misinterpretation" of the PSD regulation. Commenter says, currently is it unclear whether 

sources of GHGs that emit less than the 100,000 and 75,000 ton thresholds are adequately 

shielded from third party attacks or objections if the PSD regulations are not revised.

Commenter 9504 states, amending the PSD regulation by deleting the reference to "NSPS" in the 

PSD definition of "regulated air pollutant" would necessitate another round of SIP revisions. 

Commenter suggests as an alternative that EPA codify in the final EGU NSPS that the NSPS 

does not alter the definition of "major source" of GHGs in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Commenter 

says, EPA could also require each state to confirm that the NSPS for GHGs from EGUs does not 

affect the Tailoring Rule definition of "major source" for purposes of administering each State's 

Title V fees and budgets. Commenter says, EPA could require the EPA interpretation to be 

included in the source permit's Statement of Basis on issuance (for new major sources) and at the 

time of Title V permit renewal. Commenter says, each state and its EPA region could also enter 

into a Memorandum of Understanding on this issue either during review of permit fee program 

revisions or separately.

Response 16.3-5: See preamble section XII.B.

Useful Thermal Output Language

Comment 16.3-6: Commenter 10606 states, EPA should allow the useful thermal output to 

include 100 percent of the electrical energy generated, and 75 percent of the thermal energy

made available for use, in any industrial or commercial process. Commenter presents text 

additions as follows: 

(i) Except as provided under paragraph (ii) of this definition, for electric utility steam generating 

units, the gross electric or mechanical output from the affected facility (including, but not limited 

to, output from steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas expanders) minus any electricity 

used to power the feedwater pumps, plus 100 percent of any electrical energy generated outside 

the EGU by steam generated from the EGU, plus 75 percent of the useful thermal output 

measured relative to ISO conditions that is not used to generate additional electric or mechanical 

output of the EGU, or to enhance the performance of the unit EGU (e.g., steam delivered to an 

industrial process for a heating application);

(ii) For electric utility steam generating unit combined heat and power facilities where at least 

20.0 percent of the total gross energy output consists of electric or direct mechanical output and 

at least 20.0 percent of the total gross energy output consists of thermal output on a rolling 3 year 

basis, the gross electric or mechanical output from the affected facility (including, but not limited 

to, output from steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas expanders) minus any electricity 
16-14

used to power the feedwater pumps, that difference divided by 0.95, plus 100 percent of any

electrical energy generated outside the EGU by steam generated from the EGU, plus 75 percent 

of the useful thermal output measured relative to ISO conditions that is not used to generate 

additional electric or mechanical output or to enhance the performance of the unit EGU(e.g., 

steam delivered to an industrial process for a heating application any purpose)

Commenter 7990 states, the term "useful thermal output" (UTO) can be misinterpreted to allow 

all waste heat output to be reported as potentially useful. Commenter says, EPA should update 

the definition of UTO similar to the FERC definition to include the concept of productive and 

beneficial use for new CHP facilities. Commenter says, a wording change from "useful" to 

"used" could help clarify this issue. Commenter says, even if "useful" is retained, the definition 

of thermal output that is eligible for crediting toward the performance standard should include 

the requirement that the thermal energy output of a cogeneration facility is used in a productive 

and beneficial manner.

Response 16.3-6: This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule.

Emergency Exclusion Language

Comment 16.3-7: Commenter 9779 states, the proposed rule should be modified to broaden the 

grid emergency exclusion to include other extreme market conditions or reliability responses. 

Commenter suggests the following language additions to the rule: Emergency Conditions 

include: 1. Any emergency declared by the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), 

Independent System Operators (ISO), control area Administrator, or state or local officials; 2. 

Periods during which the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2; 3. Significant capacity 

and energy drops from unexpected transmission constraints or losses, plant trips or forced 

outages, Northwest Power Pool emergency reserve commitments, or unexpected gas reserve and 

storage constraints; 4. Periods where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or 

more below standard voltage or frequency.

Response 16.3-7: This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule.

CHP Language

Comment 16.3-8: Commenter 9666 states, the proposed language for Subpart Da incorrectly 

refers to a "combined heat and power unit as defined in section 60.42Da." Commenter says, the 

definitions in Subpart Da are in section 60.41Da.

Commenter 10554 states, EPA should remove the following language "of the thermal host 

facility or facilities" from the definition of net-electric output for qualifying CHP facilities. 

Commenter says, the definition should be revised to "the gross electric sales to the utility power 

distributions system minus purchased power of facilities on a calendar year basis."

Response 16.3-8: The EPA is not finalizing any changes to subpart Da of this final rulemaking. 

Additionally the EPA is not including the language the commenter asks to be removed in the 
16-15

definition of net-electric output in subpart TTTT of part 60 and believes the addition is not 

necessary in the definition that is finalized.

CO2 Provision Language

Comment 16.3-9: Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46DA(f)(iii) and 60.4373(b)(4), EPA is 

proposing to deviate from the procedures utilized in Part 75 to determine gas flow rate. 

Commenter says, EPA must acknowledge that this deviation and other proposed deviations from 

the Part 75 procedures will result in two different CO2 mass emission rates being reported for a 

source regulated under both Part 60 and Part 75. Commenter says, for consistency EPA should 

utilize the Part 75 flow measurement in their entirety.

Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(g)(1)(i) and 60.4374(a)(1) EPA proposes to ignore 

significant number of hours of data every quarter, because the underlying hourly data do not 

meet the data completeness requirements of the CO2 provision, but do meet the criteria 

elsewhere in Part 60. Commenter says, EPA needs to better support its rationale for ignoring 

these emissions when the proposed, strict required data recovery requirements have not been 

met. Commenter says, if EPA chooses to not utilize the Part 75 missing data procedures EPA 

should utilize the data recovery requirements in 60.13 instead of inventing new criteria for this 

rule proposal. 

Response 16.3-9: The EPA is finalizing requirements for monitoring and reporting that are 

consistent with part 75 where appropriate and is utilizing the part 75 flow measurements as 

appropriate to the part 60 program. The EPA does not believe it is appropriate to include data 

substitution in the compliance calculations and is finalizing this view. The EPA believes the 

long averaging periods will reflect the sources average normal operation with respect to CO2

emissions and thus it is appropriate to use.
17-1

Chapter 17

Incorporation by Reference

17.1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Comment 17.1-1: Several commenters incorporated by reference their own comments on the 

April 13, 2012 proposal (77 FR 22392), and several commenters supported the comments 

submitted by others on the January 8, 2014 proposal (79 FR 1352). The supporting commenters 

are identified here.

 Commenters 8947 and 9675 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10029

(Sapphire Energy, Inc.).

 Commenters 9425, 9777, 10039, 10791 supported the comments submitted by

Commenter 9780 (Edison Electric Institute).

 Commenters 9777, 10552, 10607, 10880 supported the comments submitted by

Commenter 9201, 9319 (National Mining Association).

 Commenter 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2981, 10036 (Coal 

Utilization Research Council).

 Commenter 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9472 (American 

Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity).

 Commenters 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9196 (Electric 

Reliability Coordinating Council).

 Commenters 9382, 9734, 10395, 10962 supported the comments submitted by

Commenter 1959, 10952 (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association).

 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 

(American Municipal Power Inc.).

 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 

(Ohio Municipal Electric Association).

 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 

1902 (American Public Power Association).

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (EarthJustice).

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9681, 10108 

(Environmental Defense Fund).

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (Environmental Law 

and Policy Center).

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10108 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council).
17-2

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2228, 9513, 9514 

(Sierra Club).

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10953 (Southern 

Environmental Law Center).

 Commenters 9425, 9777, 10242 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8022, 

9666 (Utility Air Regulatory Group).

 Commenter 9734 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 7977 (Kentucky 

Energy and Environment Cabinet).

 Commenter 9382, 10242 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8925 

(Electric Power Research Institute).

 Commenter 9777 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10556, 10615 (Gulf 

Coast Lignite Coalition).

 Commenter 9777 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10239, 10503 

(National Association of Manufacturers).

 Commenter 3179 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (Associated

Governments of Northwest Colorado).

 Commenters 3862 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9423 (Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality).

 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2470 (Florida 

Public Service Commission).

 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8958 (Florida 

Electric Power Coordinating Group Environmental Committee).

 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10100 (Class of 

’85 Regulatory Response Group).

 Commenter 10607 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 5156, 9505 (Office 

of Attorney General, State of West Virginia, et.al.).

 Commenter 10607 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 6948 (West 

Virginia Chamber of Commerce).

 Commenter 10555 incorporates by reference their comments submitted on June 25, 2012 

on EPA’s April 13, 2012 proposal.

 Commenter 10618 incorporates by reference their comments submitted on August 8, 

2012 on the EPA’s April 13, 2012 proposal.

Response 17.1-1: The EPA acknowledges the commenters' incorporation of comments by other 

parties and incorporating by reference of their own previous comments.