## 1 Technical Support Documentation (TSD)

for the proposed Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate

Matter and Ozone

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491



# Assessment of Impact of Consent Decree Annual

Tonnage Limits on Transport R ule Allocations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

10 / 4 /11

## 2 This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides information that supports EPA’s analysis of the impact of

emission constraints specified in existing federally

- enforceable judicial consent decree s (referred to hereafter as

consent decrees) on allowance alloc ations under the Transport Rule

. The analysis is described in section III .B of

the preamble to the proposed Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine

Particulate Matter and Ozone . This TSD is organized as follows:

1. Overview

2. Annual tonnage limits and shut down requirements

a. Apportioning the annual tonnage limits for unit

- level allocations

b. Unit

- level caps for Transport Rule units affected by a consent decree annual tonnage limit or shut

down requirement

3. Emission rate li mits

1. Overview

As discussed in section I II .B. of the proposed Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone preamble , EPA properly incorporated emission reduction

requirements specified in co nsent decrees into state budgets calculations

. 1



## EPA developed an approach to resolve this inconsistency by adding a constraint on unit

- level allocations.

This constraint align s unit

- level allocations for units affected by consent decree ATLs with the consent decree

ATLs by prevent ing heat input

- based allocations from exceed ing the terms of the ATLs for SO

2 

## and/or NO

X



## . However

, a fter the final Transport

Rule was published, EPA determined that the unit

- level allowance allocations under the Transport Rule FIPs did

not properly account for those consent decree provisions

. Some of the consent decree provisions effectively

require the surrender, or restrict the trading, of “excess” Transport Rule allowances. As a result, Transport Rule

allowance allocations to certain units may unintentionally reduce the availability of some of t hose allowances to

othe r sources due to the consent decree restrictions on the use and/ or transfer of those allowances by the unit

receiving the allocation

. EPA analyzed three general consent decree provisions to determine their impact on

Transport Rule allowance allocations and state budgets . The first of these provisions was an annual tonnage

limit (ATL) expressed as the maximum allowable mass emissions per year from a system or facility as defined in

the consent decree

. The ATL is, in essence, an annual cap on system

- or facility

- wide mass emissions. The second

provision was a forced shut down or repowering to natural gas of one or more units

. The third provision was a

maximu m emission rate, typically expressed in pounds per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) of heat input. If a consent

decree includes surrender or trading restriction provisions, any allowances allocated in excess of an ATL or mass

emissions constraint (i.e., the maximum emission rate multiplied by the actual heat input) would not be

available to other sources for compliance, effectively reducing the state budget. Similarly , allowances allocated

to a unit that shut down due to consent decree requirements would not be avail able to other sources for

compliance.

1 

### The consent decree with Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) was finalized after EPA determined, and was

not reflected in, the relevant base case projections and state budget in the final Transport Rule. However, EPA believes it i s

appropriate to address the NIPSCO consent decree because it will otherwise result in removal of a portion of the relevant

state budget that was intended to be available for use in complying with Transport Rule emission reduction requirements.

## 3 EPA first reviewed the 22 consent decrees for U.S. coal

- fired power plants (a full list is available

at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/coal/index.html ) to determine if the consent

decrees: a) apply to Transport Rule

- affected units, b) apply to Transport Rule SO

2 

## , NO X 

## annual , or NO X 

## ozone

season allowances, or c) contain ATLs, shut down provisions, and/or maximum emission rates

. EPA determined

that 19 of the 22 consent decrees apply to units in the Transport Rule region and 16 consent decrees may apply

to allowances of one or more Tra nsport Rule program s

– five to Transport Rule SO

2 

## allowances, 13 to Transport

Rule NO

X 

## annual allowances, and 15 to Transport Rule NO

X 

## ozone season allowances. Table 1 summarizes the

applicability of the consent decrees to Transport Rule

- affected units and Transport Rule allowances.

Table 1

– Applicability of Consent D ecrees on Transport Rule A llowances

Utility consent decree Units in TR

region TR SO 2



## allowances TR NO X



## a nnual

allowances TR NO X 

## o zone

season

allowances

Tennessee Valley Authority Yes Yes Yes Yes

Northern Indiana Public Service Company Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Yes Yes Yes Yes

American Municipal Power Yes Yes Yes Yes

Westar Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes

Duke Energy Yes Yes No 2 

## No 2



## Ohio Edison Company Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

Kentucky Utilities Yes No 1 

## No 3 

## No 3



## Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and

Power District No No No No

American Electric Power Service Corporation Yes No 1 

## No 4 

## No 4



## East Kentucky Power Cooperative Yes No 1 

## Yes 5 

## Yes 5



## Nevada Power Company No No No No

Alabama Power Company Yes No 1 

## No 2 

## No 2



## Minnkota Power Cooperative No No No No

Illinois Power Company Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

South Carolina Public Service Authority Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company Yes No 1 

## Yes 5 

## Yes 5



## Wisconsin Electric Power Company Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

Virginia Electric Power Company Yes No 1 

## Yes 5 

## Yes 5



## ALCOA Yes No 1 

## Yes Yes

PSEG Fossil Yes No 1 

## No 6 

## Yes

Tampa Electric Company Yes 7 

## N /A 7 

## N /A 7 

## Yes

1 

### Limited to Title IV allowances

. 2 

### Does not include NO

X 

### allowance constraints

. 3 

### Limited to NO X 

### ozone season allowances allocated or issued by the state of Kentucky

.

4 

### Limited to Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) allowances

. 5 

### No definition is provided for NO

X 

### allowances so EPA assumed the broadest definition possible

. 6 

### Limited to NO X 

### ozone season allowances

.

7 

### Affected units are not included in the Transport Rule SO

2 

### or NO X 

### annual program

.

## 4 2. Annual T onnage L imits and S hut D own R equirements

After determining the applicability of a consent decree on Transport Rule

- affected units and Transport Rule

allowances (see Table 1), EPA determined the potential impact of ATLs and shut down requirements. For the

purpose of analyzing the potential impact of consent decree emis sion constraints, EPA applied an implicit ATL of

zero to units that are required to shut down. Similarly, if a unit is required to repower to natural gas EPA applied

an implicit ATL of zero for SO

2



## .

To determine the potential impact of the system

- and faci lity

- wide ATLs, EPA compared the ATL expressed in

tons per year to the system or facility’s annual Transport Rule allowance allocations as determined using the

approach in the Final Transport Rule (76 FR 48287 and 48289

- 90) and listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level

Allocations under the FIP” (http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html) . Because some ATLs decline from

year

- to

- year, EPA assessed the potential impact on each year through 2016 . For all but two consent decrees, the

ATLs remain constant afte r 2016. This date also provide states sufficient time to prepare and submit State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that include allowance allocation methodologies. For Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA) and Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative (Hoosier) cons ent decrees

, the ATLs continue to decline

until 2019 and 2017, respectively. Therefore, EPA assessed the potential impact of those two consent decrees

until the ATL s remain constant (i.e., 2019 for TVA and 2017 for Hoosier). EPA determined that six consent

decrees contain ATLs lower than the aggregate Transport Rule allowance allocations listed in the “ Final CSAPR

Unit Level Allocations under the FIP ” for the affected units

– one for SO

2 

## , NO X 

## annual , and NO X 

## ozone season

emissions ; one for SO

2 

## and NO

X 

## annu al emissions ; two for SO

2 

## emissions ; and two for NO

X 

## annual emissions

. The detailed results are presented in T ables 2

– 1 3

.

In T ables 2

– 13, t he allocation column represents the aggregate Transport Rule SO

2 

## or NO X 

## annual

allowance allocations listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP” for those units affected by

the consent decree ATL. The ATL column is the system

- or facility

- wide SO 2 

## or NO X 

## ATL for the units affected by

the consent decree. The surplus allocat ion column is the number of allowances from the allocation column in

excess of the limit in the ATL column

. If EPA determined the consent decree did not apply to Transport Rule SO

2



## or NO X 

## annual allowances, no assessment is shown below.

## 5 Table 2

– Tenness ee Valley Authority: Potential I mpact of A nnual T onnage L imits

Year SO 2 

## NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 250,105 285,000 None 70,461 100,600 None

2013 250,105 235,518 14,587 70,461 90,791 None

2014 128,819 228,107 None 52,469 86,842 None

2015 128,819 220,631 None 52,469 83,042 None

2016 128,819 175,626 None 52,469 70,667 None

2017 128,819 164,257 None 52,469 64,951 None

2018 128,819 121,699 7,120 52,469 52,000 469

2019 128,819 110,000 18,819 52,469 52,000 469

Table 3

– Northern Indiana Public Service

Company: Potential I mpact of A nnual

T onnage L imits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 15,060 15,537 None

2013 15,060 13,752 1 

## 1,308

2014 14,880 13,464 1 

## 1,416

2015 14,880 12,870 1 

## 2,010

2016 14,880 12,870 1 

## 2,010

1 

## The ATL is based on the utility’s plans to install SNCR at R.M. Schahfer and SCR at Michigan City. If the utility

pursues alternatives allowed in the consent decree, the ATLs vary between 15,247 tons and 11,704 tons.

Table 4

– Hoosier Energy Rural E lectric Cooperative: Potential I mpact of Annual

T onnage L imits

Year SO 2 

## NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 20,881 28,500 None 7,731 5,869 1,862

2013 20,881 27,000 None 7,731 5,395 2,336

2014 11,550 26,000 None 7,639 5,395 2,244

2015 11,550 19,889 None 7,639 4,800 2,839

2016 11,550 19,889 None 7,639 4,800 2,839

2017 11,550 18,750 1 

## None 7,639 4,800 2,839

1 

## The ATL declines to 15,500 tons if one of the F.E. Ratt s units is retired or repowered

.

## 6 Table 5

– American Municipal Power: Potential I mpact of A nnual T onnage L imits

Year SO 2 

## NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 3,663 21,000 None 1,065 2,100 None

2013 3,663 0 1 

## 3,663 1,065 0 1 

## 1,065

2014 1,587 0 1 

## 1,587 1,004 0 1 

## 1,004

2015 1,587 0 1 

## 1,587 1,004 0 1 

## 1,004

2016 1,587 0 1 

## 1,587 1,004 0 1 

## 1,004

1 The R

. H

. Gorsuch facility must shut down or repower.

Table 6

– Westar Energy: Potential I mpact of A nnual T onnage L imits

Year SO 2 

## NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 16,565 6,600 9,965 11,529 None None

2013 16,565 6,600 9,965 11,529 None None

2014 16,565 6,600 9,965 9,580 12,400 None

2015 16,565 6,600 9,965 9,580 12,400 None

2016 16,565 6,600 9,965 9,580 9,600 None

Table 7

– Duke Energy: Potential I mpact of

A nnual T onnage L imits 1



## Year SO 2



## Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 2,987 20,447 None

2013 2,987 0 2 

## 2,987

2014 1,652 0 2 

## 1,652

2015 1,652 0 2 

## 1,652

2016 1,652 0 2 

## 1,652

1 

## The consent decree ATL applies to Gallagher Unit 1 and Unit 3 only.

2 

## Gallagher Units 1 & 3 must be retired or repowered by 2013

.

## 7 Table 8

– Ohio Edison Company : P otential

I mpact of A nnual T onnage L imits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 9,835 11,863 None

2013 9,835 11,863 None

2014 9,279 11,863 None

2015 9,279 11,863 None

2016 9,279 11,863 None

1 

## The consent decree ATL applies to WH Sammis only

.

Table 9

– East Kentucky Power Cooperative :

Potential Impact of Annual Tonnage Limits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 6,934 11,500 None

2013 6,934 8,500 None

2014 6,285 8,500 None

2015 6,285 8,500 None

2016 6,285 8,500 None

Table 10

– Illinois Power Company : Potential

Impact of Annual Tonnage Limits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 8,177 13,800 None

2013 8,177 13,800 None

2014 8,177 13,800 None

2015 8,177 13,800 None

2016 8,177 13,800 None

## 8 Table 11

– South Carolina Public Service

Authority : Potential Impact of Annual

Tonnage Limits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 17,341 20,000 None

2013 17,341 20,000 None

2014 17,341 20,000 None

2015 17,341 20,000 None

2016 17,341 20,000 None

Table 1 2

– Wisconsin Electric Power

Company : Potential Impact of Annual

Tonnage Limits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 12,970 23,400 None

2013 12,970 17,400 None

2014 12,439 17,400 None

2015 12,439 17,400 None

2016 12,439 17,400 None

Table 13

– Virginia Electric Power Company :

Potential Impact of Annual Tonnage Limits

Year NO X 

## Annual

Allocation ATL (tons) Surplus

allocation

2012 24,837 50,000 None

2013 24,837 30,250 None

2014 24,215 30,250 None

2015 24,215 30,250 None

2016 24,215 30,250 None

a) A pportioning the annual tonnage limits for unit

- level allocations

The consent decrees that include a system

- or facility

- wide ATL do not apportion the limit to individual units

affected by those consent decrees

. However, Transport Rule allowances are allocated to individual units.

Therefore, as described in section III .B of the proposed Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce

## 9 Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone preamble, EPA developed a methodology for

apportioning the consent decree system

- or facility

- wide ATL to the units affected by the ATL for 2012 and later

years . The apportionment of a system

- or facility

- wide ATL is solely for the purpose s of allocations of Transport

Rule allowances and does not modify, or create additional, consent decree requirements or limitations.

To determine the unit

- level caps for calculating allocations , EPA first calculate d a ratio comparing the

consent decree sys tem

- or facility

- wide ATL to the aggregate allocations listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level

Allocations under the FIP” for units covered by th e consent decree ATL . EPA then multiplied this ratio by the

unit

- level allocation listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP” for each unit covered by the

system

- or facility

- wide ATL (equation 1).

Equation 1: Unit

- level cap =

Where A = Applicable consent decree system

- or facility

- wide ATL

B = F or units affected by the consent decree ATL , the sum of the unit

- level allocations

listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP”

C = Applicable u nit

- level Transport Rule allocation listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level

Allocations under the FIP”

This can be best illustrated with an example . In this example , EPA determines that facility ABC consists of

two units

– U nit 1 and Unit 2

– that are subject to the Transport Rule NO

X 

## annual program and a consent decree

ATL for NO

X 

## emissions . The consent decree ATL for 2012 is 3,000 tons of NO

X 

## and the 2012 NO

X 

## annual

allowance allocation as determined using the approach in the Final Transport Rule is 4,000 allowances for Unit 1

and 2,000 allowances to Unit 2

– a tot al of 6,000 allowances. Because, in this example, EPA determined the

consent decree surrender provisions apply to Transport Rule NO

X 

## annual allowances, any allocation in excess of

the ATL may be subject to surrender, reducing the number of allowances av ailable for sources to comply with

the Transport Rule, effectively reducing the state budget.

EPA must calculate unit

- level caps for Unit 1 and Unit 2 by apportioning the consent decree ATL. First, t he

ATL is divided by the sum of the unit

- level allocation s as determined using the approach in the Final Transport

Rule (3,000 / 6,000 = 0.5). This ratio is then multiplied by each unit’s allocation as determined using the

approach in the Final Transport Rule to determine the respective unit’s unit

- level cap (Un it 1: 0.5 X 4,000 = 2,000

and Unit 2: 0.5 X 2,000 = 1,000).

b) Unit

- level caps for Transport Rule units affected by a consent decree annual tonnage limit or shut down

requirement

Unit

- level caps were calculated only for units affected by a consent decree ATL that is below the sum of the

unit

- level allocations listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP” for those units. In other

words, unit

- level caps were not c alculated for units for which the ATL is greater than the aggregate allocations

listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP”

, such as the East Kentucky Power Cooperative

consent decree units (see table 9) . The results of EPA’s calculati ons are listed in T able s 1 4

– 1 6 for SO

2 

## , NO X



## annual, and NO

X 

## ozone season emissions, respectively

.

## 10 Table 1 4 : EPA

- calculated U nit

- level C aps for Purposes of C alculating Transport Rule SO 2 A llowance A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Unit

- level caps ( SO 2 tons)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

A MP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 1 3,333 3,295 2,978

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 2 3,196 3,160 2,856

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 3 3,270 3,235 2,924

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 4 3,187 3,151 2,848

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 5 6,459 6,386 5,772

TVA Paradise Kentucky 1378 1 9,472 4,089 3,696

TVA Paradise Kentucky 1378 2 10,023 4,326 3,910

TVA Paradise Kentucky 1378 3 13,474 5,816 5,257

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 1 2,220 958 866

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 10 1,897 819 740

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 2 2,240 967 874

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 3 2,253 972 879

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 4 2,142 925 836

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 5 2,224 960 868

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 6 2,197 949 857

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 7 2,320 1,001 905

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 8 2,231 963 870

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 9 2,161 932 843

TVA Allen Tennessee 3393 1 5,217 1,686 1,524

TVA Allen Tennessee 3393 2 4,984 1,611 1,456

TVA Allen Tennessee 3393 3 5,025 1,624 1,468

TVA Bull Run Tennessee 3396 1 14,384 4,649 4,202

TVA Cumberland Tennessee 3399 1 8,300 8,029 7,258

TVA Cumberland Tennessee 3399 2 9,665 7,999 7,231

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 1 4,997 1,615 1,460

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 2 5,120 1,655 1,496

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 3 5,703 1,843 1,666

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 4 5,901 1,907 1,724

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 1 3,338 1,079 975

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 2 3,352 1,084 979

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 3 3,411 1,102 997

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 4 3,365 1,087 983

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 1 2,329 753 681

## 11 Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Unit

- level caps ( SO 2 tons)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

T VA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 10 2,660 860 777

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 2 2,373 767 693

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 3 2,470 798 722

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 4 2,200 711 643

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 5 2,134 690 623

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 6 2,271 734 663

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 7 2,462 795 719

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 8 2,696 872 788

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 9 2,614 845 763

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 1 2,675 864 781

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 2 2,670 863 780

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 3 2,869 928 839

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 4 2,705 875 791

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 5 3,862 1,248 1,128

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 6 3,736 1,207 1,091

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 7 3,684 1,190 1,076

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 8 3,695 1,194 1,079

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 9 3,754 1,213 1,096

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 1 1,771 1,752 1,583

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 2 1,709 1,690 1,528

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 3 1,844 1,823 1,648

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 4 1,921 1,900 1,717

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 5 1,672 1,653 1,494

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 6 1,934 1,912 1,728

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 7 7,284 7,204 6,511

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 8 6,463 6,484 5,860

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 1 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 2 2,197 2,197 2,197 2,197 2,197 2,197 2,197 2,197

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 3 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133

## 12 Table 1 5 : EPA

- calculated U nit

- level C aps for Purposes of C alculating Transport Rule NO X A llowance A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Unit

- level caps ( NO X annual tons)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Go rsuch Ohio 7253 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hoosier FE Ratts Indiana 1043 1SG1 550 506 506 451 451 451 451 451

Hoosier FE Ratts Indiana 1043 2SG1 578 532 532 473 473 473 473 473

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 1SG1 2,384 2,192 2,192 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 2SG1 2,357 2,165 2,165 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926

NIPSCO B ailly Indiana 995 7 883 865 827 827 827 827 827

NIPSCO Bailly Indiana 995 8 1,517 1,485 1,419 1,419 1,419 1,419 1,419

NIPSCO M ichigan City Indiana 997 12 2,112 2,068 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977 1,977

NIPSCO M ichigan City Indiana 997 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NIPSCO Michigan City Indiana 997 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NIPSCO M ichigan City Indiana 997 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NIPSCO R M Schahfer Indiana 6085 14 2,266 2,218 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120

NIPSCO R M Schahfer Indiana 6085 15 2,671 2,616 2,501 2,501 2,501 2,501 2,501

NIPSCO R M Schahfer Indiana 6085 17 2,126 2,081 1,989 1,989 1,989 1,989 1,989

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 18 2,177 2,131 2,037 2,037 2,037 2,037 2,037

TVA Colb ert Alabama 47 1 1,115 1,115

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 2 1,069 1,069

TVA Colb ert Alabama 47 3 1,094 1,094

TVA Colb ert Alabama 47 4 1,066 1,066

TVA Colbert Alabama 47 5 2,162 2,162

TVA Para dise Kentucky 1378 1 3,141 3,141

TVA Paradise Kentucky 1378 2 3,323 3,323

TVA Para dise Kentucky 1378 3 4,466 4,466

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 1 735 735

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 10 628 628

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 2 742 742

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 3 746 746

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 4 710 710

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 5 737 737

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 6 728 728

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 7 769 769

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 8 739 739

TVA Shaw nee Kentucky 1379 9 717 717

TVA Alle n Tennessee 3393 1 575 575

TVA Allen Tennessee 3393 2 549 549

TVA Alle n Tennessee 3393 3 553 553

## 13 Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Unit

- level caps ( NO X annual tons)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

TVA Bull Run Tennessee 3396 1 1,584 1,584

TVA Cumberland Tennessee 3399 1 2,735 2,735

TVA Cumb erland Tennessee 3399 2 2,725 2,725

TVA Gall atin Tennessee 3403 1 550 550

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 2 564 564

TVA Gall atin Tennessee 3403 3 628 628

TVA Gallatin Tennessee 3403 4 650 650

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 1 368 368

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 2 370 370

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 3 376 376

TVA John Sevier Tennessee 3405 4 371 371

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 1 257 257

TVA John sonville Tennessee 3406 10 293 293

TVA John sonville Tennessee 3406 2 262 262

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 3 272 272

TVA John sonville Tennessee 3406 4 242 242

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 5 235 235

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 6 250 250

TVA John sonville Tennessee 3406 7 272 272

TVA Johnsonville Tennessee 3406 8 297 297

TVA John sonville Tennessee 3406 9 288 288

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 1 294 294

TVA King ston Tennessee 3407 2 294 294

TVA King ston Tennessee 3407 3 316 316

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 4 298 298

TVA King ston Tennessee 3407 5 425 425

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 6 411 411

TVA King ston Tennessee 3407 7 405 405

TVA King ston Tennessee 3407 8 407 407

TVA Kingston Tennessee 3407 9 413 413

TVA Wido ws Creek Alabama 50 1 593 593

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 2 572 572

TVA Wido ws Creek Alabama 50 3 616 616

TVA Wido ws Creek Alabama 50 4 643 643

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 5 560 560

TVA Wido ws Creek Alabama 50 6 647 647

TVA Widows Creek Alabama 50 7 2,437 2,437

TVA Wido ws Creek Alabama 50 8 2,716 2,716

## 14 Table 1 6 : EPA

- calculated U nit

- level C aps for Purposes of C alculating Transport Rule NO X Ozone Season A llowance A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Unit

- level caps ( NO X ozone season tons)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Gorsuch Ohio 7253 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMP R Go rsuch Ohio 7253 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



## 3. Emission R ate L imits

Many of the consent decrees include other emission constraints such as maximum emission rates (e.g.,

pounds of NO

X 

## per million Btu of heat input), pollution control installation and operation requirements, and

pollution control performance specifications. EPA did not analyze the impact of the latter two constraint s

directly because EPA believes that the maximum emission rates are generally designed to be consistent with,

and account for

, th ese additional requirements.

EPA did estimate the potential impact of maximum emission rates on allocations of Transport Rule

allowances

. T he impact of a maximum emissions rate on a unit’s allowable mass emissions depends on the

actual utilization of the unit involved in future years when the emission rate applies. The product of a maximum

emissions rate ( in lb/mmBtu ) and the unit’s actual future heat input ( in mm Btu) is a mass emission value that

,

after conversion from pounds to tons

, limits the use of the unit’s allocated allowances. However, in order to

estimate the potential impact of a unit ’s maximum emission rate on allowance allocations, EPA must make

assumptions about each unit’s future heat input. For the purpose of this a nalysis, EPA multipl ied a unit ’s

maximum emission rate as listed in the consent decree by the average of the respective unit’s three highest

non

- zero annual or ozone season heat input values from 2006 to 2010. These are the same heat input values

used for allocating allowance and listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP”

. 2



## EPA selected 2013 for this analysis because it represents the greatest potential impact of consent decree

maximum emission rates because m aximum emission rates do not begin for some units until 2013 and the 2012

– 2013 allowance allocations are generally g reater than in future years (i.e., allowance allocations decline in

2014 for many units ). EPA determined the maximum emission rates in the consent decrees potentially have the

following impact s: The results of

this analysis are shown in T able s 1 7

– 19 for SO

2 

## , NO X 

## annual, and NO X 

## ozone season emissions , respectively

.

**•** Transport Rule SO

2 

## a nnual trading program: 4,335 SO 2 

## allowanc es may be affected , approximately 0.13%

of the total allowances allocated

.

**•** Transport Rule NO

X 

## a nnual trading program: 1,585 NO X 

## annual allowances may be affected,

approximately 0.13% of the total allowances allocated

.

2 

### In the case of the Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative consent decree, one unit at the Me rom facility has the option

of operating the FGD at 95 % removal efficiency or meeting an emission rate of 0.15 pounds per million Btu of heat input.

Based on fuel purchase records reported to EIA for 2010 and 2011, the 95% removal efficiency equates to an emission rate

of 0.27 pounds per million Btu and was used for this analysis.

## 15 **•** Transport Rule NO

X 

## o zone season tradi ng program: 1,123 NO X 

## ozone season allowances may be affected,

approximately 0.19% of the total allowances allocated

.

Based on this analysis of potential impact on allowance allocations

, EPA conclude d that the consent decree

emission constraints other than ATLs would affect few allowances in the Tr ansport Rule trading programs. A ny

effort to reallocate the allowances affected by maximum emission rate would require EPA to make assumptions

about individu al units’ future utilization and heat input

. Because this would require the use of unit

- level

projections whose application in setting unit

- level allocations would be difficult to support and because few

allowances are potentially at risk , EPA chose not to adjust allocations to reflect maximum emission rates defined

in the consent decrees.

In T ables 1 7

– 19 below , the allocation column represents the unit

- level allocation of SO

2 

## or NO X 

## allowances

listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the F IP” or, for units with a unit

- level cap calculated by

EPA, tables 1 4

– 1 6 of this document. The av g heat input column is the average of the three highest non

- zero

heat input values from 200 6

– 2010 as listed in the “Final CSAPR Unit Level Allocations under the FIP” (tables 17

and 18 use the annual heat input values and table 19 uses the ozone season heat input value s ) . The emission

rate is the maximum SO

2 

## or NO X 

## emission rate listed in a consent decree. The potential constraint is the product

of the values from the av era g e heat input and emission rate columns. The surplus allocation is the number of

allowances in the allocation column in excess of the potential constraint column.

Table 1 7 : Potential I mpact of C onsent D ecree SO 2 M aximum E mission R ates on Transport Rule SO 2 A llowance A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Allocation Avg heat

input SO 2

emission

rate Potential

constraint Surplus allocation

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 1SG1 8582 38089260 0.272 5180 3402

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 1 0 6521304 1.7 5543 None

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 2 1658 7359549 0.6 220 8 None

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 3 0 6892599 1.7 585 9 None

Duke R Gallagher Indiana 1008 4 1587 7045742 0.6 211 4 None

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 1 2270 55683277 0.07 194 9 321

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 2 2197 53900154 0.07 188 7 310

Westar Jeffrey Energy

Center Kansas 6068 3 2133 52319190 0.07 1831 302

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 1 2220 10394599 1.2 623 7 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 10 1897 8884355 1.2 533 1 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 2 2240 10491296 1.2 629 5 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 3 2253 10551380 1.2 633 1 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 4 2142 10031659 1.2 601 9 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 5 2224 10415210 1.2 6249 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 6 2197 10286868 1.2 6172 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 7 2320 10867445 1.2 6520 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 8 2231 10445226 1.2 6267 None

TVA Shawnee Kentucky 1379 9 2161 10119178 1.2 607 2 None

## 16 Table 18 : Potential I mpact of C onsent D ecree NO X M aximum Emission R ates on Transport Rule NO X A nnual A llowance A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Allocation Avg heat

input NO X

emission

rate Potential

constraint Surplus allocation

NIPSCO Bailly Indiana 995 7 883 11732774 0.150 880 3

NIPSCO Bailly Indiana 995 8 1517 20143261 0.150 1511 6

NIPSCO Michigan City Indiana 997 12 2112 28055936 0.120 1683 429

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 14 2266 30081712 0.12 1805 461

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 15 2671 35484866 0.15 2661 10

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 17 2126 28235898 0.2 2824 None

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 18 2177 28911962 0.2 2891 None

Hoosier Frank E Ratts Indiana 1043 1SG1 506 8796939 0.25 1100 None

Hoosier Frank E Ratts Indiana 1043 2SG1 532 9240250 0.25 1155 None

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 1SG1 2192 38089260 0.12 2285 None

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 2SG1 2165 37630329 0.08 1505 660

Alcoa Sandow Texas 52071 5A 505 9930008 0.1 497 8

Alcoa Sandow Texas 52071 5B 486 9560604 0.1 478 8

Table 19 : Potential I mpact of C onsent D ecree NO X M aximum E mission R ates on Transport Rule NO X Ozone Season A llowance

A llocations

Utility

consent

decree Plant Name State ORIS Boiler

ID Allocation Avg heat

input NO X

emission

rate Potential

constraint Surplus allocation

NIPSCO Bailly Indiana 995 7 371 4543682 0.180 40 9 None

NIPSCO Bailly Indiana 995 8 640 7844654 0.180 706 None

NIPSCO Michigan City Indiana 997 12 1100 13476406 0.16 1078 22

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 14 1177 14412841 0.16 1153 24

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 15 1165 14274662 0.15 107 1 94

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 17 1017 12455922 0.2 124 6 None

NIPSCO RM Schahfer Indiana 6085 18 1020 12489622 0.2 124 9 None

Hoosier Frank E Ratts Indiana 1043 1SG1 307 3763381 0.25 470 None

Hoosier Frank E Ratts Indiana 1043 2SG1 308 3777533 0.25 472 None

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 1SG1 1232 15095987 0.12 90 6 326

Hoosier Merom Indiana 6213 2SG1 1289 15787732 0.08 63 2 657

Alcoa Sandow Texas 52071 5A 321 8024562 0.1 401 None

Alcoa Sandow Texas 52071 5B 298 7547740 0.1 377 None