P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

247) ll-F-37 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 247 of 250 
P.2 

buldyou 

kindly 

see that 

this gets to 

the right 

person? 

OFFICE or MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

DATE 

TO: 

. 9/l22 , 6ENDERS AL 

.OM^/LCS Cru.nplzr' 

AGENCY: 

PROM: 

RECIPIENT •B PAX NO. I TZ__________i 

RECIPIENT TELEPHONE NO.I 

TOTAL NUMBER OP PACES XNCLUDZNO COVER SBEETt 

NOTE 1 ZP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION NO.I 202-J&5-7J40 

OZRA PAX NO.I 202-315-7285 

THE PAGES, *PLEAS8 CALL AS 80ON 
P.3 

• • • . 90 . . 

section-51.166(b)(21)(v). Even after this time period, the 

permitting authority may still-consider, whether an increase thkt 

occurs is "caused" by the change and thus results in an emissions 

increase subjecting the original change to major NSR. See 

57 FR 323,2,6. Therefore, EPA solicits comment on the adequacy bf 

these safeguards .and whether the .future-actual methodology sho aid 

be expanded to all source categoriesaor. eliminated, entirely-; • 

A **•<*) 

3. Issues. Regarding The Future-Actual Methodology . 

The EPA also seeks comment on two additional specific parts 

of the WEPCO rule^ First, the EPA solicits comment on whether, a 

•demand growth exclusion should be included, with or without 

changes, if EPA adopts an actual-to-future-actual methodology for 

some.or all source categories. Second, the EPA solicits comment 

on whether the 5 year reporting provision is working as intended 

and whether- it should be changed in any way. 

As discussed, the WEPCO.rule requires the permitting 

authority, to exclude from the post-change emissions estimate, any 

increase in utilization that is unrelated to the particularchange, "including any increased utilization due to the rate o:f 

electricity demand growth for the utility system as a whole." 

While this provision "does not amount to a per se exclusion of' 

demand growth from the emissions increase calculation" 

(57 FR 3232.7) , it may create confusion outside the utility area • 

as. to when demand growth increases may be excluded. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY . 

***' July 5, 1995 [file name:. Master6.29] *** 
P.4 

''••'•''•' . X 9 1 .. | 

The WEPCO preamble is very'clear that any increases at a 

unit that result from a change that significantly affects the 

efficiency of. the unit must be included in the future-actual ,. 

• ' • . ' ' '. 

calculation. Id. Indeed, where the proposed change will , • 

•".'•..• . - : • • • . | : increase reliability,•lower.operating costs, or improve other'j 

• I ' 

operational characteristics of the unit, increases in utilization 

i 

that-are projected to follow can and should be'attributable t'oj' 

the change. These factors are the very factors that utilitiesr 

use to order the production dispatch of the various units in tljie 

system. ^A>V** * ^ > *'fr 'HsNjfcUuft *fffi*?^ h^ML . 

i Moreover', it is clear for otnier source categories that fafdc1\42%b+* • 

predictions of future demand and its impact on individual . r»CjL« • \ ^PA 

emissions units are far more complicated and chaotic. For /\XQAid '*-*? njjrt*-mt

consumer-driven industries, for instance, demand'varies and ^V^tt:^ 

presumptions regarding its size and source wduld.be far more u*t6Jf"UM. 

speculative than in the utility. industry. In most industries, in qnjo-jM. 

other words, the prediction of future-actual emissions should be-&&***** 

left to the permitting authority for a, case-by-case determination 

of whether the proposed change will cause any increase in• • • , 

emissions or whether all or part of any projected" increases-.will, 

be caused by independent, factors '. ' Eor-thia L'EIMFQIB,' EPA seeks 

specific comments on tho need fei» the demand growth exclusion «M 

».Oy-...j«.f a W..4- ' -.1 Ar. na,*-e.4A~ -U^ . ,^4144- y 4l-]iYi,.mj-r. 

07 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET .REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 5, 1995 [file name:' Masters.29] *** 
P.5 

- 32 '• 

In .addition, the EPA solicits comment on the five year 

tracking requirement which mandates that permitting authorities 

tracks future-actual projections for five years following the 

change to insure their accuracy. ^p^"fhe EPA believes ..that t 

mechanism is working as intended.. However, the EPA invites tixk 

public to comment on this issue and the experience to date of 

applicability determinations making, use. of this safeguard. 

,H. Proposal of CMA Exhibit B 

As part of the.settlement of a challenge to the EPA's 1980 

NSR regulations by Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and 

9 

other industry petitioners, the EPA agreed to propose for public' _ 

comment- and take final action on a methodology for determining 

whether a source has undertaken a modification based on a 

source's potential emissions. The exact.regulatory language the' 

EPA was to propose was set forth in Exhibit B to' the Settlement 

Agreement which is contained in the. docket • for this rulemaking. 

Under this methodology, sources may calculate emissions increases 

and decreases based on either the actual emissions methodology in. 

the existing rules or the unit's .potential emissions, measured in 

terms-of hourly emissions (i.e., pounds of pollutant per hour).', 

Spvirces could use .this potential-to-potential test for- both NSR 

applicability and for calculating offsets, netting credits and 

other, emissions reductions credits. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

. .*** July 5,. 1995 ,[file name: Masters.29] ***