CLEANAIR) 

Comments of Darin Schroeder 

Clean Air Task Force 

TASK FORCE 

May 24,2012 

On behalf of CA TF, I want to congratulate EPA, and everyone involved, on this proposed 

rule. Fossil fue l-fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are the leading stationary source emitter 

of carbon dioxide, a well-known greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide contributes to climate change, 

in turn impacting nearly all aspects of our everyday life. This includes: adverse effects on our 

agriculture systems; the increase in severe weather and weather-related events like wildfires and 

flooding; increased stresses on water systems; and adverse effects on wildlife and ecosystems. 

The pressing need to immediately reduce carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) 

emissions is highlighted by the pollutants' physical properties. As compared to other pollutants 

regulated under the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a hundred 

years, or more. Until reductions in its emissions are achieved, the resulting accumulations and 

associated damage will continue - and even grow - at a dangerous rate. The need to achieve 

greenhouse gas reductions therefore is immediate, and we applaud you all for taking this historic 

and important first step. 

Because of the impact all fossil fuel-fired EGUs have, and will continue to have, on C0 2 

emissions, it was wise for EPA to combine them into the single subpart TTTT for purposes of 

this rule. 

However, there are a couple of issues with the proposed rule I'd like to briefly comment 

on today. First is EPA's determination that a natural gas combined cycle plant is the only "best 

system of emission reduction" (BSER) supporting the emissions standard EPA proposes. 

18 Tremont St.. Suite 530 Boston, MA 02108 www.c atf.us 617.624 .0234 
Page 2 of3 

Congress, through the Clean Air Act, requires EPA establish new source performance standards 

(NSPS) that reflect 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best 

system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving 

such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. 

42 U.S.C. 7411 (a)(l). For EGUs, this system of emission reduction is not only an efficient gas 

plant, but also Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). 

CCS is BSER both as a matter of law and fact. The NSPS program is meant to pave the 

way toward improved air quality - including decreased climate pollutant emissions- and is to be 

based on the BEST system of emission reduction. As such, the Courts have said that the NSPS 

program should look "toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather than 

the state of the art at present" in order to stimulate and augment the innovative character of 

industry. Courts have further told us that an "adequately demonstrated" technology which can 

be the basis for a standard is "one which has been shown to be reasonably reliable, reasonably 

efficient, and which can reasonably be expected to serve the interests of pollution control without 

becoming exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way." This includes systems in 

use in other countries as well as across other industries. The Courts explained that an achievable 

limitation based on such technology is one that is not purely theoretical or experimental, but it 

also "need not necessarily be routinely achieved within the industry prior to its adoption." 

CCS is adequately demonstrated and emission limits based on this technology are 

achievable, especially when looking out over the 30 years an EGU would have to comply. For 

example, two new coal plants in the U.S. will utilize CCS technology immediately upon 

commencement of operations. Moreover, CCS has been long been demonstrated to work. C02 
Page 3 of3 

from a Norwegian commercial gas development project has been captured and sequestered since 

1996. Accordingly, EPA must also rely on CCS as the best system of emission reduction for the 

emission limit it finalizes for new subpart TTIT. 

Secondly, I'd also like to briefly comment on the "transitional source" category described 

in the proposal. Under the NSPS program any source commencing construction after the date of 

a proposed rule's publication is subject to that rule. The proposed rule would carve out an 

exemption to this requirement for certain facilities it identifies as "potential transitional sources." 

But such an exemption from the statutory requirement just isn't justified by the sunk costs of 

projects that have yet to commence construction. Moreover, we don't see a policy rationale for 

providing any special treatment for "potential" transitional sources that have no plans to ever 

utilize CCS to reduce their C02 emissions. As such, EPA has not provided a policy or a legal 

rationale for the exemptions. 

Finally, the bulk of future C02 emissions come from sources that exist today. We look 

to EPA to take much needed action to reduce C02 emissions from existing sources as a next 

step. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critically important and historic rule.