From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:25 PM

To: Vasu, Amy; Culligan, Kevin

Cc: Frey, Nathan J.; Grossman, Andrea; Laity, Jim

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for 

EPA's Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (RIN 2060-AR33)

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 

on the EPA final rule entitled, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (RIN 2060-AR33).

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.

Aaron L. Szabo

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

202-395-3621

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 1 -

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Final Rule

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units

RIN 2060-AR33

General Comments

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying why the unit-based emission performance rates for the 

existing source rule are based on MWh-net and the NSPS rule is based on MWh-gross.

a. Reviewer recommends finalizing an emission standard that is calculated on a net 

basis. Reviewer suggests that both 111(b) and (d) should have standards 

expressed in a common net-unit basis.

b. Reviewer recommends clarifying the language in both rules; the language on ease 

of measuring net versus gross generation in this rule is contradictory to the 

language in the 111(b) rule. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying why the existing source rule unit-based emission 

performance rates are lower (i.e. more stringent) than the NSPS rule and whether EPA has 

done this in any previous rulemakings.

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying how the uniform emission performance rates were 

translated into state-specific goals (see page 55). 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying how this rule reduces the stringency of the interim goals 

while increasing the stringency of the 2030 goal? (see page 348).

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying how statewide rate-based CO2 emissions goals would 

change based on any likely affected plant closing, modifying, or reconstructing. If the 

statewide rate-based CO2 emission goals can change, how could EPA make modifications 

of this in the rule language? 

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying why 2012 is being used as the baseline as more recent 

data may be available for the final rule.

7) Reviewer recommends clarifying what the unit based emissions performance rates are 

based on, as the preamble includes language implying that rates are based on regional as 

well as national levels.

8) Reviewer recommends making a clear statement that any equipment upgrades necessary to 

implement building block 1 does not trigger NSR.

9) Reviewer recommends clarifying the benefits from the use of a blended rate. 

10) Reviewer notes internal inconsistencies in recognizing carbon sequestration and sinks 

associated with agriculture and forestry at the national level (page 113) while explicitly 

excluding these sinks from participating as offsets. Reviewer recommends removing the 

exclusion of agriculture and forestry offsets in section VIII. 

11) Reviewer recommends adding and carrying the option to co-fire biofuels (in addition to 

natural gas) throughout the sections on fuel-switching. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 2 -

12) Reviewer recommends reflecting biomass as a RE resource throughout the rule.

13) Reviewer recommends addressing potential impacts of the rule on rural utilities that lack 

investor-owned utilities by requiring States to address these issues as a condition of state 

plan approval. This could take the form of a “Rural Safety Valve” explicitly requiring 

states to address potential cases where rural communities are disproportionately impacted 

by an increase in electricity prices as a result of the rule.

14) Reviewer recommends addressing federal rural development interests, including impacts 

on the ability of federal loan recipients to obtain additional financing for compliance with 

this rule and repay their existing federal loans. Reviewer recommends that States be 

prohibited from implementing plans which contemplate or result in write-offs of 

obligations to pay Federal debt.

15) Reviewer suggests disaggregating income and race with reference to climate impacts on 

“low income and some communities of color” (pages 28, 63, etc.). The language adopted 

in the aircraft endangerment finding rule was “low-income populations and some 

populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location.”

16) Reviewer recommends deleting the section on pages 143-147 about Congress’ awareness 

of climate change. 

17) Reviewer recommends greater specificity regarding the criteria under which units may 

exercise the reliability safety valve measure and the process for obtaining EPA approval. 

18) Reviewer recommends clarifying that all uprated/upgraded RE capacity at existing RE 

sites would be eligible as a compliance option, using the methodology outlined for 

hydropower on page 940.

19) Reviewer recommends adding an additional section under VIII.G.1.b.(3) to clarify how 

performance improvements at existing RE will be treated. Suggested language:

a. “Performance improvements at existing RE. Incremental generation resulting 

from technological innovations that increase performance via increased capacity 

factors but that do not change a facility’s nameplate capacity that are made after 

2012 to RE generation installed in 2012 or earlier will be eligible compliance 

mechanisms. An example would be installation of improved wind power control 

systems to an existing wind site that optimizes total generation through individual 

control of each turbine. The incremental MWh generated would need to be 

calculated through an EM&V procedure similar to those for EE measures outlined 

in section VIII.G.5.b wherein a baseline generation is established.”

20) Reviewer recommends editing the text to ensure that vehicle electrification is recognized 

as a means to reduce economy-wide emissions.

21) Reviewer requests clarification on whether mass targets that are not adjusted for growth 

are more stringent than BSER.

22) Reviewer recommends that over compliance in the interim period be bankable for 

compliance post-2030.

23) Reviewer recommends making a finding in the alternative that the combined category of 

sources causes or contributes significantly to air pollution (see pages 245 and 246).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 3 -

Trading

1) Reviewer recommends highlighting in the text the relative simplicity of adopting a massbased policy as well as the complications and additional scrutiny necessary to avoid 

unintended emissions increases for states that choose to adopt a rate based policy.

a. Reviewer recommends providing more explanation on the allowance trading 

approach to ensure that states understand how to implement a mass-based trading 

approach.

b. Reviewer recommends more complete treatment in the rule of the two types of 

programs (i.e., rate-based and mass-based) to enable states to compare programs. 

The significantly greater amount of text on ERCs compared to allowances in the 

current draft may prevent states from fully understanding all of the benefits and 

potential issues of each program. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying how the development of transportation and distribution 

lines, either interstate or intrastate, would be treated in the development of creating ERC. 

3) Reviewer recommends considering ways to make the process for generating ERCs more 

automated once initial approval to generate ERCs is given to the low or zero emitting 

source. 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying how ongoing monitoring of trading of ERCs will occur 

and to whom oversight would be expected to ensure proper implementation of a multistate trading program. 

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying the distinction between existing and “new” demand-side 

EE programs for the purposes of ERC trading. For example, would an expansion of an 

existing EE program be new? (see page 404)

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether a nuclear unit that retires and is replaced by 

renewable energy would be eligible to receives ERCs? Could this ultimately lead to 

increased emissions?

7) Reviewer recommends that for emissions leakage, the burden of proof should be on the 

owners of the EGUs or the state, as appropriate, to prove that no double counting occurred 

in the emissions or generation impacts of trading. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying the equation by which ERCs are integrated into a EGUs 

denominator to avoid double counting.

9) Reviewer recommends additional discussion of why EPA chose to allow trading in MWh 

rather than tons.

10) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 343 that only “bundled” RECs represent 

pollution control measures, though there are markets for both “bundled” and “unbundled” 

RECs. 

11) Reviewer recommends additional clarification on why ERCs associated with building 

block 2 would be considered “zero-emissions generation”. Reviewer recommends 

including a sample calculation to demonstrate.

12) Reviewer recommends that the creation of ERCs by NGCCs should be based on the 

difference between actual emissions of the individual NGCC unit being credited and the 

regional average CO2 emission rate from coal fired units.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 4 -

a. Reviewer suggests that the use of the regional coal-fired rate is more appropriate 

than the state coal-fired rate as electricity markets are regional, and the NGCC 

may be displacing a coal-fired unit in an adjacent state.

b. Reviewer recommends that the sentence on page 383 be revised to read “The 

specific number of incremental MWh that an NGCC unit would need to generate 

in order to qualify for issuance of an ERC representing one MWh of zeroemissions generation would depend on the magnitude of the difference between 

the NGCC unit’s actual emission rate and the regional average CO2 emission rate 

from coal-fired units.”

13) Reviewer recommends allowing state access to the registry infrastructure discussed in the 

rule for creation of all ERCs by generators who meet applicable monitoring, accounting 

and verification requirements. Reviewer also recommends providing states with existing 

recognized registries the option to also participate in an interconnected tracking system 

that would function similarly to the CAMD. 

14) Reviewer recommends that, for utilities that operate an integrated electrical system across 

multiple states, the language about demonstrating that measures in a mass-based state 

being delivered to meet load in a rate-based state on page 969 should be revised to be 

consistent with language on page 971 which reads “used to serve regional load that 

included the rate-based state”. 

15) Reviewer recommends explaining on page 722 why does the fact that CO2 effects occur 

over the long term make a tradable emissions regime “appropriate” for this pollutant?

16) Reviewer recommends clarifying and, if appropriate, providing guidance on the treatment 

in the following situations for the generation of ERCs:

a. If one NGCC unit with a low capacity factor in 2012 increases generation and one 

NGCC unit with a high capacity factor in 2012 decreases generation, both 

operating at their designated emissions rate limits. Will the first unit produce 

ERCs even though there is no net change in generation or displacement?

b. If a new NGCC plant comes online and displaces generation from an identical 

plant, with no change in net emissions, can the state claim that its 111d emissions 

have declined for compliance purposes?

c. If an EGU becomes a non-affected source via biomass conversion. Could the 

source still generate ERCs?

17) Reviewer recommends clarifying what specific evidence an entity in a mass state that 

wants to sell an ERC to a rate state would need to demonstrate that the ERC-producing 

measure is actually feeding load in the rate state.

18) Reviewer recommends clarifying a perceived inconsistency in the descriptions provided in 

the preamble for the generation of ERCs for early actions.

a. Footnote 568: “States may also consider issuing ERCs representing MWh 

generation or savings that occur from 2013-2021.” This could mean that a state 

can generate ERCs from incremental generation sources that come online in 2013 

and beyond. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 5 -

b. Page 926: “only the MWh of energy savings that occur in 2022 and subsequent 

years as a result of these measures may be applied toward adjusting a CO2 

emission rate.”

c. Reviewer recommends resolving this in favor of the methodology for MWh 

savings occurring after 2013, and that this provision be expanded to not only 

include energy efficiency, but also other low or zero-emitting generation.

19) Reviewer recommends stating more clearly the conditions under which mass-based plans 

can be considered “trading ready”.

a. Reviewer recommends on page 761 clarifying that if both types of plans 

demonstrate that they can achieve the mass targets described in the rule for 

affected sources and have corrective measures in place if needed, trading should 

be allowed and the plans should be considered trading ready.

b. Reviewer recommends that requirements for plan approvals that allow trading for 

other state programs are no more restrictive for mass programs than they are for 

rate programs.

20) Reviewer recommends clarifying the consideration of growth in the initial conversion of 

rate to mass goals (see pages 674-675)

21) Reviewer recommends including “incremental nuclear” similar to how EPA mentions RE 

and NGCC where examples are given about what would generate an ERC or allowance 

throughout the rule. 

22) Reviewer recommends clarifying how EPA plans to allow for the certification of ERCs 

from incremental RE (after 2012 or after 2014) that would not qualify to generate a REC 

(many cases of incremental hydro or international RE), because state RPSs do not 

recognize all forms of incremental RE that are recognized in the final draft. 

a. Reviewer recommends clarifying how incremental RE that does not generate a 

REC is certified and its ERC creation verified. 

23) Reviewer recommends addressing the interaction between ERCs and RECs to 

acknowledge in state REC requirements where necessary. Reviewer recommends 

including the text below on page 996:

a. “However, as the requirements and definitions for RECs differ as established 

under individual state policies, individual states will need to determine how ERC 

certifications offered in a state plan interact with existing instruments authorized 

and defined in state law, particularly with respect to how the same MWh of RE 

generation or EE savings can be used for both state plan compliance and other 

state policies, such as RPSs.”

24) Reviewer recommends implementing an “export adjustment requirement” with respect to 

electricity trade between a mass and rate state. This would require rate state plans to retire 

ERCs equal to a change in net exports relative to 2012 exports that exceed a certain 

threshold.

25) Reviewer recommends clarifying how EE programs that reduce energy use in a mass state, 

but are implemented by a rate state, could be certified while ensuring that double counting 

does not take place. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 6 -

26) Reviewer recommends clarifying that trade between states with a technology-specific rate 

based standard and a state with a blended rate should not be allowed because it would 

increase overall emissions. 

27) Reviewer recommends implementing an “ERC Interstate Emissions Adjustment”, 

applying the ratio of the interconnect’s reference rate to the assigned rate of the entity 

claiming ERCs for compliance as a method to adjust the number of MWhs (for trading 

between states with different blended rates).

a. This could involve converting the ERC to tons of carbon using the reference rate 

of the interconnect. The entity that wants to claim an ERC for compliance would 

convert the carbon to an ERC using their assigned rate. 

28) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether third parties can buy ERCs to move beyond the 

statutory requirements for RE. See page 1015

a. Reviewer also recommends clarifying whether EGU owners are the only entities 

that can own ERCs. If not, how is ownership determined?

29) Reviewer recommends clarifying how ERCs are awarded for non-affected fossil EGUs 

(both new units and small units)

30) Reviewer recommends additional explanation on the “specific requirements for trading 

systems for ERCs in a rate-based approach”, referenced on page 722. 

31) Reviewer recommends additional clarification on page 761 of how compliance would be 

assessed in the circumstances discussed in section (ii).

Start Date/ Compliance Path/ Interim Goals

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying how using a start date of 2022 instead of 2020 justified 

incorporating additional clean technology into the BSER (since 2022-2029 is only an 

interim glide period before the full requirements of 2030). Specifically, since BSER was 

calculated in the proposed rule with the full 2020-2030 and beyond period in mind, why 

would starting in 2022 justify a change in how much technology adoption should be 

included in the BSER?

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying the compliance path for states between the interim goal 

in 2022 and the final goal in 2030.

a. For example, reviewer recommends reconciling the terms “glide path” and “stepdown approach,” which appear to both refer to the 2022-2029 interim compliance 

period. 

b. Reviewer recommends clarifying that the suggested “step-down approach” is not 

mandatory and is just one example of a way a state could get to the 2030 targets.

3) Reviewer recommends that EPA revise the illustrative interim period targets for each state 

based on EPA’s own BAU projection to ensure that the bar is not set too low for trading 

states, that could result in the market being flooded by ERCs.

4) Reviewer recommends that in addition to the 10 percent trigger for the federally 

enforceable backstop, EPA should clarify whether any gap between actual emissions and 

approved glide path emissions is grounds for implementing corrective actions.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 7 -

5) Reviewer recommends using 2012 rates for the year 2020 and implementing a limited 

version of building block 2 for the year 2021. Alternatively, the glide path could use 2012 

rates for both 2020 and 2021, BAU rates for both years, or the less stringent of the two. 

State Plans

1) Reviewer recommends a shortened timeline for plan submission, with 13 months for the 

initial period followed by two additional periods of 12 months and 6-8 months, with 

interim plans submitted with each extension request.

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying how energy storage (mentioned on page 947) would be 

considered by EPA or within a state plan.

3) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for why the negative impacts on 

waste reduction and recycling for a WTE plant must be discussed in a state plan and how 

this relates to other RE projects that may be discussed within a state plan. 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying the analysis for relying on the federally enforceable 

“backstop” to establishing a state measures plan.

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 60 how “backstop federally enforceable 

standards” on affected EGUs are different from the previous sentence that says a state 

measures approach can have “no federally enforceable emission standards for affected 

EGUs”. 

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying the requirement to maintain existing emissions 

reductions measures as a condition for extending the final plan deadline. 

a. Does this requirement include programs that have statutory sunset dates between 

2016 and 2018? 

b. Voluntary utility programs or only state programs? 

c. Measures that require state or federal funds that may have expired? 

d. If a state does not maintain the measures, does EPA intend to use a FIP?

7) Reviewer recommends clarifying how a state that adopts a state measures plan that 

includes carbon offsets or other non-affected EGUs, how would compliance accounting 

work if a state adopts a rate standard, to ensure reasonable assurance of equivalence with 

BSER.

8) Reviewer recommends that EPA provide examples of state plan types that are 

presumptively approvable, and give examples of accompanying plan design elements that 

could ensure compliance despite state policy choices like differentiated rates, such as 

backstop mass limits on plants that receive higher rate limits. 

9) Reviewer recommends clarifying under what circumstances a state may revise its plan.

10) Reviewer recommends clarifying how EM&V methods are deemed “acceptable,” 

including potentially with specific methods for calculating baselines and energy savings

that state plans could incorporate. 

11) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 531 how, if EPA is not “authorizing states to 

include in their CAA 111(d) plan regulations covering non-affected EGUs,” will the states 

be able to develop trading programs with renewable energy generators? Or regulatory 

programs to achieve EE or demand response? How does this impact the compliance 

flexibility states should have in implementation?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 8 -

12) Reviewer recommends that the reliability analysis and demonstration be an iterative 

process, rather than as stated on page 1049, that a planning authority review the state plan 

at least once. 

13) Reviewer recommends that a FERC-coordinated reliability demonstration is warranted 

since a reliability demonstration for a single state does not ensure the reliability of the bulk 

electric system. Reviewer recommends that the national/regional reliability review could 

not be completed until all the draft final state plans are submitted. 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying the provision on page 693 requiring that state plans 

include a mechanism to credit reductions in years prior to 2022.

a. Would this provision require all states to use a 10-year averaging period with 

projected BAU emissions used as values in the first two years?

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying that if a state submits an initial plan that does not meet 

criteria and a federal plan is promulgated, will EPA also work concurrently with the state 

to revise its initial plan. Would EPA withdraw the federal plan if the state is able to correct 

deficiencies in its state plan?

16) Reviewer recommends that EPA require states to consider how their state plan could 

incentivize existing nuclear generation and mention the role that state level policies and 

state plans can have in preserving carbon free nuclear generation. 

17) Reviewer recommends that EPA clarify that it is more straightforward for EE to help 

reach goals in mass-based programs than in rate-based programs because energy 

efficiency savings would be reflected in emissions measured at the stack in mass-based 

programs without having to explicitly credit EE in an intensity fraction. 

18) Reviewer recommends clarifying why in the NSPS rule, an emergency event does not 

trigger a requirement to count those emissions against compliance while it does in this

rule. 

19) Reviewer recommends clarifying how the reliability safety valve is triggered, including 

examples of triggering events. 

20) Reviewer recommends providing guidance to states about how to adjust category or 

portfolio rates when the composition of the category or portfolio changes. 

21) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether documentation has to be submitted multiple 

times for ERC programs lasting more than one year and that may expand or diminish in 

scale over that time. See page 990. 

22) Reviewer recommends introducing a definition of leakage that would enable leakage to be 

estimated and potentially minimized through state implementation plans. 

23) Reviewer recommends clarification on the purpose of the 2021 progress report. 

Alternatively, reviewer recommends removing this requirement. 

24) Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA chose the 90 day timeframe for the reliability 

safety valve instead of a longer period.

25) Reviewer recommends clarifying why the reliability safety valve can only be used once.

BSER

1) Reviewer recommends additional discussion (and consistency throughout the rule) on how

and why BSER is set on the basis of the Eastern Interconnection (see page 351). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 9 -

a. Does this mean that other regions will have additional “compliance headroom”

that can be translated into credits and sold into the Eastern Interconnection?

b. Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 553 how the discussion of the three 

different heat rate improvements calculated for the regions meshes with the earlier 

statement that BSER was calculated on the basis of the Eastern Interconnection.

2) Reviewer recommends considering the following as a potential way to strengthen 

cumulative emissions reductions by:

a. Implementing new NGCC in BSER and compliance (as the preamble mentions)

b. Using 3 separate BSER standards for each of the 3 interconnections instead of 

using the least stringent

c. Updating renewable energy treatment in BSER

d. Including “under construction” nuclear at 100% in BSER. This could be included 

as part of Building Block 3.

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying throughout the rule (see page 499 for an example) that 

the BSER includes shifting generation, and that a credit system is only one compliance 

option.

a. The BSER building blocks are described on page 499 as “reduced generation, 

along with the purchase of emission reduction credits or allowances”. 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 499 why NGCC and renewable energy are 

characterized as “a portion of the amount of the generation reduction component of the 

BSER.” What else other than these generation shifting techniques was calculated in the 

generation reduction component of the BSER?

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying throughout the rule (see page 513 for an example) that 

BSER is “shifting generation between affected EGUs and other lower or zero emitting 

units” rather than “reduced generation in specified amounts.” Reduced generation is a 

side-effect of the shifting, which is the action taking place at any given affected EGU.

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying through the rule (see page 514 for an example) that 

“reduced generation” is not a separate component of the BSER, but a necessary side-effect 

of the generation shifts that make up building blocks 2 and 3. 

a. Example from page 514 states “building blocks 2 and 3, as well as reduced 

generation, meet the requirements for the BSER”.

7) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 514 that the “amount of reduced generation” is 

not actually prescribed by this rule, as stated. Instead, assumptions were made about shifts 

in generation to calculate the BSER, which states are then free to implement as they see 

fit. 

a. Could a state still choose to rely more on building blocks 2 and 3 than the BSER 

supposes and thus reduce more generation than the “prescribed amount”?

8) Reviewer recommends excluding existing nuclear and existing large zero CO2 emissions 

entities in the BSER rate goal, but accounting for lost generation by subtracting the lost 

generation in the denominator of the compliance calculation for the state beginning in the 

year that the EGU goes offline.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 10 -

a. Reviewer suggests that EPA would need to clarify the conditions under which lost 

clean energy is subtracted from the denominator and clearly define the period of 

time that the penalty lasts. 

9) Reviewer recommends including distributed photovoltaic (PV) in building block 3 to 

determine the BSER performance standards, using NREL’s economic potential to 

determine 2030 deployment targets. 

a. Reviewer recommends that distributed PV be treated in the same way as 

incremental hydropower.

10) Reviewer recommends increasing the aggressiveness of the BSER RE deployment rates in 

the early interim period. 

11) Reviewer recommends the following suggestions to make the calculation of BSER:

a. Using the expected 2022 share of natural gas and coal relative to all fossil 

generation to determine the application of building block 3 instead of the 2012 

share of natural gas and coal relative to all fossil generation. This would take into 

account the rapid growth of NGCC that started in 2012. 

b. Incorporating partial year 2012 gas into the model at a capacity factor closer to

that of redispatched natural gas, instead of the average capacity factor of 55%.

12) Reviewer recommends that the 64 region limits on RE used in IPM may be too restrictive 

and recommends that larger regions would be more appropriate (especially in the east).

a. Reviewer also recommends that EPA provide explanatory language to clarify the 

discrepancy between doing BSER on an interconnect region and capping RE on a 

64-region level. 

13) Reviewer recommends additional clarification on whether energy efficiency is measuring 

gross or net savings. 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying, in the discussion of interactions between the building 

blocks on page 372, whether displacing coal with NGCC or renewables could cause coal 

units to cycle more, raising average heat rates and potentially counteracting the 

improvements from building block 1. 

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying why building block 2 should only apply to steam (see 

page 529) as generation could also be redispatched between inefficient and efficient 

NGCC units. 

Treatment of new NGCC

1) Reviewer recommends unifying the definition of building block 3, specifically whether it 

envisions substituting generation at new NGCC plants for generation at existing EGUs. 

a. On page 48, BB3 defined as “including new natural gas combined cycle units”

b. On page 193, no reference to NGCC units, but low and zero-emitting

c. On page 276, only reference to zero-carbon generating capacity

d. Page 299 seems to explicitly exclude NGCC

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether emissions and generation from new NGCC 

units would be used in establishing the statewide rate-based and mass-based emission 

performance goals. NGCC units are mentioned on page 49 as part of Building Block 3, but

this issue is not addressed in the discussion of the building blocks in Section V. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 11 -

3) Reviewer recommends that EPA consider including new natural gas units as a “nonBSER” option for compliance on page 411. 

4) Reviewer recommends defining an interconnection’s “potential” to build new NGCC 

generating capacity as the level of historical NGCC capacity additions within the 

interconnection. 

5) Reviewer recommends consistency in how much of the redispatched natural gas from 

building block 2 replaces steam generation. Different definitions currently on pages 664 

and in footnote 555 on page 665. 

a. Reviewer recommends that the definition for incremental NGCC be changed to 

“incremental NGCC generation is defined as the final adjusted NGCC generation 

level minus the level of NGCC generation after applying building block 3”. 

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether, in the NGCC uniform rate, the numerator and 

denominator use the amount of total NGCC generation at 75% of summer capacity or the 

NGCC generation after displacement by RE plus the increment between 2012 baseline 

NGCC generation and 75% summer capacity generation to displace steam.

Technical Comments

1) Reviewer recommends that EPA set forth the process for States to propose and EPA to 

consider the various forms of biomass, including waste, byproducts, forest, and 

agriculturally derived on page 401. Recommended wording included below:

a. “The EPA expects to recognize the climate benefits of biomass feedstocks, such as 

waste-derived and certain forest and agriculture-derived byproducts and sustainably 

derived forest and agriculture biomass when considering state plans. These 

conclusions are supported by a variety of technical studies. The EPA expects that 

states’ reliance on biomass feedstocks may be an approvable element of their state 

plans.”

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying the use of the word “level” in the following sentence on 

pages 402 and 906. Does EPA mean to refer to a level, portion, or proportion (rate or 

quantity), or the use of a Biomass Accounting Factor?

a. “...i.e. the proposed level of biogenic CO2 emissions from the use of the biomass 

feedstock”

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether MSW also needs to “qualify” or if it is Waste 

Derived Biomass on page 408. From the sentence below, it appears that MSW may be 

automatically in. 

a. “...that combust qualifying biomass or biogenic portions of municipal solid waste...”

4) Reviewer recommends on pages 905, 906, and 913 replacing whether a form of biomass 

may not qualify with instead whether a portion of the CO2 from qualifying biomass may 

not be counted. As written, this may prove problematic for manufacturers/suppliers 

relying on multiple sources. Reviewer also recommends removing the term “qualifying” 

as it refers to biomass throughout, as the accounting framework does not qualify biomass 

but instead accounts for the inherent carbon benefits. 

a. “Not all forms of biomass are expected to be approvable...”
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 12 -

5) Reviewer recommends expanding the use of “waste-derived biogenic feedstocks” on page 

908, footnote 647, to include field and processing wastes, black liquor, slash, and residues.

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 896 why new, modified, and reconstructed fuelfired EGUs under 111(b) are not allowed to be used for compliance.

7) Reviewer recommends providing a more concise location for ERC trading within footnote 

651.

8) Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation on page 458 how this rule relates 

to the 1998 NOX SIP call and the CAIR rule. 

9) Reviewer recommends deleting the discussion on page 488 of the distinction between this 

rule and a hypothetical rule requiring car owners to shift some of their travel to buses.

10) Reviewer recommends noting on page 559 that the largest heat rate opportunities appear 

to be present in the East, where coal fired units are relatively old. 

11) Reviewer recommends clarification on whether a rate-based compliance state can opt-in 

new CCS, and how that would work for different levels of CCS. 

12) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the justification for “more stringent” requirements 

(as compared to 111(b)) on page 521 is based on the “toolbox of compliance methods” 

that an affected EGU can rely on rather than the “extended timeframe for compliance”. 

13) Reviewer recommends providing additional information on page 545 about the analysis 

that led to the selection of a heat rate improvement consistency factor of 30%, since the 

preamble just refers to “engineering judgment”. 

14) Reviewer recommends adding a clarifying sentence to page 586 to provide additional 

analysis of why EPA did not use 80% utilization of NGCC as the BSER, since it is 

described here as being found to be technically feasible.

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 606 whether the 75% capacity factor is truly “an 

individual unit requirement” as states still have flexibility to rely on building blocks to 

different degrees?

16) Reviewer recommends translating the narrative formulas on and around page 666 into a 

numerical example, or providing both.

17) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the emission performance rates for stationary 

combustion turbines that are prescribed on page 634 apply to bi-model units only when 

they are operating in combined cycle mode.

a. The preamble to the final rule clarifies that stationary combustion turbines that do not 

“recover heat from the combustion turbine engine exhaust gases for purposes other 

than enhancing the performance of the stationary combustion turbine itself” are not 

considered affected units and are exempt from this rule. However, the rule does not 

discuss that recent combined cycle installations have included dampers that allow the 

associated combustion turbine to operate in either combined cycle more or simple 

cycle mode. This operational flexibility is becoming more important to complement 

the integration of increasing amounts of variable energy resources like wind and 

solar.

18) Reviewer recommends clarifying Table 7 on page 614, which described RE owned by 

owners of affected EGUs. A significant portion of this RE is existing hydroelectric 

capacity, which is omitted from this rule. Reviewer recommends either removing this 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 13 -

table (because currently owned RE is not a valid predictor of an owner’s ability to add 

incremental renewables to meet rule requirements), or giving a breakdown of these 

resources and identifying those which cannot be used to meet this rule’s requirements.

19) Reviewer recommends providing additional detail with regards to the impact of the 

regional economic potential that is used to set the RE target generation levels under 

building block 3. EPA gives the building block target generation levels by region in table 

8 on page 627, but it is unclear how these values are calculated and then how they 

translate to the state emission guidelines. 

20) Reviewer recommends clarifying the discussion on page 217. Reviewer recommends, if 

appropriate, amending the text to explain that the Senate chose to update the cross 

reference rather than adopting the House’s amendment to clarify that the sole intention of 

the provision is to ensure that pollutants that are regulated under 112 are not separately 

regulated under 111d.

21) Reviewer recommends citing to the Kagan or Roberts concurring opinions from the 

Scialabba case instead of the Sotomayor dissent (page 219).

22) Reviewer recommends clarifying the explanation of “combined” categories of steam 

EGUs and combustion turbines on page 244.

a. Because EPA sets out two different standards in this rule for steam and combustion 

turbines, in what sense have the categories been “combined”? Reviewer recommends 

referring to this as a single rule that sets out standards for two preexisting categories 

rather than as a rule that combines two preexisting categories. 

23) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 302 how existing nuclear is different than 

existing NGCC for use in building block 2.

24) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 432 the section on reliance on actions taken by 

other entities. This section needs to acknowledge the difference between these kinds of 

third party actions (which result in a lower emissions rate at the affected source) and the 

kinds of actions in building blocks 2 and 3 (which reduce total energy production at the 

affected source).

25) Reviewer recommends that when new nuclear units are reference in the text, that “small 

modular reactors” be mentioned as an example. 

26) Reviewer recommends that, on page 402, EPA clarify that affected EGUs using wasteheat to energy conversion receive credit for useful thermal output from CHP at 100% 

when calculating the affected EGU’s emissions rate. 

a. Previous rules have used both 100% and 75%. On page 1296, in the definition of “net 

electric output,” EPA describes that CHP units would receive credit for 100% of 

useful thermal output.

27) Reviewer recommends clarifying that 3rd party EE programs, such as those run by energy 

service companies, also qualify as EE programs in the definition given in footnote 694 

(page 977).

28) Reviewer recommends implementing a 30% interconnection-wide limit with no other 

limits on individual technology type for variable generation. Reviewer suggests that IPM’s 

constraint of variable renewable energy as explained on page 626 may be too restrictive. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 14 -

a. If EPA accepts this recommendation, reviewer recommends making the following 

addition to page 625:

“The modeling framework incorporates a host of constraints on the deployment of RE 

resources, including resource constraints (resource quality, land use exclusions, 

terrain variability, distance to existing transmission, population density etc.), system 

constraints (interregional transmission limits, partial reserve margin credit for 

variable RE installations, minimum turndown constraints for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

short-term capital cost adders to reflect the potential added cost due to competition 

for scarce labor and materials etc.) and technology constraints (construction lead 

times, hourly generation profiles for non-dispatchable resources by season etc.).1

Additionally, deployment of variable, non-dispatchable RE resources in IPM is 

limited to 30 percent of net energy for load in total at each of the three U.S. 

interconnections.2

The 30% constraint reflects levels commonly modeled in grid integration studies. 

These studies have demonstrated that impacts to the grid in reaching levels as a high 

as 30% variable generation are relatively minor. For instance the Western Wind and 

Solar Phase 2 study found cycling costs ranged from $0.20-0.50, $0.14-0.38, and 

$0.22-0.67 per MWh of added wind and solar generation. These integration costs are 

minimal relative to the fuel savings associated with wind and solar generation. As 

such, these constraints do not represent a technical feasibility limit but rather an 

estimate of penetration levels that would not require significant grid integration costs. 

The Western Wind and Solar Integration phase 3 study found that stability and 

inertial response of the grid could be maintained at these 30% levels.

b. Reviewer alternatively recommends implementing a smaller than 30% 

interconnection-wide limit (25%) and would still likely result in larger aggregate RE 

deployment than a 30% cap at IPM subregions.

29) Reviewer recommends eliminating or dramatically raising the threshold at which the 

short-term capital cost capacity trigger takes effect. (pages 625-626)

a. Reviewer also recommends removing these capital cost adders for solar PV, or 

alternatively raising the thresholds to values above the most recent deployment of 

utility scale solar in 2013.

30) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether there are interactions between the process for 

evaluating carbon emissions for woody feedstocks and non-waste feedstocks (page 912) 

and the forthcoming biogenic guidance. 

31) Reviewer recommends clarifying that mass-based allowances are not created by over 

complying (page 317). There is a set number of allowances equal to the cap and additional 

allowances are not created by heat rate improvements, renewable generation, etc. 

32) Reviewer recommends adding the following text regarding economic options available in 

regards to the integration of variable renewable energy into the grid (page 367-368)

 1 Refer to GHG Abatement Measures TSD for more detail on modeling methodology.

2 Regions that have already exceeded these limits are held at historical percent of net energy for load.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 15 -

a. “Recent studies looking at high penetration of variable renewable energy have 

highlighted the ability of the power system to respond through a suite of technologies 

and operational changes. While recognizing that the challenges to integrating variable 

renewable energy are real, power systems build upon the inherent operational 

flexibility to respond to supply and demand to integrate these variable resources. 

Through emerging practices such as improved integrated planning procedures, better 

forecasting, optimized transmission usage, automated balancing services and larger 

interconnected transmission networks, variable renewable energy can effectively be 

integrated into the grid. The specific solutions used by power systems and grid 

operators to integrate variable renewable energy will depend on the relative costs of 

the available options. “Carrying Capacity of the U.S. Grid to Incorporate Variable 

Renewable Energy,” NREL, March 

2015: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62607.pdf”

33) Reviewer recommends including distributed solar in the list of considerations on pages 

1065-70. Reviewer suggests the following text:

a. “Solar energy systems offer homeowners the ability to receive long-term, clean, and 

affordable energy that can lower their monthly expenses, hedge against future 

electricity price spikes and make them more energy independent. However, despite 

boom in residential solar systems, this trend has not necessarily extended to low 

income households. The 49.1 million households that earn less than $40,000 of 

income per year make up 40 percent of all US households but account for less than 

five percent of solar installations (Mueller, J.; Ronen, A. (2015). Summary for 

Policymakers: Bridging The Solar Income Gap. Washington, DC: GW Solar 

Institute). This is despite the fact that low-income households stand to gain the most 

from solar, as electricity costs make up a much larger share of their households’ 

budget compared to more affluent families. Electricity costs account for 5.7 percent 

of the median low-income family’s budget, while only accounting for 1.9 percent of 

other families’ budgets (Mueller & Ronen, 2015). Some of this lag can be attributed 

to the shortcomings of historic solar business models which have required 

homeownership, a good roof, and a good credit rating. Low-income communities are 

more likely to be renters (49 percent of lower income households are renters versus 

22 percent of households with incomes greater than $40,000 (Mueller & Ronen, 

2015)), live in multifamily units, live in buildings with deferred maintenance, or have 

limited access to capital.

Community shared solar business models offer a solution to many of the barriers of 

low-income household participation in the solar market. Shared solar projects, which 

can be located on- or off-site, allocate the electricity of a jointly owned or leased 

system to offset individual consumers’ electricity bills, allowing multiple energy 

consumers to share the benefits of a single solar array. Because a system is not tied to 

an individual customer’s utility meter, shared solar expands participation to renters 

and those in multifamily units, and offers easier financing solutions and less credit 

risk (due to the fungible nature of ownership) – thus offering a solution to many 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 16 -

barriers of low-income participation. While community shared solar is still small in 

the U.S., it has grown over 25 times in the past 4 years (GTM Research Q1 2015 

report: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight); further it is 

estimated that in the next five years the market has the potential to expand to between 

5.5 – 11 GW (Feldman, D; Brockway, A.; Ulrich, E.; Margolis, R. “Shared Solar: 

Current Landscape, Market Potential, and the Impact of Federal Securities 

Regulation.” NREL. April 2015).”

As of January 2015 the U.S. solar industry employed 174,000 workers and 

experienced the second straight year of 20%+ workforce growth. In 2015 solar 

workforce growth is projected to be 8 times greater than oil, gas and coal industries, 

and twenty times greater than the overall economy. Since 2010 PV manufacturing has 

grown 30 percent compared to overall U.S. manufacturing which grew 3.2 percent 

over the same time period. Finally, the solar industry is becoming increasingly 

diverse with a greater percentage of women, minorities and veterans of the United 

States Armed Forces employed by solar firms in 2014 as compared to 2013 (The 

Solar Foundation. 2015. "National Solar Jobs Census 2014" 

(http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national-solar-jobs-census-2014/)).”

34) Reviewer requests providing more information on the natural gas electricity price data 

referenced on pages 603-604.

35) Reviewer requests clarification as to what it means that “an affected EGU or a state may 

only take credit for avoided CO2 emissions at that affected EGU or set of EGUs in 

question, as reflected in the reported stack CO2 emissions of affected EGUs,” if they are 

allowed to take credit for reductions that occur across the region. See page 921.

36) Reviewer recommends clarifying footnote 660 on page 930. It would seem that the 

scenario in this footnote would only hold if in addition to purchasing the RECs for 

compliance with their RPS the state also purchases the ERCs for the same MWhs to use 

for meeting their CPP goal. 

37) Reviewer recommends basing the hydro calculation on page 940 on generation capacity, 

not nameplate capacity.

38) Reviewer recommends clarification regarding the “applicable CO2 emissions rate” 

described on pages 954-955. Reviewer recommends that this be the state’s interim 8 year 

average EGU emissions rate. 

39) Reviewer recommends the following edits from the section on WHP (pages 957-958)

a. (10) WHP. Electric generation from WHP units that meet the eligibility criteria under 

section VIII.G.1.b.(2) may be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected 

EGU. There are several types of WHP units. There are WHP units, also referred to as 

bottoming cycle CHP units, are units where the waste heat from the initial 

combustion process is used to generate power (e.g., fuel is first used to provide 

thermal energy for an industrial process and the waste heat from that process is then 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 17 -

used to generate electricity.)3 There are several approaches to WHP.

In WHP units where supplemental fuel is used to enhance the heat energy recovered 

from the process, incremental emissions from the supplemental fuel Emissions from 

these WHP facilities would be based on the initial fuel combustion process that 

produced the waste head and would be accounted in the same way as non-affected 

CHP units under section VIII.G.1.b.9.

There are WHP facilities where the waste heat from the initial combustion process is 

used to generate additional power. In WHP units where there is no additional or 

supplemental fuel used to generate this addittional power, as so there are no 

incremental emissions associated with that additional power. As a result, the 

incremental electric generation output from the WHP facilities could be considered 

non-emitting and the MWh of electrical output used to adjust the CO2 emission rate 

of an affected EGU.

40) Reviewer recommends considering the retirement announcement notice requirements 

across the different ISOs, RTOs, etc. See page 1051. 

41) Reviewer recommends clarifying the relative emissions reductions between the light duty

vehicle rule and the emissions reductions coming in 2030 from this policy (see page 

1113).

42) Reviewer recommends that cost analyses take into account uncertainty surrounding 

natural gas supply costs by explicitly considering a scenario in which natural gas prices 

remain in the $3 to 4.50 range through 2040. 

43) Reviewer recommends clarifying the implications that updating AEO-based cost estimates 

with estimates from the sources cited on page 623 implies a change in the scope of costs 

under consideration. 

44) Reviewer recommends that the final paragraph on page 590 (stating that the final rule will 

have no significant impact on peak demand for natural gas) be deleted or supported by a 

citation. 

45) Reviewer recommends clarification on why a 1% adjustment trigger is used on page 682.

46) Reviewer recommends explaining on page 611 why net upstream emissions of methane 

and CO2 emissions from flaring of methane will decrease under the CPP. 

Typographical Comments

1) Reviewer recommends standardizing the use of the acronym “ERC” for “Emission Rate 

Credits” in the text and adding it to the list of acronyms at the beginning of the rule.

2) Reviewer recommends the deletion of the word “some” from the following sentence on 

page 401 because the word “can” is used later in this sentence, and recommends the use 

of a clearer description of the process for determining “qualifying” biomass that should 

better address the intent of this sentence. 

 3 This configuration is sometimes referred to as a “bottoming cycle” CHP unit. In such a configuration,

the waste heat stream could also be generated from a mechanical process, such as at natural gas pipeline 

compressors.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 18 -

a. “...the EPA recognizes that some biomass-derived fuels can play an important 

role in CO2 emissions reduction strategies.”

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether “expanded” in the following sentence on page 

408 refers to a modified facility and recommends the use of consistent language on this 

distinction throughout the rule.

a. “Generation from new or expanded facilities that combust qualifying biomass...”

4) Reviewer recommends adding the word “overall” to the first sentence on page 20. 

Because other building blocks involve shifting generation between utilities, the emission 

guidelines will still require that some utilities produce less generation.

a. “...the agency not base the final emission guidelines on requiring that utilities 

produce less generation overall”.

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 359 that building block 2 is adequately 

demonstrated as a component of BSER, rather than as BSER itself.

6) Reviewer recommends adding a sentence on page 51 about the reliability risks being 

found reasonable. The quoted sentence is followed by information about the costs being 

found reasonable, but nothing further is said on reliability.

a. “EPA considered the impacts that implementation . . . will have on the cost of 

electricity and electricity system reliability”

7) Reviewer recommends updating and correcting the reference on pages 235 and 236 to 

EPA finalizing two separate 111(b) rulemakings. 

8) Reviewer recommends removing the reference on page 355 (first paragraph) to the need 

for BSER to include demand-side energy efficiency, since this is no longer a building 

block of BSER. 

9) Reviewer recommends explaining the distinction on page 527 of “investment in the 

building blocks”, “replaced or reduced generation” and “emissions trading”. All three 

seem very similar, with the latter two being components of the first, rather than 3 separate 

compliance options.

10) Reviewer recommends scrubbing the document to references to building block 4 being a 

component of BSER. See page 536. See also page 80 and page 414.

11) Reviewer recommends that footnote 591 should be clarified to explain that rate-based 

states can trade with mass-based states along with a reference to section VIII.G.2

12) Reviewer recommends restructuring sections IV.B.4.a and b to begin with the sentences 

currently in the middle of page 220, then move on to the various possible interpretations 

of the that text (potentially aided by a table with the various possible readings of the 

language- the itemization on page 221 is confusing). Then, EPA can make the argument 

that statutory interpretation requires consideration not only of the text but of the statutory 

structure and the broader context for the text.

13) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 419 that the Clean Air Mercury Rule was 

“vacated on other grounds” (see also page 720).

14) Reviewer recommends adding on page 722 “as required by CAA 111(d)(1)(B) after the 

sentence “The integrity of the trading system is key to ensuring that a state plan provides 

for implementation and enforcement of the standards of performance”.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 19 -

15) Reviewer notes the use of “EUG” instead of “EGU” in several places in the rule (see 

pages 22 and 1164).

16) Reviewer recommends editing the large paragraph on page 202 to clarify that it refers to 

both building blocks 2 and 3.

17) Reviewer recommends using the term “reliable system operating” in place of “reliability 

assurance” on page 18 to match common industry terminology.

18) Reviewer recommends being more specific than “state utility agencies” throughout the 

rule by replacing with “state utility regulators with reliability authority”.

19) Reviewer recommends replacing “planning authorities” with “reliability coordinators and 

planning authorities” throughout the rule.

20) Reviewer recommends removing the sentence on page 29 about isolating the system 

through switches or valves, because though portions of the grid are frequently isolated, 

this typically happens at a localized level and primarily during maintenance. 

21) Reviewer recommends changing the quoted sentence on page 43 to use either “can” or 

“must use”

a. “The EPA does not prescribe how a state must meet the emission guidelines, but 

these final guidelines do identify the methods which a state can or must use to 

demonstrate that the combination of measures and standards that the state does 

adopt meet its state-level CO2 goals.”

22) Reviewer recommends, as appropriate, changing the language on page 48 to “substituting 

increased generation from new low and zero-emitting generating units, including 

renewable energy and new NGCC”. As written, the reliance on shifting to either “loweremitting affected EGUs” and “renewable energy generation” excludes new NGCCs.

23) Reviewer recommends editing the following sentence on page 129 because a number of 

ISO/RTOs operate in regions served by vertically-integrated utilities (SPP, MISO, and to 

a partial extent CAISO).

a. “RSOs and ISOs are generally responsible for dispatch in non-vertically 

integrated states”.

24) Reviewer notes for page 130 that NERC is the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (not council).

25) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the non-hydro RE capacity is 13,000 (page 

140) or 16,000 (page 610).

a. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether this is electric power sector only or for 

all sectors. 

26) Reviewer recommends replacing “intermittent” renewable sources with “variable” 

renewable sources throughout the text. 

a. Reviewer suggests the following sources be used to demonstrate the economic 

competitiveness of RE generation:

b. “Revolution Now – The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy Technologies –

2014 Update,” DOE, Oct 

2014: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/revolution_now_

updated_charts_and_text_october_2014_1.pdf
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 20 -

c. “Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends,” NREL, 22 Sept 

2014: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62558.pdf

d. “Tracking the Sun VII” LBNL, Sept 

2014: http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-vii-historical-summaryinstalled-price-photovoltaics-united-states-1998-20

e. “2013 Wind Technologies Market Report,” LBNL, August 

2014: http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/2013-wind-technologies-market-report

f. “2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review,” NREL, Feb 

2015: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63267.pdf

27) Reviewer recommends using either “ERCOT Interconnection” or “Texas 

Interconnection” consistently throughout the rule.

28) Reviewer recommends rephrasing “unavailability of large scale electricity storage” to 

read “current low availability of large scale electricity storage”. On page 446.

29) Reviewer recommends rephrasing “there is no capacity for substantial amounts of 

storage” to “there is currently low capacity for storage” on page 486.

30) Reviewer recommends the following changes to the text on page 625

a. “Estimates for the economic potential of new hydropower are the result of a DOE

an NREL avoided cost methodology that develops regional hydropower supply 

curves and compares that supply potential against the revenue available to those 

projects through regional marginal generation prices and capacity values, while 

accounting for resource and land constraints as well as system constraints. The 

deployment levels of hydropower are increased until total generation costs, 

inclusive of the reduced cost of building new RE capacity, equal avoided costs for 

each region.

In contrast, EPA’s IPM economic potential estimates for utility-scale solar 

photovoltaic (PV)), onshore wind and geothermal technologies are the result of 

IPM modeling projections that assess opportunities for RE deployment in an 

integrated framework across power, fuel and emission markets.”

31) Reviewer recommends using the following reference regarding grid integration of 

variable RE on page 625: 

a. Wind Technologies Market Report 2013. LBNL. 2014.

Cochran et al. 2015. 

b. Grid Integration and the Carrying Capacity of the U.S. Grid to Incorporate 

Variable Renewable Energy. http://energy.gov/epsa/downloads/grid-integrationand-carrying-capacity-us-grid-incorporate-variable-renewable-energy

32) Reviewer notes that tables on page 627 and 634 are both labeled table 8

33) Reviewer recommends that the preamble state how to average the baseline oil and natural 

gas fired steam rate with its building block 1 steam rate. (See page 662). 

34) Reviewer recommends changing the sentence on page 918 to read “. . . while there will 

be a reduction in CO2 emissions at the affected EGU, the fact that both CO2 emissions . . 

. .”

35) Reviewer recommends the following edit on page 963: “. . .which avoids concerns about 

counting the same mass reductions in two different mass states.”

36) Reviewer recommends using the 780 lb CO2/MWh finalized rate as the emission rate 

limit in the example on page 983, to avoid confusion. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 21 -

37) Reviewer recommends adding the below clause to the section on page 993 to support 

third party/private sector participation:

a. “The EPA is exploring options for providing such support and is conducting an 

initial scoping assessment of tracking system support needs and functionality but 

is also maintaining the option for private sector companies to fill this need 

provided they can meet established requirements.”

38) Reviewer recommends adding the below clause to the section on page 1004:

a. “The EPA expects that EM&V using the above methods will occur at a minimum 

of four year intervals for building energy codes and product standards; every one, 

two or three years for different publicly or rate-payer funded EE programs; and 

annually for large individual commercial and industrial projects, unless the 

projects are included in a multi-year energy savings certification program such as 

Superior Energy Performance, which verifies overall facility energy performance 

improvement over a multi-year period.”

39) Reviewer recommends making the following edits to the section on skill certification 

standards on pages 1019-1020:

a. “h. Skill certification standards. Utilizing a skilled workforce to implement 

demand-side EE and RE projects, as well as a skilled workforce to evaluate, 

measure and verify the savings associated with EE projects or the additional 

generation from performance improvements at existing RE projects are both 

important. Several commenters pointed out that skill certification standards can 

help to assure quality and credibility of demand-side EE and RE projects. The 

EPA agrees that in conjunction with other EM&V measures discussed in this 

section, recommendingquiring that workers installing demand-side EE and RE 

projects be certified by either a party aligned with the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) Better Building Workforce Guidelines and validated by a third party entity 

that:

1) Develops a training or competency based program aligned with a job task 

analysis and/or certification scheme;

2) Engages with subject matter experts in the development of the job task 

analysis and/or certification schemes that represent appropriate qualifications, 

categories of the jobs, and levels of experience;

3) Has clearly documented the process used to develop the job task analysis 

and/or certification schemes, covering such elements as the job description, 

knowledge, skills, and abilities; 

4) Has pursued third-party accreditation aligned with consensus-based standards, 

for example ISO/IEC 17024 or IREC 14732.

Examples of such entities include: parties aligned with the accrediting body 

recognized by Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Building Workforce 

Guidelines and validated by a third party accrediting body recognized by DOE; or 

by parties aligned with an apprenticeship program that is registered with the 

federal Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Apprenticeship; parties aligned 

with or a state apprenticeship program approved by the DOL, or by another skill 

certification validated by a third party accrediting body can help to substantiate 

the authenticity of emission reductions due to demand-side EE and RE. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 22 -

EPA also recognizes that a skilled workforce performing the EM&V is 

important to substantiate the authenticity of emission reductions. As such, EPA 

recommends that workers who perform the EM&V of demand-side EE and RE 

performance improvement projects have been certified by a third-party 

organization that offers a program including the following elements:

1) Develops a training or competency based program aligned with a job task 

analysis and/or certification scheme;

2) Engages with subject matter experts in the development of the job task 

analysis and/or certification schemes that represent appropriate qualifications, 

categories of the jobs, and levels of experience;

3) Has clearly documented the process used to develop the job task analysis 

and/or certification schemes, covering such elements as the job description, 

knowledge, skills, and abilities; 

4) Has pursued third-party accreditation aligned with consensus-based standards, 

for example ISO/IEC 17024 or IREC 14732.

40) Reviewer recommends adding reliance on a federal plan as one of the options in response 

to the question on page 1186 about state compliance obligation options. 

41) Reviewer recommends clarifying what is meant by “on a regular basis” on page 1238 in 

regards to how often savings values must be determined. 

42) Reviewer recommends including additional specificity on page 1198 section (8) (taking 

language from page 1050 to put into the reg text)

a. “While following the recommendations of the planning authority would not be 

mandatory, the state should document its consultation process, any response and 

recommendations from the planning authority, and the state’s response to those

recommendations in its state plan submittal to the EPA.”

43) Reviewer recommends including a citation for “DOE avoided cost methodology” on page 

628.

44) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 611 whether the wind energy tripling reference 

refers to wind capacity or wind generation, and for which sectors. 

a. Similarly, on page 611, please specify which sectors are included in the reference 

to solar capacity growing twenty-fold.

b. Similarly, on page 611, please specify which sectors the RE generation increases 

by more than 70% is referencing. 

45) Reviewer recommends a reference source for the quoted funding amounts on page 35.

46) Reviewer suggests that the natural gas net generation increase on page 138 should be 

47%

47) Reviewer recommends that on page 579, the phrase “from 2012 to 2030” should be 

changed to “from 2014 to 2030”.

48) Reviewer recommends that the text on page 592 should be edited to state:

a. “According to EIA, proven natural gas reserves have nearly doubled between 

2000 and 2012. Domestic dry gas production has increased by 25 percent over 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 23 -

that same timeframe (from 19.2 TCF in 2000 to 24.0 TCF in 2012). EIA's Annual 

Energy Outlook for 2015 Reference Case projects that production will further 

increase to 33 TCF by 2030, as a result of increased supplies and favorable 

market conditions. IN AEO2015 high oil and gas resource case, production 

increases to ___ TCF in 2030.”

49) Reviewer recommends changing “NGCC is also a clean generation option” to say 

“cleaner” in the executive summary.

50) Reviewer recommends editing the executive summary sentence “. . . offers the same 

options for states but with a firmer legal foundation”, because this implies that the 

primary CPP option does not have a firm legal foundation.

51) Reviewer recommends adding a citation for the executive summary statement that CO2 

accounts for 31% of US GHG emissions. Reviewer suggests the number may be closer to 

83% on a weighted basis.

52) Reviewer notes that there is no content in footnote 246.

53) Reviewer recommends that the use of the term “fungibility” on page 514 and throughout 

the rule may overstate the potential for intermittent/non-dispatchable renewables to fully 

replace. Specifically, some renewables must be complemented by supporting services to 

ensure voltage stability.

54) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the cost estimate of 50-100 million dollars cited on 

page 568 is not interpreted as a cost that states or industry will have to pay when they 

attempt to meet their targets. 

55) Reviewer recommends defining the term “environmental dispatch”, used on page 607. 

56) Reviewer recommends changing “meeting” to “implementing” when referencing state 

targets on page 43 and throughout.

57) Reviewer recommends focusing on “innovation” rather than “technology”, given the 

breadth of the “system of emission reduction” concept, on page 46 and throughout. 

58) Reviewer recommends editing the language in the last paragraph of pages 56 and 64 to 

clarify that the reductions do not need to be achieved in 2020.

59) Reviewer recommends the following edits to footnote 82 to clarify the physics of the 

electric grid.

a. “Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power Systems, IEEE Press, at 

159 (2d ed. 2010). In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, a group of electrical 

engineers, economists, and physicists specializing in electricity explained: 

“Energy is transmitted, not electrons. Energy transmission is accomplished 

through the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. The electrons merely 

oscillate in place, but the energy – the electromagnetic wave – moves at the speed 

of light. The energized electrons making the lightbulb in a house glow are not the 

same electrons that were induced to oscillate in the generator back at the power 

plant. . . . Energy flowing onto a power network or grid energizes the entire grid, 

and consumers then draw undifferentiated energy from that grid. A networked 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

- 24 -

grid flexes, and electric current flows, in conformity with physical laws, and those 

laws do not notice, let alone conform to, political boundaries. . . . The path taken 

by electric energy is the path of least resistance . . . or, more accurately, the paths

of least resistance. . . . If a generator on the grid increases its output, the current 

flowing from the generator on all paths on the grid increases. These increases 

affect the energy flowing into each point in the network, which in turn leads to 

compensating and corresponding changes in the energy flows out of each point.” 

Brief Amicus Curiae of Electrical Engineers, Energy Economists and Physicists 

in Support of Respondents at 2, 8-9, 11, New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2001) 

(No. 00-568).”

60) Reviewer recommends clarifying or deleting the paragraph on page 839, as it may 

suggest that a plan developed in 13 months would not adequately provide for meaningful 

public engagement. 

61) Reviewer recommends deleting the sentence on page 727 about legal concerns about 

requirements on non-affected EGUs, as it appears to preclude a state-measures type 

approach.