Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	

Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1 of 2

Comments:

 Since both Puerto Rico and Guam have existing RPS targets, the commenter recommends that EPA set 

building block 3 goals for PR and Guam that acknowledge the efforts of these areas to deploy renewable 

energy. One option would be to use these RPS targets in developing this building block, similar to the 

methodology used to develop building block 3 goals for states in the June proposal.

 With respect to the ability for tribes and territories without affected EGUs to participate in multijurisdictional implementation plans, the commenter recommends that EPA propose a course of action 

for consideration, rather than seek comment generally on this issue. In addition, EPA should state 

and/or seek comment on whether such tribes need to have TAS status in order to participate in multijurisdictional implementation plans. Finally, in providing guidance about such plans, EPA should state 

whether and how RECs traded to states from renewable energy generated by tribes or territories would

count toward the purchasing state’s compliance. Similarly, since energy efficiency realized in territories 

or tribal areas without affected EGUs would likely reduce electricity generation in a state, EPA should 

state whether and how states would be able to claim those savings. In developing this proposed 

guidance, EPA should seek consistency between the guidance provided in this action with relevant 

guidance to states in the context of multi-state implementation plans in the June proposal.

 With respect to high-utilization oil combustion turbines and oil-fired combined cycle units, the 

commenter requests clarification about the way in which sources not covered under 111(b) could 

become covered under this proposed action.

Technical comments:

 For clarity on the options/approaches (e.g., building block applications) provided for calculating the 

tribe/territory goals, the commenter suggests including a table to more clearly outline the 

characteristics and difference of each of the options offered.

 The proposal summary indicates that it is for tribes and territories, but the majority of the rule text 

focuses on the three specific tribes and two territories. The commenter suggests including text 

regarding implications of the proposal on affected EGUs identified after the proposal is final.

 It would be helpful to have a clearer explanation of the distinction between tribes with and without 

state-status for the purposes of this rule and what the implications of the proposal are on the tribes 

based on which category they fall within. Some of this is scattered throughout various sections of the 

proposal, but a more concentrated discussion earlier in the preamble would more clearly indicate how 

this distinction plays a role in the proposal, including (as noted below) with respect to participation in 

“multi-jurisdictional” plans. (Perhaps include in Preamble section II.C)

 The use of the term “multi-jurisdictional” may create some confusion when considered in conjunction 

with the June 2014 111(d) proposal’s terminology (e.g., “multi-state”). States themselves could also be 

considered “jurisdictions”; is the intent to have common terminology with the final 111(d) proposal for 

states? Suggest adding explanatory/clarifying text to address this potential confusion.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	

Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2 of 2

 On page 30, the proposal states “The EPA is not aware of any affected EGUs that are owned or operated 

by tribal governments.” Suggest including additional text explaining the significance of this statement 

with respect to this proposal.

 In preamble section V.A (impacts discussion), it is noted that EPA does not expect further emissions 

reductions from areas of Indian country with affected EGUs, in part based on previous or pending 

retirements that would be effective before the compliance window. This discussion appears limited to 

the EGUs and no additional reductions are expected of the EGUs; it would be helpful to have a clearer 

explanation of what the other applied building blocks/approaches would mean in terms of air impacts. 

Without this complement to the existing discussion, it seems awkward that a rule is being proposed that 

isn’t expected to have an effect on the air impacts with respect to Indian country.