From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:33 AM 

To: Vasu, Amy; Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid 

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Clean Power Plan 

Draft final rule 

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

draft final rule, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units. 

 

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

Nathan 

<< SummaryofinteragencycommentsunderEO12866_13563_EO 12866_CPP 2060 AR33 

Final_2015_7_27.docx >> 

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

6560-50

EO 12866_CPP 2060 AR33 Final_20150724 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602; FRL-XXXX-XX-OAR]

RIN 2060-AR33 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is establishing final emission guidelines for states to 

follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units 

(EGUs). Specifically, the EPA is establishing: 1) state-specific 

carbon dioxide (CO2) goals reflecting CO2 emission performance 

rates based on the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for 

two subcategories of existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, fossil 

fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and 

stationary combustion turbines, and 2) guidelines for the 

development, submittal and implementation of state plans that 

establish emission standards or other measures to implement the 

CO2 emission performance rates. This final rule will continue 

Commented [A1]: Is it worth highlighting that these are now not 

state-specific, but technology-specific? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 2 of 1546

progress already underway in the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions 

from the utility power sector. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013-0602. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or 

other information for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 

(202) 566-1742. For additional information about the EPA’s 

public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 3 of 1546

World Wide Web. In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will be available 

on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature, a copy of this 

final rule will be posted at the following address: 

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/. A number of documents 

relevant to this rulemaking, including technical support 

documents, a legal memorandum, and the regulatory impact 

analysis, are also available at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/. These and other related 

documents are also available for inspection and copying in the 

EPA docket for this rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Vasu, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0107, facsimile 

number (919) 541-4991; email address: vasu.amy@epa.gov or Mr. 

Colin Boswell, Measurements Policy Group (D243-05), Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2034, facsimile 

number (919) 541-4991; email address: boswell.colin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms. A number of acronyms and chemical symbols are 

used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, 

to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 4 of 1546

the following terms and acronyms are defined as follows: 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of 

Industrial Organizations 

ASTM American Society for Testing of Materials 

BSER Best System of Emission Reduction 

Btu/kWh British Thermal Units per Kilowatt-hour 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration) 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 

CHP Combined Heat and Power 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

ECMPS Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System 

EERS Energy Efficiency Resource Standard 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EM&V Evaluation, Measurement and Verification 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

ERC Emission Rate Credit 

FR Federal Register 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GW Gigawatt 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator 

IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

ISO Independent System Operator 

kW Kilowatt 

kWh Kilowatt-hour 

lb CO2/MWh Pounds of CO2 per Megawatt-hour 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

MMBtu Million British Thermal Units 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt-hour 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

Commissioners 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 5 of 1546

NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS New Source Performance Standard 

NSR New Source Review 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PSB Public Service Board 

PUC Public Utilities Commission 

REC Renewable Energy Credit 

RES Renewable Energy Standard 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard 

RTO Regional Transmission Organization 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBC System Benefits Charge 

SCC Social Cost of Carbon 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

Tg Teragram (one trillion (1012) grams) 

TSD Technical Support Document 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Organization of This Document. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Organization and Approach for this Final Rule 

II. Background 

A. Climate Change Impacts from GHG Emissions 

B. GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs 

C. The Utility Power Sector 

D. Challenges in Controlling Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

E. Clean Air Act Regulations for Power Plants 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 6 of 1546

F. Congressional Awareness of Climate Change 

G. International Agreements and Actions 

H. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

I. Legislative and Regulatory Background for CAA Section 111 

J. Clean Power Plan Proposal and Supplemental Proposal 

K. Stakeholder Outreach and Consultations 

L. Comments on the Proposal 

III. Rule Requirements and Legal Basis

A. Summary of Rule Requirements 

B. Summary of Legal Basis 

IV. Authority for this Rulemaking, Definition of Affected 

Sources, and Treatment of Categories

A. EPA’s Authority under CAA Section 111(d)

B. CAA Section 112 Exclusion to CAA Section 111(d) Authority 

C. Authority to Regulate EGUs 

D. Definition of Affected Sources 

E. Combined Categories and Codification in the Code of Federal 

Regulations 

V. The Best System of Emission Reduction and Associated Building 

Blocks 

A. The Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) 

B. Legal Discussion of Certain Aspects of the BSER 

C. Building Block 1—Efficiency Improvements at Affected Coal- 

 Fired Steam EGUs 

D. Building Block 2—Generation Shifts Among Affected EGUs 

E. Building Block 3—Renewable Generating Capacity 

VI. Subcategory-Specific CO2 Emission Performance Rates 

A. Overview 

B. Emission Performance Rate Requirements 

C. Form of the Emission Performance Rates 

VII. Statewide CO2 Goals 

A. Overview 

B. Translating Subcategory-Specific Emission Performance Rates 

to Statewide CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

VIII. State Plans 

A. Overview 

B. Timeline for State Plan Performance and Provisions to 

Encourage Early Action 

C. State Plan Approaches 

D. State Plan Components and Approvability Criteria 

E. State Plan Submittal and Approval Process and Timing 

F. State Plan Performance Demonstrations 

G. Additional Considerations for State Plans 

H. Resources for States to Consider in Developing Plans 

I. Considerations for CO2 Emission Reduction 

 Measures that Occur at Affected EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 7 of 1546

J. Additional Considerations and Requirements for Mass-Based 

State Plans 

K. Additional Considerations and Requirements for Rate-Based 

State Plans 

J. Treatment of Interstate Effects and Leakage 

IX. Community and Environmental Justice Considerations 

A. Proximity Analysis 

B. Community Engagement in State Plan Development 

C. Providing Communities with Access to Additional Resources 

D. Federal Programs and Resources Available to Communities 

E. Multi-pollutant Planning and Co-pollutants 

F. Assessing Impacts of State Plan Implementation 

G. EPA Continued Engagement 

X. Interactions with Other EPA Programs and Rules 

A. Implications for the NSR Program 

B. Implications for the Title V Program 

C. Interactions with Other EPA Rules 

XI. Impacts of this Action 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. Endangered Species Act 

C. What are the energy impacts? 

D. What are the compliance costs? 

E. What are the economic and employment impacts? 

F. What are the benefits of the proposed action? 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

XIII. Statutory Authority 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 8 of 1546

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Introduction 

This final rule is a significant step forward in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. In this action, the EPA is 

establishing for the first time emission guidelines for existing 

power plants. These final emission guidelines will lead to 

significant CO2 emission reductions from the utility power sector 

that will help protect human health and the environment from the 

impacts of climate change, while advancing clean energy 

innovation, development and deployment. This final rule is the 

result of unprecedented outreach and engagement with states, 

tribes, utilities, and other stakeholders, with stakeholders 

providing more than 4.3 million comments on the proposed rule. 

In this final rule, we have addressed the comments and concerns 

of states and other stakeholders while staying consistent with 

the law. As a result, we have followed through on our commitment 

to issue a plan that is fair, flexible and addresses the 

greenhouse gas emissions released by some methods of power 

generation. 

Under the authority of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d), 

the EPA is establishing CO2 emission guidelines for existing 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) – the Clean 

Commented [A2]: Greenhouse gas emission guidelines 

Deleted: This rule establishes the foundation 

of a long-term clean energy policy that will 

ensure the reliability of our electric system,

maintain affordability for consumers, and 

establish the U.S. as a leader in addressing 

climate change. 

Commented [A3]: Strongly recommend deleting. 

Deleted: builds momentum for the transition to 

a clean energy future that is already well 

under way in the utility power sector

Commented [A4]: Strongly recommend deleting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 9 of 1546

Power Plan. These final guidelines, when fully implemented, will 

achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030, while 

offering states and utilities substantial flexibility and 

latitude in achieving these reductions. In this final rule, the 

EPA is formulating a CO2 emission performance rate for each of 

two subcategories of fossil fuel-fired EGUs -- fossil fuel-fired 

electric steam generating units and stationary combustion 

turbines – that expresses the “best system of emissions 

reduction ... adequately demonstrated” (BSER) for CO2 from the 

power sector.1 The EPA is also establishing state-specific ratebased and mass-based goals that reflect the subcategory-specific 

CO2 emission performance rates and each state’s mix of affected 

EGUs. The guidelines also provide for the development, submittal 

and implementation of state plans that implement the BSER – 

again, expressed as CO2 emission performance rates, either 

 

1 Under CAA section 111(d), pursuant to 40 CFR 60. 22(b)(5), 

states must establish, in their state plans, emission standards 

that reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the “best system of emission 

reduction” that, taking into account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements, the Administrator determines 

has been adequately demonstrated (i.e., the BSER). Under CAA 

section 111(a)(1) and (d), the EPA is authorized to determine 

the BSER and to calculate the amount of emission reduction 

achievable through applying the BSER. The state is authorized to 

identify the emission standard or standards that reflect that 

amount of emission reduction. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 10 of 1546

directly by means of source-specific emission standards or other 

requirements, or through measures that achieve equivalent CO2

reductions from the same group of EGUs. 

States with one or more affected EGUs will be required to 

develop and implement plans that set emission standards for 

affected EGUs.2,3 These emission standards may incorporate the 

subcategory-specific CO2 emission performance rates set by the 

EPA or, in the alternative, may be set at levels that ensure 

that the state’s affected EGUs, individually, in aggregate, or 

in combination with other measures undertaken by the state 

achieve the equivalent of the interim and final CO2 emission 

 

2

 In the case of a tribe that has one or more affected EGUs in its area of Indian country, the tribe has the opportunity, 

but not the obligation, to establish a CO2 emission standard for each affected EGU located in its area of Indian 

country and a CAA section 111(d) plan for its area of Indian country. If the tribe chooses to establish its own plan, it 

must seek and obtain authority from the EPA to do so pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9. If it chooses not to seek this 

authority, the EPA has the responsibility to determine whether it is necessary or appropriate, in order to protect air 

quality, to establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for an area of Indian country where affected EGUs are located. 3 The CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines that the EPA is 

promulgating in this action apply to only the 48 contiguous 

states and any Indian tribe that has been approved by the EPA 

pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9 as eligible to develop and implement a 

CAA section 111(d) plan. Because Vermont and the District of 

Columbia do not have affected EGUs, they will not be required to 

submit a state plan. Because certain aspects of the rationale 

underlying the BSER do not apply to areas that have electric 

grids that are isolated from the 48 contiguous states and 

because the EPA lacks appropriate information to quantify the 

BSER for the two non-contiguous states with otherwise affected 

EGUs (Alaska and Hawaii) and the two U.S. territories with 

otherwise affected EGUs (Guam and Puerto Rico), these emission 

guidelines do not apply to those areas at this time, and those 

areas will not be required to submit state plans consistent with 

the schedule required by this final action. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 11 of 1546

performance rates between 2022 and 2029 and by 2030, 

respectively. State plans must also: 1) ensure that emission 

standards apply to affected EGUs no later than 2022, 2) show how 

goals for the interim and final periods will be met, 3) ensure 

that, during the period from 2022 to 2029, affected EGUs in the 

state collectively meet the equivalent of the interim 

subcategory-specific CO2 emission performance rates, and 4) 

provide for periodic state-level demonstrations prior to and 

during the 2022-2029 period that will ensure that required CO2

emission reductions are being accomplished and that no increases 

in emissions relative to each state’s planned emission reduction 

trajectory are occurring. A Clean Energy Incentive Program will 

provide opportunities for investments in renewable energy and 

energy efficiency that deliver results in 2020 and 2021. The 

plans must be submitted to the EPA in 2016, though an extension 

to 2018 is available to allow for the completion of stakeholder 

and administrative processes. 

The EPA is promulgating 1) subcategory-specific CO2

emission performance rates, 2) state rate-based goals, and 

3) state mass-based CO2 goals that represent the translation

of each state’s rate-based goal. This will facilitate 

states’ choices in developing their plans, particularly for 

those seeking to adopt mass-based allowance trading 

Deleted: reductions from the

Commented [A5]: Because states can set their own glide path, 

reductions do not need to begin in 2022. 

Deleted: begin

Deleted: equivalent

Commented [A6]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 12 of 1546

programs or other statewide policy measures as well as, or 

instead of, source-specific requirements. 

In this summary, we discuss the purpose of this rule, the 

major provisions of the final rule, the context for the 

rulemaking, key changes from the proposal, the estimated CO2

emission reductions, and the costs and benefits expected to 

result from full implementation of this final action. Greater 

detail is provided in the body of this preamble, the regulatory 

impacts analysis (RIA), the response to comments documents, and 

various technical support documents and memoranda addressing 

specific topics. 

2. Purpose of this rule 

The purpose of this rule is to protect human health and the 

environment by reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

power plants in the U.S. These plants are by far the largest 

domestic stationary source of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

the most prevalent of the group of air pollutant greenhouse 

gases (GHG) that the EPA has determined endangers public health 

and welfare through its contribution to climate change. This 

rule establishes for the first time emission guidelines for 

existing power plants. These guidelines will lead to significant 

reductions in CO2 emissions, result in cleaner generation from 

the existing power plant fleet, and support continued 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 13 of 1546

investments by the industry in cleaner power generation to 

ensure reliable, affordable electricity now and into the future. 

Concurrent with this action, the EPA is also issuing a 

final rule that establishes CO2 emission standards of performance 

for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants. Together, 

these rules will reduce CO2 emissions by a substantial amount 

while ensuring that the utility power sector in the U.S. can 

continue to supply reliable and affordable electricity to all 

Americans using a diverse fuel supply. As with past EPA rules 

addressing air pollution from the utility power sector, these 

guidelines have been designed with a clear recognition of the 

unique features of this sector. Specifically, the agency 

recognizes that utilities provide an essential public service 

and are regulated and managed in ways unlike any other 

industrial activity. In providing assurances that the emission 

reductions required by this rule can be achieved without 

compromising continued reliable, affordable electricity, this 

final rule fully accounts for the critical service utilities 

provide. 

As with past rules under CAA section 111, this rule relies 

on proven technologies and measures to set achievable emission 

performance rates that will lead to cost-effective pollutant 

emission reductions, in this case CO2 emission reductions at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 14 of 1546

power plants, across the country. In fact, the emission 

guidelines reflect strategies, technologies and approaches 

already in widespread use by power companies and states. The 

vast preponderance of the input we received from stakeholders is 

supportive of this conclusion. 

States will play a key role in ensuring that emission 

reductions are achieved at a reasonable cost. The experience of 

states in this regard is especially important because CAA 

section 111(d) relies on the well-established state-EPA 

partnership to accomplish the required CO2 emission reductions. 

States will have the flexibility to choose from a range of plan 

approaches and measures, including numerous measures beyond 

those considered in setting the CO2 emission performance rates, 

and this final rule allows and encourages states to adopt the 

most effective set of solutions for their circumstances, taking 

account of cost and other considerations. This rulemaking, which 

will be implemented through the state-EPA partnership, is a 

significant step that will reduce air pollution, in this case 

GHG emissions, in the U.S. At the same time, the final rule 

greatly facilitates flexibility for EGUs by establishing a basis 

for states to set trading-based emission standards and 

compliance strategies. The rule establishes this basis by 

including both uniform emission performance rates for the two 

Deleted: utilities
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 15 of 1546

subcategories of sources and also state-by-state rate- and massbased goals. 

This final rule is a significant step forward in 

implementing the President’s Climate Action Plan.4 To address the 

far-reaching harmful consequences and real economic costs of 

climate change, the President’s Climate Action Plan details a 

broad array of actions to reduce GHG emissions that contribute 

to climate change and its harmful impacts on public health and 

the environment. Climate change is already occurring in this 

country, affecting the health, economic well-being and quality 

of life of Americans across the country, and especially those in 

the most vulnerable communities. This CAA section 111(d) 

rulemaking to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants, 

and the concurrent CAA section 111(b) rulemaking to reduce GHG 

emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed power plants, 

implement one of the strategies of the Climate Action Plan. 

Nationwide, by 2030, this final CAA section 111(d) existing 

source rule will achieve CO2 emission reductions from the utility 

power sector of approximately [X] percent from CO2 emission 

levels in 2005. 

The EPA projects that these reductions, along with 

 

4 The President’s Climate Action Plan, June 2013. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27s

climateactionplan.pdf 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 16 of 1546

reductions in other air pollutants resulting directly from this 

rule will result in net climate and health benefits of $[X] 

billion to $[X] billion. At the same time, coal and natural gas 

will remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in 

the U.S., with coal providing about [X] percent of the projected 

generation and natural gas providing about [X] percent of the 

projected generation. 

3. Summary of major provisions 

a. Overview. The fundamental goal of this rule is to reduce 

harmful emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs in 

accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The June 

2014 proposal for this rule was designed to meet this 

overarching goal while accommodating two important objectives. 

The first was to establish guidelines that reflect both the 

unique interconnected and interdependent manner in which the 

power system operates and the actions, strategies, and policies 

states and utilities have already been undertaking that are 

resulting in CO2 emission reductions. The second objective was to 

provide states and utilities with broad flexibility and choice 

in meeting those requirements in order to minimize costs to 

ratepayers and to ensure the reliability of electricity supply. 

In this final rule, the EPA has focused on changes that, in 

addition to being responsive to the critical concerns and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 17 of 1546

priorities of stakeholders, more fully accomplish these 

objectives. 

While there are notable revisions from the emission 

guidelines we proposed in June 2014, the proposed guidelines 

remain the foundation of this final rule. These final guidelines 

build on the progress already under way to reduce the carbon 

intensity of power generation in the U.S., especially through 

the lowest carbon-intensive technologies, while reflecting the 

unique interconnected and interdependent system within which 

EGUs operate. Thus, the BSER, as determined in these guidelines, 

incorporates a range of CO2-reducing actions, while at the same 

time adhering to the fundamental approach the EPA has relied on 

for decades in implementing section 111 of the Clean Air Act. 

Equally important, these guidelines offer states and owners 

and operators of EGUs broad flexibility and latitude in 

complying with their obligations. Because affordability and 

electricity system reliability are of paramount importance, the 

rule provides states and utilities with time for planning and 

investment, which is instrumental to ensuring both manageable 

costs and system reliability, as well as to facilitating clean 

energy innovation. The final rule continues to express the CO2

emission reduction requirements in terms of state goals 

reflecting the particular mix of power generation in each state, 

Deleted: technology
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 18 of 1546

and it continues to provide until 2030, fifteen years from the 

date of this final rule, for states and sources to achieve the 

CO2 reductions, which numerous commenters, including most 

sources, states and energy agencies, indicated was a reasonable 

timeframe. The final guidelines also continue to provide an 

option where programs beyond those directly limiting power plant 

emission rates can be used for compliance (i.e., policies, 

programs and other measures). The final rule also continues to 

allow, but not require, multi-state approaches. Finally, EPA 

took care to ensure that states could craft their own emissions 

reduction trajectories in meeting the interim goals included in 

this final rule. 

b. Opportunities for states. As stated above, the final 

guidelines are designed to build on and reinforce progress by 

states, cities and towns, and companies on a growing variety of 

sustainable strategies to reduce power sector CO2 emissions. 

States, in their CAA section 111(d) plans, will be able to rely 

on, and extend, programs they may already have created to 

address emissions of air pollutants, and in particular CO2, from 

the utility power sector or to address the sector from an 

overall perspective. Those states committed to Integrated 

Resource Planning (IRP) will be able to establish their CO2

reduction plans within that framework, while states with a more 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 19 of 1546

deregulated power sector system will be able to develop CO2

reduction plans within that specific framework. Each state will 

have the opportunity to take advantage of a wide variety of 

strategies for reducing CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, 

including demand-side energy efficiency programs and mass-based 

trading, which some suggested in their comments. The EPA and 

other federal entities, including the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, among others, are committed to 

sharing expertise with interested states as they develop and 

implement their plans. 

States will be able to address the economic interests of 

their utilities and ratepayers by using the flexibilities in 

this final action to reduce costs to consumers, minimize 

stranded assets, and spur private investments in renewable 

energy and energy efficiency technologies and businesses. They 

may also, if they choose, work with other states on multi-state 

approaches that reflect the regional structure of electricity 

operating systems that exists in most parts of the country and 

is critical to ensuring a reliable supply of affordable energy. 

The final rule gives states the flexibility to implement a broad 

range of approaches that recognize that the utility power sector 

is made up of a diverse range of companies of various sizes that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 20 of 1546

own and operate fossil fuel-fired EGUs, including vertically 

integrated companies in regulated markets, independent power 

producers, rural cooperatives and municipally-owned utilities, 

some of which are likely to have more direct access than others 

to certain types of GHG emission reduction opportunities, but 

all of which have a wide range of opportunities to achieve 

reductions or acquire clean generation. 

Again, with features that facilitate mass-based and/or 

interstate trading, the final guidelines also empower affected 

EGUs to pursue a broad range of choices for compliance and for 

integrating compliance action with the full range of their 

investments and operations. 

c. Main elements. This final rule comprises two main elements: 

1) state-specific CO2 goals, expressed as both emission rates and 

as mass, that reflect the state’s fleet-weighted aggregate of 

two subcategory-specific CO2 emission performance rates resulting 

from application of the BSER to the two subcategories of 

affected EGUs; and 2) guidelines for the development, submittal 

and implementation of state plans that implement those BSER 

emission performance rates either through emission standards for 

affected EGUs, or through measures that achieve the equivalent, 

in aggregate, of those rates as defined and expressed in the 

form of the state goals. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 21 of 1546

In this final action, the EPA is setting emission 

performance rates, phased in over the period from 2022 

through 2030, for two subcategories of affected fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs – fossil fuel-fired electric utility steamgenerating units and stationary combustion turbines. These 

rates, applied to each state’s particular mix of fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs, generate the state’s carbon intensity goal 

for 2030 (and interim rates for the period 2022-2029). Each 

state will determine whether to apply these to each 

affected EGU or to take an alternative approach and meet 

either an equivalent statewide rate-based goal or statewide 

mass-based goal. The EPA does not prescribe how a state 

must meet the emission guidelines, but if a state chooses 

to take the path of meeting a state goal, these final 

guidelines identify the methods that a state can or, in 

some cases, must, use to demonstrate that the combination 

of measures and standards that the state adopts meets its 

state-level CO2 goals. While the EPA accomplishes the phasein of the interim goal by way of annual emission 

performance rates, states and EGUs may meet their 

respective emission reduction obligations “on average” over 

that period following whatever emission reduction 

trajectory they determine to pursue over that period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 22 of 1546

CAA section 111(d) creates a partnership between the 

EPA and the states under which the EPA establishes emission 

guidelines and the states take the lead on implementing 

them by establishing emission standards or creating plans 

that are consistent with the EPA emission guidelines. The 

EPA recognizes that each state has differing policy 

considerations – including varying regional emission 

reduction opportunities and existing state programs and 

measures – and that the characteristics of the electricity 

system in each state (e.g., utility regulatory structure 

and generation mix) also differ. Therefore, as in the 

proposal, each state will have the latitude to design a 

program to meet source-category specific emission 

performance rates or the equivalent statewide rate- or 

mass-based goal in a manner that reflects its particular 

circumstances and energy and environmental policy 

objectives. Each state can do so on its own, or a state can 

collaborate with other states and/or tribal governments on 

multi-state plans, or states can include in their plans the 

trading tools that EGUs can use to realize additional 

opportunities for cost savings while continuing to operate 

across the interstate system through which electricity is 

produced. A state would also have the option of adopting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 23 of 1546

the model rules for either a rate- or a mass-based program 

that the EPA is proposing concurrently with this action.5 

To facilitate the state planning process, this final 

rule establishes guidelines for the development, submittal, 

and implementation of state plans. The final rule describes 

the components of a state plan, the additional latitude 

states have in developing strategies to meet the emission 

guidelines, and the options they have in the timing of 

submittal of their plans. This final rule also gives states 

considerable flexibility with respect to the timeframes for 

plan development and implementation, as well as the choice 

of emission reduction measures. The final rule provides up 

to fifteen years for full implementation of all emission 

reduction measures, with incremental steps for planning and 

then for demonstration of CO2 reductions that will ensure 

that progress is being made in achieving CO2 emission 

reductions. States will be able to choose from a wide range 

of emission reduction measures, including measures that are 

not part of the BSER, as discussed in detail in section 

VIII.G of this preamble. 

 

5 The EPA’s proposed CAA section 111(d) federal plan and model 

rules for existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs are being published 

concurrently with this final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 24 of 1546

d. Determining the BSER. In issuing this final rulemaking, 

the EPA is implementing statutory provisions that have been in 

place since Congress first enacted the CAA in 1970 and that have 

been implemented pursuant to regulations promulgated in 1975 and 

followed in numerous subsequent CAA section 111 rulemakings. 

These requirements call on the EPA to develop emission 

guidelines that reflect the EPA’s determination of the “best 

system of emission reduction... adequately demonstrated” (BSER) 

for states to follow in formulating plans to establish emission 

standards to implement the BSER. 

As the EPA has done in making BSER determinations in 

previous CAA section 111 rulemakings, for this final BSER 

determination, the agency considered the types of strategies 

that states and owners and operators of EGUs are already 

employing to reduce the covered pollutant (in this case, CO2) 

from affected sources (in this case, fossil fuel-fired EGUs).6 

 

6 The final emission guidelines for landfill gas emissions from 

municipal solid waste landfills, published on March 12, 1996 and 

amended on June 16, 1998 (61 FR 9905 and 63 FR 32743, 

respectively) are one example, as they allow either of two 

approaches for controlling landfill gas – by recovering the gas as 

a fuel, for sale, and removing from the premises, or by 

destroying the organic content of the gas on the premises using 

a control device. Recovering the gas as a fuel source was a 

practice already being used by some affected sources prior to 

promulgation of the rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 25 of 1546

In this final action, the agency has determined that the 

BSER comprises the first three of the four proposed “building 

blocks,” with certain refinements to the three building blocks. 

The three building blocks are: 

1. Reducing the carbon intensity of generation at 

individual affected coal-fired steam EGUs through heat 

rate improvements. 

2. Substituting increased generation from loweremitting existing natural gas combined cycle units for 

reduced generation from higher-emitting affected steam 

generating units. 

3. Substituting increased generation from zeroemitting generating units for reduced generation from 

affected fossil fuel-fired generating units. 

These three building blocks are approaches that are 

available to all affected EGUs, either through direct 

investment or operational shifts or through emissions 

trading where states, which must establish emission 

standards for affected EGUs, do so by incorporating 

emissions trading.7 The building blocks and the BSER 

 

7 The EPA notes that, in quantifying the emission reductions that 

are achievable through application of the BSER, some building 

blocks will apply to some, but not all, affected EGUs. 

Specifically, building block 1 will apply to affected coal-fired 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 26 of 1546

determination are described in detail in section V of this 

preamble. 

e. CO2 state-level goals and subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates. 

(1) Final CO2 goals and emission performance rates. 

In this action, the EPA is establishing CO2 emission 

performance rates for two subcategories of affected EGUs -- 

fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and 

stationary combustion turbines. For fossil fuel-fired steam 

generating units, we are finalizing an emission performance rate 

of 1,305 lb/MWh of CO2. For stationary combustion turbines, we 

are finalizing an emission performance rate of 771 lb/MWh of CO2. 

As we did at proposal, for each state, we are also promulgating 

rate-based CO2 goals that are the weighted aggregate of the 

emission performance rates for the state’s EGUs. To ensure that 

states and sources can choose additional alternatives in meeting 

their obligations, the EPA is also promulgating each state’s 

goal expressed as a CO2 mass goal. The inclusion of mass-based 

goals, along with information provided in the proposed federal 

plan and model rules that are being issued concurrently with 

 

steam EGUs, building block 2 will apply to all affected steam 

EGUs (both coal-fired and oil/gas-fired), and building block 3 

will apply to all affected EGUs. 

Deleted: rate
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 27 of 1546

this rule, paves the way for states to implement mass-based 

trading, as some states have requested. 

Affected EGUs, individually, in aggregate, or in 

combination with other measures undertaken by the state, 

must achieve the equivalent of the CO2 emission performance 

rates, expressed via the state-specific rate- and massbased goals, by 2030. 

(2) Interim CO2 emission performance rates and statespecific goals. 

The best system of emission reduction includes both the 

measures for reducing CO2 emissions and the timeframe over which 

they can be implemented. In this final action, the EPA is 

establishing an eight-year interim period, beginning in 2022 

instead of 2020, over which to achieve the full required 

reductions to meet the CO2 performance rates, a commencement date 

more than six years from [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], the date of this rulemaking. This eight-year 

interim period from 2022 through 2029 is separated into three 

steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029, each associated with 

its own interim CO2 emission performance rates. The interim steps 

are presented both in terms of emission performance rates for 

the two subcategories of affected EGUs and in terms of state 

goals, expressed both as a rate and as a mass. A state may adopt 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 28 of 1546

emission standards for its sources that are identical to these 

interim emission performance rates or, alternatively, adapt 

these steps to accommodate the timing of expected reductions, as 

long as the state’s interim goal is met over the eight-year 

period. 

f. State plans.8 

In this action, the EPA is establishing final 

guidelines for states to follow in developing, submitting 

and implementing their plans. In developing plans, states 

will need to choose the type of plan they will develop. 

They will also need to include required plan components in 

their plan submittals, meet plan submittal deadlines, 

achieve the required CO2 emission reductions over time, and 

provide for monitoring and periodic reporting of progress. 

As with the BSER determination, stakeholder comments have 

 

8 The CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines apply to the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and any 

Indian tribe that has been approved by the EPA pursuant to 40 

CFR 49.9 as eligible to develop and implement a CAA section 

111(d) plan. In this preamble, in instances where these 

governments are not specifically listed, the term “state” is 

used to represent them. Because Vermont and the District of 

Columbia do not have affected EGUs, they will not be required to 

submit a state plan. Because the EPA lacks appropriate 

information to quantify the BSER for the two non-contiguous 

states with affected EGUs (Alaska and Hawaii) and the two U.S. 

territories with affected EGUs (Guam and Puerto Rico), we are 

not finalizing emission performance rates in those areas at this 

time, and those areas will not be required to submit state plans 

until we do. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 29 of 1546

provided both data and recommendations to which these final 

guidelines are responsive. 

(1) Plan approaches. 

To comply with these emission guidelines, a state will have 

to ensure, in its plan, that the emission standards it 

establishes for its sources individually, in aggregate, or in 

combination with other measures undertaken by the state, 

represent the equivalent of the subcategory-specific CO2 emission 

performance rates. This final rule includes several options for 

state plans, as discussed in the proposal and in many of the 

comments we received. 

First, in the final rule, states may establish emission 

standards for their affected EGUs that mirror the uniform 

emission performance rates for the two subcategories of sources 

included in this final rule. They may also pursue alternative 

approaches that adopt either the rate-based goal promulgated for 

the state or the alternative mass-based goal promulgated for the 

state. It is for the purpose of providing states with these 

choices that the EPA is providing state-specific rate-based and 

mass-based goals that represent the translation of the emission 

performance rates that the EPA is establishing for the two 

subcategories of fossil fuel-fired EGUs. A detailed explanation 

of rate- and mass-based goals is provided in section VII of this 

Deleted: equivalent to

Commented [A7]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 30 of 1546

preamble and in a TSD.9 In developing its plan, each state and 

eligible tribe electing to submit a plan will need to choose 

whether it will include CO2 emission performance rates, statewide 

rate-based goals, or statewide mass-based goals. 

The second major set of options provided in the final rule 

includes the types of measures included in the state plans. A 

state will be able to choose to establish emission standards for 

its affected EGUs, thus placing all of the requirements directly 

on its affected EGUs, which we refer to as the “emission 

standards approach.” Alternatively, a state can adopt a “state 

measures approach,” which would include state-enforceable 

measures that may apply to affected EGUs and other entities, 

with some or no federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs. With a state measures approach, the plan must 

also include a contingent backstop of federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs that fully meet the 

emission guidelines and that would be triggered if the plan 

failed to achieve the required emission reductions on schedule. 

A state would have the option of basing its backstop emission 

standards on the model rule that the EPA is proposing today. A 

state that adopts a state measures approach must use its mass CO2

 

9 The CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

the CPP Final Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 31 of 1546

emission goal as the metric for demonstrating plan performance; 

however, the state could still choose to impose rate-based 

standards on its affected EGUs or implement a rate-based trading 

program. 

The final rule requires that the state plan submittal 

include a timeline with all of the programmatic milestone steps 

the state will take between the time of the state plan submittal 

and the year 2022 to ensure that the plan is effective as of 

2022. States must submit a report to the EPA in 2021 that 

demonstrates that the state has met the programmatic milestone 

steps that the state indicated it would take during the period 

from the submittal of the final plan through the end of 2020, 

and that the state is on track to implement the approved state 

plan as of January 1, 2022. 

The plan must also include a process for reporting on plan 

implementation, progress toward achieving CO2 emission 

reductions, and implementation of corrective actions, if 

necessary. Beginning January 1, 2025, and then January 1, 2028, 

January 1, 2030, and then every two calendar years thereafter, 

the state will be required to compare emission levels achieved 

by affected EGUs in the state with the emission levels projected 

in the state plan and report the results of that comparison to 

the EPA by July 1 of those calendar years. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 32 of 1546

Plans for states with existing programs, such as those 

being implemented in California and the RGGI states, will 

be approvable provided that, when plans are submitted, they 

demonstrate that when the plans are fully implemented, 

affected EGUs achieve all of the emission reductions 

required by the guidelines during the interim and final 

periods for affected EGUs in their states. A state plan 

that uses one of the model rules, which the EPA is 

proposing concurrently with this action, will be 

presumptively approvable. The plan guidelines provide the 

states with the ability to achieve the full reductions over 

a multi-year period, through a variety of reduction 

strategies, using state-specific or multi-state approaches 

that can be achieved on either a rate or mass basis. They 

also address several key policy considerations that states 

can be expected to contemplate in developing their plans. 

State plan approaches and plan guidelines are explained 

further in section VIII of this preamble. 

(2) State plan components and approvability criteria. 

The EPA’s implementing regulations provide certain basic 

elements required for state plans submitted pursuant to CAA 

section 111(d).10 In the proposal, the EPA identified certain 

 

10 40 CFR 60.23 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 33 of 1546

additional elements that should be contained in state plans. In 

this final action, in response to comments, the EPA is making 

several revisions to the components required in a state plan 

submittal and is also incorporating the approvability criteria 

into the list of components required in a state plan submittal. 

In addition, we have organized the state plan components to 

reflect: 1) components required for all state plan submittals; 

2) additional components required for the emission standards 

approach; and 3) additional components required for the state 

measures approach. 

All state plans must include the following components: 

 Description of the plan 

 Identification of state CO2 interim period goal (for 

2022-2029), interim steps (interim step goal 1 for 

2022-2024; interim step goal 2 for 2025-2027; interim 

step goal 3 for 2028-2029) and final CO2 emission goal 

of 2030 and beyond 

 Demonstration that the plan submittal is projected to 

achieve the state’s CO2 emission goal11

 State recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

 Certification of hearing on state plan 

 Supporting documentation 

 

 

11 A state that chooses to set emission standards that are 

identical to the emission performance rates for both the interim 

period and in 2030 and beyond need not identify interim state 

goals nor include a separate demonstration that its plan will 

achieve the state goals. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 34 of 1546

Also, in submitting state plans, states must provide 

documentation demonstrating that they have considered electric 

system reliability in developing their plans. 

Further, in this final rule, the EPA is requiring states to 

demonstrate how they are meaningfully engaging stakeholders, 

including low-income communities, communities of color, and 

indigenous populations living near power plants and otherwise 

potentially affected by the state’s plan. We refer to these 

communities generally as “overburdened,” to encompass those 

communities that are central to our concern about environmental 

justice. In their plan submittals, states must describe their 

engagement with their stakeholders, including overburdened 

communities. 

State plan submittals using the emission standards approach 

must also include: 

 Identification of each affected EGU; identification of 

federally enforceable emission standards for the affected 

EGUs; and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

 Demonstrations that each emission standard will result in 

reductions that are quantifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. 

State plan submittals using the state measures approach 

must also include: 

 Identification of each affected EGU; identification of 

federally enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs 

(if applicable); identification of backstop of federally 

enforceable emission standards; and monitoring, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 35 of 1546

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

 Identification of each state measure and demonstration that 

each state measure will result in reductions that are 

quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and 

enforceable. 

In addition to these requirements, each state plan must follow 

the EPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.23. 

(3) Timing and process for state plan submittal and review. 

Because of the compelling need for actions to begin the steps 

necessary to reduce GHG emissions from EGUs, the EPA proposed 

that states submit their plans within 13 months of the date of 

this final rule and that reductions begin in 2020. Commenters, 

especially states, have provided compelling information about 

the steps needed to develop and put in place all of the 

components needed for a final state plan. The EPA accepts these 

comments, which we believe support: retaining the requirement 

that initial plans be submitted without additional delay and 

offering extensions that provide up to a full three years for 

submittal of final state plans. Specifically, the final rule 

requires each state to submit a plan by September 6, 2016. Since 

some states may need more than one year to complete all of the 

actions needed for their final state plans, including technical 

work, state legislative and rulemaking activities, a robust 

public participation process, coordination with third parties, 

coordination among states involved in multi-state plans, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 36 of 1546

consultation with reliability entities, the EPA is allowing an 

optional two-phased submittal process for state plans. Each 

state will be required to submit a plan by September 6, 2016, 

that contains certain required components. If a state needs 

additional time to submit a final plan, then the state may 

submit an initial plan by September 6, 2016, that documents the 

reasons the state needs more time and includes commitments to 

concrete steps that will ensure that the state will submit a 

final plan by no later than September 6, 2018. To be approvable, 

the initial plan submittal must include information on all 

components of a final plan submittal, including identifying 

which components are not complete. The initial plan must include 

specific components, including a justification for seeking an 

extension, a description of the plan approach, a commitment to 

maintain existing measures that limit CO2 emissions, progress to 

date in developing a final plan, a comprehensive roadmap of the 

path to completion including specific steps the state, sources 

or other entities will be implementing in order to meet the 

initial compliance requirements beginning in 2022, demonstration 

of opportunity for public comment on the submittal and a summary 

of the state’s response to any significant public comment, and a 

description of the community engagement they have undertaken 

thus far and the means by which they intend to involve 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 37 of 1546

communities and other stakeholders in the development of their 

final plan, as described in section VIII.E of this preamble. As 

further described in this preamble, the EPA is establishing a 

Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) in order to promote early 

action. States may participate in the CEIP at their option. In 

order to do so, a state must include in its initial submittal a 

non-binding statement of intent to participate in the CEIP. 

If the initial submittal includes those components and if 

the EPA does not notify the state that the initial submittal 

does not contain the required components, then, within [60] days 

of the submittal [or by no later than November 5, 2016], the 

extension of time to submit a final plan will be deemed granted. 

A state will then have until the date included in its extension 

request, which could be no later than September 6, 2018, to 

submit a final plan. The EPA will also be working with states 

during the period after they make their initial submittals and 

provide states with any necessary information and assistance 

during the 60-day period. Further, states participating in a 

multi-state plan may submit a single joint plan on behalf of all 

of the participating states. 

States and tribes that do not have any affected EGUs in 

their jurisdictional boundaries may provide emission rate 

credits (ERCs) to adjust CO2 emissions, provided they are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 38 of 1546

connected to the continental U.S. grid and meet other 

requirements for eligibility. There are certain limitations and 

restrictions for generating ERCs, and these, as well as 

associated requirements, are explained in section VIII of this 

preamble. 

Following submission of final plans, the EPA will 

review plan submittals for approvability. Given the diverse 

approaches states may take to meet the CO2 emission 

performance rates or equivalent statewide goals in the 

emission guidelines, the EPA is extending the period for 

EPA review and approval or disapproval of plans from the 

four-month period provided in the EPA implementing 

regulations to a twelve-month period. This timeline will 

provide adequate time for the EPA to review plans and 

follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to ensure 

an opportunity for public comment. The EPA, especially 

through our regional offices, will be available to work 

with states as they develop their plans, in order to make 

review of submitted plans more straightforward and to 

minimize the chances of unexpected issues that could slow 

down approval of state plans. 

(4) Timing for implementing the CO2 emission guidelines. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 39 of 1546

 The EPA recognizes that the measures states and utilities 

have been and will be taking to reduce CO2 emissions from 

existing EGUs can take time to implement. We carefully reviewed 

information submitted to us regarding the feasible timing of 

various measures and identifying concerns that the required CO2

emission reductions could not be achieved as early as 2020 

without compromising electric system reliability, imposing 

unnecessary costs on ratepayers, and requiring investments in 

more carbon-intensive generation, while diverting investment in 

cleaner technologies. To respond to these concerns and to 

reflect the period of time required for state plan development 

and submittal by states, review and approval by the EPA, and 

implementation of approved plans by states and affected EGUs, 

the EPA is determining in this final rule that affected EGUs 

will be required to begin to make reductions by 2022, instead of 

2020, as proposed, and meet the final CO2 emission performance 

rates or equivalent statewide goals by no later than 2030. The 

EPA is establishing an eight-year interim period that begins in 

2022 and goes through 2029, and which is separated into three 

steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029, each associated with 

its own interim goal. Affected EGUs must meet each of the 

interim period step 1, 2, and 3 CO2 emission performance rates, 

or, following the emissions reduction trajectory designed by the 

Deleted: The record is compelling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 40 of 1546

state itself, must meet the equivalent statewide interim period 

goals, on average, that a state may establish over the 8-year 

period from 2022-2029. The CAA section 111(d) plan must include 

those specific requirements. Affected EGUs must also achieve the 

final CO2 performance rates or the equivalent statewide goal by 

2030 and maintain that level subsequently. This approach 

reflects adjustments to the timeframe over which reductions must 

be achieved that mirror the determination of the final BSER, 

which incorporates the phasing in of the BSER measures in 

keeping with the achievability of those measures. The agency 

believes that this approach for timing is reasonable and 

appropriate, is consistent with many of the comments we 

received, and will best support the optimization of overall CO2 

reductions. 

The EPA recognizes that cost-effectively achieving 

reductions in 2022 and beyond may be facilitated by actions and 

investments that yield CO2 emission reductions prior to 2022. The 

final guidelines include provisions to encourage early actions. 

States will be able to take advantage of the impacts of early 

investments that occur prior to the beginning of a plan 

performance period. Under a mass-based plan, those impacts will 

be reflected in reductions in the reported CO2 emissions of 

affected EGUs during the plan performance period. Under a rateDeleted: successfully

Deleted: by

Deleted: will

Commented [A8]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 41 of 1546

based plan, states may recognize early actions implemented after 

2012 by crediting MWh of electricity generation and savings that 

are achieved by those measures during the interim and final plan 

performance periods. 

 In addition, to encourage early investments in RE and 

demand-side EE, the EPA is establishing the Clean Energy 

Incentive Program (CEIP) as part of the emission guidelines and 

proposed federal plan. Through this program, states will have 

the opportunity to award allowances and ERCs to qualified 

providers that make early investments in RE and in demand-side 

EE projects and distributed RE projects in low-income 

communities. Those states that take advantage of this option 

will be eligible to receive from the EPA matching allowances or 

ERCs, up to a total for all states that represents the 

equivalent of 300 million short tons of CO2 emissions. 

 By no later than December 20, 2015, the EPA will issue 

guidance, a notice of data availability or a supplemental 

proposal intended to address implementation of the Clean Energy 

Incentive Program. Prior to doing so, the EPA will engage states 

and stakeholders to gather additional information concerning 

implementation of the program and to solicit information about 

the concerns, interests and priorities of states, utilities, and 

other stakeholders. 

Deleted: that benefit

Commented [A9]: Needs to be consistent with final design 

Deleted: ratepayers and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 42 of 1546

Further discussion of timing and provisions to encourage 

early action is presented in Section VIII.G of this preamble. 

(5) Community and environmental justice considerations. 

Climate change is an environmental justice issue. Lowincome communities and communities of color already overburdened 

by pollution are disproportionately affected by climate change 

and are less resilient than others to adapt to or recover from 

climate-change impacts. While this rule will provide broad 

benefits to communities across the nation by reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, it will be particularly beneficial to populations 

that are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate 

change and air pollution. 

Conventional pollutants emitted by power plants, such as 

particulate matter, SO2, HAPs, and NOx, will also be reduced as 

the plants reduce their carbon emissions. These pollutants can 

have significant adverse local and regional health impacts. The 

EPA analyzed the communities in closest proximity to power 

plants and found that they include a higher percentage of 

communities of color and low-income communities than national 

averages. We thus expect an important co-benefit of this rule to 

be a reduction in the adverse health impacts of air pollution on 

these low-income communities and communities of color. As 

mentioned earlier, we refer to these communities generally as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 43 of 1546

“overburdened,” to denote those communities central to 

environmental justice considerations. 

While pollution will be cut from power plants overall, 

there may be some relatively small number of plants whose 

operation and corresponding emissions increase, as energy 

providers balance energy production across their fleets to 

comply with state plans. These plants are likely to be the 

highest-efficiency natural gas-fired units, which have 

correspondingly low carbon emissions and are also characterized 

by low emissions of the conventional pollutants that contribute 

to adverse health effects in nearby communities and regionally. 

The EPA strongly encourages states to evaluate the effects of 

their plans on overburdened communities and to take the steps 

necessary to ensure that all communities benefit from the 

implementation of this rule. In order to identify whether state 

plans are causing any adverse impacts on overburdened 

communities, mindful that substantial reductions may be 

accompanied by potential localized increases, the EPA intends to 

perform an assessment of the implementation of this rule to 

determine whether it and other air quality rules are leading to 

improved air quality in all areas or whether there are localized 

impacts that need to be addressed. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 44 of 1546

Effective engagement between states and affected 

communities is critical to the development of state plans. The 

EPA encourages states to identify communities that may be 

currently experiencing adverse, disproportionate impacts of 

climate change and air pollution, how state plan designs may 

affect them, and how to most effectively reach out to them. This 

final rule requires that states include in their initial plans a 

description of how they engaged with overburdened communities as 

they developed their initial plans, as well as the means by 

which they intend to involve communities and other stakeholders 

as they develop their final plans. The EPA will provide training 

and other resources for states and communities to facilitate 

meaningful engagement. 

In addition to the benefits for overburdened communities 

from reducing climate change impacts and effects of conventional 

pollutant emissions, this rule will also help communities by 

establishing emission standards on emitting sources that will 

encourage cleaner generation and greater energy efficiency. The 

federal government is committed to ensuring that all communities 

share in these benefits. 

The EPA also encourages states to consider how they may 

incorporate approaches already used by other states to help lowincome communities share in the investments in infrastructure, 

Deleted: moving the utility industry toward

Commented [A10]: Strongly recommend adjusting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 45 of 1546

job creation, and other benefits that EE and RE programs 

provide, have access to financial assistance programs, and 

minimize any adverse impacts that their plans could have on 

communities. 

Community and environmental justice considerations are 

discussed further in section IX of this preamble. 

(6) Addressing employment concerns. 

In addition, the EPA encourages states in designing their 

state plans to consider the effects of their plans on employment 

and overall economic development to assure that the 

opportunities for economic growth and jobs that the plans offer 

are manifest. To the extent possible, states should try to 

assure that any communities that can be expected to experience 

job losses can also take advantage of the opportunities for job 

growth or otherwise transition to healthy, sustainable economic 

growth. 

(7) Electric system reliability. 

In no small part thanks to the comments we received and our 

extensive consultation with key agencies responsible for 

reliability, including FERC and DOE, among others, along with 

EPA’s longstanding principles in setting emission standards for 

the utility power sector, these guidelines reflect the paramount 

importance of ensuring electric system reliability. The input we 

Commented [A11]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 46 of 1546

received on this issue focused heavily on the extent of the 

reductions required at the beginning of the interim period, 

proposed as 2020. We are addressing these concerns in large part 

by moving the first date for mandatory reductions under the 

program from 2020 to 2022 and significantly adjusting the 

interim goals so that they provide a less abrupt initial 

reduction expectation. This, in turn, will provide states and 

utilities with a great deal more latitude in determining their 

emission reduction trajectories over the interim period. As a 

result, there will be more time for planning, consultation and 

decision making in the formulation of state plans and in EGUs’ 

choice of compliance strategies, all within the existing 

extensive structure of energy planning at the state and regional 

levels. These adjustments in the interim goals are supported by 

the information in the record concerning the time needed to 

develop and implement reductions under the BSER. In addition, 

the various forms of flexibility retained and enhanced in this 

final rule, including opportunities for trading within and 

between states, and other multi-state compliance approaches, 

will further support electric system reliability. In addition, 

numerous commenters urged us to include, as part of the plan 

development or approval process, input from review by energy 

regulatory agencies and reliability entities. In the final rule, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 47 of 1546

we are requiring that each state demonstrate in its final state 

plan submittal that it has considered reliability issues in 

developing its plan. 

The final guidelines address electric system reliability in 

several additional ways. We recognize that issues may arise 

during the implementation of the guidelines that may warrant 

adjustments to a state’s plan in order to maintain electric 

system reliability. The final guidelines make clear that states 

have the ability to propose amendments to approved plans in the 

event that unanticipated and significant reliability challenges 

arise. And, as a final element of reliability assurance, the 

rule also provides for a reliability safety valve for individual 

sources where there is a conflict between the requirements the 

state plan imposes on a specific affected EGU and the 

maintenance of electric system reliability in the face of an 

extraordinary, unanticipated, potentially catastrophic event. 

We anticipate that these situations will be extremely rare 

because the states have the flexibility to craft requirements 

for their EGUs that will provide long averaging periods and/or 

compliance mechanisms, such as trading, whose inherent 

flexibility will make it unlikely that an individual unit will 

find itself in this kind of situation. As one example, under 

compliance regimes that allow individual EGUs to establish 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 48 of 1546

compliance through the acquisition and holding of allowances or 

ERCs equal to their emissions, an EGU’s need to continue to 

operate – and emit – for the purposes of ensuring system 

reliability will not put the EGU into non-compliance, provided, 

of course, it obtains the needed allowances or credits in a 

timely fashion. We, nevertheless, agree with many commenters 

that it is prudent to provide an electric system reliability 

safety valve as a precaution. In addition, the EPA, DOE and FERC 

have agreed to coordinate their efforts, at the federal level, 

to help ensure continued reliable electricity generation and 

transmission during the implementation of the final rule. The 

three agencies have set out a memorandum that reflects their 

joint understanding of how they will work together to monitor 

implementation, share information, and to resolve any 

difficulties that may be encountered. 

As a result of the many features of this final rule that 

provide states and affected EGUs with meaningful time and 

decision making latitude, we believe that the comprehensive 

safeguards already in place in the U.S. to ensure electric 

system reliability will continue to operate effectively as 

affected EGUs reduce their CO2 emissions under this program. 

(8) Outreach and resources for stakeholders. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 49 of 1546

 To provide states, U.S. territories, tribes, utilities, 

communities, and other interested stakeholders with 

understanding about the rule requirements, and to provide 

efficiencies where possible and reduce the cost and 

administrative burden, the EPA will continue to work with 

states, tribes, territories, and stakeholders to provide 

information and address questions about the final rule. Outreach 

will include opportunities for states and tribes to participate 

in briefings, teleconferences, and meetings about the final 

rule. The EPA’s ten regional offices will continue to be the 

entry point for states, tribes and territories to ask technical 

and policy questions. The agency will host (or partner with 

appropriate groups to co-host) a number of webinars about 

various components of the final rule; these webinars are planned 

for the first two months after the final rule is issued. The EPA 

will also offer consultations with tribal governments. The EPA 

will continue outreach throughout the plan development and 

submittal process. The EPA will use information from this 

outreach process to inform the training and other tools that 

will be of most use to the state, tribes, and territories that 

are implementing the final rule. 

The EPA has worked with communities, states, tribes and 

relevant associations to develop an extensive training plan that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 50 of 1546

will continue in the months after the Clean Power Plan is 

finalized. The EPA has assembled resources from a variety of 

sources to create a comprehensive training curriculum for those 

implementing this rule. Recorded presentations from the EPA, DOE 

and other federal entities will be available for communities, 

states, and others involved in composing and participating in 

the development of state plans. This curriculum is available 

online at EPA’s Air Pollution Training Institute. 

The EPA also expects to issue guidance on specific topics. 

As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources 

become available, the EPA, in consultation with DOE and other 

federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website.12 

We intend to continue to work actively with states and 

tribes, as appropriate, to provide information and technical 

support that will be helpful to them in developing and 

implementing their plans. 

Additional detail on aspects of the final rule is 

included in several technical support documents (TSDs) and 

memoranda that are available in the rulemaking docket. 

4. Key changes from proposal 

 

12 www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 51 of 1546

a. Overview and highlights. The June 2014 proposal for the rule 

was designed to meet the fundamental goal of reducing harmful 

emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs in a manner 

consistent with the CAA requirements, while accommodating two 

important objectives. The first objective was to establish 

guidelines that reflect both the manner in which the power 

system operates and the actions and measures already underway 

across states and the utility power sector that are resulting in 

CO2 emission reductions. The second objective was to provide 

states and utilities maximum flexibility, control and choice in 

meeting their compliance obligations. In this final rule, the 

EPA has focused on changes that, in addition to being responsive 

to the critical concerns and priorities of stakeholders, more 

fully accomplish these two objectives. 

To achieve these objectives, the June 2014 proposal 

featured several important elements: the building block approach 

for the BSER; state-specific, rather than source-specific goals; 

a 10-year interim goal that could be met “on average” over the 

10-year period between 2020 and 2029; and a “portfolio” option 

for state plans. These features were intended either to capture, 

in the emission guidelines, emission reduction measures already 

in widespread use or to maximize the range of choices that 

states and utilities could select in order to achieve their 

Deleted: crucial 

Commented [A12]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 52 of 1546

emission limitations at low cost while ensuring electric system 

reliability. In this final rule, we are retaining the key design 

elements of the proposal and making certain adjustments to 

respond to a variety of very constructive comments on ways that 

will implement the CAA section 111(d) requirements efficiently 

and effectively. 

The building block approach is a key feature of the 

proposal that we are retaining in the final rule, but have 

refined to include only the first three building blocks and to 

reflect implementation of the measures encompassed in the 

building blocks on a broad regional grid-level. In the proposal, 

we expressed the emission limitation requirements reflecting the 

BSER in terms of the state goals in order to provide states with 

maximum flexibility and latitude. We viewed this as an important 

feature because each state has its own energy profile and statespecific policies and needs relative to the production and use 

of electricity. In the final rule, we extend that flexibility 

significantly in direct response to comments from states and 

utilities. The final rule establishes source-level emission 

performance rates for the source subcategories, while retaining 

state-level rate- and mass-based goals. One of the key messages 

conveyed by state and utility commenters was that the final rule 

should make it easier for states to adopt mass-based programs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 53 of 1546

and for utilities accustomed to operating across broad multistate grids to be able to avail themselves of more “ready-made” 

emissions trading regimes. The inclusion of both of these new 

features – mass-based state goals in addition to rate-based 

goals, and source-level emission performance rates for the two 

subcategories of sources – is intended to make it easier for 

states and utilities to achieve these outcomes. 

Many stakeholders conveyed to the EPA that the proposal’s 

interim goals for the 2020-2029 period were designed in a way 

that defeated the EPA’s objective of allowing states and 

utilities to shape their emission reduction trajectories. They 

pointed out that, in many cases, the timing and stringency of 

the states’ interim goals could require actions that could 

result in high costs, threaten electric system reliability or 

hinder the deployment of renewable technology. In response, the 

EPA has revised the interim goals in two critical ways. First, 

the interim compliance averaging period begins in 2022 rather 

than 2020; second, in keeping with the BSER, emission reduction 

requirements are phased in more gradually over the interim 

period. These changes will allow states and utilities to 

delineate their own emission reduction trajectories so as to 

minimize costs and foster broader deployment of renewable energy 

technologies. The value of these changes is demonstrated by our 

Deleted: First, mandatory reductions begin

Commented [A13]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 54 of 1546

analysis of the final rule, which shows lower program costs, 

especially in the early years of the interim period, and greater 

renewable energy deployment, relative to the analysis of the 

proposed rule. At the same time, this re-design of the interim 

goals, together with refinements we have made to state plan 

requirements and the inclusion of a reliability safety valve, 

provide states, utilities and other entities with the ability to 

continue to guarantee system reliability. 

b. Outreach, engagement and comment record. This final rule is 

the product of one of the most extensive and long-running public 

engagement processes the EPA has ever conducted, starting in the 

summer of 2013, prior to proposal, and continuing through 

December 2014, when the public comment period ended, and 

continuing beyond that with consultations and meetings with 

stakeholders. The result of this extensive consultation was 

millions of comments from stakeholders, which we have carefully 

considered over the past several months. The EPA gained crucial 

insights from the more than 4 million comments that the agency 

received on the proposal and on notices leading to this final 

rulemaking. Comments were provided by stakeholders that include 

state environmental and energy officials, tribal officials, 

public utility commissioners, system operators, owners and 

operators of every type of power generating facility, other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 55 of 1546

industry representatives, labor leaders, public health leaders, 

public interest advocates, community and faith leaders, and 

members of the public. 

The insights gained from public comments contributed to the 

development of final emission guidelines that build on the 

proposal and the alternatives on which we sought comment. The 

modifications incorporated in the final guidelines are directly 

responsive to the comments we received from the many and diverse 

stakeholders. The improved guidelines reflect information and 

ideas that states and utilities provided to us about both the 

best approach to establishing CO2 emission reduction requirements 

for EGUs and the most effective ways to create true flexibility 

for states and utilities in meeting these requirements. These 

final rules also reflect the results of EPA’s robust 

consultation with federal, state and regional energy agencies 

and authorities, to ensure that the actions sources will take to 

reduce GHG emissions will not compromise electric system 

reliability or affordability of the U.S. electricity supply. 

Input and assistance from FERC and DOE have been particularly 

important in shaping these final guidelines. At the same time, 

input from community-based and environmental justice 

organizations, who provided thoughtful comments about the 

potential impacts of this rule on pollution levels in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 56 of 1546

overburdened communities and economic impacts, including utility 

rates in low-income communities, is also reflected in this rule. 

The final rule also reflects our response to concerns raised by 

labor leaders regarding the potential effects on workers and 

communities of the transition away from higher-emitting power 

generation to lower- and zero-emitting power generation. 

c. Additional information. The most significant changes in 

these final guidelines are: 1) mandatory emission reductions 

beginning in 2022 instead of 2020 and a gradual application of 

the BSER over the 2022-2029 interim period, such that a state 

has substantial latitude in selecting its own emission reduction 

trajectory or “glide path” over that period, 2) a revised BSER 

determination that focuses on narrower generation options that 

do not include demand-side energy efficiency measures and that 

includes refinements to the building blocks, more complete 

incorporation in the BSER of the realities of electricity 

operations over the three regional Interconnections, and up-todate information about the cost and availability of clean 

generation options, 3) the formulation of source-specific CO2

emission performance rates that are uniform across the two 

fossil fuel-fired subcategories covered in these guidelines, as 

well as rate- and mass-based state goals, to facilitate emission 

trading, including interstate trading and, in particular, mass-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 57 of 1546

based trading, 4) a variation on the proposal’s “portfolio” 

option for state plans – called here the “state measures” 

approach - that continues to provide states flexibility while 

ensuring that all state plans have federally enforceable 

measures as a backstop, 5) additional, more flexible options for 

states and utilities to adopt multi-state compliance strategies, 

6) an extension of up to two years available to all states for 

submittal of their final compliance plans following submittal of 

an initial plan in 2016, 7) provisions to encourage actions that 

achieve early reductions, including a Clean Energy Incentive 

Program, 8) a combination of provisions expressly designed to 

ensure electric system reliability, 9) the addition of 

employment considerations for states in plan development, and 

10) the expansion of considerations and programs for 

overburdened communities. 

We provide summary explanations in the following paragraphs 

and more detailed explanations of all of these changes in later 

sections of this preamble and associated documents. 

(1) Mandatory Reductions Beginning in 2022 and a Gradual 

Glide Path. 

The proposal’s mandatory emission reductions beginning in 

2020 and the trajectory of emission reduction requirements in 

the interim period were both the subjects of significant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 58 of 1546

comment. Earlier this year, FERC conducted a series of technical 

conferences comprising one national session and three regional 

sessions. The information provided by workshop participants 

echoed much of the material that had been submitted to the 

comment record for this rulemaking. On May 15, 2015, the FERC 

Commissioners, drawing upon information highlighted at the 

technical conferences, transmitted to the EPA some suggestions 

for the final rule. In addition, via comments, states, 

utilities, and reliability entities asked us to ensure adequate 

time for them to implement strategies to achieve CO2 reductions. 

They expressed concern that, in the proposal, at least some 

states would be required to reduce emissions in 2020 to levels 

that would require abrupt shifts in generation in ways that 

raised concerns about impacts to electric system reliability and 

ratepayer bills, as well as about stranded assets. To many 

commenters, the proposal’s requirement for CO2 emission 

reductions beginning in 2020, together with the stringency of 

the interim CO2 goal, posed significant reliability implications, 

in particular. In this final rule, the agency is addressing 

these concerns, in part, by adjusting the compliance timeframe 

from a 10-year interim period that begins in 2020 to an 8-year 

interim period that begins in 2022, and by refining the approach 

for meeting interim CO2 emission performance rates to be a glide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 59 of 1546

path separated into three steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-

2029, that is also achievable “on average” over the 8-year 

interim period. In response to the concerns of commenters that 

the proposal’s 10-year interim target failed to afford 

sufficient flexibility, the final guidelines’ approach will 

provide states with realistic options for customizing their 

emission reduction trajectories. Of equal importance, the 

approach provides more time for planning, consultation and 

decision making in the formulation of state plans and in EGUs’ 

choices of compliance strategies. Both FERC’s May 15, 2015 

letter and the comment record, as well as other information 

sources, made it clear that providing sufficient time for 

planning and implementation was essential to ensuring electric 

system reliability. 

The final guidelines’ approach to the interim emission 

performance rates is the result of the application of the 

measures constituting the BSER in a more gradual way, reflecting 

stakeholder comments and information about the appropriate 

period of time over which those measures can be deployed 

consistent with the BSER factors of cost and feasibility. In 

addition to facilitating reliable system operations, these 

changes provide states and utilities with the latitude to 

consider a broader range of options to achieve the required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 60 of 1546

reductions while addressing concerns about ratepayer impacts and 

stranded assets. 

(2) Revised BSER determination. 

 Commenters urged the EPA to confine its BSER determination 

to actions that involve what they characterized as more 

“traditional” generation. While some stakeholders recognized 

demand-side EE as being an integral part of the electricity 

system, with many of the characteristics of more traditional 

generating resources, other stakeholders did not. Though demandside EE shares many of the most salient characteristics of what 

some regard as more traditional generation, and is treated as 

functionally interchangeable with other forms of generation for 

planning and operational purposes, the broad range of comments 

on this topic illustrates how much the role of demand-side 

resources is changing and how the opportunities for generating 

companies to use demand-side resources varies more than the 

other building blocks. For example, a broad range of types of 

generation owners including vertically integrated utilities, 

municipalities, cooperatives and independent power producers own 

or contract for renewable energy, but only a handful of 

independent power producers are currently providing demand-side 

resources like demand-side EE. In view of this, since the BSER 

must serve as the foundation of the emission guidelines, the EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 61 of 1546

has not included demand-side EE as part of the final BSER 

determination. Thus, neither the final guidelines’ BSER 

determination nor the emission performance rates for the two 

subcategories of affected EGUs take into account demand-side EE. 

However, many commenters also urged the EPA to allow states and 

sources to rely on demand-side EE as an element of their 

compliance strategies, as energy efficiency measures are in 

widespread use across the country and provide energy savings 

that reduce emissions, lower electric bills, and lead to 

positive investments and job creation. We agree, and the final 

guidelines provide ample latitude for states and utilities to 

rely on demand-side EE in meeting emission reduction 

requirements. 

In response to stakeholder comments on the first three 

building blocks and considerable data in the record, the EPA has 

made refinements to the building blocks, and these are reflected 

in the final BSER. Refinements include adoption of a modified 

approach to quantification of the renewable energy component, 

exclusion of the proposed nuclear generation components, and 

adoption of a consistent regionalized approach to quantification 

of all three building blocks. The agency also recognizes the 

important functional relationship between the period of time 

over which measures are deployed and the stringency of emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 62 of 1546

limitations those measures can achieve in a practical and 

reasonable cost way. Therefore, the final BSER also reflects 

adjustments to the stringency of the building blocks, after 

consideration of more and less stringent levels, and refinements 

to the timeframe over which reductions must be achieved. 

Sections V.C through V.E of this preamble provide further 

information on the refinements made to the building blocks and 

the rationale for doing so. 

Commenters pointed out – and practical experience confirms 

– what is widely known: that the utility power sector operates 

over regional interconnections that are not constrained by state 

borders. Across a variety of issues raised in the proposal, many 

commenters urged that the EPA take that reality into account in 

developing this final rule. Consequently, the BSER 

determination itself (as well as a number of new compliance 

features included in this final rule) and the resulting 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates take into 

account the grid-level operations of the source category. 

The final guidelines’ BSER determination also takes into 

account recent reductions in the cost of clean energy 

technology, as well as projections of continuing cost 

reductions, and continuing increases in RE deployment. We also 

updated the underlying analysis with the most recent Energy 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 63 of 1546

Information Administration (EIA) projections that show lower 

growth in electricity demand between 2020 and 2030 than 

previously projected. In keeping with these recent EIA 

projections, we expect the final guidelines will be more 

conducive to compliance, consistent with a strategy that allows 

for the cleanest power generation and greater CO2 reductions in 

2030 than the proposal. With a date of 2022, instead of 2020, as 

proposed, for mandatory CO2 emission reductions to begin, the 

final guidelines reflect that the additional time aligns with 

the adoption of lower-cost clean technology and, thus, its 

incorporation in the BSER at higher levels. At the same time, 

the 2022-2029 interim period will more easily allow for 

companies to take advantage of improved clean energy 

technologies as potential least cost options. 

(3) Uniform Emission Performance Rates. 

Some stakeholders commented that the proposal’s approach of 

expressing the BSER in terms of state-specific goals deviated 

from the requirements of CAA section 111 and from previous new 

source performance standards (NSPS). The effect, they stated, 

was that the proposal created de facto emission standards for 

all affected EGUs but that these de facto standards varied 

widely depending on the state in which a given EGU happened to 

be located. Instead, these and other commenters stated, section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 64 of 1546

111 requires that EPA establish the BSER specifically for 

affected sources, rather than by means of merely setting statespecific goals, and that these standards be uniform. Still other 

commenters observed that the effect of the approach taken in the 

proposal of applying the BSER to each state’s fleet was to put a 

greater burden of reductions on lower-emitting or less carbonintensive states and a lesser emission reduction burden on 

sources and states that were higher-emitting or more carbonintensive. This, they argued, was both inequitable and at odds 

with the way in which NSPS have been applied in the past, where 

the higher-emitting sources have made the greater and more costeffective reductions, while lower-emitting sources, whose 

reduction opportunities tend to be less cost-effective, have 

been required to make fewer reductions to meet the applicable 

standard. 

At the same time, state and utility commenters expressed 

concern that relying on state-specific goals and state-by-state 

planning could introduce complexity into the otherwise seamless 

integrated operation of affected EGUs across the multi-state 

grids on which system operators, states and utilities currently 

rely and intend to continue to rely. Accordingly, they 

recommended that the final guidelines facilitate emissions 

trading, in particular interstate trading, which would enable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 65 of 1546

EGU operators to integrate compliance with CO2 emissions 

limitations with facility and grid-level operations. These sets 

of comments intersected at the point at which they focused on 

the fact that it is at the source level at which the standard is 

set for NSPS and at the source level at which compliance must be 

achieved. 

The EPA carefully considered these comments and while we 

believe that the approach we took at proposal was well-founded 

and reflected a number of important considerations, we have 

concluded that there is a way to address these concerns while 

expanding upon the advantages offered by the proposal. 

Accordingly, the final guidelines formulate uniform rates for 

the two subcategories of sources – an approach that is valuable 

for creating greater equity between and among utilities and 

states with widely varying emission levels and for expanding the 

flexibility of the program, especially in ways that have been 

identified as important to utilities and states. Specifically, 

the final guidelines express the BSER by means of performancebased CO2 emission rates that are uniform across each of two 

subcategories – fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating 

units and stationary combustion turbines – for the affected EGUs 

covered by the guidelines. The rates are determined, in part, by 

applying the methodology identified in the Notice of Data 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 66 of 1546

Availability published on October 30, 2014, which was based on 

the proposal’s building block approach. The final guidelines 

also maintain the approach adopted in the proposal of 

establishing state-level goals; in the final rule, those goals 

represent the weighted aggregate of the two emission performance 

rates as applied to the EGUs in each state. 

This approach rectifies what would have been an 

inefficient, unintended outcome of putting the greater reduction 

burden on lower-emitting sources and states while exempting 

higher-emitting sources and states. Expressing the BSER by means 

of these rates also augments the range of options for both 

states and EGUs for securing needed flexibility. In addition, 

the latitude for state plans and EGU compliance created by the 

inclusion of state goals as the means of expressing state 

obligations, states also may comply with these guidelines by 

adopting these emission performance rates as emission standards 

that apply to the affected EGUs in their jurisdiction. Such an 

approach would lend itself to the ready establishment of intrastate and interstate trading, with the uniform rate-based 

standards of performance established for each EGU as the basis 

for such trading with other states taking this approach. At the 

same time, as at proposal, each state also has the option of 

complying with these guidelines by adopting a plan that takes a 

Deleted: are equal to

Deleted: .

Commented [A14]: edits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 67 of 1546

different approach to setting standards of performance for its 

EGUs and/or by applying complementary or alternative measures to 

meet the state goal set by these guidelines – as either a rate 

or a mass total. Both of these options would also readily 

facilitate trading with other states adopting parallel 

approaches. 

During the outreach process and through comments, a number 

of state officials and other stakeholders expressed concern that 

the EPA’s approach at proposal necessitated or represented a 

significant intrusion into state-level energy policy-making, 

drawing the EPA well beyond the bounds of its CAA authority and 

expertise. In fact, these final guidelines are entirely 

respectful of the EPA’s responsibility and authority to regulate 

sources of air pollution. Instead, by establishing and operating 

through uniform performance rates for the two subcategories of 

sources that can be applied by states at the individual source 

level and that can readily be implemented through emission 

standards that incorporate emissions trading, these final 

guidelines align with the approach Congress and the EPA have 

consistently taken to regulating emissions from this and other 

industrial sectors, namely setting source-level, source 

category-wide standards that individual sources can meet through 

a variety of technologies and measures. As has always been true 

Commented [A15]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 68 of 1546

in the context of federal (and state) environmental standards, 

state energy policy-makers, planners, and regulators will direct 

state energy policy and utility investments in a manner 

consistent with state policy priorities and cost-effective 

compliance with all state and federal environmental standards 

applying to the power sector.

We emphasize, at the same time, that while the final 

guidelines express the BSER by means of source-level CO2 emission 

performance rates, as well as state-level goals, as at proposal, 

each state will have a goal reflecting its particular mix of 

sources, and the final guidelines retain the flexibility 

inherent in the proposal’s state-specific goals approach (and, 

as discussed in section VIII of this preamble, enhanced in 

various ways). Thus, in keeping with the proposal’s flexibility, 

states may choose to adopt either the emission performance rates 

as emission standards for their sources, set different but, in 

the aggregate, equivalent rates, or fulfill their obligations by 

meeting their respective individual state goals. 

(4) State Plan Approaches. 

Commenters expressed support for the objectives served by 

the “portfolio” option in the state plan approaches included at 

proposal, but many raised concerns about its legality, with 

respect, in particular, to the Clean Air Act’s enforceability 

Commented [A16]: edit
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 69 of 1546

requirements. Some of these commenters identified a “state 

commitment approach” with backstop measures as a variation of 

the “portfolio” approach that would retain the benefits of the 

“portfolio” approach while resolving legal and enforceability 

concerns. In this final rule, in response to stakeholder 

comments on the portfolio approach and alternative approaches, 

the EPA is finalizing two approaches, a source-based “emission 

standards” approach, and a “state measures” approach. Through 

the latter, states may adopt a portfolio of policies and 

programs, which would not need to be federally enforceable, but 

they would be required to include federally enforceable backstop 

measures applicable to each affected EGU in the event that the 

measures included in the state plan failed to achieve the state 

plan’s emissions reduction trajectory. Under these guidelines, 

then, states implement the BSER through standards of performance 

incorporating the uniform performance rates or alternative but 

in the aggregate equivalent rates, or they can adopt plans that 

achieve in aggregate the equivalent of the subcategory-specific 

CO2 emission performance rates by relying on a combination with 

other measures undertaken by the state that complement sourcespecific requirements or, save for the contingent backstop 

requirement, supplant them entirely. This revision provides 

consistency in the treatment of sources while still providing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 70 of 1546

maximum flexibility for states to design their plans around 

reduction approaches that best suit their policy objectives. 

(5) Emission Trading Programs. 

Many state and utility commenters supported the use of 

mass-based and rate-based emission trading programs in state 

plans, including interstate emission trading programs, and 

either pointed out obstacles to establishing such programs or 

suggested approaches that would enhance states’ and utilities’ 

ability to create and participate in such programs.

Through a combination of features retained from the 

proposal and changes made to the proposal these final guidelines 

provide states and utilities with a panoply of tools that 

greatly facilitate their putting in place and participating in 

emissions trading programs. These include: 1) expressing BSER in 

uniform emission performance rates that states may rely on in 

setting emission standards for affected EGUs such that EGUs 

operating under such standards readily qualify to trade with 

affected EGUs in states that adopt the same approach, 2) 

promulgating state mass goals so that states can move quickly to 

establish mass-based programs such that their affected EGUs 

readily qualify to trade with affected EGUs in states that adopt 

the same approach, and 3) providing the EPA resources and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 71 of 1546

capacity to create a tracking system to support state emissions 

trading programs. 

(6) Extension of Plan Submittal Date. 

Stakeholders, particularly states, provided compelling 

information establishing that it could take longer than the 

agency initially anticipated for the states to develop and 

submit their required plans. While the approach at proposal 

reflected the EPA’s conclusion that it was essential to the 

environmental and economic purposes of this rulemaking that 

utilities and states establish the path towards emissions 

reductions as early as possible, we recognize commenters’ 

concerns. To strike the proper balance, the EPA has developed a 

revised state plan submittal schedule. The EPA is requiring 

states to submit an initial plan 13 months after signature (by 

September 6, 2016), to assure that states begin to address the 

urgent needs for reductions quickly, and is providing until 

September 6, 2018, for states to submit a final plan, if an 

extension until that date is justified, to address the concern 

that a submitting state needs more time to develop comprehensive 

plans that reflect the full range of the state’s and its 

stakeholders’ interests. 

(7) Provisions to Encourage Early Action. 

 Many commenters supported providing incentives for states 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 72 of 1546

and utilities to deploy CO2-reducing investments, such as RE and 

demand-side EE measures, as early as possible. The EPA 

recognizes the value of such early actions, and in this final 

rule is establishing a state-federal Clean Energy Incentive 

Program to reward investment in certain RE and demand-side EE 

projects that commence construction after the effective date of 

this rule and that generate MWh or reduce end-use energy demand 

during 2020 and 2021. Specifically, states may draw allowances 

or ERCs from their interim goals and allocate to eligible 

projects allowances or ERCs equivalent to each MWh generated or 

avoided. For each allowance or ERC allocated to such projects, 

the EPA will provide the state with an allowance or ERC that the 

state may allocate to additional projects or may use to 

supplement its allocation to those projects on whose basis the 

EPA provides the matching allocation. Those states that take 

advantage of this option will be eligible to receive from the 

EPA a limited number of matching allowances or ERCs, up to a 

total limit for all states that represents the equivalent of 300 

Mt of CO2 emissions. 

 For a state to be eligible for an award of allowances or 

ERCs from the EPA, it must demonstrate that the allowances or 

ERCs will be awarded to projects that either generate metered 

MWh from wind or solar resources or result in quantified and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 73 of 1546

verified avoided generation through demand-side EE. 

 In addition, in order to drive investments in RE and 

demand-side EE that directly benefit low-income ratepayers and 

communities, the EPA will offer an additional incentive to 

states that encourage these types of investments. Upon 

demonstration by a state that a project benefitting a low-income 

community has generated quantified and verified MWh achieved in 

2020 or 2021, the state will not be required to award to that 

project ERCs or allowances from its own interim target. Rather, 

the EPA will provide the entirety of the award, equal to double 

the number of ERCs or allowances it would have awarded to an 

eligible project not focused on low-income ratepayers. 

 The EPA will address design and implementation details of 

the Clean Energy Incentive Program in a future action.Prior to 

doing so, the EPA will engage states and stakeholders to gather 

additional information concerning implementation of this program 

and to solicit information about the concerns, interests and 

priorities of states, utilities, and other stakeholders. 

(8) Provisions for Electric System Reliability. 

A number of commenters stressed the importance of final 

guidelines that addressed the need to ensure that EGUs could 

meet their emission reduction requirements without being 

compelled to take actions that would undermine electric system 

Commented [A17]: Make consistent with final structure 

Deleted: an
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 74 of 1546

reliability. As noted above, the EPA has consulted extensively 

with federal, regional and state energy agencies, utilities and 

many others about reliability concerns and ways to address them. 

The final guidelines support electric system reliability in a 

number of ways, some inherent in the improvements made in the 

program’s design and some through specific provisions we have 

included in the final rule. Most important are the two key 

changes we made to the interim goal: establishing 2022, instead 

of 2020, as the date that the interim compliance targets will 

apply and phasing in, over the eight-year period, emission 

performance rates such that the level of stringency of the 

emission performance rates in 2022-2024 is significantly less 

than that for the years 2028 and 2029. Since states and 

utilities need only to meet their interim goal “on average” over 

the 8-year period, these changes provide them with a great deal 

of latitude in determining for themselves their emission 

reduction trajectory – and they have additional time to do so. 

As a result, the final guidelines provide the ingredients that 

commenters, reliability entities and expert agencies told the 

EPA were essential to ensuring electric system reliability: time 

and flexibility sufficient to allow for planning, implementation 

and the integration of actions needed to address reliability 

while achieving the required emissions reductions. 

Deleted: mandatory emission reductions begin

Commented [A18]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 75 of 1546

In addition, the final guidelines add a requirement, based 

on substantial input from experts in the energy field, for 

states to demonstrate that they have considered electric system 

reliability in developing their state plans. The final rule also 

offers additional opportunities that support electric system 

reliability, including opportunities for trading within and 

between states. The final guidelines also make clear that states 

can adjust their plans in the event that reliability challenges 

arise that need to be remedied by amending the state plan. In 

addition, the final rule includes a reliability safety valve to 

address situations where, because of an unanticipated 

catastrophic event, there is a conflict between the requirements 

imposed on an affected unit and the maintenance of reliability. 

(9) Approaches for Addressing Employment Concerns. 

Some commenters brought to our attention the concerns of 

workers, their families and communities that the shift toward 

lower-carbon electricity generation that the final rule 

encourages will cause harm to communities that are dependent on 

coal. Others had concerns about whether new jobs created as a 

result of actions taken pursuant to the final rule will allow 

for overall economic development. In the final rule, the EPA 

encourages states, in designing their state plans, to consider 

the effects of their plans on employment and overall economic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 76 of 1546

development to assure that the opportunities for economic growth 

and jobs that the plans offer are manifest. We also identify 

federal programs, including the Partnership for Opportunity and 

Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative13 and a 

joint initiative of the Department of Commerce, Department of 

Labor (DOL), Small Business Administration, and the Appalachian 

Regional Commission,14 whose mission is to assist communities 

affected by changes in the coal industry and the utility power 

sector. 

(10) Community and Environmental Justice Considerations. 

Many community leaders, environmental justice advocates, 

faith-based organizations and others commented that the benefits 

of this rule must be shared broadly across society and that 

undue burdens should not be imposed on low-income ratepayers. We 

agree. The federal government is taking significant steps to 

help low-income families and individuals gain access to RE and 

demand-side EE through new initiatives involving, for example, 

increasing solar energy systems in federally subsidized homes 

and supporting solar systems for others with low incomes. The 

final rule ensures that bill-lowering measures such as demand-

 

13 http://www.eda.gov/power/.

14 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/factsheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economicrevitaliz. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 77 of 1546

side EE continue to be a major compliance option. In addition to 

carbon reduction benefits, we expect significant near- and longterm public health benefits in communities as conventional air 

pollutants are reduced along with GHGs. However, some 

stakeholders expressed concerns about the possibility of 

localized increases in emissions from some power plants as the 

utility industry complies with state plans, in particular in 

communities already disproportionately affected by air 

pollution. This rule sets expectations for states to engage with 

communities as they develop their plans, so that impacts on 

these communities is considered as plans are designed. The EPA 

commits, once implementation is under way, to assess the impacts 

of this rule. Likewise, we encourage states to evaluate the 

effects of their plans to ensure that there are no 

disproportionate adverse impacts on their communities. 

5. Additional context for this final rule

a. Climate change impacts. This final rule is an important step 

in an essential series of long-term actions that are achieving 

and must continue to achieve the GHG emission reductions needed 

to address the serious threat of climate change, and constitutes 

a major commitment – and international leadership-by-doing – on 

the part of the U.S., one of the world’s largest GHG emitters. 

GHG pollution threatens the American public by leading to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 78 of 1546

damaging and long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a 

range of severe negative effects on human health and the 

environment. CO2 is the primary GHG pollutant, accounting for 

nearly three-quarters of global GHG emissions15 and 82 percent of 

U.S. GHG emissions.16 The May 2014 report of the National Climate 

Assessment17 concluded that climate change impacts are already 

manifesting themselves and imposing losses and costs. The report 

documents increases in extreme weather and climate events in 

recent decades, with resulting damage and disruption to human 

well-being, infrastructure, ecosystems, and agriculture, and 

projects continued increases in impacts across a wide range of 

communities, sectors, and ecosystems. New scientific assessments 

since 2009, when the EPA determined that GHGs pose a threat to 

human health and the environment (the “Endangerment Finding”), 

highlight the urgency of addressing the rising concentration of 

CO2 in the atmosphere. Certain groups, including children, the 

elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-related 

 

15 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, 

“Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” 

2007. Available at 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html 

16 From Table ES-2 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. 

17 U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, May 

2014. Available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 79 of 1546

effects. Recent studies also find that certain communities, 

including low-income communities and some communities of color 

(more specifically, populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial 

characteristics and geographic location), are disproportionately 

affected by certain climate change related impacts — including 

heat waves, degraded air quality, and extreme weather events – 

which are associated with increased deaths, illnesses, and 

economic challenges. Studies also find that climate change poses 

particular threats to the health, wellbeing, and ways of life of 

indigenous peoples in the United States. 

b. The utility power sector. One of the strategies of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan is to reduce CO2 emissions from 

power plants.18 This is because fossil fuel-fired EGUs are by far 

the largest emitters of GHGs, primarily in the form of CO2. Among 

stationary sources in the U.S. and among fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

coal-fired units are by far the largest emitters of GHGs. To 

accomplish the goal of reducing CO2 emissions from power plants, 

President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum19 that 

recognized the importance of significant and prompt action. The 

 

18 The President’s Climate Action Plan, June 2013. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27s

climateactionplan.pdf

19 Presidential Memorandum – Power Sector Carbon Pollution 

Standards, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbonpollution-standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 80 of 1546

Memorandum directed the EPA to complete carbon pollution 

standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for new, 

modified, reconstructed and existing power plants, and in doing 

so to build on state leadership in moving toward a cleaner power 

sector. In this action and the concurrent CAA section 111(b) 

rule, the EPA is finalizing regulations to reduce GHG emissions 

from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. This CAA section 111(d) action 

builds on actions states and utilities are already taking to 

move toward cleaner generation of electric power. 

The utility power sector is unlike other industrial 

sectors. In other sectors, sources effectively operate 

independently and on a local-site scale, with control of their 

physical operations resting in the hands of their respective 

owners and operators. Pollution control standards, which focus 

on each source in a non-utility industrial source category, have 

reflected the standalone character of individual source 

investment decision-making and operations. 

In stark contrast, the utility power sector comprises a 

unique system of electricity resources, including the EGUs 

affected under these guidelines, that operate in a complex and 

interconnected grid where electricity generally flows freely 

(e.g., portions of the system cannot be easily isolated through 

the use of switches or valves as can be done in other networked 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 81 of 1546

systems like trains and pipeline systems). That grid is 

physically interconnected and operated on an integrated basis 

across large regions. In this interconnected system, system 

operators, whose decisions, protocols, and actions, to a 

significant extent, dictate the operations of individual EGUs 

and large ensembles of EGUs, must reliably balance supply and 

demand using available generation and demand-side resources, 

including energy efficiency, demand response and a wide range of 

low- and zero-emitting sources. These resources are managed to 

meet the system needs in a reliable and efficient manner. Each 

aspect of this interconnected system is highly regulated and 

coordinated, with supply and demand constantly being balanced to 

meet system needs. Each step of the process from the electric 

generator to the end user is highly regulated by multiple 

entities working in coordination and considering overall system 

reliability. For example, in an ISO or RTO with a 

centralized, organized capacity market, electric generators are 

paid to be available to run when needed, must bid into energy 

markets, must respond to dispatch instructions, and must have 

permission to schedule maintenance. The ISO/RTO dispatches 

resources in a way that maintains electric system reliability. 

The approach we take in the final guidelines is consistent 

with the interconnected, interdependent and highly regulated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 82 of 1546

nature of the utility power sector, the daily operation of 

affected EGUs within this framework, and the critical role of 

utilities in providing reliable, affordable electricity at all 

times and in all places within this complex, regulated system. 

Thus, not only do these guidelines put a premium on providing as 

much flexibility and latitude as possible for states and 

utilities, they also recognize that a given EGU’s operations are 

determined by the availability and use of other generation 

resources to which it is physically connected and by the 

collective operating regime that integrates that individual 

EGU’s activity with other resources across the grid. 

In this integrated system, numerous entities have both the 

capability and the responsibility to maintain a reliable 

electric system. FERC, DOE, state public utility commissions, 

independent system operators (ISOs), regional transmission 

organizations (RTOs), other planning authorities, and the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), all contribute 

to ensuring the reliability of the electric system in the U.S. 

Critical to this function are dispatch tools, applied primarily 

by RTOs, ISOs, and balancing authorities, that operate such that 

actions taken or costs incurred at one source directly affect or 

cause actions to occur at other sources. Generation, outages, 

and transmission changes in one part of the synchronous grid can 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 83 of 1546

affect the entire interconnected grid.20 The interconnection is 

such that “[i]f a generator is lost in New York City, its effect 

is felt in Georgia, Florida, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and New 

Orleans.”21 The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the 

interconnected nature of the electricity grid.22 

The uniqueness of the utility power sector inevitably 

affects the way in which environmental regulations are designed. 

When the EPA promulgates environmental regulations that affect 

the utility power sector, as we have done numerous times over 

 

20 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 159 (2d ed. 2010). 21 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 160 (2d ed. 2010). 22 Federal Power Comm’n v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 

453, at 460 (1972) (quoting a Federal Power Commission hearing 

examiner, "`If a housewife in Atlanta on the Georgia system 

turns on a light, every generator on Florida’s system almost 

instantly is caused to produce some quantity of additional 

electric energy which serves to maintain the balance in the 

interconnected system between generation and load.’”) (citation 

omitted). See also New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, at 7-8 (2002) 

(stating that “any electricity that enters the grid immediately 

becomes a part of a vast pool of energy that is constantly 

moving in interstate commerce.”) (citation omitted). In Federal 

Power Comm’n v. Southern California Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 

(1964), the Supreme Court found that a sale for resale of 

electricity from Southern California Edison to the City of 

Colton, which took place solely in California, was under Federal 

Power Commission jurisdiction because some of the electricity 

that Southern California Edison marketed came from out of state. 

The Supreme Court stated that, “`federal jurisdiction was to 

follow the flow of electric energy, an engineering and 

scientific, rather than a legalistic or governmental, test.’” 

Id. at 210, quoting Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal 

Power Commission, 324 U.S. 515, 529 (1945) (emphasis omitted). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 84 of 1546

the past four decades, we do so with the awareness of the 

importance of the efficient and continuous, uninterrupted 

operation of the interconnected electricity system in which EGUs 

participate. We also keep in mind the unique product that this 

interconnected system provides – electricity services – and the 

critical role of this sector to the U.S. economy and to the 

fundamental well-being of all Americans. 

In the context of environmental regulation, Congress, the 

EPA and the states all have recognized – as we do in these final 

guidelines – that electricity production takes place, at least 

to some extent, interchangeably between and among multiple 

generation facilities and different types of generation. This is 

evidenced in the enactment or promulgation of pollution 

reduction programs, such as Title IV of the CAA, the NOx SIP 

Call, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). As these actions 

show, both Congress and the EPA have consistently tailored 

legislation and regulations affecting the utility power sector 

to its unique characteristics. For example, in Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress established a 

pollution reduction program specifically for fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs and designed the SO2 portion of that program with express 

recognition of the sector’s ability to shift generation among 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 85 of 1546

various EGUs, which enabled pollution reduction by increasing 

reliance on renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency. 

Similarly, in the NOX SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), and CSAPR, the EPA established pollution reduction 

programs focused on fossil fuel-fired EGUs and designed those 

programs with express recognition of the sector’s ability to 

shift generation among various EGUs. In this action, we continue 

that approach. Both the subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates, and the pathways offered to achieve them, 

reflect and are tailored to the unique characteristics of the 

utility power sector. 

The way that power is produced, distributed and used in the 

United States is already changing as a result of advancements in 

innovative power sector technologies and in the availability and 

cost of low-carbon fuel, renewable energy and energy efficient 

demand-side technologies, as well as economic conditions. These 

changes are taking place at a time when the average age of the 

coal-fired generating fleet is approaching that at which 

utilities and states undertake significant new investments to 

address aging assets. In 2025, the average age of the coal-fired 

generating fleet is projected to be 49 years old, and 20 percent 

of those units would be more than 60 years old if they remain in 

operation at that time. Therefore, even in the absence of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 86 of 1546

additional environmental regulation, states and utilities can be 

expected to be, and already are, making plans for and investing 

in the next generation of power production, simply because of 

the need to take account of the age of current assets and 

infrastructure. Thus, many outside analyses and studies already 

project that, even in the absence of environmental regulation, 

anywhere from $X to $Y billion must and will be invested in the 

utility power sector between now and 2030. These guidelines will 

help ensure that, as those necessary investments are being made, 

they are integrated with the need to address GHG pollution from 

the sector. 

At the same time, owners/operators of affected EGUs are 

already pursuing the types of measures contemplated in this 

rule. Out of 404 entities identified as owners or operators of 

affected EGUs, representing ownership of 82 percent of the total 

capacity of the affected EGUs, 178 already own RE generating 

capacity in addition to fossil fuel-fired generating 

capacity. In fact, these entities already own aggregate amounts 

of RE generating capacity equal to 25 percent of the aggregate 

amounts of their affected EGU capacity.23 In addition, funding 

for utility energy efficiency programs has been growing rapidly, 

 

23 SNL Energy. Data used with permission. Accessed on June 9, 

2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 87 of 1546

increasing from $1.6 billion in 2006 to $6.3 billion in 2013. 

The final guidelines are based on, and reinforce, the 

actions already being taken by states and utilities to upgrade 

aging electricity infrastructure with 21st century technologies. 

The guidelines will ensure that these trends continue in ways 

that are consistent with the long-term planning and investment 

processes already used in the utility power sector. This final 

rule provides flexibility for states to build upon their 

progress, and the progress of cities and towns, in addressing 

GHGs, and minimizes additional requirements for existing 

programs where possible. It also allows states to pursue 

policies to reduce carbon pollution that: 1) continue to rely on 

a diverse set of energy resources; 2) ensure electric system 

reliability; 3) provide affordable electricity; 4) recognize 

investments that states and power companies are already making; 

and 5) tailor plans to meet their respective energy, 

environmental and economic needs and goals, and those of their 

local communities. Thus, the final guidelines will achieve 

meaningful CO2 emission reductions while maintaining the 

reliability and affordability of electricity in the U.S. 

6. Projected national-level emission reductions 

Under the final guidelines, the EPA projects annual CO2

reductions of 22 to 23 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 88 of 1546

28 to 29 percent below 2005 levels in 2025, and 32 percent 

below 2005 levels in 2030. These guidelines will also 

result in important reductions in emissions of criteria air 

pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and directly emitted fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

A thorough discussion of the EPA’s analysis is presented in 

Section XI.A of this preamble and in Chapter 3 of the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

7. Costs and benefits 

Actions taken to comply with the final guidelines will 

reduce emissions of CO2 and other air pollutants, including 

SO2, NOX, and directly emitted PM2.5 from the utility power 

sector. States will make the ultimate determination as to 

how the emission guidelines are implemented. Thus, all 

costs and benefits reported for this action are 

illustrative estimates. The illustrative costs and benefits 

are based upon compliance approaches that reflect a range 

of measures consisting of improved operations at EGUs, 

dispatching lower-emitting EGUs and zero-emitting energy 

sources, and increasing levels of end-use energy 

efficiency. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 89 of 1546

Because of the range of choices available to states 

and the lack of a priori knowledge about the specific 

choices states will make in response to the final goals, 

the RIA for this final action presents two scenarios 

designed to achieve these goals, which we term the “ratebased” illustrative plan approach and the “mass-based” 

illustrative plan approach. 

In summary, we estimate the total combined climate benefits 

and health co-benefits for the rate-based approach to be $3.5 to 

$4.6 billion in 2020, $18 to $28 billion in 2025, and $34 to $54 

billion in 2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$). Total combined 

climate benefits and health co-benefits for the mass-based 

approach are estimated to be $5.3 to $8.1 billion in 2020, $19 

to $29 billion in 2025, and $32 to $48 billion in 2030 (3 

percent discount rate, 2011$). A summary of the emission 

reductions and monetized benefits estimated for this rule at all 

discount rates is provided in Tables [X] through [X] of this 

preamble. 

The annual compliance costs are estimated using the 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and include demand-side energy 

efficiency program and participant costs as well as monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping costs. In 2020, total compliance 

costs of the final guidelines are approximately $2.5 billion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 90 of 1546

(2011$) under the rate-based approach and $1.4 billion (2011$) 

under the mass-based approach. In 2025, total compliance costs 

of the final guidelines are approximately $1.0 billion (2011$) 

under the rate-based approach and $3.0 billion (2011$) under the 

mass-based approach. In 2030, total compliance costs of the 

final guidelines are approximately $8.4 billion (2011$) under 

the rate-based approach and $5.1 billion (2011$) under the massbased approach. 

The quantified net benefits (the difference between monetized 

benefits and compliance costs) in 2020 are estimated to range 

from $1.0 billion to $2.1 billion (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate (model average) under the rate-based approach and 

from $3.9 billion to $6.7 billion (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate (model average) under the mass-based approach. In 

2025, the quantified net benefits (the difference between 

monetized benefits and compliance costs) in 2025 are estimated 

to range from $17 billion to $27 billion (2011$) using a 3 

percent discount rate (model average) under the rate-based 

approach and from $16 billion to $26 billion (2011$) using a 3 

percent discount rate (model average) under the mass-based 

approach. In 2030, the quantified net benefits (the difference 

between monetized benefits and compliance costs) in 2030 are 

estimated to range from $26 billion to $45 billion (2011$) using 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 91 of 1546

a 3 percent discount rate (model average) under the rate-based 

approach and from $26 billion to $43 billion (2011$) using a 3 

percent discount rate (model average) under the mass-based 

approach.

Table 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the Final Guidelines in 2020, 2025, and 

2030a Under the Rate-Based Illustrative Plan Approach [Billions 

of 2011$] 

Rate-based Approach, 2020 

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount rate 

Climate benefits b $2.8 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $0.70 to $1.8 $0.64 to $1.7 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $2.5 $2.5 

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $1.0 to $2.1 $1.0 to $2.0 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and 

SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

Rate-based Approach, 2025 

 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Climate benefits b $10 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $7.4 to $18 $6.7 to $16 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $1.0 $1.0 

Formatted Table
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 92 of 1546

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $17 to $27 $16 to $25 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and 

SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

Rate-based Approach, 2030 

Climate benefits b $20 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $14 to $34 $13 to $31 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $8.4 $8.4 

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $26 to $45 $25 to $43 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 

and SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

a All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not 

sum. 

b The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects 

global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for 

changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates 

are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2

emissions are long-lived and subsequent damages occur over many 

years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the 

average SCC estimated for a 3 percent discount rate, however we 

emphasize the importance and value of considering the full range 

of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are also 

estimated using the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model average 

at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th

percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2 estimates are year-specific 

and increase over time. 

c The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure 

to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of directly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 93 of 1546

emitted PM2.5, SO2 and NOX. The range reflects the use of 

concentration-response functions from different epidemiology 

studies. The reduction in premature fatalities each year 

accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from 

PM2.5 and ozone. These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

d Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance 

costs estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the 

final guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5%. This 

estimate includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs 

and demand-side energy efficiency program and participant costs. 

e The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are 

calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate 

(model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health 

estimates based on additional discount rates. 

Table 2. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the Final Guidelines in 2020, 2025 and 2030a

Under the Mass-Based Illustrative Plan Approach [Billions of 

2011$] 

Mass-based Approach, 2020 

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount rate 

Climate benefits b $3.3 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $2.0 to $4.8 $1.8 to $4.4 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $1.4 $1.4 

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $3.9 to $6.7 $3.7 to $6.3 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and 

SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Formatted Table
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 94 of 1546

Visibility impairment 

Mass-based Approach, 2025 

 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Climate benefits b $12 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $7.1 to $17 $6.5 to $16 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $3.0 $3.0 

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $16 to $26 $15 to $24 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and 

SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

Mass-based Approach, 2030 

Climate benefits b $20 

Air pollution health 

co-benefits c $12 to $28 $11 to $26 

Total Compliance 

Costs d $5.1 $5.1 

Net Monetized 

Benefits e $26 to $43 $25 to $40 

Non-monetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 

and SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with 

reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, 

and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

a All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not 

sum. 

b The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects 

global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for 

changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates 

are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2

emissions are long-lived and subsequent damages occur over many 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 95 of 1546

years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the 

average SC-CO2 estimated for a 3 percent discount rate, however 

we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full 

range of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are 

also estimated using the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model 

average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 

95th percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2 estimates are yearspecific and increase over time. 

c The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure 

to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of directly 

emitted PM2.5, SO2 and NOX. The range reflects the use of 

concentration-response functions from different epidemiology 

studies. The reduction in premature fatalities each year 

accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from 

PM2.5 and ozone. These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

d Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance 

costs estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the 

final guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5 percent. 

This estimate includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

costs and demand-side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs. 

e The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are 

calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate 

(model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health 

estimates based on additional discount rates. 

There are additional important benefits that the EPA 

could not monetize. Due to current data and modeling 

limitations, our estimates of the benefits from reducing CO2

emissions do not include important impacts like ocean 

acidification or potential tipping points in natural or 

managed ecosystems. The unquantified benefits also include 

climate benefits from reducing emissions of non-CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 96 of 1546

greenhouse gases (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane)24 and cobenefits from reducing direct exposure to SO2, NOX, and 

hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury and hydrogen 

chloride), as well as from reducing ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. 

We project employment gains and losses relative to 

base case for different types of labor, including 

construction, plant operation and maintenance, coal and 

natural gas production, and demand-side energy efficiency. 

In 2030, we project a net decrease in job-years of about 

31,000 under the rate-based approach and 34,000 under the 

mass-based approach25 for construction, plant operation and 

maintenance, and coal and natural gas and a gain of 52,000 

to 83,000 jobs in the demand-side energy efficiency sector 

under either approach. Actual employment impacts will 

depend upon measures taken by states in their state plans 

and the specific actions sources take to comply. 

 

24 Although CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas released by the 

power sector, electricity generating units also emit small 

amounts of nitrous oxide and methane. For more detail about 

power sector emissions, see RIA Chapter 2 and the U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program’s power sector summary, 

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/powerplants.htm

l.

25 A job-year is not an individual job; rather, a job-year is the 

amount of work performed by the equivalent of one full-time 

individual for one year. For example, 20 job-years in 2025 may 

represent 20 full-time jobs or 40 half-time jobs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 97 of 1546

Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the monetized 

benefits of this rule are substantial and far outweigh the 

costs. 

B. Organization and Approach for this Rule 

This final rule establishes the EPA’s emission guidelines 

for states to follow in developing plans to reduce CO2 emissions 

from the utility power sector. Section II of this preamble 

provides background information on climate change impacts from 

GHG emissions, GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the 

utility power sector, the CAA section 111(d) requirements, EPA 

actions prior to this final action, outreach and consultations, 

and the number and extent of comments received. In Section III 

of the preamble, we present a summary of the rule requirements 

and the legal basis for these. Section IV explains the EPA 

authority to regulate CO2 and EGUs, identifies affected EGUs, and 

describes the proposed treatment of source categories. Section V 

describes the agency’s determination of the BSER using three 

building blocks and our key considerations in making the 

determination. Section VI provides the subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates, and Section VII provides equivalent 

statewide rate-based and mass-based goals. Section VIII then 

describes state plan approaches and the requirements, and 

flexibilities, for state plans, followed by Section IX, in which 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 98 of 1546

considerations for communities are described. Interactions 

between this final rule and other EPA programs and rules are 

discussed in Section X. Impacts of the proposed action are then 

described in Section XI, followed by a discussion of statutory 

and executive order reviews in Section XII and the statutory 

authority for this action in Section XIII. 

We note that this rulemaking is being promulgated 

concurrently with related rulemakings: the final new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for CO2 emissions from newly 

constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs [INSERT THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL GHG NEW SOURCE RULE], 

which is being promulgated under CAA section 111(b), and the 

proposed federal plan and model rules. These rulemakings have 

their own rulemaking dockets. 

II. Background 

In this section, we discuss climate change impacts from GHG 

emissions, both on public health and public welfare. We also 

present information about GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs, the challenges associated with controlling carbon dioxide 

emisions, the uniqueness of the utility power sector, and 

drecent and continuing trends and transitions in the utility 

power sector. In addition, we briefly describe CAA regulations 

for power plants, provide highlights of Congressional awareness 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 99 of 1546

of climate change and international agreements and actions, and 

summarize statutory and regulatory requirements relevant to this 

rulemaking. In addition, we provide background information on 

the EPA’s June 18, 2014 Clean Power Plan proposal, the November 

4, 2014 supplemental proposal, and other actions associated with 

this rulemaking,26 followed by information on stakeholder 

outreach and consultations and the comments that the EPA 

received prior to issuing this final rulemaking. 

A. Climate Change Impacts from GHG Emissions 

According to the National Research Council, “Emissions 

of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a 

new epoch where human activities will largely determine the 

evolution of Earth’s climate. Because CO2 in the atmosphere 

is long lived, it can effectively lock Earth and future 

generations into a range of impacts, some of which could 

become very severe. Therefore, emission reduction choices 

made today matter in determining impacts experienced not 

just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries 

and millennia.”27 

 

26 The EPA also published in the Federal Register a notice of 

data availability (79 FR 64543; November 8, 2014) and a notice 

on the translation of emission rate-based CO2 goals to mass-based 

equivalents (79 FR 67406; November 13, 2014). 

27 National Research Council, Climate Stabilization Targets, p.3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 100 of 1546

In 2009, based on a large body of robust and compelling 

scientific evidence, the EPA Administrator issued the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).28 In the 

Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the current, 

elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere—already at 

levels unprecedented in human history—may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of current and 

future generations in the United States. We summarize these 

adverse effects on public health and welfare briefly here. 

1. Public health impacts detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens 

the health of Americans in multiple ways. By raising average 

temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat 

waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. 

While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions 

in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases 

in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold 

mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without 

climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone 

pollution over broad areas of the U.S., especially on the 

 

28 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Fed. Reg. 

66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (“Endangerment Finding”).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 101 of 1546

highest ozone days and in the largest metropolitan areas with 

the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of 

morbidity and mortality. Climate change is also expected to 

cause more intense hurricanes and more frequent and intense 

storms and heavy precipitation, with impacts on other areas of 

public health, such as the potential for increased deaths, 

injuries, infectious and waterborne diseases, and stress-related 

disorders. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the 

most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects. 

2. Public welfare impacts detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

Climate change impacts touch nearly every aspect of public 

welfare. Among the multiple threats caused by human emissions of 

GHGs, climate changes are expected to place large areas of the 

country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased 

water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such 

as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face a 

multitude of increased risks, particularly from rising sea level 

and increases in the severity of storms. These communities face 

storm and flooding damage to property, or even loss of land due 

to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. 

Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include 

threats to social and ecosystem services. Climate change is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 102 of 1546

expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand. 

Extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, 

transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate 

change may also exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in 

certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous 

communities, and is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. 

ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits may 

balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next 

few decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing 

risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production, 

agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to 

rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems 

outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national 

security issues for the U.S. 

3. New scientific assessments and observations 

Since the administrative record concerning the Endangerment 

Finding closed following the EPA’s 2010 Reconsideration Denial, 

the climate has continued to change, with new records being set 

for a number of climate indicators such as global average 

surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice retreat, CO2 concentrations, 

and sea level rise. Additionally, a number of major scientific 

assessments have been released that improve understanding of the 

climate system and strengthen the case that GHGs endanger public 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 103 of 1546

health and welfare both for current and future generations. 

These assessments, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 

and the National Research Council (NRC), include: IPCC’s 2012 

Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and 

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) and the 

2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the USGCRP’s 2014 

National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States (NCA3), and the NRC’s 2010 Ocean Acidification: A 

National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean

(Ocean Acidification), 2011 Report on Climate Stabilization 

Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to 

Millennia (Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 National 

Security Implications for U.S. Naval Forces (National Security 

Implications), 2011 Understanding Earth’s Deep Past: Lessons for 

Our Climate Future (Understanding Earth’s Deep Past), 2012 Sea 

Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: 

Past, Present, and Future, 2012 Climate and Social Stress: 

Implications for Security Analysis (Climate and Social Stress), 

and 2013 Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change (Abrupt Impacts) 

assessments. 

The EPA has carefully reviewed these recent assessments in 

keeping with the same approach outlined in Section VIII.A of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 104 of 1546

2009 Endangerment Finding, which was to rely primarily upon the 

major assessments by the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC of the 

National Academies to provide the technical and scientific 

information to inform the Administrator’s judgment regarding the 

question of whether GHGs endanger public health and welfare. 

These assessments addressed the scientific issues that the EPA 

was required to examine, were comprehensive in their coverage of 

the GHG and climate change issues, and underwent rigorous and 

exacting peer review by the expert community, as well as 

rigorous levels of U.S. government review. 

The findings of the recent scientific assessments confirm 

and strengthen the conclusion that GHGs endanger public health, 

now and in the future. The NCA3 indicates that human health in 

the United States will be impacted by “increased extreme weather 

events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental 

health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and diseasecarriers such as mosquitoes and ticks.” The most recent 

assessments now have greater confidence that climate change will 

influence production of pollen that exacerbates asthma and other 

allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis, as well 

as effects on conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the NCA3 and 

the IPCC AR5 found that increasing temperature has lengthened 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 105 of 1546

the allergenic pollen season for ragweed, and that increased CO2

by itself can elevate production of plant-based allergens. 

The NCA3 also finds that climate change, in addition to 

chronic stresses such as extreme poverty, is negatively 

affecting indigenous peoples’ health in the United States 

through impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, 

decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and 

safety hazards. The IPCC AR5 finds that climate change-induced 

warming in the Arctic and resultant changes in environment 

(e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on traditional food sources) 

have significant impacts, observed now and projected, on the 

health and well-being of Arctic residents, especially indigenous 

peoples. Small, remote, predominantly-indigenous communities are 

especially vulnerable given their “strong dependence on the 

environment for food, culture, and way of life; their political 

and economic marginalization; existing social, health, and 

poverty disparities; as well as their frequent close proximity 

to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or river shorelines.”29 

 

29 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, 

M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. 

Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. 

Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1581. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 106 of 1546

In addition, increasing temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice 

increases the risk of drowning for those engaged in traditional 

hunting and fishing. 

 The NCA3 concludes that children’s unique physiology and 

developing bodies contribute to making them particularly 

vulnerable to climate change. Impacts on children are expected 

from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne 

illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme 

weather events. The IPCC AR5 indicates that children are among 

those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well 

as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and 

floods. The IPCC finds that additional health concerns may arise 

in low income households, especially those with children, if 

climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, 

leading to food insecurity within households. 

Both the NCA3 and IPCC AR5 conclude that climate change 

will increase health risks facing the elderly. Older people are 

at much higher risk of mortality during extreme heat events. 

Pre-existing health conditions also make older adults 

susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of air pollution 

and to more severe consequences from infectious and waterborne 

diseases. Limited mobility among older adults can also increase 

health risks associated with extreme weather and floods. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 107 of 1546

The new assessments also confirm and strengthen the 

conclusion that GHGs endanger public welfare, and emphasize the 

urgency of reducing GHG emissions due to their projections that 

show GHG concentrations climbing to ever-increasing levels in 

the absence of mitigation. The NRC assessment Understanding 

Earth’s Deep Past projected that, without a reduction in 

emissions, CO2 concentrations by the end of the century would 

increase to levels that the Earth has not experienced for more 

than 30 million years.30 In fact, that assessment stated that 

“the magnitude and rate of the present greenhouse gas increase 

place the climate system in what could be one of the most severe 

increases in radiative forcing of the global climate system in 

Earth history.”31 Because of these unprecedented changes, several 

assessments state that we may be approaching critical, poorly 

understood thresholds: as stated in the NRC assessment 

Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, “As Earth continues to warm, it 

may be approaching a critical climate threshold beyond which 

rapid and potentially permanent—at least on a human timescale—

changes not anticipated by climate models tuned to modern 

conditions may occur.” The NRC Abrupt Impacts report analyzed 

the threat of species extinction as an example of an 

 

30 National Research Council, Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, p. 

1.

31 Id., p.138.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 108 of 1546

irreversible impact that is expected to be exacerbated by 

climate change. Species at most risk include those whose 

migration potential is limited, whether because they live on 

mountaintops or fragmented habitats with barriers to movement, 

or because climatic conditions are changing more rapidly than 

the species can move or adapt. While the NRC determined that it 

is not presently possible to place exact probabilities on the 

added contribution of climate change to extinction, they did 

find that there was substantial risk that impacts from climate 

change could, within a few decades, drop the populations in many 

species below sustainable levels thereby committing the species 

to extinction. Species within tropical and subtropical 

rainforests such as the Amazon and species living in coral reef 

ecosystems were identified by the NRC as being particularly 

vulnerable to extinction over the next 30 to 80 years, as were 

species in high latitude and high elevation regions. Moreover, 

due to the time lags inherent in the Earth’s climate, the NRC 

Climate Stabilization Targets assessment notes that the full 

warming from any given concentration of CO2 reached will not be 

fully realized for several centuries, underscoring that emission 

activities today carry with them climate commitments far into 

the future. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 109 of 1546

Future temperature changes will depend on what emission 

path the world follows. In its high emission scenario, the IPCC 

AR5 projects that global temperatures by the end of the century 

will likely be 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) warmer than 

today. Temperatures on land and in northern latitudes will 

likely warm even faster than the global average. However, 

according to the NCA3, significant reductions in emissions would 

lead to noticeably less future warming beyond mid-century, and 

therefore less impact to public health and welfare. 

While rainfall may only see small globally and annually 

averaged changes, there are expected to be substantial shifts in 

where and when that precipitation falls. According to the NCA3, 

regions closer to the poles will see more precipitation, while 

the dry subtropics are expected to expand (colloquially, this 

has been summarized as wet areas getting wetter and dry regions 

getting drier). In particular, the NCA3 notes that the western 

U.S., and especially the Southwest, is expected to become drier. 

This projection is consistent with the recent observed drought 

trend in the West. At the time of publication of the NCA, even 

before the last 2 years of extreme drought in California, tree 

ring data was already indicating that the region might be 

experiencing its driest period in 800 years. Similarly, the NCA3 

projects that heavy downpours are expected to increase in many 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 110 of 1546

regions, with precipitation events in general becoming less 

frequent but more intense. This trend has already been observed 

in regions such as the Midwest, Northeast, and upper Great 

Plains. Meanwhile, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 

assessment found that the area burned by wildfire is expected to 

grow by 2 to 4 times for 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For 3 °C of 

warming, the assessment found that 9 out of 10 summers would be 

warmer than all but the 5 percent of warmest summers today, 

leading to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of heat 

waves. Extrapolations by the NCA also indicate that Arctic sea 

ice in summer may essentially disappear by mid-century. 

Retreating snow and ice, and emissions of carbon dioxide and 

methane released from thawing permafrost, will also amplify 

future warming. 

Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the USGCRP NCA3, and 

multiple NRC assessments have projected future rates of sea 

level rise that are 40 percent larger to more than twice as 

large as the previous estimates from the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment 

Report due in part to improved understanding of the future rate 

of melt of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice sheets. The NRC Sea 

Level Rise assessment projects a global sea level rise of 0.5 to 

1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) by 2100, the NRC National Security 

Implications assessment suggests that “the Department of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 111 of 1546

Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters [1.3 to 6.6 feet] 

global average sea-level rise by 2100,”32 and the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment states that an increase of 3°C 

will lead to a sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 3.3 

feet) by 2100. These assessments continue to recognize that 

there is uncertainty inherent in accounting for ice sheet 

processes. Additionally, local sea level rise can differ from 

the global total depending on various factors: the east coast of 

the U.S. in particular is expected to see higher rates of sea 

level rise than the global average. For comparison, the NCA3 

states that “five million Americans and hundreds of billions of 

dollars of property are located in areas that are less than four 

feet above the local high-tide level,” and the NCA3 finds that 

“[c]oastal infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy 

infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and military bases, 

are increasingly at risk from sea level rise and damaging storm 

surges.”33 Also, because of the inertia of the oceans, sea level 

rise will continue for centuries after greenhouse gas 

concentrations have stabilized (though more slowly than it would 

 

32 NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of Climate Change 

for U.S. Naval Forces. The National Academies Press, p. 28. 33 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, 

Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, p. 9. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 112 of 1546

have otherwise). Additionally, there is a threshold temperature 

above which the Greenland ice sheet will be committed to 

inevitable melting: according to the NCA, some recent research 

has suggested that even present day carbon dioxide levels could 

be sufficient to exceed that threshold. 

In general, climate change impacts are expected to be 

unevenly distributed across different regions of the United 

States and have a greater impact on certain populations, such as 

indigenous peoples and the poor. The NCA3 finds climate change 

impacts such as the rapid pace of temperature rise, coastal 

erosion and inundation related to sea level rise and storms, ice 

and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting indigenous 

people in the United States. Particularly in Alaska, critical 

infrastructure and traditional livelihoods are threatened by 

climate change and, “[i]n parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the 

Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change 

impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some 

communities are already relocating from historical homelands to 

which their traditions and cultural identities are tied.”34 The 

IPCC AR5 notes, “Climate-related hazards exacerbate other 

 

34 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, 

Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, p. 17. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 113 of 1546

stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, 

especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). 

Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly 

through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or 

destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, 

increased food prices and food insecurity.”35 

Carbon dioxide in particular has unique impacts on ocean 

ecosystems. The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment 

found that coral bleaching will increase due both to warming and 

ocean acidification. Ocean surface waters have already become 

30% more acidic over the past 250 years due to absorption of CO2

from the atmosphere. According to the NCA3, this acidification 

will reduce the ability of organisms such as corals, krill, 

oysters, clams, and crabs to survive, grow, and reproduce. The 

NRC Understanding Earth's Deep Past assessment notes four of the 

five major coral reef crises of the past 500 million years were 

caused by acidification and warming that followed GHG increases 

of similar magnitude to the emissions increases expected over 

 

35 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. 

Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. 

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. 

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 796. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 114 of 1546

the next hundred years. The NRC Abrupt Impacts assessment 

specifically highlighted similarities between the projections 

for future acidification and warming and the extinction at the 

end of the Permian which resulted in the loss of an estimated 90 

percent of known species. Similarly, the NRC Ocean Acidification 

assessment finds that “[t]he chemistry of the ocean is changing 

at an unprecedented rate and magnitude due to anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions; the rate of change exceeds any known 

to have occurred for at least the past hundreds of thousands of 

years.”36 The assessment notes that the full range of 

consequences is still unknown, but the risks “threaten coral 

reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources 

of value to society.”37 

Events outside the United States, as also pointed out in 

the 2009 Endangerment Finding, will also have relevant 

consequences. The NRC Climate and Social Stress assessment 

concluded that it is prudent to expect that some climate events 

“will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the 

affected societies or global systems to manage and that have 

global security implications serious enough to compel 

 

36 NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet 

the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. The National Academies 

Press, p. 5. 

37 Ibid. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 115 of 1546

international response.” The NRC National Security Implications 

assessment recommends preparing for increased needs for 

humanitarian aid; responding to the effects of climate change in 

geopolitical hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and 

addressing changing security needs in the Arctic as sea ice 

retreats. 

In addition to future impacts, the NCA3 emphasizes that 

climate change driven by human emissions of GHGs is already 

happening now and it is happening in the United States. 

According to the IPCC AR5 and the NCA3, there are a number of 

climate-related changes that have been observed recently, and 

these changes are projected to accelerate in the future. The 

planet warmed about 0.85 °C (1.5 °F) from 1880 to 2012. It is 

extremely likely (>95% probability) that human influence was the 

dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th

century, and likely (>66% probability) that human influence has 

more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in 

some locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the last 30 years 

were likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 1400 years. 

U.S. average temperatures have similarly increased by 1.3 to 1.9 

degrees F since 1895, with most of that increase occurring since 

1970. Global sea levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) from 1901 to 

2010. Contributing to this rise was the warming of the oceans 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 116 of 1546

and melting of land ice. It is likely that 275 gigatons per year 

of ice melted from land glaciers (not including ice sheets) 

since 1993, and that the rate of loss of ice from the Greenland 

and Antarctic ice sheets increased substantially in recent 

years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147 gigatons per year 

respectively since 2002. For context, 360 gigatons of ice melt 

is sufficient to cause global sea levels to rise 1 mm. Annual 

mean Arctic sea ice has been declining at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per 

decade, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent has decreased 

at about 1.6 percent per decade for March and 11.7 percent per 

decade for June. Permafrost temperatures have increased in most 

regions since the 1980s, by up to 3 °C (5.4 °F) in parts of 

Northern Alaska. Winter storm frequency and intensity have both 

increased in the Northern Hemisphere. The NCA3 states that the 

increases in the severity or frequency of some types of extreme 

weather and climate events in recent decades can affect energy 

production and delivery, causing supply disruptions, and 

compromise other essential infrastructure such as water and 

transportation systems. 

In addition to the changes documented in the assessment 

literature, there have been other climate milestones of note. In 

2009, the year of the Endangerment Finding, the average 

concentration of CO2 as measured on top of Mauna Loa was 387 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 117 of 1546

parts per million, far above preindustrial concentrations of 

about 280 parts per million.38 The average concentration in 2013, 

the last full year before this rule was proposed, was 396 parts 

per million. The average concentration in 2014 was 399 parts per 

million. And the monthly concentration in April of 2014 was 401 

parts per million, the first time a monthly average has exceeded 

400 parts per million since record keeping began at Mauna Loa in 

1958, and for at least the past 800,000 years.39 Arctic sea ice 

has continued to decline, with September of 2012 marking a new 

record low in terms of Arctic sea ice extent, 40 percent below 

the 1979-2000 median. Sea level has continued to rise at a rate 

of 3.2 mm per year (1.3 inches/decade) since satellite 

observations started in 1993, more than twice the average rate 

of rise in the 20th century prior to 1993.40 And 2014 was the 

warmest year globally in the modern global surface temperature 

record, going back to 1880; this now means 19 of the 20 warmest 

years have occurred in the past 20 years, and except for 1998, 

the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2002.41 The 

 

38ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.tx

t

39 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

40 Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2014: State of the Climate 

in 2013. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S1-S238. 

41 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 118 of 1546

first months of 2015 have also been some of the warmest on 

record. 

These assessments and observed changes make it clear that 

reducing emissions of GHGs across the globe is necessary in 

order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and 

underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now. The NRC 

Committee on America’s Climate Choices listed a number of 

reasons “why it is imprudent to delay actions that at least 

begin the process of substantially reducing emissions.”42 For 

example: 

 The faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks 

posed by climate change. Delays in reducing emissions 

could commit the planet to a wide range of adverse 

impacts, especially if the sensitivity of the climate to 

greenhouse gases is on the higher end of the estimated 

range. 

 Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before taking 

action is imprudent because the effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades 

and, once manifest, many of these changes will persist 

for hundreds or even thousands of years. 

 In the committee’s judgment, the risks associated with 

doing business as usual are a much greater concern than 

the risks associated with engaging in strong response 

efforts. 

4. Observed and Projected U.S. Regional Changes 

 

42 NRC, 2011: America’s Climate Choices, The National Academies 

Press. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 119 of 1546

The NCA3 assessed the climate impacts in 8 regions of the 

United States, noting that changes in physical climate 

parameters such as temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice 

retreat were already having impacts on forests, water supplies, 

ecosystems, flooding, heat waves, and air quality. Moreover, the 

NCA3 found that future warming is projected to be much larger 

than recent observed variations in temperature, with 

precipitation likely to increase in the northern states, 

decrease in the southern states, and with the heaviest 

precipitation events projected to increase everywhere. 

In the Northeast, temperatures increased almost 2 °F from 

1895 to 2011, precipitation increased by about 5 inches (10%), 

and sea level rise of about a foot has led to an increase in 

coastal flooding. The 70% increase in the amount of rainfall 

falling in the 1% of the most intense events is a larger 

increase in extreme precipitation than experienced in any other 

US region. 

In the future, if emissions continue increasing, the 

Northeast is expected to experience 4.5 to 10 °F of warming by 

the 2080s. This will lead to more heat waves, coastal and river 

flooding, and intense precipitation events. The southern portion 

of the region is projected to see 60 additional days per year 

above 90 °F by mid-century. Sea levels in the Northeast are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 120 of 1546

expected to increase faster than the global average because of 

subsidence, and changing ocean currents may further increase the 

rate of sea level rise. Specific vulnerabilities highlighted by 

the NCA include large urban populations particularly vulnerable 

to climate-related heat waves and poor air quality episodes, 

prevalence of climate sensitive vector-borne diseases like Lyme 

and West Nile Virus, usage of combined sewer systems that may 

lead to untreated water being released into local water bodies 

after climate-related heavy precipitation events, and 1.6 

million people living within the 100-year coastal flood zone who 

are expected to experience more frequent floods due to sea level 

rise and tropical-storm induced storm-surge. The NCA also 

highlighted infrastructure vulnerable to inundation in coastal 

metropolitan areas, potential agricultural impacts from 

increased rain in the spring delaying planting or damaging crops 

or increased heat in the summer leading to decreased yields and 

increased water demand, and shifts in ecosystems leading to 

declines in iconic species in some regions, such as cod and 

lobster south of Cape Cod. 

In the Southeast, average annual temperature during the 

last century cycled between warm and cool periods. A warm peak 

occurred during the 1930s and 1940s followed by a cool period 

and temperatures then increased again from 1970 to the present 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 121 of 1546

by an average of 2°F. There have been increasing numbers of days 

above 95°F and nights above 75°F, and decreasing numbers of 

extremely cold days since 1970. Daily and five-day rainfall 

intensities have also increased, and summers have been either 

increasingly dry or extremely wet. Louisiana has already lost 

1,880 square miles of land in the last 80 years due to sea level 

rise and other contributing factors. 

The Southeast is exceptionally vulnerable to sea level 

rise, extreme heat events, hurricanes, and decreased water 

availability. Major consequences of further warming include 

significant increases in the number of hot days (95°F or above) 

and decreases in freezing events, as well as exacerbated groundlevel ozone in urban areas. Although projected warming for some 

parts of the region by the year 2100 are generally smaller than 

for other regions of the United States, projected warming for 

interior states of the region are larger than coastal regions by 

1°F to 2°F. Projections further suggest that globally there will 

be fewer tropical storms, but that they will be more intense, 

with more Category 4 and 5 storms. The NCA identified New 

Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Charleston, and Virginia Beach as being 

specific cities that are at risk due to sea level rise, with 

homes and infrastructure increasingly prone to flooding. 

Additional impacts of sea level rise are expected for coastal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 122 of 1546

highways, wetlands, fresh water supplies, and energy 

infrastructure. 

In the Northwest, temperatures increased by about 1.3oF 

between 1895 and 2011. A small average increase in precipitation 

was observed over this time period. However, warming 

temperatures have caused increased rainfall relative to 

snowfall, which has altered water availability from snowpack 

across parts of the region. Snowpack in the Northwest is an 

important freshwater source for the region. More precipitation 

falling as rain instead of snow has reduced the snowpack, and 

warmer springs have corresponded to earlier snowpack melting and 

reduced streamflows during summer months. Drier conditions have 

increased the extent of wildfires in the region.

Average annual temperatures are projected to increase by 

3.3oF to 9.7oF by the end of the century (depending on future 

global greenhouse gas emissions), with the greatest warming is 

expected during the summer. Continued increases in global 

greenhouse gas emissions are projected to result in up to a 30% 

decrease in summer precipitation. Earlier snowpack melt and 

lower summer stream flows are expected by the end of the century 

and will affect drinking water supplies, agriculture, 

ecosystems, and hydropower production. Warmer waters are 

expected to increase disease and mortality in important fish 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 123 of 1546

species, including Chinook and sockeye salmon. Ocean 

acidification also threatens species such as oysters, with the 

Northwest coastal waters already being some of the most 

acidified worldwide due to coastal upwelling and other local 

factors. Forest pests are expected to spread and wildfires burn 

larger areas. Other high-elevation ecosystems are projected to 

be lost because they can no longer survive the climatic 

conditions. Low lying coastal areas, including the cities of 

Seattle and Olympia, will experience heightened risks of sea 

level rise, erosion, seawater inundation and damage to 

infrastructure and coastal ecosystems. 

In Alaska, temperatures have changed faster than anywhere

else in the United States. Annual temperatures increased by 

about 3 °F in the past 60 years. Warming in the winter has been 

even greater, rising by an average of 6 °F. Arctic sea ice is 

thinning and shrinking in area, with the summer minimum ice 

extent now covering only half the area it did when satellite 

records began in 1979. Glaciers in Alaska are melting at some of 

the fastest rates on Earth. Permafrost soils are also warming 

and beginning to thaw. Drier conditions have contributed to more 

large wildfires in the last 10 years than in any previous decade 

since the 1940s, when recordkeeping began. Climate change 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 124 of 1546

impacts are harming the health, safety and livelihoods of Native 

Alaskan communities. 

By the end of this century, continued increases in 

greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase temperatures 

by 10 to 12 °F in the northernmost parts of Alaska, by 8 to 10

°F in the interior, and by 6 to 8 °F across the rest of the 

state. These increases will exacerbate ongoing arctic sea ice 

loss, glacial melt, permafrost thaw and increased wildfire, and 

threaten humans, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Precipitation 

is expected to increase to varying degrees across the state, 

however warmer air temperatures and a longer growing season are 

expected to result in drier conditions. Native Alaskans are 

expected to experience declines in economically, nutritionally, 

and culturally important wildlife and plant species. Health 

threats will also increase, including loss of clean water, 

saltwater intrusion, sewage contamination from thawing 

permafrost, and northward extension of diseases. Wildfires will 

increasingly pose threats to human health as a result of smoke 

and direct contact. Areas underlain by ice-rich permafrost 

across the state are likely to experience ground subsidence and 

extensive damage to infrastructure as the permafrost thaws. 

Important ecosystems will continue to be affected. Surface 

waters and wetlands that are drying provide breeding habitat for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 125 of 1546

millions of waterfowl and shorebirds that winter in the lower 48 

states. Warmer ocean temperatures, acidification, and declining 

sea ice will contribute to changes in the location and 

availability of commercially and culturally important marine 

fish. 

In the Southwest, temperatures are now about 2 °F higher 

than the past century, and are already the warmest that region 

has experienced in at least 600 years. The NCA notes that there 

is evidence that climate-change induced warming on top of recent 

drought has influenced tree mortality, wildfire frequency and 

area, and forest insect outbreaks. Sea levels have risen about 7 

or 8 inches in this region, contributing to inundation of 

Highway 101 and backup of seawater into sewage systems in the 

San Francisco area. 

Projections indicate that the Southwest will warm an 

additional 5.5 to 9.5 °F over the next century if emissions 

continue to increase. Winter snowpack in the Southwest is 

projected to decline (consistent with the record lows from this 

past winter), reducing the reliability of surface water supplies 

for cities, agriculture, cooling for power plants, and 

ecosystems. Sea level rise along the California coast will 

worsen coastal erosion, increase flooding risk for coastal 

highways, bridges, and low-lying airports, pose a threat to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 126 of 1546

groundwater supplies in coastal cities such as Los Angeles, and 

increase vulnerability to floods for hundreds of thousands of 

residents in coastal areas. Climate change will also have 

impacts on the high-value specialty crops grown in the region as 

a drier climate will increase demands for irrigation, more 

frequent heat waves will reduce yields, and decreased winter 

chills may impair fruit and nut production for trees in 

California. Increased drought, higher temperatures, and bark 

beetle outbreaks are likely to contribute to continued increases 

in wildfires. The highly urbanized population of the Southwest 

is vulnerable to heat waves and water supply disruptions, which 

can be exacerbated in cases where high use of air conditioning 

triggers energy system failures. 

The rate of warming in the Midwest has markedly accelerated 

over the past few decades. Temperatures rose by more than 1.5 °F 

from 1900 to 2010, but between 1980 and 2010 the rate of warming 

was three times faster than from 1900 through 2010. 

Precipitation generally increased over the last century, with 

much of the increase driven by intensification of the heaviest 

rainfalls. Several types of extreme weather events in the 

Midwest (e.g., heat waves and flooding) have already increased 

in frequency and/or intensity due to climate change.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 127 of 1546

In the future, if emissions continue increasing, the 

Midwest is expected to experience 5.6 to 8.5 °F of warming by 

the 2080s, leading to more heat waves. Though projections of 

changes in total precipitation vary across the regions, more 

precipitation is expected to fall in the form of heavy downpours 

across the entire region, leading to an increase in flooding. 

Specific vulnerabilities highlighted by the NCA include longterm decreases in agricultural productivity, changes in the 

composition of the region’s forests, increased public health 

threats from heat waves and degraded air and water quality, 

negative impacts on transportation and other infrastructure 

associated with extreme rainfall events and flooding, and risks 

to the Great Lakes including shifts in invasive species, 

increases in harmful algal blooms, and declining beach health. 

High temperatures (more than 100 °F in the Southern Plains 

and more than 95 °F in the Northern Plains) are projected to 

occur much more frequently by mid-century. Increases in extreme 

heat will increase heat stress for residents, energy demand for 

air conditioning, and water losses. North Dakota’s increase in 

annual temperatures over the past 130 years is the fastest in 

the contiguous U.S., mainly driven by warming winters. Specific 

vulnerabilities highlighted by the NCA include increased demand 

for water and energy, changes to crop growth cycles and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 128 of 1546

agricultural practices, and negative impacts on local plant and 

animal species from habitat fragmentation, wildfires, and 

changes in the timing of flowering or pest patterns. Communities 

that are already the most vulnerable to weather and climate 

extremes will be stressed even further by more frequent extreme 

events occurring within an already highly variable climate 

system. 

In Hawaii, other Pacific islands, and the Caribbean, rising 

air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, changing 

frequencies and intensities of storms and drought, decreasing 

baseflow in streams, rising sea levels, and changing ocean 

chemistry will affect ecosystems on land and in the oceans, as 

well as local communities, livelihoods, and cultures. Low 

islands are particularly at risk. 

Rising sea levels, coupled with high water levels caused by 

tropical and extra-tropical storms, will incrementally increase 

coastal flooding and erosion, damaging coastal ecosystems, 

infrastructure, and agriculture, and negatively affecting 

tourism. Ocean temperatures in the Pacific region exhibit strong 

year-to-year and decadal fluctuations, but since the 1950s, they 

have exhibited a warming trend, with temperatures from the 

surface to a depth of 660 feet rising by as much as 3.6°F. As a 

result of current sea level rise, the coastline of Puerto Rico 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 129 of 1546

around Rincón is being eroded at a rate of 3.3 feet per year. 

Freshwater supplies are already constrained and will become more 

limited on many islands. Saltwater intrusion associated with sea 

level rise will reduce the quantity and quality of freshwater in 

coastal aquifers, especially on low islands. In areas where 

precipitation does not increase, freshwater supplies will be 

adversely affected as air temperature rises. 

Warmer oceans are leading to increased coral bleaching 

events and disease outbreaks in coral reefs, as well as changed 

distribution patterns of tuna fisheries. Ocean acidification 

will reduce coral growth and health. Warming and acidification, 

combined with existing stresses, will strongly affect coral reef 

fish communities. For Hawaii and the Pacific islands, future sea 

surface temperatures are projected to increase 2.3°F by 2055 and 

4.7°F by 2090 under a scenario that assumes continued increases 

in emissions. Ocean acidification is also taking place in the 

region, which adds to ecosystem stress from increasing 

temperatures. Ocean acidity has increased by about 30% since the 

pre-industrial era and is projected to further increase by 37% 

to 50% from present levels by 2100. 

The NCA also discussed impacts that occur along the coasts 

and in the oceans adjacent to many regions, and noted that other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 130 of 1546

impacts occur across regions and landscapes in ways that do not 

follow political boundaries. 

B. GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuel-fired EGUs43

Fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs) 

are by far the largest emitters of GHGs among stationary sources 

in the U.S., primarily in the form of CO2, and among fossil fuelfired EGUs, coal-fired units are by far the largest emitters. 

This section describes the amounts of these emissions and places 

these amounts in the context of the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks44 (the U.S. GHG Inventory). 

The EPA implements a separate program under 40 CFR Part 98 

called the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program45 (GHGRP) that 

requires emitting facilities over threshold amounts of GHGs to 

report their emissions to the EPA annually. Using data from the 

GHGRP, this section also places emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

 

43 The emission data presented in this section of the preamble 

(Section II.B) are in metric tons, in keeping with reporting 

requirements for the GHGRP and the U.S. GHG Inventory. Note that 

the mass-based state goals presented in section VII of this 

preamble, and discussed elsewhere in this preamble, are 

presented in short tons.

44 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 

2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

45 U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Dataset, see 

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reportingdatasets.html
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 131 of 1546

EGUs in the context of the total emissions reported to the GHGRP 

from facilities in the other largest-emitting industries. 

The EPA prepares the official U.S. GHG Inventory to comply 

with commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This inventory, which includes 

recent trends, is organized by industrial sectors. It provides 

the information in Table 2 below, which presents total U.S. 

anthropogenic emissions and sinks46 of GHGs, including CO2

emissions, for the years 1990, 2005 and 2013. 

Table 2. U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks by Sector (million metric 

tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2 Eq.))47

SECTOR 1990 2005 2013 

Energy48 5,290.5 6,273.6 5,636.6

Industrial Processes 

and Product Use 342.1 367.4 359.1

Agriculture 448.7 494.5 515.7

Land Use, Land-Use 

Change and Forestry 13.8 25.5 23.3 

Waste 206.0 189.2 138.3

Total Emissions 6,301.1 7,350.2 6,673.0

 

46 Sinks are a physical unit or process that stores GHGs, such as 

forests or underground or deep sea reservoirs of carbon dioxide.

47 From Table ES-4 of “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 

48 The energy sector includes all greenhouse gases resulting from 

stationary and mobile energy activities, including fuel 

combustion and fugitive fuel emissions. 

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 3

Formatted Table
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 132 of 1546

Land Use, Land-Use 

Change and Forestry 

(Sinks) (775.8) (911.9) (881.7)

Net Emissions (Sources 

and Sinks) 5,525.2 6,438.3 5,791.2

Total fossil energy-related CO2 emissions (including both 

stationary and mobile sources) are the largest contributor to 

total U.S. GHG emissions, representing 77.3 percent of total 

2013 GHG emissions.49 In 2013, fossil fuel combustion by the 

utility power sector –- entities that burn fossil fuel and whose 

primary business is the generation of electricity –- accounted 

for 38.3 percent of all energy-related CO2 emissions.50 Table 3

below presents total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

for years 1990, 2005 and 2013. 

Table 3. U.S. GHG Emissions from Generation of Electricity from 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels (MMT CO2)51

 

49 From Table ES-2 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

. 

50 From Table 3-1 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 

51 From Table 3-5 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

. 

GHG EMISSIONS 1990 2005 2013 

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 4

Formatted Table
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 133 of 1546

In addition to preparing the official U.S. GHG Inventory to 

present comprehensive total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 

comply with commitments under the UNFCCC, the EPA collects 

detailed GHG emissions data from the largest emitting facilities 

in the U.S. through its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP). Data collected by the GHGRP from large stationary 

sources in the industrial sector show that the utility power 

sector emits far greater CO2 emissions than any other industrial 

sector. Table 4 below presents total GHG emissions in 2013 for 

the largest emitting industrial sectors as reported to the 

GHGRP. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively, CO2

emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs are nearly three times as 

large as the total reported GHG emissions from the next ten 

largest emitting industrial sectors in the GHGRP database 

combined. 

Table 4. Direct GHG Emissions Reported to GHGRP by Largest 

Emitting Industrial Sectors (MMT CO2e)52

 

52 U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Dataset as of August 

18, 2014. http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. 

Total CO2 from fossil fuelfired EGUs 1,820.8 2,400.9 2,039.8

 - from coal 1,547.6 1,983.8 1,575.0

 - from natural gas 175.3 318.8 441.9

 - from petroleum 97.5 97.9 22.4

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 5
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 134 of 1546

C. Challenges in Controlling Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Carbon dioxide is a unique air pollutant and controlling it 

presents unique challenges. CO2 is emitted in enormous 

quantities, and those quantities, coupled with the fact that CO2

is relatively unreactive, make it much more difficult to mitigate 

by measures or technologies that are typically utilized within 

an existing power plant. Measures that may be used to limit CO2

emissions would include efficiency improvements, which have 

thermodynamic limitations and carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS), which is energy resource intensive. 

Unlike other air pollutants which are results of trace 

impurities in the fuel, products of incomplete or inefficient 

combustion, or combustion byproducts, CO2 is an inherent product 

of efficient combustion of fossil fuels, and therefore is an 

unavoidable product generated in enormous quantities, far 

Industrial Sector 2013

Petroleum Refineries 176.7 

Onshore Oil & Gas Production 94.8

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 93.0 

Iron & Steel Production 84.2 

Cement Production 62.8

Natural Gas Processing Plants 59.0

Petrochemical Production 52.7

Hydrogen Production 41.9

Underground Coal Mines 39.8

Food Processing Facilities 30.8

Formatted Table

Deleted: clean, 

Commented [A19]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 135 of 1546

greater than any other air pollutant.53 In fact, CO2 is emitted 

in far greater quantities than all other air pollutants 

combined. Total emissions of all non-greenhouse gas (GHG) air 

pollutants in the U.S., from all sources, in 2013, were 121 

million metric tons.54,55 As noted above, total emissions of CO2

 

53 Lackner et al., “Comparative Impacts of Fossil Fuels and 

Alternative Energy Sources”, Issues in Environmental Science and 

Technology (2010). 

54 This includes NAAQS and HAPs, based on the following table: 

Table X. 

Pollutant 2013 tons 

(million short tons) Reference 

CO 69.758 

Trends file 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn

chie1/trends/) 

NOX 13.072 “ 

PM10 20.651 “ 

SO2 5.098 “ 

VOC 17.471 “ 

NH3 4.221 “ 

HAPS 3.641 

2011 NEI version 2 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn

/chief/net/2011inventor

y.html) 

Total 133.912 

It should be noted that PM2.5 is included in the amounts for PM10. 

Lead, another NAAQS pollutant, is emitted in the amounts of 

approximately 1,000 tons per year, and, in light of that 

relatively small quantity, was excluded from this analysis. 

Ammonia (NH3) is included because it is a precursor to PM2.5

secondary formation. Note that one short ton is equivalent to 

0.907185 metric ton. 

55 In addition, emissions of non-CO2 GHGs totaled 1.168 billion 

metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in 2013. See 

Table ES-2, Executive Summary, 1990-2013 Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 136 of 1546

from coal-fired power plants alone – the largest stationary 

source emitter -- were 1.575 billion metric tons in that year,56

and total emissions of CO2 from all sources were 5.5 billion 

metric tons.57,58 Carbon makes up the majority of the mass of coal 

and other fossil fuels, and for every ton of carbon burned, more 

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2015-Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf 

This includes emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, and 

fluorinated GHGs (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur 

hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride). In the total, the 

emissions of each non-CO2 GHG have been translated from metric 

tons of that gas into metric tons of CO2e by multiplying the 

metric tons of the gas by the global warming potential (GWP) of 

the gas. (The GWP of a gas is a measure of the ability of one 

kilogram of that gas to trap heat in earth’s atmosphere compared 

to one kilogram of CO2.) 56 From Table 3-5 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990 – 2013”, Report EPA 430-R-15-004, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 15 2015. 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

. 

57 U.S. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer, 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer/

#allsectors/allgas/gas/current58 As another point of comparison, 

except for carbon dioxide, SO2 and NOx are the largest air 

pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants. Over the past 

decade, U.S. power plants have emitted more than 200 times as 

much CO2 as they have emitted SO2 and NOx. See de Gouw et al., 

“Reduced emissions of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants 

owing to switch from coal to natural gas with combined cycle 

technology,” Earth’s Future (2014).

58 As another point of comparison, except for carbon dioxide, 

SO2 and NOx are the largest air pollutant emissions from coalfired power plants. Over the past decade, U.S. power plants have 

emitted more than 200 times as much CO2 as they have emitted SO2

and NOx. See de Gouw et al., “Reduced emissions of CO2, NOx, and 

SO2 from U.S. power plants owing to switch from coal to natural 

gas with combined cycle technology,” Earth’s Future (2014).

Deleted: ¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 137 of 1546

than 3 tons of CO2 is produced.59 In addition, unlike many of the 

other air pollutants that react with sunlight or chemicals in 

the atmosphere, or are rained out or deposited on surfaces, CO2

is relatively unreactive and difficult to remove directly from 

the atmosphere.60,61

CO2’s huge quantities and lack of reactivity make it 

challenging to remove from the smokestack. Retrofitted equipment 

is required to capture the CO2 before transporting it to a 

storage site. However, the scale of infrastructure required to 

directly mitigate CO2 emissions from existing EGUs through CCS 

can be quite large and difficult to integrate into the existing 

fossil fuel infrastructure. These CCS techniques are discussed 

in more depth elsewhere in the preamble for this rule and for 

the section 111(b) rule for new sources that accompanies this 

rule. 

The properties of CO2 can be contrasted with those of a 

number of other pollutants which have more accessible mitigation 

options. For example, the NAAQS pollutants – which generally are 

 

59 Each atom of carbon in the fuel combines with 2 atoms of 

oxygen in the air. 

60 Seinfeld J. and Pandis S., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: 

From Air Pollution to Climate Change (1998). 

61 The fact that CO2 is unreactive means that it is primarily 

removed from the atmosphere by dissolving in oceans or by being 

converted into biomass by plants. Herzog, H., “Scaling up carbon 

dioxide capture and storage: From megatons to gigatons”, Energy 

Economics (2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 138 of 1546

emitted in the largest quantities of any of the other air 

pollutants, except for CO2 – each have more accessible mitigation 

options. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the result of a contaminant in 

the fuel, and, as a result, it can be reduced by using lowsulfur coal or by using flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) 

technologies. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) can be mitigated 

relatively easily using combustion control techniques (e.g., 

low-NOx burners) and by using downstream controls such as 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) technologies. Particulate matter (PM) can be 

effectively mitigated using fabric filters, PM scrubbers, or 

electrostatic precipitators. Lead is part of particulate matter 

emissions and is controlled through the same devices. Carbon 

monoxide and VOCs are the products of incomplete combustion and 

can therefore be abated by more efficient combustion conditions, 

and can also be destroyed in the smokestack by the use of 

oxidation catalysts which complete the combustion process. Many 

air toxics are VOCs, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and 

therefore can be abated in the same ways just described. But in 

every case, these pollutants can be controlled by emission 

control technologies added to the source much more readily than 

CO2 primarily because of the comparatively lower quantities that 

Deleted: at

Commented [A20]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 139 of 1546

are produced, and also due to other attributes such as 

relatively greater reactivity and solubility.

D. The Utility Power Sector 

1. A brief history 

The modern American electricity system is one of the 

greatest engineering achievements of the past 100 years. Since 

the invention of the incandescent light bulb in the 1870s,62

electricity has become one of the major foundations for modern 

American life. Beginning with the first power station in New 

York City in 1882, each power station initially served a 

discrete set of consumers, resulting in small and localized 

electricity systems.63 During the early 1900s, smaller systems 

consolidated, allowing generation resources to be shared over 

larger areas. Interconnecting systems have reduced generation 

investment costs and improved reliability.64 Local and state 

 

62 Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), Electricity Regulation in 

the US: A Guide, at 1 (2011), available at 

http://www.raponline.org/document/download/id/645. 

63 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 2-4 (2d ed. 2010). 64 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 5-6 (2d ed. 2010). Investment in 

electric generation is extremely capital intensive, with 

generation potentially accounting for 65 percent of customer 

costs. If these costs can be spread to more customers, then 

this can reduce the amount that each individual customer pays. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A Handbook 

of Energy Market Basics, at 38 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 140 of 1546

governments initially regulated these growing electricity 

systems with federal regulation coming later in response to 

public concerns about rising electricity costs.65 

Initially, states had broad authority to regulate public 

utilities, but gradually federal regulation increased. In 1920, 

Congress passed the Federal Water Power Act, creating the 

Federal Power Commission (FPC) and providing for the licensing 

of hydroelectric facilities on U.S. government lands and 

navigable waters of the U.S.66 During this time period, the U.S. 

Supreme Court found that state authority to regulate public 

utilities is limited, holding that the Commerce Clause does not 

allow state regulation to directly burden interstate commerce.67

For example, in Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island v. 

Attleboro Steam & Electric Company, Rhode Island sought to 

regulate the electricity rates that a Rhode Island generator was 

charging to a company in Massachusetts that resold the 

electricity to Attleboro, Massachusetts.68 The Supreme Court 

 

65 Burn, An Energy Journal, The Electricity Grid: A History, 

available at http://burnanenergyjournal.com/the-electric-grid-ahistory/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2015). 

66 The FPC became an independent Commission in 1930. United 

States Government Manual 1945: First Edition, at 486, available 

at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ATO/USGM/FPC.html. 67 New York v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 535 U.S. 1, 

5 (2002) (citation omitted).

68 Public Utils. Comm'n of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & 

Elec. Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 141 of 1546

found that Rhode Island’s regulation was impermissible because 

it imposed a "direct burden upon interstate commerce."69 The 

Supreme Court held that this kind of interstate transaction was 

not subject to state regulation. However, because Congress had 

not yet passed legislation to make these types of transactions 

subject to federal regulation, this became known as the 

"Attleboro gap" in regulation. In 1935, Congress passed the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), giving the FPC jurisdiction over “the 

transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce" and "the 

sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce."70

Under FPA section 205, the FPC was tasked with ensuring that 

rates for jurisdictional services are just, reasonable, and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential.71 FPA section 206 

authorized the FPC to determine, after a hearing upon its own 

motion or in response to a complaint filed at the Commission, 

whether jurisdictional rates are just, reasonable, and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential.72 In 1938, Congress passed 

the Natural Gas Act (NGA), giving the FPC jurisdiction over the 

 

69 Public Utils. Comm'n of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & 

Elec. Co., 273 U.S. 83, 89 (1927).

70 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). 

71 16 U.S.C. § 824d. 

72 16 U.S.C. § 824e. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 142 of 1546

transmission or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.73 The 

NGA also gave the FPC the jurisdiction to “grant certificates 

allowing construction and operation of facilities used in 

interstate gas transmission and authorizing the provision of 

services.”74 In 1977, the FPC became FERC after Congress passed 

the Department of Energy Organization Act. 

By the 1930s, regulated electric utilities that provided 

the major components of the electrical system - generation, 

transmission, and distribution - were common.75 These regulated 

monopolies are referred to as vertically-integrated utilities. 

As utilities built larger and larger electric generation 

plants, the cost per unit to generate electricity decreased.76 

However, these larger plants were extremely capital intensive 

 

73 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Act of 1938, 

available at 

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngm

ajorleg/ngact1938.html. 

74 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Act of 1938, 

available at 

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngm

ajorleg/ngact1938.html. 

75 Burn, An Energy Journal, The Electricity Grid: A History, 

available at http://burnanenergyjournal.com/the-electric-grid-ahistory/(last visited Mar. 9, 2015).

76 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 38 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 143 of 1546

for any one company to fund.77 Some neighboring utilities solved 

this issue by agreeing to share electricity reserves when 

needed.78 These utilities began building larger transmission 

lines to deliver power in times when large generators 

experienced outages.79 Eventually, some utilities that were in 

reserve sharing agreements formed electric power pools to 

balance electric load over a larger area. Participating 

utilities gave control over scheduling and dispatch of their 

electric generation units to a system operator.80 Some power 

pools evolved into today’s regional transmission organizations 

(RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs). 

In the past, electric utilities generally operated as state 

regulated monopolies, supplying end-use customers with 

generation, distribution, and transmission service.81 However, 

 

77 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 38 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf.

78 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 38 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf.

79 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 38 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf.

80 Shively, B, Ferrare, J, Understanding Today’s Electricity 

Business, Enerdynamics, at 94 (2012). 81 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power 

Plants and the Environment: A Review of the Impacts of Power 

Plants and Transmission Lines on Maryland’s Natural Resources, 

at 2-5 (2006). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 144 of 1546

the ability of electric utilities to operate as natural 

monopolies came with consumer protection safeguards.82 “In 

exchange for a franchised, monopoly service area, utilities 

accept an obligation to serve – meaning there must be adequate 

supply to meet customers’ needs regardless of the cost.”83 Under 

this obligation to serve, the utility agreed to provide service 

to any customer located within its service jurisdiction. 

On both a federal and state level, competition has entered 

the electricity sector to varying degrees in the last few 

decades.84 In the early 1990s, some states began to consider 

allowing competition to enter retail electric service.85 Federal 

 

82 Pacific Power, Utility Regulation, at 1, available at

https://www.pacificpower.net/content/dam/pacific_power/doc/About

_Us/Newsroom/Media_Resources/Regulation.PP.08.pdf. 

83 Pacific Power, Utility Regulation, at 1, available at

https://www.pacificpower.net/content/dam/pacific_power/doc/About

_Us/Newsroom/Media_Resources/Regulation.PP.08.pdf. 

84 For example, in 1978, Congress passed the Public Utilities 

Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) which allowed non-utility owned 

power plants to sell electricity. Burn, An Energy Journal, The 

Electricity Grid: A History, available at 

http://burnanenergyjournal.com/the-electric-grid-a-history/ 

(last visited Mar. 9, 2015). PURPA, the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPAct 1992), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005) “promoted competition by lowering entry barriers and 

increasing transmission access.” The Electric Energy Market 

Competition Task Force, Report to Congress on Competition in 

Wholesale and Retail Markets for Electric Energy, at 2, 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/ene-polact/epact-final-rpt.pdf (last visited Mar. 20, 2015). 

85 The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force, Report to 

Congress on Competition in Wholesale and Retail Markets for 

Electric Energy, at 2, available at
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 145 of 1546

and state efforts to allow competition in the electric utility 

industry have resulted in independent power producers (IPPs)86

producing approximately 37 percent of net generation in 2013.87

Electric utilities in some states remain vertically integrated 

without retail competition from IPPs. Today, there are over 

3,000 public, private, and cooperative utilities in the United 

States.88 These utilities include both investor-owned utilities89

and consumer-owned utilities.90 

Over time, the grid slowly evolved into a complex, 

interconnected transmission system that allows electric 

generators to produce electricity that is then fed onto 

 

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/ene-pol-act/epact-finalrpt.pdf (last visited Mar. 20, 2015). 

86 These entities are also referred to as merchant generators. 

87 Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual, 

Table 1.1 Total Electric Power Summary Statistics, 2013 and 2012

(2015), available at

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html. 

88 Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), Electricity Regulation in 

the US: A Guide, at 9 (2011), available at 

http://www.raponline.org/document/download/id/645. 

89 Investor-owned utilities are private companies that are 

financed by a combination of shareholder equity and bondholder 

debt. Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), Electricity 

Regulation in the US: A Guide, at 9 (2011), available at 

http://www.raponline.org/document/download/id/645. 

90 Consumer-owned utilities include municipal utilities, public 

utility districts, cooperatives, and a variety of other entities 

such as irrigation districts. Regulatory Assistance Project 

(RAP), Electricity Regulation in the US: A Guide, at 9-10 

(2011), available at 

http://www.raponline.org/document/download/id/645. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 146 of 1546

transmission lines at high voltages.91 These larger transmission 

lines are able to access generation that is located more 

remotely, with transmission lines crossing many miles, including 

state borders.92 Closer to end users, electricity is transformed 

into a lower voltage that is transported across localized 

 

91 Peter Fox-Penner, Electric Utility Restructuring: A Guide to 

the Competitive Era, Public Utility Reports, Inc., at 5, 34 

(1997). “The extent of the power system’s short-run physical 

interdependence is remarkable, if not entirely unique. No other 

large, multi-stage industry is required to keep every single 

producer in a region – whether or not owned by the same company 

– in immediate synchronization with all other producers.” Id. at 

34. “At an early date, those providing electric power recognized 

that peak use for one system often occurred at a different time 

from peak use in other systems. They also recognized that 

equipment failures occurred at different times in various 

systems. Analyses showed significant economic benefits from 

interconnecting systems to provide mutual assistance; the 

investment required for generating capacity could be reduced and 

reliability could be improved. This lead [sic] to the 

development of local, then regional, and subsequently three 

transmission grids that covered the United States and parts of 

Canada.” Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 5-6 (2d ed. 2010). 92 Burn, An Energy Journal, The Electricity Grid: A History, 

available at http://burnanenergyjournal.com/the-electric-grid-ahistory/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2015). Because of the ease and 

low cost of converting voltages in an alternating current (AC) 

system from one level to another, the bulk power system is 

predominantly an AC system rather than a direct current (DC) 

system. In an AC system, electricity cannot be controlled like a 

gas or liquid by utilizing a valve in a pipe. Instead, absent 

the presence of expensive control devices, electricity flows 

freely along all available paths, according to the laws of 

physics. U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final 

Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and 

Canada: Causes and Recommendations, at 6 (Apr. 2004), available 

at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/blackout/ch1-3.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 147 of 1546

transmission lines to homes and businesses.93 Localized 

transmission lines make up the distribution system. These three 

components of the electricity system - generation, transmission, 

and distribution - are closely related and must work in 

coordination to deliver electricity from the point of generation 

to the point of consumption. This interconnectedness is a 

fundamental aspect of the nation’s electricity system, requiring 

a complicated integration of all components of the system to 

balance supply and demand and a federal, state, and local 

regulatory network to oversee the physically interconnected 

network. Facilities planned and constructed in one segment can 

impact facilities and operations in other segments and vice 

versa. 

The North American electric grid has developed into a 

large, interconnected system.94 Electricity from a diverse set of 

generation resources such as natural gas, nuclear, coal, and 

renewables is distributed over high-voltage transmission lines 

divided across the continental United States into three 

 

93 Peter Fox-Penner, Electric Utility Restructuring: A Guide to 

the Competitive Era, Public Utility Reports, Inc., at 5 (1997). 94 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on 

the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: 

Causes and Recommendations, at 5 (Apr. 2004), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/blackout/ch1-3.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 148 of 1546

synchronous interconnections – the Eastern Interconnection, 

Western Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnection.95 These 

three synchronous systems each act like a single machine.96

Diverse resources generate electricity that is transmitted and 

distributed through a complex system of interconnected 

components to industrial, business, and residential consumers. 

Unlike other industries where sources make operational decisions 

 

95 Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), Electricity Regulation in 

the US: A Guide, 2011, at 1, available at

http://www.raponline.org/document/download/id/645. 

96 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 

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).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 149 of 1546

independently, the utility power sector is unique in that 

electricity system resources operate in a complex, 

interconnected grid system that is physically interconnected and 

operated on an integrated basis across large regions. 

Additionally, a federal, state, and local regulatory network 

oversees policies and practices that are applied to how the 

system is designed and operates. In this interconnected system, 

system operators must ensure that the amount of electricity 

available is precisely matched with the amount needed in real 

time. System operators have a number of resources potentially 

available to meet electricity demand, including electricity 

generated by electric generation units such as coal, nuclear, 

renewables, and natural gas, as well as demand-side resources97, 

such as energy efficiency98 and demand response.99 Generation, 

 

97 “Measures using demand-side resources comprise actions taken 

on the customer’s side of the meter to change the amount and/or 

timing of electricity use in ways that will provide benefits to 

the electricity supply system.” David Crossley, Regulatory 

Assistance Project (RAP), Effective Mechanisms to Increase the 

Use of Demand-Side Resources, at 9 (2013), available at

www.raponline.org. 

98 Energy efficiency is using less energy to provide the same or 

greater level of service. Demand-side energy efficiency refers 

to an extensive array of technologies, practices and measures 

that are applied throughout all sectors of the economy to reduce 

energy demand while providing the same, and sometimes better, 

level and quality of service. 

99 Demand response involves “[c]hanges in electric usage by 

demand-side resources from their normal consumption patterns in 

response to changes in the price of electricity over time, or to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 150 of 1546

outages, and transmission changes in one part of the synchronous 

grid can affect the entire interconnected grid.100 The 

interconnection is such that “[i]f a generator is lost in New 

York City, its affect is felt in Georgia, Florida, Minneapolis, 

St. Louis, and New Orleans.”101 The U.S. Supreme Court has 

similarly recognized the interconnected nature of the 

electricity grid.102 

 

incentive payments designed to induce lower electricity use at 

times of high wholesale market prices or when system reliability 

is jeopardized.” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Reports 

on Demand Response & Advanced Metering, (Dec. 23, 2014), 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/demand-response/dem-res-adv-metering.asp. 

100 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 159 (2d ed. 2010). 101 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 160 (2d ed. 2010). 102 Federal Power Comm’n v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 

453, at 460 (1972) (quoting a Federal Power Commission hearing 

examiner, "`If a housewife in Atlanta on the Georgia system 

turns on a light, every generator on Florida’s system almost 

instantly is caused to produce some quantity of additional 

electric energy which serves to maintain the balance in the 

interconnected system between generation and load.’”) (citation 

omitted). See also New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, at 7 (2002) 

(stating that “any electricity that enters the grid immediately 

becomes a part of a vast pool of energy that is constantly 

moving in interstate commerce.”) (citation omitted). In Federal 

Power Comm’n v. Southern California Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 

(1964), the Supreme Court found that a sale for resale of 

electricity from Southern California Edison to the City of 

Colton, which took place solely in California, was under Federal 

Power Commission jurisdiction because some of the electricity 

that Southern California Edison marketed came from out of state. 

The Supreme Court stated that, “`federal jurisdiction was to 

follow the flow of electric energy, an engineering and 

scientific, rather than a legalistic or governmental, test.’” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 151 of 1546

Today, federal, state, and local entities regulate 

electricity providers.103 Overlaid on the physical electricity 

network is a regulatory network that has developed over the last 

century or more. This regulatory network “plays a vital role in 

the functioning of all other networks, sometimes providing 

specific rules for functioning while at other times providing 

restraints within which their operation must be conducted.”104 

This unique regulatory network results in an electricity grid 

that is both physically interconnected and connected through a 

network of regulation on the local, state, and federal levels. 

This regulation seeks to reconcile the fact that electricity is 

a public good with the fact that facilities providing that 

electricity are privately owned.105 While this regulation began 

on the state and local levels, federal regulation of the 

electricity system increased over time. With the passage of the 

EPAct 1992 and the EPAct 2005, the federal government’s role in 

electricity regulation greatly increased.106 “The role of the 

 

Id. at 210 (quoting Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal 

Power Commission, 324 U.S. 515, 529 (1945) (emphasis omitted)). 103 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 214 (2d ed. 2010). 104 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 213 (2d ed. 2010). 105 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 213 (2d ed. 2010). 106 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 214 (2d ed. 2010).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 152 of 1546

regulator now includes support for the development of open and 

fair wholesale electric markets, ensuring equal access to the 

transmission system and more hands-on oversight and control of 

the planning and operating rules for the industry.”107 

2. Electric system dispatch 

System operators typically dispatch the electric system 

through a process known as Security Constrained Economic 

Dispatch.108 Security Constrained Economic Dispatch has two 

components – economic generation of generation facilities and 

ensuring that the electric system remains reliable.109

Electricity demand varies across geography and time in response 

to numerous conditions, such that electric generators are 

constantly responding to changes in the most reliable and costeffective manner possible. The cost of operating electric 

 

107 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 214 (2d ed. 2010). 108 Economic Dispatch: Concepts, Practices and Issues, FERC Staff 

Presentation to the Joint Board for the Study of Economic 

Dispatch, Palm Springs, California (Nov. 13, 2005). 

109 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Security Constrained 

Economic Dispatch: Definitions, Practices, Issues and 

Recommendations: A Report to Congress (July 31, 2006). The 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 defined economic dispatch as “the 

operation of generation facilities to produce energy at the 

lowest cost to reliably serve consumers, recognizing any 

operational limits of generation and transmission facilities.” 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 

(2005), section 1234(b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 153 of 1546

generation varies based on a number of factors, such as fuel and 

generator efficiency. 

 The decision to dispatch any particular electric generator 

depends upon the relative operating cost, or marginal cost, of 

generating electricity to meet the last increment of electric 

demand. Fuel is one common variable cost – especially for 

fossil-fueled generators. Coal plants will often have 

considerable variable costs associated with running pollution 

controls.110 Renewables, hydroelectric, and nuclear have little 

to no variable costs. If electricity demand decreases or 

additional generation becomes available on the system, this 

impacts how the system operator will dispatch the system. EGUs 

using technologies with relatively low variable costs, such as 

nuclear units and RE, are for economic reasons generally 

operated at their maximum output whenever they are available. 

When lower cost units are available to run, higher variable cost 

units, such as fossil-fuel generators, are generally the first 

to be displaced. 

 In states with cost-of-service regulation of verticallyintegrated utilities, the utilities themselves form the 

balancing authorities who determine dispatch based upon the 

 

110 Variable costs also include costs associated with operation 

and maintenance and costs of operating a pollution control 

and/or emission allowance charges. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 154 of 1546

lowest marginal cost. These utilities sometimes arrange to buy 

and sell electricity with other balancing authorities. RTOs and 

ISOs coordinate, control, and monitor electricity transmission 

systems to ensure cost-effective and reliable delivery of power, 

and they are independent from market participants. 

3. Reliability considerations 

The reliability of the electric system has long been a 

focus of the electric industry and regulators. Industry 

developed a voluntary organization in the early 1960s that 

assisted with bulk power system coordination in the U.S. and 

Canada.111 In 1965, the northeastern U.S. and southeastern 

Ontario, Canada experienced the largest power blackout to date, 

impacting 30 million people.112 In response to the 1965 blackout 

and a Federal Power Commission recommendation,113 industry 

developed the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and 

 

111 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, History of 

NERC, at 1 (2013), available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/History%20AUG13.pdf. 

112 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 39 (2012), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf. 

113 The Federal Power Commission, a precursor to FERC, 

recommended “the formation of a council on power coordination 

made up of representatives from each of the nation’s regional 

coordinating organizations, to exchange and disseminate 

information and to review, discuss and assist in resolving 

interregional coordination matters.” North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation, History of NERC, at 1 (2013), available 

at http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/History%20AUG13.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 155 of 1546

nine reliability councils. The organization later became known 

as the North American Electric Reliability Council to recognize 

Canada’s participation.114 The North American Electric 

Reliability Council became the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation in 2007.115 

In August 2003, North America experienced its worst 

blackout to date creating an outage in the Midwest, Northeast, 

and Ontario, Canada.116 This blackout was massive in scale 

impacting an area with an estimated 50 million people and 61,800 

megawatts of electric load.117 The U.S. and Canada formed a joint 

task force to investigate the causes of the blackout and made 

recommendations to avoid similar outages in the future. One of 

the task force’s major recommendations was that the U.S. 

 

114 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, History of 

NERC, at 2 (2013), available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/History%20AUG13.pdf.

115 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, History of 

NERC, at 4 (2013), available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/History%20AUG13.pdf.

116 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, History of 

NERC, at 3 (2013), available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/History%20AUG13.pdf.

117 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on 

the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: 

Causes and Recommendations, at 1 (Apr. 2004), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/blackout/ch1-3.pdf. The outage impacted areas 

within Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and the Canadian 

province of Ontario. Id. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 156 of 1546

Congress should pass legislation making electric reliability 

standards mandatory and enforceable.118

Congress responded to this recommendation in EPAct 2005, 

adding a new section 215 to the Federal Power Act making 

reliability standards mandatory and enforceable and authorizing 

the creation of a new Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). 

Under this new system, FERC certifies an entity as the ERO. The 

ERO develops reliability standards, which are subject to FERC 

review and approval. Once FERC approves reliability standards 

the ERO may enforce those standards or FERC can do so 

independently.119 In 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) certified NERC as the ERO.120 “NERC develops 

and enforces Reliability Standards; monitors the Bulk-Power 

System; assesses adequacy annually via a 10-year forecast and 

 

118 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on 

the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: 

Causes and Recommendations, at 2 (Apr. 2004), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/blackout/ch1-3.pdf. 119 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 

Order No. 693, 118 FERC ¶ 61,218, at P 3 (2007) (citing 16 

U.S.C. 824o(e)(3)). 

120 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability 

Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, 

and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 

672, 114 FERC ¶ 61,104 (2006). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 157 of 1546

winter and summer forecasts; audits owners, operators and users 

for preparedness; and educates and trains industry personnel.”121

The United States, Canada, and part of Mexico are divided 

up into eight reliability regional entities.122 These regional 

entities include Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

(FRCC), Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO), Northeast Power 

Coordinating Council (NPCC), Reliability First Corporation 

(RFC), SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), Southwest Power 

Pool, RE (SPP), Texas Reliability Entity (TRE), and Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).123 Regional entity 

members come from all segments of the electric industry.124 NERC 

delegates authority, with FERC approval, to these regional 

entities to enforce reliability standards, both national and 

 

121 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Frequently 

Asked Questions, at 2 (Aug. 2013), available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/NERC%20FAQs%20AUG13.pdf. 

122 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 49-50 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf. 

123 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy Primer: A 

Handbook of Energy Market Basics, at 50 (2012), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/guide/energy-primer.pdf. 

124 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Key Players, 

available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Pages/default.aspx 

(last visited Mar. 12, 2015). “The members of the regional 

entities come from all segments of the electric industry: 

investor-owned utilities; federal power agencies; rural electric 

cooperatives; state, municipal and provincial utilities; 

independent power producers; power marketers; and end-use 

customers.” Id. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 158 of 1546

regional reliability standards, and engage in other standardsrelated duties delegated to them by NERC.125 NERC ensures that 

there is a consistency of application of delegated functions 

with appropriate regional flexibility.126 NERC divides the 

country into assessment areas and annually analyzes the 

reliability, adequacy, and associated risks that may affect the 

upcoming summer, winter, and long-term, 10-year period. Multiple 

other entities such as FERC, the Department of Energy, state 

public utility commissions, ISOs/RTOs127, and other planning 

 

125 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Frequently 

Asked Questions, at 5 (2013), available at 

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/NERC%20FAQs%20AUG13.pdf. 

For example, a regional entity may propose reliability 

standards, including regional variances or regional reliability 

standards required to maintain and enhance electric service 

reliability, adequacy, and security in the region. See, e.g.,

Amended and Restated Delegation Agreement Between North American 

Reliability Corporation and Midwest Reliability Organization, 

Bylaws of the Midwest Reliability Organization, Inc., Section 

2.2 (2012), available at

http://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/Regional%20Delegation%20Agr

eements%20DL/MRO_RDA_Effective_20130612.pdf. 

126 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Frequently 

Asked Questions, at 5 (2013), available at 

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/NERC%20FAQs%20AUG13.pdf.

127 ISOs/RTOs plan for system needs by “effectively managing the 

load forecasting, transmission planning, and system and resource 

planning functions.” For example, the New York Independent 

System Operator (NYISO) conducts reliability planning studies, 

which “are used to assess current reliability needs based on 

user trends and historical energy use.” NYISO, Planning Studies, 

available at

http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning

/planning_studies/index.jsp. See also PJM, Reliability 

Assessments, available at https://www.pjm.com/planning/rtep-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 159 of 1546

authorities also consider the reliability of the electric 

system. There are numerous remedies that can be utilized to 

solve a potential reliability problem, including long-term 

planning, transmission system upgrades, installation of new 

generating capacity, demand response, and other demand side 

actions. 

4. Modern electric system trends 

 Today, the electricity sector is undergoing a period of 

intense change. Fossil fuels – such as coal, natural gas, and 

oil – have historically provided a large percentage of 

electricity in the U.S., along with nuclear power, with smaller 

amounts provided by other types of generation, including 

renewables such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Coal 

provided the largest percentage of the fossil fuel generation.128

In recent years, the nation has seen a sizeable increase in 

renewable generation such as wind and solar, as well as a shift 

 

development/reliability-assessments.aspx (stating that the PJM 

“Regional Transmission Expansion Planning (RTEP) process 

includes the development of periodic reliability assessments to 

address specific system reliability issues in addition to the 

ongoing expansion planning process for the interconnection 

process of generation and merchant transmission.”). 

128 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b 

Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from 

Monthly Energy Review May 2015, available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf (last 

visited May 26, 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 160 of 1546

from coal to natural gas.129 In 2013, fossil fuels supplied 67 

percent of U.S. electricity,130 but the amount of renewable 

generation capacity continued to grow.131 From 2007 to 2014, use 

of lower- and zero-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar 

grew, while other major energy sources such as coal and 

petroleum generally experienced declines.132 Renewable 

electricity generation, including from large hydro-electric 

projects, grew from 8 percent to 13 percent over that time 

 

129 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b 

Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from 

Monthly Energy Review May 2015, release data April 25, 2014, 

available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf (last 

visited May 26, 2015). 

130 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b 

Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from 

Monthly Energy Review May 2015, release data April 25, 2014, 

available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf (last 

visited May 26, 2015). 

131 Based on Table 6.3 (New Utility Scale Generating Units by 

Operating Company, Plant, Month, and Year) of the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) Electric Power Monthly, data 

for December 2013, for the following renewable energy sources: 

solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, landfill gas, and biomass. 

Available at: http:// 

www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_0

3. 

132 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b 

Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from 

Monthly Energy Review May 2015, available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf (last 

visited May 26, 2015).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 161 of 1546

period.133 Between 2000 and 2013, approximately 90 percent of new 

power generation capacity built in the U.S. came in the form of 

natural gas or renewable energy facilities.134 In 2015, the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected the need for 

28.4 GW of additional base load or intermediate load generation 

capacity through 2020.135 The vast majority of this new electric 

capacity (20.4 GW) is already under development (under 

construction or in advanced planning), with approximately 0.7 GW 

of new coal-fired capacity, 5.5 GW of new nuclear capacity, and 

14.2 GW of new NGCC capacity already in development. 

While the change in the resource mix has accelerated in 

recent years, wind, solar, other renewables, and energy 

efficiency resources have been reliably participating in the 

electric sector for a number of years. This rapid development of 

non-fossil fuel resources is occurring as much of the existing 

 

133 Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the Business Council for 

Sustainable Energy, 2015 Factbook: Sustainable Energy in 

America, at 16 (2015), available at

http://www.bcse.org/images/2015%20Sustainable%20Energy%20in%20Am

erica%20Factbook.pdf. Bloomberg gave projections for 2014 

values, accounting for seasonality, based on latest monthly 

values from EIA (data available through October 2014). 

134 Energy Information Administration, Electricity: Form EIA-860 

detailed data (Feb. 17, 2015), available at

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/. 

135 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook for 2015 with Projections to 2040, 

Final Release, available at

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/pdf/0383(2015).pdf. The AEO 

numbers include projects that are under development and modelprojected nuclear, coal, and NGCC projects.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 162 of 1546

power generation fleet in the U.S. is aging and in need of 

modernization and replacement. In 2025, the average age of the 

coal-fired generating fleet is projected to be 49 years old, and 

20 percent of those units would be more than 60 years old if 

they remain in operation at that time. In its 2013 Report Card 

for America’s Infrastructure, the American Society for Civil 

Engineers noted that “America relies on an aging electrical grid 

and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in 

the 1880s.”136 While there has been an increased investment in 

electric transmission infrastructure since 2005, the report also 

found that “ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and 

limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of 

failures and power interruptions.”137 However, innovative 

technologies have increasingly entered the electric energy 

space, helping to provide new answers to how to meet the 

electricity needs of the nation. These new technologies can 

enable the nation to answer not just questions as to how to 

reliably meet electricity demand, but also how to meet 

 

136 American Society for Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for 

America’s Infrastructure (2013), available at

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/energy/. 

137 American Society for Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for 

America’s Infrastructure (2013), available at

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/energy/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 163 of 1546

electricity demand reliably and cost-effectively with the lowest 

possible emissions and the greatest efficiency. 

Natural gas has a long history of meeting electricity 

demand in the U.S., with a rapidly growing role as domestic 

supplies of natural gas have dramatically increased. Natural gas 

net generation increased by approximately 32 percent between 

2005 and 2014.138 In 2014, natural gas accounted for 

approximately 27 percent of net generation.139 EIA projects that 

this demand growth will continue with its Annual Energy Outlook 

2015 (AEO 2015) Reference case forecasting that natural gas will 

produce 31 percent of U.S. electric generation in 2040.140 

Renewable sources of electric generation also have a 

history of meeting electricity demand in the United States and 

 

138 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power 

Monthly: Table 1.1 Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All 

Sectors), 2005-February 2015 (2015), available at

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=e

pmt_1_1 (last visited May 26, 2015). 

139 Id. 140 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy 

Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040, at 24-25 (2015), 

available at

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf. According 

to the EIA, the reference case assumes, “Real gross domestic 

product (GDP) grows at an average annual rate of 2.4% from 2013 

to 2040, under the assumption that current laws and regulations 

remain generally unchanged throughout the projection period. 

North Sea Brent crude oil prices rise to $141/barrel (bbl) (2013 

dollars) in 2040.” Id. at 1. The EIA provides complete 

projection tables for the reference case in Appendix A of its 

report. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 164 of 1546

are expected to have an increasing role going forward. A series 

of energy crises provided the impetus for renewable energy 

development in the early 1970s. The OPEC oil embargo in 1973 and 

oil crisis of 1979 caused oil price spikes, more frequent energy 

shortages, and significantly affected the national and global 

economy. In 1978, partly in response to fuel security concerns, 

Congress passed the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act 

(PURPA) which required local electric utilities to buy power 

from qualifying facilities (QFs).141 QFs were either cogeneration 

facilities142 or small generation resources that use renewables 

such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, or hydroelectric power 

as their primary fuels.143 Through PURPA, Congress supported the 

development of more renewable energy generation in the U.S. 

States have also taken a significant lead in requiring the 

development of renewable resources. In particular, a number of 

states have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS). As of 

 

141 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 220-221 (2d ed. 2010). 142 Cogeneration facilities utilize a single source of fuel to 

produce both electricity and another form of energy such as heat 

or steam. Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric 

Power Systems, IEEE Press, at 220-221 (2d ed. 2010). 143 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 220-221 (2d ed. 2010). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 165 of 1546

2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia have enforceable 

RPS or similar laws.144 

Use of RE continues to grow rapidly in the U.S. In 2013, 

electricity generated from renewable technologies, including 

conventional hydropower, represented 13 percent of total U.S. 

electricity, up from 9 percent in 2005.145 In 2013, U.S. nonhydro RE capacity for the total electric power industry exceeded 

80,000 MW, reflecting a fivefold increase in just 15 years.146 In 

particular, there has been substantial growth in the wind and 

photovoltaic (PV) markets in the past decade. Since 2009, U.S. 

wind generation has tripled and solar generation has grown 

twenty-fold.147 

 

144 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy 

Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040, at LR-5 (2014), available 

at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf (last 

visited May 26, 2015). 

145 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at ES-6 (2014) and Energy Information 

Administration, Monthly Energy Review, May 2015, Table 7.2b, 

available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf. 

146 Non-hydro RE capacity for the total electric power industry 

was more than 16,000 megawatts (MW) in 1998. Energy Information 

Administration, 1990-2013 Existing Nameplate and Net Summer 

Capacity by Energy Source Producer Type and State (EIA-860), 

available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. 147 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, May 

2015, Table 7.2b, available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 166 of 1546

 The global market for RE is projected to grow to $460 

billion per year by 2030.148 RE growth is further encouraged by 

the significant amount of existing natural resources that can 

support RE production in the United States.149 In the Energy 

Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2015, RE 

generation grows substantially from 2013 to 2040 in the 

reference case and all alternative cases.150 In the reference 

case, RE generation increases by more than 70 percent from 2013 

to 2040 and accounts for over one-third of new generation 

capacity.151

Price pressures caused by oil embargoes in the 1970s also 

brought the issues of conservation and energy efficiency to the 

forefront of U.S. energy policy.152 This trend continued in the 

 

148 “Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook.” Bloomberg New Energy 

Finance (Nov. 16, 2011), available at 

http://bnef.com/WhitePapers/download/53.

149 Lopez et al., NREL, ‘‘U.S. Renewable Energy 

Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis,’’ (July 2012).

150 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at 25 (2014), available at

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf. 

151 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at ES-6 (2015), available at

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf (last 

visited May 27, 2015).

152 Edison Electric Institute, Making a Business of Energy 

Efficiency: Sustainable Business Models for Utilities, at 1 

(2007), available at

http://www.eei.org/whatwedo/PublicPolicyAdvocacy/StateRegulation

/Documents/Making_Business_Energy_Efficiency.pdf. Congress 

passed legislation in the 1970s that jumpstarted energy 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 167 of 1546

early 1990s. Energy efficiency has been utilized to meet energy 

demand to varying levels since that time. As of April 2014, 25 

states153 have “enacted long-term (3+ years), binding energy 

savings targets, or energy efficiency resource standards 

(EERS).”154 Funding for energy efficiency programs has grown 

rapidly in recent years, with budgets for electric efficiency 

programs totaling $5.9 billion in 2012.155 

 Advancements and innovation in power sector technologies 

provide the opportunity to address CO2 emission levels at 

 

efficiency in the U.S. For example, President Ford signed the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 – the first 

law on the issue. EPCA authorized the Federal Energy 

Administration (FEA) to “develop energy conservation contingency 

plans, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and 

authorized the creation of efficiency standards for major 

household appliances.” Alliance to Save Energy, History of 

Energy Efficiency, at 6 (2013) (citing Anders, “The Federal 

Energy Administration,” 5; Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 

S. 622, 94th Cong. (1975-1976)), available at

https://www.ase.org/sites/ase.org/files/resources/Media%20browse

r/ee_commission_history_report_2-1-13.pdf. 

153 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, State 

Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) (2014), available at 

http://aceee.org/files/pdf/policy-brief/eers-04-2014.pdf. ACEEE 

did not include Indiana (EERS eliminated), Delaware (EERS 

pending), Florida (programs funded at levels far below what is 

necessary to meet targets), Utah, or Virginia (voluntary 

standards) in its calculation. 

154 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, State 

Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) (2014), available at 

http://aceee.org/files/pdf/policy-brief/eers-04-2014.pdf. 

155 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, The 2013 

State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, at 17 (Nov. 2013), available 

at

http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreport

s/e13k.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 168 of 1546

affected power plants while at the same time improving the 

overall power system in the U.S. by lowering the carbon 

intensity of power generation, and ensuring a reliable supply of 

power at a reasonable cost. 

E. Clean Air Act Regulations for Power Plants 

In this section, we provide a general description of major 

CAA regulations for power plants. We refer to these in later 

sections of this preamble. 

1. Title IV Acid Rain Program 

The EPA’s Acid Rain Program, established in 1990 under 

Title IV of the CAA, addresses the presence of acidic compounds 

and their precursors (i.e., SO2 and NOx), in the atmosphere by 

targeting “the principal sources” of these pollutants through an 

SO2 cap-and-trade program for fossil-fuel fired power plants and 

through a technology based NOx emission limit for certain utility 

boilers. Altogether, Title IV was designed to achieve reductions 

of ten million tons of annual SO2 emissions, and, in combination 

with other provisions of the CAA, two million tons of annual NOx

emissions.156 

 The SO2 cap-and-trade program was implemented in two phases. 

The first phase, beginning in 1995, targeted one-hundred and ten 

named power plants, including specific generator units at each 

 

156 42 U.S.C. § 7651(b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 169 of 1546

plant, requiring the plants to reduce their cumulative emissions 

to a specific level.157 Under certain conditions, the owner or 

operator of a named power plant could reassign an affected 

unit’s reduction requirement to another unit and/or request an 

extension of two years for meeting the requirement.158 Congress 

also established an energy conservation and renewable energy 

reserve from which up to 300,000 allowances could be allocated 

for qualified energy conservation measures or qualified 

renewable energy.159 

The second phase, beginning in 2000, expanded coverage to 

more than 2,000 generating units and set a national cap at 8.90 

million tons.160 Generally, allowances were allocated at a rate 

of 1.2 lbs./mmBtu multiplied by the unit’s baseline and divided 

by 2000.161 However, bonus allowances could be awarded to certain 

units. 

Title IV also required the EPA to hold or sponsor annual 

auctions and sales of allowances for a small portion of the 

total allowances allocated each year. This ensured that some 

 

157 42 U.S.C. § 7651c (Table A). 158 42 U.S.C. § 7651c(b) and (d). 159 42 U.S.C. § 7651c(f) and (g). 160 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “The 

Effects of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on 

Electric Utilities: An Update,” p. vii. (March 1997). 

161 See 42 U.S.C. § 7651d. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 170 of 1546

allowances would be directly available for new sources, 

including independent power production facilities.162 

The provisions of the EPA’s Acid Rain Program are 

implemented through permits issued under the EPA’s Title V 

Operating Permit Program.163 In accordance with Title IV, 

moreover, each Title V permit application must include a 

compliance plan for the affected source that details how that 

source expects to meet the requirements of Title IV.164 

2. Transport rulemakings 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the “Good Neighbor 

Provision,” requires state implementation plans (SIPs) to 

prohibit emissions that “contribute significantly to 

nonattainment . . . or interfere with maintenance” of the NAAQS 

in any other state.165 If the EPA finds that a state has failed 

to submit an approvable SIP, the EPA must issue a federal 

 

162 42 U.S.C. § 7651o. 163 42 U.S.C. § 7651g. 164 Such plans may simply state that the owner or operator 

expects to hold sufficient allowances or, in the case of 

alternative compliance methods, must provide a “comprehensive 

description of the schedule and means by which the unit will 

rely on one or more alternative methods of compliance in the 

manner and time authorized under [Title IV].” 42 U.S.C. § 

7651g(b). 

165 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 171 of 1546

implementation plan (FIP) to prohibit those emissions “at any 

time” within the next two years.166

In three major rulemakings—the NOx SIP Call,167 the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),168 and the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR)169—the EPA has attempted delineate the scope of the 

Good Neighbor Provision. These rulemakings have several features 

in common. Although the Good Neighbor Provision does not speak 

specifically about EGUs, in all three rulemakings, the EPA set 

state emission “budgets” for upwind states based in part on 

emissions reductions achievable by EGUs through application of 

cost-effective controls. Each rule also adopted a phased 

approach to reducing emissions with both interim and final 

goals. 

a. NOx SIP Call. In 1998, the EPA promulgated the NOx SIP Call, 

which required 23 upwind states to reduce emissions of NOx that 

would impact downwind areas with ozone problems. The EPA 

determined emission reduction requirements based on reductions 

achievable through “highly cost-effective” controls—i.e., 

controls that would cost on average no more than $2,000 per ton 

 

166 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 

1600–01 (2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)). 

167 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). 168 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 169 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 172 of 1546

of emissions reduced.170 The EPA determined that a uniform 

emission rate on large EGUs coupled with a cap-and-trade program 

was one such set of highly cost-effective controls.171 

Accordingly, the EPA established an interstate cap-and-trade 

program—the NOx Budget Trading Program—as a mechanism for states 

to reduce emissions from EGUs and other sources in a highly 

cost-effective manner. The D.C. Circuit upheld the NOx SIP Call 

in most significant respects, including its use of costs to 

apportion emission reduction responsibilities.172 

b. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In 2005, the EPA 

promulgated CAIR, which required 28 upwind states to reduce 

emissions of NOx and SO2 that would impact downwind areas with 

projected nonattainment and maintenance problems for ozone and 

PM2.5. The EPA determined emission reduction requirements based 

on “controls that are known to be highly cost effective for 

EGUs.”173 The EPA established cap-and-trade programs for sources 

of NOx and SO2 in states that chose to participate in the trading 

programs via their SIPs and for states ultimately subject to a 

 

170 63 FR at 57377–78. 171 63 FR at 57377–78. In addition to EGUs, the NOx SIP Call also 

set budgets based on highly cost-effective emission reductions 

from certain other large sources. Id. 172 Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 173 70 FR at 25163. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 173 of 1546

FIP.174 As relevant here, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR in North 

Carolina v. EPA due to in part the structure of its interstate 

trading provisions and the way in which EPA applied the costeffective standard, but kept the rule in place while the EPA 

developed an acceptable substitute.175

c. Cross-state Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). In 2011, the EPA 

promulgated CSAPR, which required 27 upwind states to reduce 

emissions of NOx and SO2 that would impact downwind areas with 

projected nonattainment and maintenance problems for ozone and 

PM2.5. The EPA determined emission reduction requirements based 

in part on the reductions achievable at certain cost thresholds 

by EGUs in each state, with certain provisions developed to 

account for the need to ensure reliability of the electric 

generating system.176 In the same action establishing these 

emission reduction requirements, the EPA promulgated FIPs that 

subjected states to trading programs developed to achieve the 

necessary reductions within each state.177 The U.S. Supreme Court 

 

174 70 FR at 25273–75; 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006). 175 531 F.3d 896, 917–22 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing 

550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

176 76 FR at 48270. The EPA adopted this approach in part to 

comport with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in North Carolina v. EPA 

remanding CAIR. Id. at 48270–71. 177 76 FR at 48209–16. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 174 of 1546

upheld the EPA’s use of cost to set emission reduction 

requirements, as well as its authority to issue the FIPs.178 

3. Clean Air Mercury Rule 

On March 15, 2005, the EPA issued a rule to control mercury 

(Hg) emissions from new and existing fossil fuel-fired power 

plants under CAA section 111(b) and (d). The rule, known as the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), established, in relevant part, a 

nationwide cap-and-trade program under CAA section 111(d), which 

was designed to complement the cap-and-trade program for SO2 and 

NOx emissions under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

discussed above.179 Though CAMR was later vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit on account of the EPA’s flawed CAA section 112 delisting 

rule, the court declined to reach the merits of the EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA section 111(d).180 Accordingly, CAMR 

continues to be an informative model for a cap-and-trade program 

under CAA section 111(d). 

The cap-and-trade program in CAMR was designed to take 

effect in two phases: in 2010, the cap was set at 38 tons per 

year, and in 2018, the cap would be lowered to 15 tons per year. 

The Phase I cap was set at a level reflecting the co-benefits of 

 

178 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014).

179 See 70 F.R. 28606 (May 18, 2005). 180 New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 175 of 1546

CAIR as determined through economic and environmental 

modeling.181 For the more stringent Phase II cap, the EPA 

projected that sources would “install SCR [selective catalytic 

reduction] to meet their SO2 and NOx requirements and take 

additional steps to address the remaining Hg reduction 

requirements under CAA section 111, including adding Hg-specific 

control technologies (model applies ACI [activated carbon 

injection]), additional scrubbers and SCR, dispatch changes, and 

coal switching.”182 

To accompany the nationwide emissions cap, the EPA also 

assigned a statewide emissions budget for mercury. Pursuant to 

CAA section 111(d), states would be required to submit plans to 

the EPA “detailing the controls that will be implemented to meet 

its specified budget for reductions from coal-fired Utility 

Units.”183 Of course, states were “not required to adopt and 

implement” the emission trading program, “but they [were] 

 

181 70 F.R. 28606, at 28617. The EPA’s projections under CAIR 

showed a significant number of affected sources would install 

scrubbers for SO2 and selective catalytic reduction for NOx on 

coal-fired power plants, which had the co-benefit of capturing 

mercury emissions. Id. at 28619. 182 70 F.R. 28606, at 28619. 183 70 F.R. 28606, at 28621. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 176 of 1546

required to be in compliance with their statewide Hg emission 

budget.”184 

4. Mercury Air Toxics Rule 

On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the MATS rule (77 FR 

9304) to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and 

existing coal- and oil-fired EGUs. The MATS rule will reduce 

emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, 

and nickel; and acid gases, including hydrochloric acid and 

hydrofluoric acid. These toxic air pollutants, also known as 

hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known to cause, or 

suspected of causing, damage nervous system damage, cancer, and 

other serious health effects. The MATS rule will also reduce SO2

and fine particle pollution, which will reduce particle 

concentrations in the air and prevent thousands of premature 

deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases 

and asthma episodes. 

New or reconstructed EGUs (i.e., sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2011) subject to the 

MATS rule are required to comply by April 16, 2012 or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

 

184 70 F.R. 28606, at 28621. That said, states could “require 

reductions beyond those required by the [s]tate budget.” Id. at 

28621. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 177 of 1546

Existing sources subject to the MATS rule were required to 

begin meeting the rule’s requirements on April 16, 2015. 

Controls that will achieve the MATS performance standards are 

being installed on many units. Certain units, especially those 

that operate infrequently, may be considered not worth investing 

in given today’s electricity market, and are closing. The final 

MATS rule provided a foundation on which states and other 

permitting authorities could rely in granting an additional, 

fourth year for compliance provided for by the CAA. States 

report that these fourth year extensions are being granted. In 

addition, the EPA issued an enforcement policy that provides a 

clear pathway for reliability-critical units to receive an 

administrative order that includes a compliance schedule of up 

to an additional year, if it is needed to ensure electricity 

reliability. 

Following promulgation of the MATS rule, industry, states 

and environmental organizations challenged many aspects of the 

EPA's threshold determination that regulation of EGUs is 

"appropriate and necessary" and the final standards regulating 

hazardous air pollutants from EGUs. The U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit upheld all aspects of the MATS rule. White 

Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 

2014). In Michigan v. EPA, case no. 14-46, the U.S. Supreme 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 178 of 1546

Court reversed the D.C. Circuit decision upholding the MATS 

rule, finding that EPA erred by not considering cost when 

determining that regulation of EGUs was "appropriate" pursuant 

to section 112(n)(1). The Supreme Court considered only the 

narrow question of cost and did not review the other holdings 

of the D.C. Circuit, nor did the Supreme Court vacate the MATS 

rule. 

5. Regional Haze Rule 

Under CAA section 169A, Congress “declare[d] as a national 

goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility” in national parks and 

wilderness areas that results from anthropogenic emissions.185 To 

achieve this goal, Congress directed the EPA to promulgate 

regulations directing states to submit SIPs that “contain such 

emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as 

may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal . . . .”186 One such measure that Congress deemed 

necessary to make reasonable progress was a requirement that 

certain older stationary sources that cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment “procure, install, and operate, as 

expeditiously as practicable . . . the best available retrofit 

 

185 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). 186 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 179 of 1546

technology,” more commonly referred to as BART.187 When 

determining BART for large fossil-fuel fired utility power 

plants, Congress required states to adhere to guidelines to be 

promulgated by the EPA.188 As with other SIP-based programs, the 

EPA is required to issue a FIP within two years if a state fails 

to submit a regional haze SIP or if the EPA disapproves such SIP 

in whole or in part.189

 In 1999, the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to 

satisfy Congress’ mandate that EPA promulgate regulations 

directing states to address visibility impairment.190 Among other 

things, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to satisfy the 

Act’s BART requirement either by adopting source-specific 

emission limitations or by adopting alternatives, such as 

emissions-trading programs, that achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would source-specific BART.191 The Ninth Circuit 

and D.C. Circuit have both upheld the EPA’s interpretation that 

CAA section 169A(b)(2) allows for BART alternatives in lieu of 

source-specific BART.192 In 2005, the EPA promulgated BART 

 

187 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A). 188 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2). 189 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(c); 7491(b)(2)(A). 190 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 

51.308-309). 

191 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1) & (2). 192 See Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 180 of 1546

Guidelines to assist states in determining which sources are 

subject to BART and what emission limitations to impose at those 

sources.193

 The Regional Haze Rule set a goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 and requires states to revise 

their regional haze SIPs every ten years.194 The first planning 

period, which ends in 2018, focused heavily on the BART 

requirement. States (or the EPA in the case of FIPs) made 

numerous source-specific BART determinations, and developed 

several BART alternatives, for utility power plants. For the 

next planning period, states will need to determine whether 

additional controls are necessary at these plants (and others 

that were not subject to BART) in order to make reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility goal.195

F. Congressional Awareness of Climate Change in the Context of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments196 

 

2005); Cent. Ariz. Water Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 

1993). 

193 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104 (July 6, 2005) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 

51, app. Y). 

194 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (f). 195 See 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3). 196 The following discussion is not meant to be exhaustive. There 

are many other instances outside the context of the CAA, before 

and after 1970, when Congress discussed or was presented with 

evidence on climate change. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 181 of 1546

 During its deliberations on the 1970 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, Congress learned that ongoing pollution, including 

from manmade carbon dioxide, could “threaten irreversible 

atmospheric and climatic changes.”197 At that time, Congress 

heard the views of scientists that carbon dioxide emissions 

tended to increase global temperatures, but that there was 

uncertainty as to the extent to which those increases would be 

offset by the decreases in temperatures brought about by 

emissions of particulates. President Nixon’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) reported that “the addition of 

particulates and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have 

dramatic and long-term effects on world climate.”198 The CEQ’s 

First Annual Report, which was transmitted to Congress, devoted 

a chapter to “Man’s Inadvertent Modification of Weather and 

Climate.”199 Moreover, Charles Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the 

Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, testified 

 

197 Sen. Scott, S. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 349.

198 Council on Environmental Quality, “The First Annual Report of 

the Council on Environmental Quality,” p. 110 (Aug. 1970) 

(recognizing also that “[man] can increase the carbon dioxide 

content of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels” and 

postulating that an increase in the earth’s average temperature 

by about 2o to 3o F “could in a period of decades, lead to the 

start of substantial melting of ice caps and flooding of coastal 

regions.”). 

199 Council on Environmental Quality, “The First Annual Report of 

the Council on Environmental Quality,” p. 93-104 (Aug. 1970) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 182 of 1546

before the House Subcommittee on Public Health that “the carbon 

dioxide balance might result in the heating up of the atmosphere 

whereas the reduction of the radiant energy through particulate 

matter released to the atmosphere might cause reduction in 

radiation that reaches the earth.”200 Administrator Johnson 

explained that the Nixon Administration was “concerned ... that 

neither of these things happen” and that they were “watching 

carefully the kind of prognosis, the kind of calculations that 

the scientists make to look at the continuous balance between 

heat and cooling of the total earth’s atmosphere.”201 He 

concluded that “[w]hat we are trying to do, however, in terms of 

our air pollution effort should have a very salutary effect on 

either of these.”202

 

200 Testimony of Charles Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the 

Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service 

(Administration Testimony), Hearing of the House Subcommittee on 

Public Health and Welfare (Mar. 16, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 1381. 

201 Testimony of Charles Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the 

Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service 

(Administration Testimony), Hearing of the House Subcommittee on 

Public Health and Welfare (Mar. 16, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 1381. 

202 Testimony of Charles Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the 

Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service 

(Administration Testimony), Hearing of the House Subcommittee on 

Public Health and Welfare (Mar. 16, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 1381. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 183 of 1546

Scientific reports on climatic change continued to gain 

traction in Congress through the mid-1970s, including while 

Congress was considering the 1977 CAA Amendments. However, 

uncertainty continued as to whether the increased warming 

brought about by carbon dioxide emissions would be offset by 

cooling brought about by particulate emissions.203 Congress 

ordered, as part of the 1977 CAA Amendments, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to research and monitor 

the stratosphere “for the purpose of early detection of changes 

in the stratosphere and climatic effects of such changes.”204 

Between the 1977 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 

scientific uncertainty yielded to the predominant view that 

global warming “was likely to dominate on time scales that would 

 

203 For instance, while scientists, such as Stephen Schneider of 

the National Center for Atmospheric Research, testified that 

“manmade pollutants will affect the climate,” they believed that 

we would “see a general cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere.” Rep. 

Scheuer, H. Debates on H.R. 10498 (Sept. 15, 1976), 1977 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 6477. Additionally, the Department of 

Transportation’s climatic impact assessment program and the 

Climatic Impact Committee of the National Research Council, 

National Academies of Science and Engineering both reported that 

“warming or cooling” could occur. Id. at 6476. See also Sen. 

Bumpers, Sen. Debates on S. 3219 (August 3, 1976), 1977 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 5368 (inserting “Summary of Statements Received 

[in the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere] from 

Professional Societies for the Hearings on Effects of Chronic 

Pollution” into the record, which noted that “there is near 

unamity [sic] that carbon dioxide concentrations in the 

atmosphere are increasing rapidly.”). 

204 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,” § 125, 91 Stat. at 728. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 184 of 1546

be significant to human societies.”205 In fact, as part of the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress specifically required 

the EPA to collect data on carbon dioxide emissions –- the most 

significant of the greenhouse gases -- from all sources subject 

to the newly enacted operating permit program under Title V.206

Although Congress did not require the EPA to take immediate 

action to address climate change, Congress did identify certain 

tools that were particularly helpful in addressing climate 

change in the utility power sector. The Senate report discussing 

the acid rain provisions of Title IV noted that some of the 

measures that would reduce coal-fired power plant emissions of 

the precursors to acid rain would also reduce those facilities’ 

emissions of carbon dioxide. The report stated: 

Energy efficiency is a crucial tool for controlling 

the emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas chiefly 

responsible for the intensification of the atmospheric 

‘greenhouse effect.’ In the last several years, the 

Committee has received extensive scientific testimony 

that increases in the human-caused emissions of carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases will lead to 

catastrophic shocks in the global climate system. 

Accordingly, new title IV shapes an acid rain 

reduction policy that encourages energy efficiency and 

 

205 Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, and John Fleck, 

“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, p. 1326 

(September 2008), available at 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. 

206 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” § 820, 104 Stat. at 2699. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 185 of 1546

other policies aimed at controlling greenhouse 

gases.207 

Similarly, Title IV provisions to encourage renewable energy 

were justified because “renewables not only significantly 

curtail sulfur dioxide emissions, but they emit little or no 

nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide”.208 

G. International Agreements and Actions 

In this final rule, the United States is taking action to 

limit GHGs from one of its largest emission sources. Climate 

change is a global problem, and the United States is not alone 

in taking action to address it. The United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)209 is the international 

treaty under which countries (called “Parties”) cooperatively 

consider what can be done to limit anthropogenic climate 

change210 and adapt to climate change impacts. Currently, there 

 

207 Sen. Chaffe, Sen. Debate on S. 1630 (Jan. 24, 1990), 1990 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 8662. 

208 Additional Views of Rep. Markey and Rep. Moorhead, H.R. Rep. 

No. 101-490, at 674 (May 17, 1990). 

209 http://unfccc.int/2860.php 210 Article 2, Objective, The ultimate objective of this 

Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference 

of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the 

relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of 

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that 

would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the 

climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time 

frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to 

climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened 

and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 186 of 1546

are 195 Parties to the UNFCCC, including the United States. The 

Conference of the Parties (COP) meets annually and is currently 

considering commitments countries can make to limit emissions 

after 2020. The 2015 COP will be in Paris and is expected to 

represent an historic step for climate change mitigation. The 

Parties to the UNFCC will meet to establish a climate agreement 

that applies to all countries and focuses on reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. Such an outcome would send a beneficial signal to 

the markets and civil society about global action to address 

climate change. 

Many countries have announced their intended post-2020 

commitments already, and other countries are expected to do so 

before December. In April 2015, the United States announced its 

commitment to reduce GHG emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 

2025.211

 As Parties to both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol212, the 

European Union (EU) and member countries have taken aggressive 

 

manner. 

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/backgrou

nd/application/pdf/convention_text_with_annexes_english_for_post

ing.pdf 

211 United States Cover Note to Intended Nationally Determined 

Contribution (INDC). Available online at:

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Un

ited%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%

20Accompanying%20Information.pdf

212 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 187 of 1546

action to reduce GHG emissions.213 EU initiatives to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions include the EU Emissions Trading 

System, legislation to increase the adoption of renewable energy 

sources, strengthened energy efficiency targets, vehicle 

emission standards, and support for the development of CCS 

technology for use by the power sector and other industrial 

sources. In 2009, the EU announced its “20-20-20 targets,” 

including a 20% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 

2020, an increase of 20% in the share of energy consumption 

produced by renewable resources, and a 20% improvement in energy 

efficiency. In March 2015, the EU announced its commitment to 

reduce domestic GHG emissions by at least 40% from 1990 levels 

by 2030.

 Recently, China has also agreed to take action to address 

climate change. In November 2014, in a joint announcement by 

President Obama and China’s President Xi, China pledged to 

curtail GHG emissions, with emissions peaking in 2030 and then 

declining thereafter, and to increase the share of energy from 

non-carbon sources (solar, wind, hydropower, nuclear) to 20 

percent by 2030. 

Mexico is committed to reduce unconditionally 25% of its 

emissions of greenhouse gases and short lived climate pollutants 

 

213 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 188 of 1546

(below business as usual) for the year 2030. This commitment 

implies a 22 percent reduction of GHG emissions and a 51 percent 

reduction of black carbon emissions. 

Brazil has reduced its net CO2 emissions more than any other 

country through a historic effort to slow forest loss. The 

deforestation rate in Brazil in 2014 was roughly 75% below the 

average for 1996 to 2005.214   

Together, countries that have already announced their 

intended post-2020 commitments, including the U.S., China, 

European Union, Mexico, Russian Federation and Brazil, make up a 

large majority of global emissions. 

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan contains a number of 

policies and programs that are intended to cut carbon pollution 

that causes climate change and affects public health. The Clean 

Power Plan is a key component of the plan, addressing the 

nation’s largest source of emissions in a comprehensive manner. 

Collectively, these policies will help spark business 

innovation, result in cleaner forms of energy, create jobs, and 

cut dependence on foreign oil. They also demonstrate to the rest 

of the world that the United States is contributing its share of 

 

214 http://www.nature.com/news/stopping-deforestation-battle-forthe-amazon-1.17223 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 189 of 1546

the global effort that is needed to address climate change.215 

This demonstration encourages other major economies to take on 

similar contributions, which is critical given the global impact 

of greenhouse gas emissions. The State Department Special Envoy 

for Climate Change Todd Stern, the lead U.S. climate change 

negotiator, noted the connection between domestic and 

international action to address climate change in his speech in 

New Haven, CT on October 14, 2014: 

“This mobilization of American effort matters. Enormously. It 

matters because the United States is the biggest economy and 

largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases. Because, here, 

as in so many areas, we feel a responsibility to lead. And 

because here, as in so many areas, we find that American 

commitment is indispensable to effective international action. 

And make no mistake – other countries see what we are doing 

and are taking note. As I travel the world and meet with my 

counterparts, the palpable engagement of President Obama and 

his team has put us in a stronger, more credible position than 

ever before.” 

This final rule demonstrates to other countries that the 

United States is taking action to limit GHG emissions from its 

largest emission sources, in line with our international 

commitments. The impact of GHGs is global, and U.S. action to 

 

215 President Obama stated, in announcing the Climate Action 

Plan: 

“The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong 

signal to the world that America intends to take bold 

action to reduce carbon pollution. We will continue to lead 

by the power of our example, because that’s what the United 

States of America has always done.” President Obama, 

Climate Action Plan speech, Georgetown University, 2013. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 190 of 1546

reduce GHG emissions complements and encourages ongoing programs 

and efforts in other countries.

H. Legislative and Regulatory Background for CAA Section 111 

In the final days of December 1970, Congress enacted 

sweeping changes to the Air Quality Act of 1967 to confront an 

“environmental crisis.”216 The Air Quality Act—which expanded 

federal air pollution control efforts after the enactment of the 

Clean Air Act of 1963—prioritized the adoption of ambient air 

standards but failed to target stationary sources of air 

pollution. As a result, “[c]ities up and down the east coast 

were living under clouds of smoke and daily air pollution 

alerts.”217 In fact, “[o]ver 200 million tons of contaminants ... 

spilled into the air” each year.218 The 1970 CAA Amendments were 

designed to face this crisis “with urgency and in candor.”219 

For the most part, Congress gave EPA and the states 

flexible tools to implement the CAA. This is best exhibited by 

the newly enacted programs regulating stationary sources. For 

 

216 Sen. Muskie, S. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 224. 

217 Sen. Muskie, S. Consideration of H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1783 

(Dec. 18, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 123. 

218 Sen. Muskie, S. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 224. These pollutants fell into five main 

classes of pollutants: carbon monoxide, particulates, sulfur 

oxides, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. See Sen. Boggs, id. 

at 244. 

219 Sen. Muskie, S. Consideration of H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1783 

(Dec. 18, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 123. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 191 of 1546

these sources, Congress crafted a three-legged regime upon which 

the regulation of stationary sources was intended to sit. 

The first prong—CAA sections 107-110—addressed what are 

commonly referred to as criteria pollutants, “the presence of 

which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile 

or stationary sources” and are determined to have “an adverse 

effect on public health or welfare”.220 Under these provisions, 

states would have the primary responsibility for assuring air 

quality within their entire geographic area but would submit 

plans to the Administrator for “implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement” of national ambient air quality standards. These 

plans would include “emission limitations, schedules, and 

timetables for compliance ... and such other measures as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and maintenance” of the national 

ambient air quality standards.221

The second prong—CAA section 111—addressed pollutants on a 

source category-wide basis. Under CAA section 111(b), the EPA 

lists source categories which “contribute significantly to air 

 

220 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” Pub. L. 91-604, § 4, 84 

Stat. 1676, 1678 (Dec. 31, 1970). The “adverse effect” criterion 

was later amended to refer to pollutants “which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”. See 42 

U.S.C. § 7408(a)(1)(A). Similar language is also used under the 

current CAA section 111. See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(A). 221 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1680. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 192 of 1546

pollution which causes or contributes to the endangerment of 

public health or welfare,” And then establishes “standards of 

performance” for the new sources in the listed category.222 For 

existing sources in a listed source category, CAA section 111(d) 

set out procedures for the establishment of federally 

enforceable “emission standards” of any pollutant not otherwise 

controlled under the CAA’s SIP provisions or CAA section 112. 

Lastly, the third prong—CAA section 112—addressed hazardous 

air pollutants through the establishment of national “emission 

standards” at a level which “provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect the public health”.223 All new or modified sources of 

any hazardous air pollutant would be required to meet these 

emission standards. Existing sources were required to meet the 

same standards or would be shut down unless they obtained a 

temporary EPA waiver or Presidential exemption.224

At its inception, CAA section 111 was intended to bear a 

significant weight under this three-legged regime. Indeed, by 

1977, the EPA had promulgated six times as many performance 

standards under CAA section 111 than emission standards under 

CAA section 112.225 That said, states, including Texas and New 

 

222 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1684. 223 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1685. 224 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1685. 225 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 194 (May 12, 1977). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 193 of 1546

Jersey, levied “substantial criticisms” against the EPA for not 

moving rapidly enough.226 Accordingly, the 1977 CAA Amendments 

were designed to “provide a greater role for the [s]tates in 

standards setting under the [CAA],” “protect [s]tates from 

‘environmental blackmail’ as they attempt to regulate mobile and 

competitive industries,” and lastly “provide a check on the 

Administrator’s inaction or failure to control emissions 

adequately.”227

At bottom, CAA section 111 rests on the definition of a 

standard of performance under CAA section 111(a)(1), which reads 

nearly the same now as it did when it was first adopted in the 

1970 CAA Amendments. In 1970, Congress defined standard of 

performance—a term which had not previously appeared in the CAA—

as 

a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction which 

(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) 

the Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.228

Despite significant changes to this definition in 1977, Congress 

reversed course in 1990 and largely reinstated the original 

 

226 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 194 (May 12, 1977). 227 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 195 (May 12, 1977). 228 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1683. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 194 of 1546

definition.229 As presently defined, the term applies to the 

regulation of new and existing sources under CAA sections 111(b) 

and (d).230 

The level of control reflected in the definition is 

generally referred to as the “best system of emission 

reduction,” or the BSER. The BSER, however, is not further 

defined, and only appeared after conference between the House 

and Senate in late 1970, and was neither discussed in the 

conference report nor openly debated in either chamber. 

Nevertheless, the originating bills from both houses shed light 

on its construction. 

The BSER grew out of proposed language in two bills, which, 

for the first time, targeted air pollution from stationary 

sources. The House bill sought to establish national emission 

standards to “prevent and control ... emissions [of nonhazardous pollutants] to the fullest extent compatible with the 

 

229 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” Pub. L. 101-549, § 403, 

104 Stat. 2399, 2631 (Nov. 15, 1990) (retaining only the 

obligation to account for “any nonair quality health and 

environmental impact and energy requirements” that was added in 

1977). 

230 As CAA section 111(d) was originally adopted, state plans 

would have established “emission standards” instead of 

“standards of performance.” This distinction was later abandoned 

in 1977 and the same term is used in both CAA sections 111(b) 

and (d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 195 of 1546

available technology and economic feasibility”.231 The House also 

proposed to prohibit the construction or operation of new 

sources of “extremely hazardous” pollutants.232 The Senate bill, 

on the other hand, authorized “Federal standards of 

performance,” which would “reflect the greatest degree of 

emission control which the Secretary [later, the Administrator] 

determines to be achievable through application of the latest 

available control technology, processes, operating methods, or 

other alternatives.”233 The Senate also would have authorized 

“national emission standards” for hazardous air pollution and 

other “selected air pollution agents.”234

After conference, CAA section 111 emerged as one of the 

CAA’s three programs for regulating stationary sources. In 

defining the newly formed “standards of performance,” Congress 

appeared to merge the various “means of preventing and 

controlling air pollution” under the Senate bill with the 

 

231 H.R. 17255, 91st Cong. § 5 (1970). 232 H.R. 17255, 91st Cong. § 5 (1970). 233 S. 4358, 91st Cong. § 6 (1970) (emphasis added). The breadth 

of the Senate bill is further emphasized in the conference 

report, which explains that a standard of performance “refers to 

the degree of emission control which can be achieved through 

process changes, operation changes, direct emission control, or 

other methods” and also includes “other means of preventing or 

controlling air pollution.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15-16 (Sept. 

17, 1970). 

234 S. 4358, 91st Cong. § 6 (1970). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 196 of 1546

consideration of costs that was central to the House bill into 

the BSER. At the time, however, this definition only applied to 

new sources under CAA section 111(b). 

To regulate existing sources, Congress collapsed section 

114 of the Senate bill into CAA section 111(d).235 Section 114 of 

the Senate bill established emission standards for “selected air 

pollution agents,” and was intended to bridge the gap between 

criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. As proposed, 

the Senate identified fourteen substances for regulation under 

section 114 and only four substances for regulation under Senate 

bill 4358, section 115, the predecessor of CAA section 112.236 

As adopted, CAA section 111(d) requires states to submit 

plans to the Administrator establishing “emission standards” for 

certain existing sources of air pollutants that were not 

otherwise regulated as criteria pollutants or hazardous air 

pollutants. This ensured that there would be “no gaps in control 

activities pertaining to stationary source emissions that pose 

any significant danger to public health or welfare.”237 

 

235 The House bill did not provide for the direct regulation of 

existing sources. 

236 See S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 18 and 20 (Sept. 17, 1970). 237 S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970) (discussing the 

relationship between sections 114 (addressing emission standards 

for “selected air pollution agents”) and 115 (addressing 

hazardous air pollutants) of the Senate bill). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 197 of 1546

The term “emission standards,” however, was not expressly 

defined in the 1970 CAA Amendments (save for purposes of citizen 

suit enforcement) even though the term was also used under the 

CAA’s SIP provisions and CAA section 112.238 That said, under the 

newly enacted “ambient air quality and emission standards” 

sections, Congress directed the EPA to provide states with 

information “on air pollution control techniques,” including 

data on “available technology and alternative methods of 

prevention and control of air pollution” and on “alternative 

fuels, processes, and operating methods which will result in 

elimination or significant reduction of emissions.”239 Similarly, 

the Administrator would “issue information on pollution control 

techniques for air pollutants” in conjunction with establishing 

emission standards under CAA section 112. However, analogous 

text is absent from CAA section 111(d). 

After the enactment of the 1970 CAA Amendments, the EPA 

proposed standards of performance for an “initial list of five 

stationary source categories which contribute significantly to 

air pollution” in August 1971.240 The first category listed was 

 

238 See “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 12, 84 Stat. at 

1706. 

239 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 1679. 240 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: 

Proposed Standards for Five Categories,” 36 F.R. 15704 (Aug. 17, 

1971). See “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,” § 4, 84 Stat. at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 198 of 1546

for fossil-fuel fired steam generators, for which EPA proposed 

and finalized standards for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

and nitrogen oxides.241 

Several years later, the EPA proposed its implementing 

regulations for CAA section 111(d).242 These regulations were 

finalized in November 1975, and provided for the publication of 

emission guidelines.243 The first emissions guidelines were 

proposed in May 1976 and finalized in March 1977.244

Despite these first steps taken under CAA sections 111(b) 

and (d), Congress revisited the CAA in 1977 to address growing 

concerns with the nation’s response to the 1973 oil embargo 

(noted above), to respond to new environmental problems such as 

stratospheric ozone depletion, and to resolve other issues 

associated with implementing the 1970 CAA Amendments.245 Most 

 

1684 (requiring the Administrator to publish a list of 

categories of stationary sources within 90 days of the enactment 

of the 1970 CAA Amendments). 

241 36 F.R. at 15704-706; and “Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,” 36 F.R. 24876, 24879 (Dec. 23, 1971). 

242 See “State Plans for the Control of Existing Facilities,” 39 

F.R. 36102 (Oct. 7, 1974). 

243 See “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants from 

Existing Facilities,” 40 F.R. 53340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

244 See “Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Draft Guideline Document; 

Availability,” 41 F.R. 19585(May 12, 1976); and “Phosphate 

Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document Availability,” 42 

F.R. 12022 (Mar. 1, 1977) 

245 For example, Congress recognized that many air pollutants had 

not been regulated despite “mounting evidence” that these 

pollutants “are associated with serious health hazards”. H.R. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 199 of 1546

notably, an increase in coal use as a result of the oil crisis 

meant that “vigorous and effective control” of air emissions was 

“even more urgent.”246 Thus, to curb the projected surge in air 

emissions, Congress enacted several new provisions to the CAA. 

These new provisions include the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program, visibility protections, and 

requirements for nonattainment areas.247 

Congress also made significant changes to CAA section 111. 

For example, Congress amended the definition of a standard of 

performance (including by requiring the consideration of “nonair 

quality health and environmental impact and energy 

 

Rep. No. 94-1175, 22 (May, 15, 1976). Because EPA “failed to 

promulgate regulations to institute adequate control measures,” 

Congress ordered EPA to regulate four specific pollutants that 

had “been found to be cancer-causing or cancer-promoting”. Id.

at 23. This directive, reflected in CAA section 122, 

specifically added radioactive pollutants, cadmium, arsenic, and 

polycyclic organic matter “under the various provisions of the 

Clean Air Act and allows their regulation as criteria pollutants 

under ambient air quality standards, as hazardous air 

pollutants, or under new source performance standards, as 

appropriate.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-564, 142 (Aug. 3, 1977), 

1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 522. At the same time, Congress made 

sure that these commands would have no effect on the 

Administrator’s discretion to address “any substance (whether or 

not enumerated [under CAA section 122(a))” under CAA sections 

108, 112, or 111. 42 U.S.C. § 7422(b). 

246 See Statement of EPA Administrator Costle, S. Hearings on S. 

272, S. 273, S. 977, and S. 1469 (Apr. 5, 7, May 25, June 24 and 

30, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 3532. 

247 See “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,” Pub. L. 95-95, §§ 

127-129, 91 Stat. 685 (Aug. 7, 1977). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 200 of 1546

requirements”), authorized alternative (e.g., work practice or 

design) standards in limited circumstances, provided states with 

authority to petition the Administrator for new or revised (and 

more stringent) standards, and imposed a strict regulatory 

schedule for establishing standards of performance for 

categories of major stationary sources that had not yet been 

listed.248

The 1977 definition for a standard of performance required 

“all new sources to meet emission standards based on the 

reductions achievable through the use of the ‘best technological 

system of continuous emission reduction.’”249 For fossil-fuel 

fired stationary sources, Congress further required a percentage 

reduction in emissions from the use of fuels.250 Together, this 

was designed to “force new sources to burn high-sulfur fuel thus 

freeing low-sulfur fuel for use in existing sources where it is 

 

248 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,” § 109, 91 Stat. at 697. 249 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 192 (May 12, 1977). Congress 

separately defined “technological system of continuous emission 

reduction” as “(A) a technological process for production or 

operation by any source which is inherently low-polluting or 

nonpolluting, or (B) technological system for continuous 

reduction of the pollution generated by a source before such 

pollution is emitted into the ambient air, including 

precombustion cleaning or treatment of fuels.” “Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977,” § 109, 91 Stat. at 700; see also 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7411(a)(7). 

250 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,” § 109, 91 Stat. at 700. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 201 of 1546

harder to control emissions and where low-sulfur fuel is needed 

for compliance.”251

Congress also clarified that with respect to CAA section 

111(d), standards of performance (now applicable in lieu of 

emission standards) “would be based on the best available means 

(not necessarily technological)”.252 This was intended to 

distinguish existing source standards from new source standards, 

for which “the requirement for [the BSER] has been more narrowly 

redefined as best technological system of continuous emission 

reduction.”253 Additionally, Congress clarified that states could 

consider “the remaining useful life” of a source when applying a 

standard of performance to a particular existing source.254 

In the twenty years since the 1970 CAA Amendments and in 

spite of the refinements of the 1977 CAA Amendments, “many of 

the Nation’s most important air pollution problems [had] failed 

to improve or [had] grown more serious.”255 Indeed, in 1988, 

President George Bush said that “‘progress has not come quickly 

 

251 “New Stationary Sources Performance Standards; Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units,” 44 F.R. 33580, 33581-82 (June 

11, 1979). 

252 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 195 (May 12, 1977). 253 Sen. Muskie, S. Consideration of the H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-

564 (Aug. 4, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 353. 

254 This concept was already reflected in the EPA’s CAA section 

111(d) implementing regulations under 40 C.F.R. § 60.24(f). See 

40 F.R. 53340, 53347 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

255 H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, at 144 (May 17, 1990). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 202 of 1546

enough and much remains to be done.’”256 This time, with the 1990 

CAA Amendments, Congress substantially overhauled the CAA. In 

particular, Congress again added to the NAAQS program, 

completely revised CAA section 112, added a new title to target 

existing fossil fuel-fired stationary sources and address 

growing concerns with acid rain, imported an operating permit 

modeled off the Clean Water Act, and established a phase out of 

certain ozone depleting substances. 

All told, however, there was minimal debate on changes to 

CAA section 111. In fact, the only discussion centered on the 

repeal of the percentage reduction requirement, which became 

seen as unduly restrictive. Accordingly, Congress reverted the 

definition of “standard of performance” to the definition agreed 

to in the 1970 CAA Amendments, but retained the requirement to 

consider nonair quality environmental impacts and energy 

requirements added in 1977.257 However, the repeal would only 

apply so long as the SO2 cap under CAA section 403(e) of the 

newly established acid rain program remained in effect.258

Lastly, Congress instructed the EPA to revise its new source 

 

256 H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, at 144 (May 17, 1990). 257 Congress also updated the regulatory schedule that was added 

in the 1977 CAA Amendments to reflect the newly enacted 1990 CAA 

Amendments. See “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” § 108, 104 

Stat. 2467. 

258 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” § 403, 104 Stat. at 2631. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 203 of 1546

performance standards for SO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

power plants but required that the revised emission rate be no 

less stringent than before.259

I. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

Clean Air Act section 111, which Congress enacted as part 

of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, establishes mechanisms for 

controlling emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. 

This provision requires the EPA to promulgate a list of 

categories of stationary sources that the Administrator, in his 

or her judgment, finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, 

air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.”260 The EPA has listed more than 60 

stationary source categories under this provision.261 Once the 

EPA lists a source category, the EPA must, under CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B), establish “standards of performance” for emissions 

of air pollutants from new sources in the source categories.262

These standards are known as new source performance standards 

(NSPS), and they are national requirements that apply directly 

to the sources subject to them. 

 

259 “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” § 301, 104 Stat. at 2631. 260 CAA §111(b)(1)(A). 261 See 40 CFR 60 subparts Cb – OOOO. 262 CAA §111(b)(1)(B), 111(a)(1). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 204 of 1546

When the EPA establishes NSPS for new sources in a 

particular source category, the EPA is also required, under CAA 

section 111(d)(1), to prescribe regulations for states to submit 

plans regulating existing sources in that source category for 

any air pollutant that, in general, is not regulated under the 

CAA section 109 requirements for the NAAQS or regulated under 

the CAA section 112 requirements for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP). CAA section 111(d)’s mechanism for regulating existing 

sources differs from the one that CAA section 111(b) provides 

for new sources because CAA section 111(d) contemplates states 

submitting plans that establish “standards of performance” for 

the affected sources and that contain other measures to 

implement and enforce those standards. 

“Standards of performance” are defined under CAA section 

111(a)(1) as standards for emissions that reflect the emission 

limitation achievable from the “best system of emission 

reduction,” considering costs and other factors, that 

“the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” 

CAA section 111(d)(1) grants states the authority, in applying a 

standard of performance to a particular source, to take into 

account the source’s remaining useful life or other factors. 

Under CAA section 111(d), a state must submit its plan to the 

EPA for approval, and the EPA must approve the state plan if it 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 205 of 1546

is “satisfactory.”263 If a state does not submit a plan, or if 

the EPA does not approve a state’s plan, then the EPA must 

establish a plan for that state.264 Once a state receives the 

EPA’s approval of its plan, the provisions in the plan become 

federally enforceable against the entity responsible for 

noncompliance, in the same manner as the provisions of an 

approved SIP under the Act. 

Section 302(d) of the CAA defines the term “state” to 

include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. While 40 CFR part 60 contains a separate 

definition of “state” at § 60.2, this definition expands on, 

rather than narrows, the definition in section 302(d) of the 

CAA. The introductory language to 40 CFR 60.2 provides: “The 

terms in this part are defined in the Act or in this section as 

follows.” Section 60.2 defines “State” as “all non-Federal 

authorities, including local agencies, interstate associations, 

and State-wide programs that have been delegated authority to 

implement: (1) the provisions of this part and/or (2) the permit 

program established under part 70 of this chapter. The term 

State shall have its conventional meaning where clear from the 

 

263 CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). 264 CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 206 of 1546

context.” The EPA believes that the last sentence refers to the 

conventional meaning of “state” under the CAA. Thus, the EPA 

believes the term “state” as used in the emission guidelines is 

most reasonably interpreted as including the meaning ascribed to 

that term in section 302(d) of the CAA, which expressly includes 

U.S. territories. 

Section 301(d)(A) of the CAA recognizes that the American 

Indian tribes are sovereign Nations and authorizes the EPA to 

“treat tribes as States under this Act”. The Tribal Authority 

Rule (63 Federal Register 7254, February 12, 1998) identifies 

that EPA will treat tribes in a manner similar to states for all 

of the CAA provisions with the exception of, among other things, 

specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines under the 

CAA. As a result, though they operate as part of the 

interconnected system of electricity production and 

distribution, affected EGUs located in Indian country would not 

be encompassed within a state’s CAA section 111(d) plan. 

Instead, an Indian tribe with one or more affected EGUs located 

in its area of Indian country265 will have the opportunity, but 

 

265 The EPA is aware of at least four affected sources located in 

Indian Country: two on Navajo lands – the Navajo Generating 

Station and the Four Corners Generating Station; one on Ute 

lands – the Bonanza Generating Station; and one on Fort Mojave 

lands, the South Point Energy Center. The affected EGUs at the 

first three plants are coal-fired EGUs. The fourth affected EGU 

is an NGCC facility.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 207 of 1546

not the obligation, to apply for eligibility to develop and 

implement a CAA section 111(d) plan. The Indian tribe would need 

to be approved by the EPA as eligible to develop and implement a 

CAA section 111(d) plan following the procedure set forth in 40 

CFR part 49. Once a tribe is approved as eligible for that 

purpose, it would be treated in the same manner as a state, and 

references in the emission guidelines to states would refer 

equally to the tribe. The EPA notes that, while tribes have the 

opportunity to apply for eligibility to administer CAA programs, 

they are not required to do so. Further, the EPA has established 

procedures in 40 CFR part 49 (see particularly 40 CFR 49.7(c)) 

that permit eligible tribes to request approval of reasonably 

severable partial program elements. Those procedures are 

applicable here. 

In these final emission guidelines, the term “state” 

encompasses the 50 states and the District of Columbia, U.S. 

territories, and any Indian tribe that has been approved by the 

EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9 as to develop and implement a CAA 

section 111(d) plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 208 of 1546

The EPA issued regulations implementing CAA section 111(d) 

in 1975,266 and has revised them in the years since.267 (We refer 

to the regulations generally as the implementing regulations.) 

These regulations provide that, in promulgating requirements for 

sources under CAA section 111(d), the EPA first develops 

regulations known as “emission guidelines,” which establish 

binding requirements that states must address when they develop 

their plans.268 The implementing regulations also establish 

timetables for state and EPA action: states must submit state 

plans within 9 months of the EPA’s issuance of the guidelines,269

and the EPA must take final action on the state plans within 4 

months of the due date for those plans,270 although the EPA has 

authority to extend those deadlines.271 In this rulemaking, the 

EPA is following the requirements of the implementing 

 

266 “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants from 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53,340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

267 The most recent amendment was in 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 

2012). 

268 40 CFR 60.22. In the 1975 rulemaking, the EPA explained that 

it used the term “emissions guidelines” – instead of emissions 

limitations – to make clear that guidelines would not be binding 

requirements applicable to the sources, but instead are 

“criteria for judging the adequacy of State plans.” 40 Fed. Reg. 

at 53,343. 

269 40 CFR 60.23(a)(1). 270 40 CFR 60.27(b). 271 See 40 CFR 60.27(a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 209 of 1546

regulations, and is not re-opening them, except that the EPA is 

extending the timetables, as described below. 

Over the last forty years, under CAA section 111(d), the 

agency has regulated four pollutants from five source categories 

(i.e., sulfuric acid plants (acid mist), phosphate fertilizer 

plants (fluorides), primary aluminum plants (fluorides), Kraft 

pulp plants (total reduced sulfur), and municipal solid waste 

landfills (landfill gases)).272 In addition, the agency has 

regulated additional pollutants under CAA section 111(d) in 

conjunction with CAA section 129.273 The agency has not 

previously regulated CO2 or any other greenhouse gas under CAA 

section 111(d). 

The EPA’s previous CAA section 111(d) actions were 

necessarily geared toward the pollutants and industries 

regulated. Similarly, in this rulemaking, in defining CAA 

 

272 See “Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document 

Availability,” 42 Fed. Reg. 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977); “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for 

Sulfuric Acid Mist,” 42 Fed. Reg. 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977); “Kraft 

Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 

44 Fed. Reg. 29,828 (May 22, 1979); “Primary Aluminum Plants; 

Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 45 Fed. Reg. 26,294 

(Apr. 17, 1980); “Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Rule,” 61 Fed. Reg. 9905 

(Mar. 12, 1996). 

273 See, e.g., “Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units, Final Rule,” 76 Fed. Reg. 15,372 

(Mar. 21, 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 210 of 1546

section 111(d) emission guidelines for the states and 

determining the BSER, the EPA believes that taking into account 

the particular characteristics of carbon pollution, the 

interconnected nature of the power sector and the manner in 

which EGUs are currently operated is warranted. Specifically, 

the operators themselves treat increments of generation as 

interchangeable between and among sources in a way that creates 

options for relying on varying utilization levels, lowering 

carbon generation, and reducing demand as components of the 

overall method for reducing CO2 emissions. Doing so results in a 

broader, forward-thinking approach to the design of programs to 

yield critical CO2 reductions that improve the overall power 

system by lowering the carbon intensity of power generation, 

while offering continued reliability and cost-effectiveness. 

These opportunities exist in the utility power sector in ways 

that were not relevant or available for other industries for 

which the EPA has established CAA section 111(d) emission 

guidelines.274

 

274 See “Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document 

Availability,” 42 Fed. Reg. 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977); “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for 

Sulfuric Acid Mist,” 42 Fed. Reg. 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977); “Kraft 

Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 

44 Fed. Reg. 29,828 (May 22, 1979); “Primary Aluminum Plants; 

Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 45 Fed. Reg. 26,294 

(Apr. 17, 1980); “Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 211 of 1546

In this action, the EPA is promulgating emission guidelines 

for states to follow in developing their CAA section 111(d) 

plans to reduce emissions of CO2 from the utility power sector. 

J. Clean Power Plan Proposal and Supplemental Proposal 

On June 18, 2014, the EPA proposed emission guidelines for 

states to follow in developing plans to address greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric 

generating units (EGUs). Specifically, the EPA proposed ratebased goals for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for each state 

with existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, as well as guidelines for 

plans to achieve those goals. On November 4, 2014, the EPA 

published a supplemental proposal that proposed emission ratebased goals for CO2 emissions for U.S. territories and areas of 

Indian country with existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. In the 

supplemental proposal, the EPA also solicited comment on 

authorizing jurisdictions (including any states, territories and 

areas of Indian country) without existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

subject to the proposed emission guidelines to partner with 

jurisdictions (including any states) that do have existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs subject to the proposed emission 

guidelines in developing multi-jurisdictional plans. The EPA 

 

Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Rule,” 61 Fed. Reg. 9905 

(Mar. 12, 1996). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 212 of 1546

also solicited comment on the treatment of renewable energy, 

demand-side energy efficiency and other new low- or non-emitting 

electricity generation across international boundaries in a 

state plan. 

The EPA also issued two notices after the June 18, 2014 

proposal. On October 30, 2014, the EPA published a notice of 

data availability (NODA) in which the agency provided additional 

information on several topics raised by stakeholders and 

solicited comment on the information presented. The notice 

covered three topic areas: 1) the emission reduction compliance 

trajectories created by the interim goal for 2020 to 2029, 2) 

certain aspects of the building block methodology, and 3) the 

way state-specific CO2 goals are calculated. 

In a separate action, the EPA published a notice regarding 

potential methods for determining the mass that is equivalent to 

an emission rate-based CO2 goal (79 FR 67406; November 13, 2014). 

With the notice, the EPA also made available, in the docket for 

this rulemaking, a technical support document (TSD) that 

provided two examples of how a state, U.S. territory or tribe 

could translate a rate-based CO2 goal to total metric tons of CO2

(a mass-based equivalent). 

K. Stakeholder Outreach and Consultations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 213 of 1546

Following the direction in the Presidential Memorandum to 

the Administrator (June 25, 2013),275 the EPA engaged in 

extensive and vigorous outreach to stakeholders and the general 

public at every stage of development of this rule. Our outreach 

has included direct engagement with the energy and environment 

officials in states, tribes, and a full range of stakeholders 

including leaders in the utility power sector, labor leaders, 

non-governmental organizations, other federal agencies, other 

experts, community groups and members of the public. The EPA 

participated in more than 300 meetings before the rule was 

proposed and more than 300 after the proposal. 

Throughout the rulemaking process, the agency has 

encouraged, organized, and participated in hundreds of meetings 

about CAA section 111(d) and reducing carbon pollution from 

existing power plants. The agency’s outreach prior to proposal, 

as well as during the public comment period, was designed to 

solicit policy ideas,276 concerns, and technical information. The 

 

275 Presidential Memorandum – Power Sector Carbon Pollution 

Standards, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbonpollution-standards. 

276 The EPA received more than 2,000 emails offering input into 

the development of these guidelines through email and a webbased form. These emails and other materials provided to the EPA 

are posted on line as part of a non-regulatory docket, EPA 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0020, at www.regulations.gov. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 214 of 1546

agency received 4.3 million comments about all aspects of the 

proposed rule and thousands of people participated in the 

agency’s public hearings, webinars, listening sessions,277

teleconferences and meetings held all across the country. 

Our engagement has brought together a variety of states and 

stakeholders to discuss a wide range of issues related to the 

utility power sector and the development of emission guidelines 

under CAA section 111(d). The meetings were attended by the EPA 

Regional Administrators, other senior managers and staff who 

have been instrumental in the development of the rule and will 

play key roles in developing and implementing it. 

This outreach process has produced a wealth of information 

which has informed this rule significantly. The pre-proposal 

outreach efforts far exceeded what is required of the agency in 

the normal course of a rulemaking process, and the EPA expects 

that the dialogue with states and stakeholders will continue 

after the rule is finalized. The EPA recognizes the importance 

of working with all stakeholders, and in particular with the 

states, to ensure a clear and common understanding of the role 

the states will play in addressing carbon pollution from power 

plants. We firmly believe that our outreach has resulted in a 

 

277 Summaries of the 11 public listening sessions in 2013 are 

available at www.regulations.gov at EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2014-0020. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 215 of 1546

more workable rule that will achieve the statutory goals and has 

enhanced the likelihood of timely and successful achievement of 

the carbon reduction goals, given the critical importance and 

urgency of the concrete action. 

The EPA has given stakeholder comments careful 

consideration and, as a result, this final rule includes 

features that are responsive to many stakeholder concerns. 

1. Public hearings 

More than 2,700 people attended the public hearings 

sessions held in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh, and Washington, 

DC. More than 1,300 people spoke at the public hearings. 

Additionally, about 100 people attended the public hearing held 

in Phoenix, Arizona, on the November 4, 2014 supplemental 

proposal. Speakers at the public hearings included Members of 

Congress, other public officials, industry representatives, 

faith-based organizations, unions, environmental groups, 

community groups, students, public health groups, energy groups, 

academia and concerned citizens. 

Participants shared a range of perspectives. Many were 

concerned with the impacts of climate change on their health and 

on future generations, others were worried about the impact of 

regulations on the economy. Their support for the agency’s 

efforts varied. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 216 of 1546

2. State officials 

Since fall 2013, the agency has provided multiple 

opportunities for the states to inform this rulemaking. 

Administrator McCarthy has engaged with governors from states 

with a variety of interests in the rulemaking. Other senior 

agency officials have engaged with every branch and major agency 

of state government - including state legislators, attorneys 

general, state energy, environment, and utility officials, and 

governors' staff. 

On several occasions, state environmental commissioners met 

with senior agency officials to provide comments on the Clean 

Power Plan. The EPA organized, encouraged and attended meetings 

with states to discuss multi-state planning efforts. States have 

come together with several collaborative groups to discuss ways 

to work together to make the Clean Power Plan more affordable. 

The EPA has participated in and supported the states in these 

discussions. Because of the interconnectedness of the power 

sector, and the fact that electricity generated at power plants 

crosses state lines; states, utilities and ratepayers may 

benefit from states working together to implement the 

requirements of this rulemaking. The meetings provided state 

leaders, including governors, environmental commissioners, 

energy officers, public utility commissioners, and air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 217 of 1546

directors, opportunities to engage with the EPA officials. In 

addition, the states submitted public comments from several 

agencies within each state. The wealth of comments and input 

from states was important in developing the final rulemaking. 

Agency officials listened to ideas, concerns and details 

from states, including from states with a wide range of 

experience in reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The 

EPA reached out to all 50 states to engage with both 

environmental and energy departments at all levels of 

government. As an example, a three-part webinar series in 

June/July 2014 for the states and tribes offered an interactive 

format for technical staff at the EPA and in the states/tribes 

to exchange ideas and ask clarifying question. The webinars were 

then posted online so other stakeholders could view them. A few 

weeks after the postings, the EPA organized follow-up conference 

calls with stakeholder groups. Also, the EPA hosted scores of 

technical meetings between states and the EPA in the weeks and 

months after the rule was proposed. 

Additionally, the EPA organized “hub” calls; these 

teleconferences brought all of the states in a given EPA region 

together to discuss technical and interstate aspects of the 

proposal. These exchanges helped provide the stakeholders with 

the information they needed to comment on the proposal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 218 of 1546

effectively. The EPA also held a series of webinars with state 

environmental associations and their members on a series of 

technical issues. 

The agency has collected policy papers and comment letters 

from states with overarching energy goals and technical details 

on the states’ utility power sector. EPA leadership and staff 

also participated in webinars and meetings with state and tribal 

officials hosted by collaborative groups and trade associations. 

After the comment period closed, and based on our meetings over 

the last year, as well as written comments on the proposal and 

NODA, the EPA analyzed information about data errors that needed 

to be addressed for the final rule. In February and March 2015, 

we reached out to particular states to clarify ambiguous or 

unclear information that was submitted to the EPA related to 

NEEDS and eGRID data. The EPA contacted particular states to 

clarify the technical comments or concerns to ensure that any 

changes we make are accurate and appropriate. 

To help prepare for implementation of this rule, the agency 

initiated several outreach activities to assist with state 

planning efforts. The agency participated in meetings organized 

by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), 

the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

(NARUC), and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 219 of 1546

(NACAA) (the “3N” groups). Meeting participants discussed issues 

related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. 

To help state officials prepare for the planning process 

that will take place in the states, the EPA presented a webinar 

on February 24, 2015. This webinar provided an update on 

training plans and further connection with states in the 

implementation process. Forty-nine states, the District of 

Columbia, and 14 tribes were represented at this webinar. The 

EPA is developing a state plan electronic collection system to 

receive, track, and store state submittals of plans and reports. 

The EPA plans to use an integrated project team to solicit 

stakeholder input on the system during development. The team 

membership, including state representatives, will bring together 

the business and technology skills required to construct a 

successful product and promote transparency in the EPA’s 

implementation of the rule. 

To help identify training needs for the final Clean Power 

Plan, the agency reached out to a number of state and local 

organizations such as the Central State Air Resources Agencies 

and other such regional air agencies. The EPA’s outreach on 

training has included sharing the plans with the states and 

incorporating changes to the training topics based on the 

states’ needs. The EPA training plan includes a wide variety of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 220 of 1546

topics such as basic training on the electric power sector as 

well as specific pollution control strategies to reduce carbon 

emissions from power plants. In particular, the states requested 

training on how to use programs such as combined heat and power, 

energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce carbon 

emissions. The EPA will continue to work with states to tailor 

training activities to their needs. 

The agency has engaged, and will continue to engage with 

states, territories, Washington, D.C., and tribes after the 

rulemaking process and throughout implementation. 

3. Tribal officials 

 The EPA conducted significant outreach to and consultation 

with tribes. Tribes are not required to, but may, develop or 

adopt Clean Air Act programs. The EPA is aware of four 

facilities with affected EGUs located in Indian country: the 

South Point Energy Center, in Fort Mojave Indian country, 

geographically located within Arizona; the Navajo Generating 

Station, in Navajo Indian country, geographically located within 

Arizona; the Four Corners Power Plant, in Navajo Indian country, 

geographically located within New Mexico; and the Bonanza Power 

Plant, in Ute Indian country, geographically located within 

Utah. The EPA offered consultation to the leaders of the tribes 

on whose lands these facilities are located as well as all of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 221 of 1546

the federally recognized tribes to ensure that they had the 

opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into this rule. 

Section III (“Stakeholder Outreach and Conclusions”) of the June 

18, 2014 proposal documents the EPA’s extensive outreach efforts 

to tribal officials prior to that proposal, including an 

informational webinar, outreach meeting, teleconferences with 

tribal officials and the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA), 

and letters offering consultation. Additional outreach to tribal 

officials conducted by the EPA prior to the November 4, 2014 

supplemental proposal is discussed in Section II.D (“Additional 

Outreach and Consultation”) of the supplemental proposal. The 

additional outreach for the supplemental proposal included 

consultations with all three tribes that have affected EGUs on 

their lands, as well as several other tribes that requested 

consultation, and also additional teleconferences with the NTAA. 

After issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA offered an 

additional consultation to the leaders of all federally 

recognized tribes. The EPA held an informational meeting open to 

all tribes and also held consultations with the Navajo Nation, 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Ak-Chin Indian 

Community, and Hope Tribe on November 18, 2014. The EPA held a 

consultation with the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation on December 16, 2014, and a consultation with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 222 of 1546

Gila River Indian Community on January 15, 2015. The EPA held a 

public hearing on the supplemental proposal on November 19, 

2014, in Phoenix, Arizona. On April 28, 2015, the EPA held an 

additional consultation with the Navajo Nation. 

 Tribes were interested in the impact of this rule on other 

ongoing regulatory actions at the affected EGUs, such as 

permitting or requirements for the best available retrofit 

technology (BART). Tribes also noted that it was important to 

allow renewable energy projects on tribal lands to contribute 

toward meeting state goals. Some tribes indicated an interest in 

being involved in the development of implementation plans for 

areas of Indian country. Additional detail regarding the EPA’s 

outreach to tribes and comments and recommendations from tribes 

can be found in Section X.F of this preamble. 

4. U.S. territories 

The EPA has met with individual U.S. territories and 

affected EGUs in U.S. territories during the rulemaking process. 

On July 22, 2014, the EPA met with representatives from the 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, the Puerto Rico 

Electric Power Authority, the Governor’s Office, and the Office 

of Energy, Puerto Rico. On September 8, 2014, the EPA held a 

meeting with representatives from the Guam Environmental 

Protection Agency (GEPA) and the Guam Power Authority and, on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 223 of 1546

February 18, 2015, the EPA met again with representatives from 

GEPA. 

5. Industry representatives 

Agency officials have engaged with industry leaders and 

representatives from trade associations in many one-on-one and 

national meetings. Many meetings occurred at the EPA 

headquarters and in the EPA’s Regional Offices and some were 

sponsored by stakeholder groups. Because the focus of the rule 

is on the utility power sector, many of the meetings with 

industry have been with utilities and industry representatives 

directly related to the utility power sector. The agency has 

also met with energy industries such as coal and natural gas 

interests, as well as companies that offer new technology to 

prevent or reduce carbon pollution, including companies that 

have expertise in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Other 

meetings have been held with representatives of energy intensive 

industries, such as the iron and steel and aluminum industries, 

to help understand the issues related to large industrial users 

of electricity. 

6. Electric utility representatives 

Agency officials participated in many meetings with 

utilities and their associations to discuss all aspects of the 

proposed guidelines. We have met with all types of companies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 224 of 1546

that produce electricity, including private utilities or 

investor owned utilities. Public utilities and cooperative 

utilities were also part of in-depth conversations about CAA 

section 111(d) with EPA officials. 

The conversations included meetings with the EPA 

headquarters and regional offices. State officials were included 

in many of the meetings. Meetings with utility associations and 

groups of utilities were held with key EPA officials. The 

meetings covered technical, policy and legal topics of interest 

and utilities expressed a wide variety of support and concerns 

about CAA section 111(d). 

7. Electricity grid operators 

The EPA had a number of conversations with the Independent 

System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations (ISOs 

and RTOs) to discuss the rule and issues related to grid 

operations and reliability. EPA staff met with the ISO/RTO 

Council on several occasions to collect their ideas. The EPA 

regional offices also met with the ISOs and RTOs in their 

regions. System operators have offered suggestions in using 

regional approaches to implement CAA section 111(d) while 

maintaining reliable, affordable electricity. 

8. Representatives from community and non-governmental 

organizations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 225 of 1546

Agency officials engaged with community groups representing 

low-income communities, and faith-based groups, among others, 

during the outreach effort. In response to a request from 

communities, the EPA held a day-long training on the Clean Power 

Plan on October 30, 2014, in Washington D.C. At this meeting, 

the EPA met with a number of environmental groups to provide 

information on how the agency plans on reducing carbon pollution 

from existing power plants using CAA section 111(d). 

Many environmental organizations discussed the need for 

reducing carbon pollution. Meetings were technical, policy and 

legal in nature and many groups discussed specific state 

policies that are already in place to reduce carbon pollution in 

the states. 

 A number of organizations representing religious groups 

have reached out to the EPA on several occasions to discuss 

their concerns and ideas regarding this rule. Many members of 

faith communities attended the four public hearings. 

 Public health groups discussed the need for protection of 

children’s health from harmful air pollution. Doctors and health 

care providers discussed the link between reducing carbon 

pollution and air pollution and public health. Consumer groups 

representing advocates for low income electricity customers 

discussed the need for affordable electricity. They talked about 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 226 of 1546

reducing electricity prices for consumers through energy 

efficiency and low-cost carbon reductions. 

 In winter/spring 2015, EPA continued to offer webinars and 

teleconferences for community groups on the rulemaking. 

9. Environmental Justice Organizations 

Agency officials engaged with environmental justice groups 

representing communities of color, low-income communities and 

others during the outreach effort. Agency officials also engaged 

with the EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 

(NEJAC) members in September 2013. The NEJAC is composed of 

stakeholders, including environmental justice leaders and other 

leaders from state and local government and the private sector. 

Additionally, the agency conducted a community call on February 

26, 2015, and on February 27, 2015, the EPA conducted a follow 

up webinar for participants in an October 30, 2014 training 

session. The EPA also held a webinar for communities on the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 111(d) of the CAA on April 2, 

2015. 

During the EPA’s extensive outreach conducted before and 

after proposal, the EPA has heard a variety of issues raised by 

environmental justice communities. Communities expressed the 

desire for the agency to conduct an environmental justice (EJ) 

analysis and to require that states in the development of their 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 227 of 1546

state plans conduct one as well. Additionally, they asked that 

the agency require that states engage with communities in the 

development of their state plans and that the agency conduct 

meaningful involvement with communities, throughout the whole 

rulemaking process, including the implementation phase. 

Furthermore, communities stressed the importance of low-income 

and communities of color receiving the benefits of this 

rulemaking and being protected from being adversely impacted by 

this rulemaking. 

The purpose of this rule is to substantially reduce 

emissions of CO2, a key contributor to climate change, which 

adversely and disproportionally affects vulnerable and 

disadvantaged communities in the US and throughout the world. 

In addition, the rule will result in substantial reductions of 

conventional air pollutants, providing immediate public health 

benefits to the communities where the facilities are located and 

for many miles around. The EPA is committed to ensuring that all 

Americans benefit from the public health and other benefits that 

this rule will bring. Further discussion of the impacts of this 

rule on communities and actions that the EPA is taking to 

address concerns cited by communities is available in Sections 

IX and XII.J of this preamble. 

10. Labor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 228 of 1546

Senior agency officials met with a number of labor union 

representatives about reducing carbon pollution using CAA 

section 111(d). Those unions included: the United Mine Workers 

of America; the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union 

(SMART); the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron 

Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (IBB); United 

Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and 

Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada; the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW): and the 

Utility Workers Union of America. In addition, agency leaders 

met with the Presidents of several unions and the President of 

the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial 

Organizations (AFL-CIO) at the AFL-CIO headquarters. 

EPA officials attended meetings sponsored by labor unions 

to give presentations and engage in discussions about reducing 

carbon pollution using CAA section 111(d). These included 

meetings sponsored by the IBB and the IBEW. 

11. Other federal agencies and independent agencies 

Throughout the development of the rulemaking, the EPA 

consulted with other federal agencies with relevant expertise. 

For example, the EPA met with managers from the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural Utility Service to discuss the 

rule and potential effects on affected EGUs in rural areas and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 229 of 1546

how USDA programs could interact with affected EGUs during rule 

implementation. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was a frequent source 

of expertise and advice on the proposed and final rule. EPA 

management and staff had numerous meetings with management and 

staff at DOE on a range of topics, including the effectiveness 

and costs of energy generation technologies, and energy 

efficiency. 

DOE provided technical assistance relating to RE and 

demand-side EE, including RE and demand-side EE cost and 

performance data and, for RE, information on the feasibility of 

deploying and reliably integrating increased RE generation. 

Further, EPA and DOE staff discussed emission measurement and 

verification (EM&V) strategies. 

 The EPA also consulted with DOE on electric reliability 

issues. EPA staff and managers met and spoke with DOE staff and 

managers throughout the development of the proposed and final 

rules on topic related to electric system reliability. 

 EPA officials worked closely with DOE and Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) officials to ensure, to the 

greatest extent possible, that actions taken by states and 

affected EGUs to comply with the final rule mitigate potential 

electric system reliability issues. Senior EPA officials met 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 230 of 1546

with each of the FERC Commissioners and EPA staff had frequent 

contact with FERC staff throughout the development the rule. 

FERC held four technical conferences to discuss implications of 

compliance approaches to the rule for electric reliability. EPA 

staff attended the four conferences and EPA leadership spoke at 

all of them. The EPA, DOE, and FERC will continue to work 

together to ensure electric grid reliability in the development 

and implementation of state plans. 

L. Comments on the Proposal 

The Administrator signed the proposed emission guidelines 

on June 2, 2014, and, on the same day, the EPA made this version 

available to the public at http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/.

The 120-day public comment period on the proposal began on June 

18, 2014, the day of publication of the proposal in the Federal 

Register. On September 18, 2014, in response to requests from 

stakeholders, the EPA extended the comment period by 45 days, to 

December 1, 2014, giving stakeholders over 165 days to review 

and comment upon the proposal. Stakeholders also had the 

opportunity to comment on the NODA, as well as the notice and 

TSD regarding potential methods for determining the mass that is 

equivalent to an emission rate-based CO2 goal, through December 

1, 2014. The EPA offered a separate 45-day comment period for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 231 of 1546

the November 4, 2014 supplemental proposal, and that comment 

period closed on December 19, 2014. 

The EPA received more than 4.2 million comments on the 

proposed carbon pollution emission guidelines from a range of 

stakeholders that included, including state environmental and 

energy officials, local government officials, tribal officials, 

public utility commissioners, system operators, utilities, 

public interest advocates, and members of the public. The agency 

received comments on many aspects of the proposal and many 

suggestions for changes that would address issues of concern. 

III. Rule Requirements and Legal Basis 

A. Summary of Rule Requirements 

The EPA is establishing emission guidelines for states to 

use in developing plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from 

existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. The 

emission guidelines are based on the EPA’s determination of the 

“best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” 

(BSER) and include source category-specific CO2 emission 

performance rates, state-specific goals, requirements for state 

plan components, and requirements for the process and timing for 

state plan submittal and compliance. 

Under CAA section 111(d), the states must establish 

standards of performance that reflect the degree of emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 232 of 1546

limitation achievable through the application of the “best 

system of emission reduction” that, taking into account the cost 

of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy requirements, the Administrator 

determines has been adequately demonstrated. 

The EPA has determined that the BSER is the combination of 

emission rate improvements and limitations on overall emissions 

at affected EGUs that can be accomplished through any 

combination of one or more measures from the following three 

sets of measures or building blocks: 

1. Reducing the carbon intensity of generation at 

individual affected coal-fired steam EGUs through heat 

rate improvements. 

2. Substituting increased generation from loweremitting existing natural gas combined cycle units for 

reduced generation from higher-emitting affected steam 

generating units. 

3. Substituting increased generation from new low- and 

zero-emitting generating units for reduced generation 

from affected fossil fuel-fired generating units. 

Consistent with CAA section 111(d) and other rules 

promulgated under this section, the EPA is taking a traditional, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 233 of 1546

performance-based approach to establishing emission guidelines 

for affected sources and applying the BSER to two source 

subcategories of existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs -- fossil fuelfired electric utility steam generating units and stationary 

combustion turbines. The EPA is finalizing source subcategoryspecific emission performance rates that reflect the EPA’s 

application of the BSER. For fossil fuel-fired steam generating 

units, we are finalizing a performance rate of 1,305 lb/MWh of 

CO2. For stationary combustion turbines, we are finalizing a 

performance rate of 771 lb/MWh of CO2. The EPA has also 

translated the source subcategory-specific CO2 emission 

performance rates into equivalent statewide rate-based and massbased CO2 goals and is providing those as an option for states to 

use. 

Under CAA section 111(d), each state must develop, adopt, 

and then submit its plan to the EPA. For its CAA section 111(d) 

plan, a state will determine whether to apply these emission 

performance rates to each affected EGU, individually or 

together, or to take an alternative approach and meet either an 

equivalent statewide rate-based goal or an equivalent statewide 

mass-based goal, as provided by the EPA in this rulemaking. 

For these final emission guidelines, the term “state,” when 

used in the context of section 111(d) plans, encompasses the 50 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 234 of 1546

states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and any 

Indian tribe that has been approved by the EPA pursuant to 40 

CFR 49.9 as eligible to develop and implement a CAA section 

111(d) plan. However, a jurisdiction is not obligated or 

potentially eligible to submit a CAA section 111(d) plan unless 

it has within its jurisdictional boundaries one or more affected 

EGUs that commenced construction on or before January 8, 2014. 

In developing its CAA section 111(d) plan, a state will 

have the option of choosing from two different approaches: 1) an 

“emission standards” approach, or 2) a “state measures” 

approach. With an emission standards approach, a state will 

apply all requirements for achieving the subcategory-specific CO2

emission performance rates or the state-specific CO2 emission 

goal to affected EGUs in the form of federally enforceable 

emission standards. With a state measures approach, a state plan 

would be comprised, at least in part, of measures implemented by 

the state that are not included as federally enforceable 

components of the plan, along with a backstop of federally 

enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs that would 

apply in the event the plan does not achieve its anticipated 

level of CO2 emission performance. 

The EPA is requiring states to make their final plan 

submittals by September 6, 2016 (i.e., 13 months from the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 235 of 1546

signature date of the rule), or to make an initial plan 

submittal by this date in order to obtain an extension for 

making their final plan submittals no later than September 6, 

2018, which is 3 years from the signature date of the rule. 

There are three required components for states to address in 

their initial plan submittals if they are seeking an extension 

to make their final plan submittals. The first required 

component is identification of final plan approaches under 

consideration and a description of progress made on each of the 

components required of a final plan. The second required 

component is an appropriate justification for why the state 

needs the extension to make a final plan submittal by September 

6, 2018. The third required component for states to address in 

the initial plan submittal is a demonstration of how they have 

been engaging with the public, including overburdened 

communities, and a description of how they intend to 

meaningfully engage with community stakeholders during the 

additional time (if an extension is granted) for development of 

the final plan. 

Affected EGUs must achieve the final emission performance 

rates or equivalent state goals by 2030 and maintain that level 

thereafter. The EPA is establishing an eight-year interim period 

over which states must achieve the full required reductions to 

Deleted: .

Commented [A21]: recommend requiring explanation, not 

justification 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 236 of 1546

meet the CO2 performance rates, and this begins in 2022. This 

eight-year interim period from 2022 through 2029, is separated 

into three steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029, each 

associated with its own interim CO2 emission performance rates 

that states must meet, as explained in Section VI of this 

preamble. 

For the final emission guidelines, the EPA is revising 

the list of components required in a final state plan 

submittal to reflect: 1) components required for all state 

plan submittals; 2) components required for the emission 

standards approach; and 3) components required for the 

state measures approach. The revised list of components 

also reflects the approvability criteria, which are no 

longer separate from the state plan submittal components. 

All state plans must include the following components:

• Description of the plan approach and geographic scope 

• Identification of the state’s CO2 interim period goal (for 

2022-2029), interim steps (interim step goal 1 for 2022-2024; 

interim step goal 2 for 2025-2027; interim step goal 3 for 2028-

2029) and final CO2 emission goal of 2030 and beyond 

• Demonstration that the plan submittal is projected to 

achieve the state’s CO2 emission goal 

• State recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

• Certification of hearing on state plan 

• Supporting documentation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 237 of 1546

lso, in all state plans, as part of the supporting 

documentation, a state must include a description of how they 

considered reliability in developing its state plan. 

State plan submittals using the emission standards approach 

must also include: 

 Identification of each affected EGU; identification of 

federally enforceable emission standards for the affected 

EGUs; and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

 Demonstrations that each emission standard is quantifiable, 

non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. 

State plan submittals using the state measures approach 

must also include: 

 Identification of each affected EGU; identification of 

federally enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs 

(if applicable); identification of backstop of federally 

enforceable emission standards; and monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

 Identification of each state measure and demonstration that 

each state measure is quantifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. 

In addition to these requirements, each state plan must follow 

the EPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.23. 

 If a state with affected EGUs does not submit a plan or if 

the EPA does not approve a state’s plan, then under CAA section 

111(d)(2)(A), the EPA must establish a plan for that state. A 

state that has no affected EGUs must document this in a formal 

letter submitted to the EPA by September 6, 2016. In the case of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 238 of 1546

a tribe that has one or more affected EGUs in its area of Indian 

country,278 the tribe has the opportunity, but not the 

obligation, to establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for its area 

of Indian country. If a tribe with one or more affected EGUs 

located in its area of Indian country does not submit a plan or 

does not receive EPA approval of a submitted plan, the EPA has 

the responsibility to establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for 

that area if it determines that such a plan is necessary or 

appropriate. 

 During and following implementation of its plan, each state 

must demonstrate to the EPA that its affected EGUs are meeting 

the interim and final performance requirements included in this 

final rule through monitoring and reporting requirements. State 

plan requirements and flexibilities are described more fully in 

Section VIII of this preamble.

B. Legal Basis 

 

278 The EPA is aware of at least four affected EGUs located in 

Indian country: two on Navajo lands, the Navajo Generating 

Station and the Four Corners Power Plant; one on Ute lands, the 

Bonanza Power Plant; and one on Fort Mojave lands, the South 

Point Energy Center. The affected EGUs at the first three plants 

are coal-fired EGUs. The fourth affected EGU is an NGCC 

facility. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 239 of 1546

This rule is consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 111(d) and the implementing regulations.279 As an initial 

matter, the EPA reasonably interprets the provisions identifying 

which air pollutants are covered under CAA section 111(d) to 

authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. In 

addition, the EPA recognizes that CAA section 111(d) applies to 

sources that, if they were new sources, would be covered under a 

CAA section 111(b) rule. Concurrently with this rule, the EPA is 

finalizing a CAA section 111(b) rulemaking establishing 

standards of performance for CO2 emissions from new fossil fuelfired EGUs, from modified fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and from 

reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and any of those sets of 

 

279 Under CAA section 111(d), there is no requirement that the EPA 

make a finding that the emissions from existing sources that are 

the subject of regulation cause or contribute significantly to 

air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. As predicates to promulgating 

regulations under CAA section 111(d) for existing sources, the 

EPA must make endangerment and cause-or-contribute-significantly 

findings for emissions from the source category, and the EPA 

must promulgate regulations for new sources in the source 

category. In the CAA section 111(b) rule for CO2 emissions for 

new affected EGUs that the EPA is promulgating concurrently with 

this rule, the EPA discusses the endangerment and cause-orcontribute-significantly findings and explains why the EPA has 

already made them for the affected EGU source categories so that 

the EPA is not required to make them for CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs, and, in the alternative, why, if the EPA were 

required to make those findings, it was making them in that 

rulemaking. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 240 of 1546

section 111(b) standards of performance provides the requisite 

predicate for this rulemaking. 

A key step in promulgating requirements under CAA section 

111(d)(1) is determining the “best system of emission reduction 

which ... the Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated” (BSER) under CAA section 111(a)(1). It is clear by 

the terms of section 111(a)(1) and the implementing regulations 

for section 111(d) that the EPA is authorized to determine the 

BSER;280 accordingly, in this rulemaking, the EPA is determining 

the BSER. 

The EPA is finalizing the BSER for fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

based on building blocks 1, 2, and 3. Building block 1 includes 

operational improvements and equipment upgrades that the coalfired steam-generating EGUs in the state may undertake to 

improve their heat rate. It qualifies as part of the BSER 

because it improves the carbon intensity of the affected EGUs in 

generating electricity through actions the affected sources may 

undertake that are adequately demonstrated and whose cost is 

“reasonable.” Building blocks 2 and 3 include increases in lowor zero-emitting generation which substitute for generation from 

the affected EGUs and thereby reduce CO2 emissions from those 

 

280 The EPA is not re-opening that interpretation in this 

rulemaking. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 241 of 1546

sources. All of these measures are components of a “system of 

emission reduction” for the affected EGUs because they entail 

actions that the affected EGUs may themselves undertake that 

have the effect of reducing their emissions. Further, these 

measures meet the criteria in CAA section 111(a)(1) and the case 

law for the “best” system of emission reduction that is 

“adequately demonstrated” because they achieve the appropriate 

level of reductions, their cost is “reasonable,” they do not 

have adverse non-air quality health and environmental impacts or 

impose adverse energy requirements, and they are each wellestablished among affected EGUs. It should be emphasized that 

these measures are consistent with current trends in the 

electricity sector. 

Building blocks 2 and 3 include reduced generation from the 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs because that is a step in the process of 

substituting lower- or zero-emitting generation for higheremitting generation. In addition, states should be expected to 

allow their affected EGUs to trade rate-based emission credits 

or mass-based emission allowances (trading) because trading is 

well-established for this industry and has the effect of 

focusing costs on the affected EGUs for which reducing emissions 

is most cost-effective. Because trading facilitates 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 242 of 1546

implementation of the building blocks and may help to optimize 

cost-effectiveness, trading is within the BSER as well. 

As a result, an affected EGU has a set of choices for 

achieving its emission standards. It can achieve a rate-based 

standard through a set of actions that implement the building 

block 1 measures and that implement the building block 2 and 3 

measures through a set of actions that range from purchasing 

full or partial interest in existing NGCC or new renewable 

energy assets to purchasing emission rate credits that represent 

the environmental attributes of increased NGCC generation or new 

renewable generation. In addition, the affected EGU may reduce 

its generation and thereby reduce the extent that it needs to 

implement the building blocks. The affected EGU may also 

purchase rate-based emission credits from other affected EGUs. 

If the state chooses to impose a mass-based emission standard, 

the affected EGU may implement building block 1 measures, 

purchase mass-based emission allowances from other affected 

EGUs, or reduce its generation. In light of the available 

sources of lower- and zero-emitting replacement generation, this 

approach would achieve an appropriate level of emission 

reductions and maintain the reliability of the electricity 

system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 243 of 1546

With the promulgation of the emission guidelines, each 

state must develop and submit a plan to achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates established by the EPA or the equivalent 

statewide rate-based or mass-based goal provided by the EPA in 

this rule. The EPA interprets CAA section 111(d) to allow states 

to establish standards of performance and provide for their 

implementation and enforcement through either the “emission 

standards” or the “state measures” plan type. In the case of the 

“emission standards” plan type, the emission standards establish 

standards of performance, and the other components of the plan 

provide for their implementation and enforcement. In the case of 

the “state measures” plan type, –the state submits a plan that 

relies upon a measures that are only enforceable as a matter of 

state law that will in conjunction with any emission standards 

on affected EGUs result in the achievement of the applicable 

performance rates or state goals by the affected EGUs. Under the 

state measures plan type, states must also submit a federally 

enforceable backstop and a mechanism that would trigger 

implementation of the backstop; therefore, in a state measures 

plan, the standards of performance take the form of the 

backstop, the trigger mechanism provides for the implementation 

of such backstop, and the other required components of the plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 244 of 1546

provide for implementation and enforcement of the standards of 

performance. 

 These two types of state plans and their respective 

approaches, which could be implemented on a single-state or 

multi-state basis, allow states to meet the statutory 

requirements of section 111(d) while accommodating the wide 

range of regulatory requirements and other programs that states 

have deployed or will deploy in the electricity sector that 

reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. It should be noted that 

both state plan types allow the state flexibility in assigning 

the emission performance obligations to its affected EGUs in the 

form of standards of performance as long as the required 

emission performance level is met. Both plan types harness the 

efficiencies of emission reduction opportunities in the 

interconnected electricity system and are fully consistent with 

the principles of cooperative federalism that underlie the Clean 

Air Act generally and CAA section 111(d) particularly. That is, 

both plan types achieve the emission performance requirements 

through the vehicle of a state plan, and provide each state 

significant flexibility to take local circumstances and state 

policy goals into account in determining how to reduce emissions 

from its affected sources, as long as the plan meets minimum 

federal requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 245 of 1546

Both state plan types, and the standards of performance for 

the affected EGUs that the states will establish through the 

state plan process, are consistent with the applicable CAA 

section 111 provisions. A state has discretion in determining 

the appropriate measures to rely upon for its plan. The state 

may adopt measures that assure the achievement of the requisite 

CO2 emission performance rate or state goal by the affected EGUs, 

and is not limited to the measures that the EPA identifies as 

part of the BSER. 

 In this rulemaking, the EPA establishes reasonable 

deadlines for state plan submission. Under CAA section 

111(d)(1), state plans must “provide for implementation and 

enforcement” of the standards of performance, and under CAA 

section 111(d)(2), the state plans must be “satisfactory” for 

the EPA to approve them. In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

finalizing the criteria that the state plans must meet under 

these requirements. 

 The EPA discusses its legal interpretation in more detail 

in other parts of this preamble and provides additional 

information about certain issues in the Legal Memorandum 

included in the docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. Authority for this Rulemaking, Definition of Affected 

Sources, and Treatment of Source Categories 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 246 of 1546

A. EPA’s Authority under CAA Section 111(d) 

EPA’s authority for this rule is CAA section 111(d). CAA 

section 111(d) provides that the EPA will promulgate regulations 

under which each state will establish standards of performance 

for existing sources for any air pollutant that meets two 

criteria. First, CAA section 111(d) applies to air pollutants 

that are not regulated as a criteria pollutant under section 108 

or as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under CAA section 112. 42 

U.S.C. 7411(d)(1)(A)(i).281 Second, section 111(d) applies only 

to air pollutants for which the existing source would be 

regulated under section 111 if it were a new source. 42 U.S.C. 

7411(d)(1)(A)(ii). Here, carbon dioxide (CO2) meets both 

criteria: (1) it is not a criteria pollutant regulated under 

section 108 nor a HAP regulated under CAA section 112, and (2) 

CO2 emissions from new power plants (including newly constructed, 

modified and reconstructed power plants) are regulated under the 

CAA section 111(b) rule that is being finalized along with this 

rule. 

B. CAA Section 112 Exclusion to CAA Section 111(d) Authority 

 

281 Section 111(d) might be read to apply to HAP under certain 

circumstances. However, because carbon dioxide is not a HAP, 

this issue does not need to be resolved in the context of this 

rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 247 of 1546

CAA section 111(d) contains an exclusion that limits the 

regulation under CAA section 111(d) of air pollutants that are 

regulated under CAA section 112. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(1)(A)(i). 

This “Section 112 Exclusion” in CAA section 111(d) was the 

subject of a significant number of comments based on two 

differing amendments to this exclusion enacted in the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. As discussed in more detail below, the House and the 

Senate each initially passed different amendments to the Section 

112 Exclusion and both amendments were ultimately passed by both 

houses and signed into law. In 2005, in connection with the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), the EPA discussed the agency’s 

interpretation of the Section 112 Exclusion in light of these 

two differing amendments and concluded that the two amendments 

were in conflict and that the provision should be read as 

follows to give both amendments meaning: where a source category 

has been regulated under CAA section 112, a CAA section 111(d) 

standard of performance cannot be established to address any HAP 

listed under CAA section 112(b) that may be emitted from that 

particular source category. See 70 FR 15994, 16029-32 (March 29, 

2005). 

 In June 2014, the EPA presented this previous 

interpretation along with the proposed rule and requested 

comment on it. The EPA received numerous comments on its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 248 of 1546

previous interpretation, including comments on the proper 

interpretation and effect of each of the two differing 

amendments, and whether the Section 112 Exclusion should be read 

to mean that the EPA’s regulation of HAP from power plants under 

CAA section 112 bars the EPA from establishing CAA section 

111(d) regulations covering CO2 emissions from power plants. In 

particular, many comments focused on two specific issues. 

First, some commenters -- including some industry and state 

commenters that had previously endorsed the EPA’s interpretation 

of the Section 112 Exclusion in other contexts282 -- argued that 

the EPA’s 2005 interpretation was in error because it allowed 

the regulation of certain pollutants from source categories 

under CAA section 111(d) when those source categories were also 

regulated for different pollutants under CAA section 112. 

Second, some commenters argued that the EPA’s previous 

interpretation of the House amendment (as originally represented 

in 2005 at 70 FR at 16029-30) was in error because it improperly 

 

282 For example, in the CAMR litigation (State of New Jersey v. 

EPA, No. 05-1097 (D.C. Cir.) , the joint brief filed by a group 

of intervenors and an amicus (including six states and the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and Utility Air 

Regulatory Group and nine other industry entities) stated that 

the EPA had interpreted section 111(d) in light of the two 

different amendments and that the EPA’s interpretation was “a 

reasoned way to reconcile the conflicting language and the Court 

should defer to the EPA’s interpretation.” Joint Brief of State 

Respondent-Intervenors, Industry Respondent-Intervernors, and 

State Amicus, filed May 18, 2007, at 25. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 249 of 1546

read that amendment as focusing on whether a source category was 

regulated under CAA section 112 rather than on whether the air 

pollutant was regulated under CAA section 112, and that improper 

reading lead to an interpretation that was inconsistent with the 

structure and purpose of the CAA. 

In light of the comments, the EPA has reconsidered its 

previous interpretation of the Section 112 Exclusion and, in 

particular, considered whether the exclusion precludes the 

regulation under CAA section 111(d) of CO2 from power plants 

given that power plants are regulated for certain HAP under CAA 

section 112. On this issue, the EPA has concluded that the two 

differing amendments are not properly read as conflicting. 

Instead, the House amendment and the Senate Amendment should 

each be read to mean the same in the context presented by this 

rule: that the Section 112 Exclusion does not bar the regulation 

under CAA section 111(d) of non-HAP from a source category, 

regardless of whether that source category is subject to 

standards for HAP under CAA section 112. In reaching this 

conclusion, the EPA has revised its previous interpretation of 

the House amendment, as discussed below. 

1. Structure of the CAA and Pre-1990 Section 112 Exclusion 

The Clean Air Act sets out a comprehensive scheme for air 

pollution control, addressing three general categories of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 250 of 1546

pollutants emitted from stationary sources: (1) criteria 

pollutants (which are addressed in sections 108-110); (2) 

hazardous pollutants (which are addressed under section 112); 

and (3) “pollutants that are (or may be) harmful to public 

health or welfare but are not or cannot be controlled under 

sections 108-110 or 112.” 40 Fed. Reg. 53,340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

Six “criteria” pollutants are regulated under sections 108-

110. These are pollutants that the Administrator has concluded 

“cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence 

of which in the ambient air results from numerous and diverse 

mobile or stationary sources;” and for which the Administrator 

has issued, or plans to issue, “air quality criteria. 42 U.S.C. 

§7408(a)(1). Once the EPA issues air quality criteria for such 

pollutants, the Administrator must propose primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for them, set at levels 

“requisite to protect the public health” with an “adequate 

margin of safety. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a)-(b). States must then 

adopt plans for implementing NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410. 

Hazardous air pollutants are regulated under CAA section 

112 and include the pollutants listed by Congress in section 

112(b)(1) and other pollutants that the EPA lists under sections 

112(b)(2) and (b)(3). CAA section 112 further provides that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 251 of 1546

EPA will publish and revise a list of “major” and “area” source 

categories of hazardous pollutants, and then establish emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants emitted by sources within 

each listed category. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(1) & (2). 

 CAA section 111, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, is the third part of the 

CAA’s structure for regulating stationary sources. Section 111 

has two main components. First, section 111(b) requires the EPA 

to promulgate federal “standards of performance” addressing new

stationary sources that cause or contribute significantly to 

“air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(A). Once the 

EPA has set new source standards addressing emissions of a 

particular pollutant under CAA section 111(b), CAA section 

111(d) provides that the EPA will promulgate regulations 

requiring states to establish standards of performance for 

existing stationary sources of the same pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 

7411(d)(1). 

Together, the criteria pollutant/NAAQS provisions in 

sections 108-110, the hazardous air pollutant provisions in 

section 112, and performance standard provisions in section 111 

constitute a comprehensive scheme to regulate air pollutants 

with ““no gaps in control activities pertaining to stationary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 252 of 1546

source emissions that pose any significant danger to public 

health or welfare.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (1970). 283 

The specific role of CAA section 111(d) in this structure 

can be seen in CAA subsection 111(d)(1)(A)(i), which provides 

that regulation under CAA section 111(d) regulation of 

pollutants is intended to cover pollutants that are not 

regulated under either the criteria pollutant/NAAQS provisions 

or the hazardous air pollutants regulated under section 112. 

Prior to 1990, this limitation was laid out in plain language, 

which stated that CAA section 111(d) regulation applied to “any 

air pollutant... for which air quality criteria have not been 

issued or which is not included on a list published under 

section [108(a)] or [112(b)(1)(A)].” This plain language 

demonstrated that section 111(d) is designed to regulate 

pollutants from existing sources that fall in the gap not 

covered by the criteria pollutant provisions and the hazardous 

air pollutant provisions. 

This gap-filling purpose can be seen in the early 

legislative history of the CAA. As originally enacted in the 

1970 CAA, the precursor to CAA section 111 (which was originally 

 

283 In subsequent CAA amendments, Congress has maintained this 

three-part scheme, but supplemented it with the Preservation of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, the Acid Rain Program 

and the Regional Haze program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 253 of 1546

section 114) was described as covering pollutants that would not 

be controlled by the criteria pollutant provisions or the 

hazardous air pollutant provisions. See S. Committee Rep. to 

accompany S. 4358 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 420 

(“It should be noted that the emission standards for pollutants 

which cannot be considered hazardous (as defined in section 115 

[which later became section 112]) could be established under 

section 114 [later, section 111]. Thus, there should be no gaps 

in control activities pertaining to stationary source emissions 

that pose any significant danger to public health or welfare.”); 

Statement by S. Muskie, S. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 

1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 227 (“[T]he bill [in section 114] 

provides the Secretary with the authority to set emission 

standards for selected pollutants which cannot be controlled 

through the ambient air quality standards and which are not 

hazardous substances.”). 

2. The 1990 Amendments to the Section 112 Exclusion 

The Act was amended extensively in 1990. Among other 

things, Congress sought to accelerate the EPA’s regulation of 

hazardous pollutants under section 112. To that end, Congress 

established a lengthy list of hazardous air pollutants; set 

criteria for listing “source categories” of such pollutants; and 

required the EPA to establish standards for each listed source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 254 of 1546

category’s hazardous pollutant emissions. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b), 

(c) and (d). In the course of overhauling the regulation of 

hazardous air pollutants under section 112, Congress needed to 

edit section 111(d)’s reference to section 112(b)(1)(A), which 

was to be eliminated as part of the revisions to section 112. 

o address the obsolete cross-reference to section 

7412(b)(1)(A), Congress passed two differing amendments – one 

from the Senate and one from the House – that were never 

reconciled in conference. The Senate amendment replaced the 

cross reference to old section 112(b)(1)(A) with a crossreference to new section 112. Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 302(a), 104 

Stat. 2399, 2574 (1990). The House amendment replaced the crossreference with the phrase “emitted from a source category which 

is regulated under section [112].” Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 

108(g), 104 Stat. 2399, 2467 (1990).284 Both amendments were 

 

284 Originally, when the House bill to amend the CAA was 

introduced in January 1989, it focused on amendments to control 

HAP. Of particular note, the amendments to section 112 included 

a provision that excluded regulation under section 112 of “[a]ny 

air pollutant which is included on the list under section 

108(a), or which is regulated for a source category under 

section 111(d).” H.R. 4, § 2 (Jan. 3, 1989), 1990 CAA Legist. 

Hist. at 4046. In other words, the Section 112 Exclusion in 

section 111(d) that was ultimately contained in the House 

amendment was originally crafted as what might be called a 

“Section 111(d) Exclusion” in section 112. This is significant 

because the “source category” phrasing in the original January 

1989 text with respect to section 111(d) makes sense, whereas 

the “source category” phrasing in the 1990 House amendment does 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 255 of 1546

enacted into law, and thus both are part of the current CAA. To 

determine how this provision is properly applied in light of 

the two differing amendments, we first look at the Senate 

amendment, then at the House amendment, then discuss how the two 

amendments are properly read together. 

3. The Senate Amendment is Clear and Unambiguous 

 Unlike the ambiguous amendment to CAA section 111(d) in the 

House amendment (discussed below), the Senate amendment is 

straightforward and unambiguous. It maintained the pre-1990 

meaning of the Section 112 Exclusion by simply substituting 

“section 112(b)” for the prior cross-reference to “section 

112(b)(1)(A).” Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 302(a), 104 Stat. 2399, 

2574 (1990). So amended, section 111(d) mandates that the EPA 

require states to submit plans establishing standards for “any 

air pollutant . . . which is not included on a list published 

 

not. When referring to the scope of what is regulated under 

section 111(d), it makes sense to frame that scope with respect 

to source categories, because section 111 regulation begins with 

the identification of source categories under section 

111(b)(1)(A). By contrast, regulation under section 112 begins 

with the identification of HAP under section 112(b); the listing 

of source categories under section 112(c) is secondary to the 

listing of HAP. From this history, and in light of this 

difference between the scope of what is regulated in sections 

111 and 112, it is reasonable to conclude that the “source 

category” phrasing is a legacy from the original 1989 bill—that 

is, when converting the 1989 text into the Section 112 Exclusion 

that we see in the 1990 House amendment, the legislative 

drafters continued to use phrasing based on “source category” 

notwithstanding that this phrasing created a mismatch with the 

way that the scope of section 112 regulation is determined. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 256 of 1546

under section [108(a)] or section [112(b)].” Thus, the Section 

112 Exclusion resulting from the Senate amendment would preclude 

section 111(d) regulation of HAP emission but would not preclude 

section 111(d) regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants 

notwithstanding that power plants are also regulated for HAP 

under CAA section 112 under the MATS rule. 

 Some commenters have argued that the Senate amendment 

should be given no effect, because only the House amendment is 

shown in the U.S. Code, and because the Senate amendments 

appeared under the heading “conforming amendments,” and for 

various other reasons. The EPA disagrees. The Senate amendment, 

like the House amendment, was enacted into law as part of the 

1990 CAA amendments, and must be given effect. 

 First, that the U.S. Code only reflects the House amendment 

does not change the fact that both amendments were signed into 

law as part of the 1990 Amendments, as shown in the Statutes at 

Large. Pub. L. No. 101-549, §§ 108(g) and 302(a), 104 Stat. 

2399, 2467, 2574 (1990). Where there is a conflict between the 

U.S. Code and the Statutes at Large, the latter controls. See 1 

U.S.C. §§ 112 & 204(a); Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 

426 (1943) (“the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large 

when the two are inconsistent”); Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. 

Dep’t of Transp., 854 F.2d 1438, 1440 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“[W]here 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 257 of 1546

the language of the Statutes at Large conflicts with the 

language in the United States Code that has not been enacted 

into positive law, the language of the Statutes at Large 

controls.”). 

 Second, the “conforming” label is irrelevant. A 

“conforming” amendment may be either substantive or nonsubstantive. Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 135 

(2008). And while the House Amendment contains more words, it 

also qualifies as a “conforming amendment” under the definition 

in the Senate Legislative Drafting Manual, Section 126(b)(2) 

(defining “conforming amendments” as those “necessitated by the 

substantive amendments of provisions of the bill”). Here, both 

the House and Senate amendments were “necessitated by” Congress’ 

revisions to section 112 in the 1990 CAA Amendment, which 

included the deletion of old section 112(b)(1)(A). Thus, the 

House’s amendment is no less “conforming” than the Senate’s, and 

the heading under which it was enacted (“Miscellaneous 

Guidance”) does not suggest any more importance than “Conforming 

Amendments.” In any event, courts gives full effect to 

conforming amendments, see Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. Bowen, 795 

F.2d 139, 149 (D.C. Cir. 1986), and so neither the Senate 

Amendment nor the House amendment can be ignored. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 258 of 1546

Third, the legislative history of the Senate amendment 

supports the conclusion that the substitution of the updated 

cross-reference was not a mindless, ministerial decision, but 

reflected a decision to choose an update of the cross reference 

over the text that was inserted into the Section 112 Exclusion 

by the House amendment. In mid-1989, the House and Senate 

introduced identical bills (H.R. 3030 and S. 1490, respectively) 

to provide for “miscellaneous” changes to the CAA. In both the 

Senate and House bills as they were introduced in mid-1989, the 

Section 112 Exclusion was to be amended by taking out “or 

112(b)(1)(A)” and inserting “or emitted from a source category 

which is regulated under section 112.” H.R. 3030, as introduced, 

101st Cong. § 108 (Jul. 27, 1989); S. 1490, as introduced, 101st 

Cong. § 108 (Aug. 3, 1989). See 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. at 3857 

(noting that H.R. 3030 and S.1490, as introduced, were the 

same). Although S. 1490 was identical to H.R. 3030 when they 

were introduced, the Senate reported a vastly different bill 

(S.1630) at the end of 1989. See S. 1630, as reported (Dec. 20, 

1989), 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. at 7906. As reported and eventually 

passed, S. 1630 did not contain the text in the House amendment 

(“or emitted from a source category which is regulated under 

section 112”) and instead contained the substitution of cross 

references (changing “section 112(b)(1)(A)” to “section 112(b)”) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 259 of 1546

as a “conforming” amendment. See S. 1630, as reported, 101st

Cong. § 305, 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. at 8153; S. 1630, as passed, 

§ 305 (Apr. 3, 1990), 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. at 4534. Though the 

EPA is not aware of any statements in the legislative history 

that expressly explain the Senate’s intent in making these 

changes to the Senate bill, the sequence itself supports the 

conclusion that the Senate’s substitution reflects a decision to 

retain the pre-1990 approach of using a cross-reference to 

112(b) to define the scope of the Section 112 Exclusion. Whether 

the difference in approach between the final Senate amendment in 

S.1630 and the House amendment in H.R. 3030 creates a 

substantive difference or are simply two different means of 

achieving the same end depends on what interpretation one gives 

to the text in the House amendment, which we turn to next. 

4. The House amendment 

a. The House amendment is ambiguous. Before looking at the 

specific text of the House amendment, it is helpful to review 

some principles of statutory interpretation. First, statutory 

interpretation begins with the text, but does not end there. As 

the D.C. Circuit Court has explained, “[t]he literal language of 

a provision taken out of context cannot provide conclusive proof 

of congressional intent.” Bell Atlantic Telephone Cos. v. 

F.C.C., 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1977). See King v. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 260 of 1546

Burwell, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4248, *19(“[O]ftentimes the ‘meaning—or 

ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident 

when placed in context.’ Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132, 

120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121. So when deciding whether the 

language is plain, we must read the words ‘in their context and 

with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ 

Id., at 133, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is ‘to construe 

statutes, not isolated provisions.’ Graham County Soil and Water 

Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 

280, 290, 130 S. Ct. 1396, 176 L. Ed. 2d 225 (2010) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).”). Further,a proper reading of 

statutory text “must employ all the tools of statutory 

interpretation, including text, structure, purpose, and 

legislative history.” Loving v. I.R.S., 742 F.3d 1013, 1016 

(D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). See, also, 

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997) (statutory 

interpretation involves consideration of “the language itself, 

the specific context in which that language is used, and the 

broader context of the statute as a whole.”). Moreover, one 

principle of statutory construction that has particular 

application here is that provisions in a statute should be read 

to be consistent, rather than conflicting, if possible. This 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 261 of 1546

principle was discussed in the recent case of Scialabba v. 

Cuellar De Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191, 2214 (concurring opinion by 

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia), 2219-2220 (dissent by 

Justices Sotomayor, Breyer and Thomas)(2014). As Justice 

Sotomayor wrote (at 134 S. Ct. at 2220): 

“We do not lightly presume that Congress has legislated in selfcontradicting terms. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The 

Interpretation of Legal Texts 180 (2012) (“The provisions of a 

text should be interpreted in a way that renders them 

compatible, not contradictory. . . . [T]here can be no 

justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if 

they can be interpreted harmoniously”). *** Thus, time and again 

we have stressed our duty to “fit, if possible, all parts [of a 

statute] into [a] harmonious whole.” FTC v. Mandel Brothers, 

Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389, 79 S. Ct. 818, 3 L. Ed. 2d 893 (1959); 

see also Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551, 94 S. Ct. 2474, 

41 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1974) (when two provisions “are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts . . . to regard each as 

effective”). In reviewing an agency’s construction of a statute, 

courts “must,” we have emphasized, “interpret the statute ‘as a 

. . . coherent regulatory scheme’” rather than an internally 

inconsistent muddle, at war with itself and defective from the 

day it was written. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S., at 133, 120 S. 

Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121. 

As amended by the House, CAA section 111(d)(1)(A)(i) limits 

CAA section 111(d) to any air pollutant “for which air quality 

criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list 

published under section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a 

source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this 

title . . .” This statutory text is ambiguous and subject to 

numerous possible readings. Certain possible readings are 

based on section 111(d)’s literal text, but these readings are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 262 of 1546

no reasonable and no one has advocated that either of those 

readings be adopted. 

 First, the text of the House-amended version of CAA section 

111(d) could be read literally as authorizing the regulation of 

any pollutant that is not a criteria pollutant. This reading 

arises if one focuses on the use of “or” to join the three 

clauses: 

The Administrator shall prescribe regulations . . . under 

which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan 

which establishes standards of performance for any existing 

source for any air pollutant [1] for which air quality 

criteria have not been issued or [2] which is not included 

on a list published under section 7408(a) of this title or

[3] emitted from a source category which is regulated under 

section 7412 of this title . . . . 

42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1) (emphasis and internal numbering added). 

Because the text contains the conjunction “or” rather than “and” 

between the three clauses, a literal reading could read the 

three clauses as alternatives, rather than requirements to be 

imposed simultaneously. In other words, one literal reading of 

the language of section 111(d) provides that the Administrator 

may require states to establish standards for an air pollutant 

so long as either air quality criteria have not been established 

for that pollutant, or one of the remaining criteria is met. If 

this reading were applied to determine whether the EPA may 

promulgate section 111(d) regulations for CO2 from power plants, 

the result would be that CO2 from power plants could be Deleted: e
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 263 of 1546

regulated under section 111(b) because air quality criteria have 

not been issued for CO2and therefore whether CO2 or power plants 

are regulated under section 112 would be irrelevant. . This 

interpretation, however, is not a reasonable reading of the 

statute because, among other reasons, it gives little or no 

meaning to the limitation covering hazardous air pollutants that 

are regulated under CAA section 112 and thus is contrary to both 

the CAA’s comprehensive scheme created by the three sets of 

provisions (under which CAA section 111 is not intended to 

duplicate the regulation of pollutants regulated under 

section112) and the principle of statutory construction that 

text should not be construed such that a provision does not have 

effect. 

A second literal reading of CAA section 111(d) as revised 

by the House amendment focuses on the lack of a negative before 

the third clause. That is, unlike the first and second clauses 

that each contain negative phrases (either “has not been issued” 

or “which is not included”), the third clause does not. One 

could presume that the negative from the second clause was 

intended to carry over, implicitly inserting another “which is 

not” before “emitted from a source category which is regulated 

under section [112].” But that is a presumption, and not the 

plain language of the statute. The text as amended by the House 

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 264 of 1546

says that the EPA “shall” prescribe regulations for “any air 

pollutant . . . emitted from a source category which is 

regulated under section [112].” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1). Thus, 

CAA section 111(d)(1)(A)(i) could be read literally as providing 

for the regulation of emissions of pollutants if they are 

emitted from a source category that is regulated under CAA 

section 112. But, this second literal reading is not reasonable 

because it would provide for the regulation of a source’s HAP 

emissions under CAA section 111(d) when those same emissions 

were also subject to standards under CAA section 112. Thus, this 

reading would be contrary to Congress’s intent that CAA section 

111(d) regulation fill the gap between the other programs by 

covering pollutants that the other programs do not, but not 

duplicate the regulation of pollutants that the other programs 

cover. 

T If one does presume that the “which is not” phrase is 

intended to carry over to the third clause, then CAA section 

111(d) regulation under the House amendment would be limited to 

“any air pollutant...which is not... emitted from a source category 

which is regulated under section [112].” Even with this 

presumption, however, the House amendment contains further 

ambiguities with respect to the phrases “a source category” and 

“regulated under section 112,” and how those phrases are used 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 265 of 1546

within the structure of the provision limiting what air 

pollutants may be regulated under CAA section 111(d). 

he phrase “regulated under section 112” is ambiguous. As 

the Supreme Court has explained in the context of other statutes 

using a variation of the word “regulate,” an agency must 

consider what is being regulated. See Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. 

v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 366 (2002) (It is necessary to “pars[e] 

. . . the ‘what’” of the term “regulates.”); UNUM Life Ins. Co. 

of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358, 363 (1999) (the term “‘regulates 

insurance’ . . . requires interpretation, for [its] meaning is 

not plain.”). Here, one possible reading is that the phase 

modifies the words “a source category” without regard to what 

pollutants are regulated under section 112, which then presents 

the issue of what meaning to give to the phrase “a source 

category.” 

nder this reading, and assuming the phrase “a source 

category” is read to mean the particular source category, the 

House amendment would A preclude the regulation under CAA 

section 111(d) of a specific source category for any pollutant 

if that source category has been regulated for any HAP under CAA 

section 112.285 The effect of this reading would be to preclude 

 

285 “A source category” could also be interpreted to mean “any 

source category.” Under this interpretation, CAA 111(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 266 of 1546

the regulation of CO2 from power plants under CAA section 111(d) 

because power plants have been regulated for hazardous air 

pollutants under CAA section 112. This is the interpretation 

that the EPA applied to the House amendment in connection with 

the CAMR rule in 2005, when looking at the question of whether 

HAP can be regulated under CAA section 111(d) for a source 

category that is not regulated for HAP under section 112, and 

some commentors have advocated for this interpretation here. 

But, after considering all of the comments and reconsidering 

this interpretation, the EPA has concluded that this 

interpretation of the House amendment is not a reasonable 

reading because it would disrupt the comprehensive scheme for 

regulating existing sources created by the three sets of 

provisions covering criteria pollutants, hazardous air 

pollutants and the other pollutants that fall outside of those 

two programs and frustrate the role that section 111 is intended 

 

regulation would be limited to air pollutants that are not 

emitted by any source category for which the EPA has issued 

standards for HAP under CAA section 112. This interpretation is 

not reasonable because it would effectively read CAA 111(d) out 

of the statute. Given the extensive list of source categories 

regulated under CAA 112 and the breadth of pollutants emitted by 

those categories collectively, literally all air pollutants 

would be barred from CAA 111(d) regulation under this 

interpretation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 267 of 1546

to play.286 Specifically, under this interpretation, the EPA 

could not regulate a source category’s emissions of hazardous 

air pollutants under CAA section 112, and then promulgate 

regulations for other pollutants from that source category 

under section 111(d).287 There is no reason to conclude that the 

House amendment was intended to abandon the existing structure 

and relationship between the three programs in this way. 

Indeed, Congress expressly provided that regulation under CAA 

section 112 was not to “diminish or replace the requirements of” 

the EPA’s regulation of non-hazardous pollutants under section 

7411. See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(7). Further, consistent with CAA 

section 112’s direction that EPA list “all categories and 

subcategories of major sources and area [aka, non-major] 

sources” of HAP and then establish CAA section 112 standards for 

 

286 In assessing any interpretation of section 111(d), EPA must 

consider how the three main programs set forth in the CAA work 

together. See UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2442 (a “reasonable statutory 

interpretation must account for . . . the broader context of the 

statute as a whole”) (quotation omitted). 

287 Supporters of this interpretation have noted that the EPA 

could regulate power plants under both CAA section 111(d) and 

CAA section 112 if it regulated under section 111(d) first, 

before the Section 112 Exclusion is triggered. But that argument 

actually further demonstrates another reason why this 

interpretation is unreasonable. There is no basis for concluding 

that Congress intended to mandate that section 111(d) regulation 

occur first, nor is there any logical reason why the need to 

regulate under section 111(d) should be dependent on the timing 

of such regulation in relation to CAA 112 regulation of that 

source category.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 268 of 1546

those categories and subcategories, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(c)(1) and 

(c)(2), the EPA has listed and regulated over 140 categories of 

sources under CAA section 112. Thus, this reading would 

eviscerate the EPA’s authority under section 111(d) and prevent 

it serving as the gap-filling provision within the 

comprehensive scheme of the CAA as Congress intended.288 In 

short, it is not reasonable to interpret the Section 112 

Exclusion in section 111(d) to mean that the existence of CAA 

section 112 standards covering hazardous pollutants from a 

source category would entirely eliminate regulation of non-

 

288 Some commenters have stated that EPA could chose to regulate 

both HAP and non-HAP under section 111(d), and thus could 

regulate HAP without creating a gap. But this presumes that 

Congress intended EPA to have the choice of declining to 

regulate a section 112-listed source category for HAP under 

section 112, which is inconsistent with the mandatory language 

in section 112. See, e.g., section 112(d)(1)(“The Administrator 

shall promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards 

for each category or subcategory of major sources and area 

sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for regulation 

pursuant to subsection (c) of this section in accordance with 

the schedules provided in subsections (c) and (e) of this 

section.”). Moreover, given the prescriptive language that 

Congress added into section 112 concerning how to set standards 

for HAP, see section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), it is unreasonable 

to conclude that Congress intended that the EPA could simply 

choose to ignore the provisions in section 112 and instead 

regulate HAP for a section 112 listed source category under 

section 111(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 269 of 1546

hazardous emissions from that source category under section 

111(d). 289

a. The EPA’s Interpretation of the House Amendment. Having 

concluded that the interpretations discussed above are not 

reasonable, the EPA now turns to what it has concluded is the 

best, and sole reasonable, interpretation of the House 

amendment as it applies to the issue here. 

The EPA’s interpretation of the House amendment as applied 

to the issue presented in this rule is that the Section 112 

Exclusion excludes the regulation of HAP if the source category 

at issue is regulated under CAA section 112, but does not 

exclude the regulation of other pollutants, regardless of 

whether that source category is subject to CAA section 112 

standards. This interpretation reads the phrase “regulated under 

section 112” as modifying the words “source category” (as does 

 

289 Even if one were to determine that this interpretation were 

the proper reading of the House amendment that would not be the 

end of the analysis. Instead, that reading would create a 

conflict between the Senate amendment and the House amendment 

that would need to be resolved. In that event, the proper 

resolution of a conflict between the two amendments would be the 

analysis and conclusion discussed in the Proposed Rule’s legal 

memorandum (discussing EPA’s analysis in the CAMR rule at 70 FR 

15994, 16029-32): The two amendments must be read together so as 

to give some effect to each amendment and they are properly read 

together to provide that, where a source category is regulated 

under section 112, EPA may not establish regulations covering 

the HAP emissions from that source category under section 

111(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 270 of 1546

the interpretation discussed above) but also recognizes that the 

phrase “regulated under section 112” refers only to the 

regulation of HAP emissions. In other words, the EPA’s 

interpretation recognizes that source categories “regulated 

under section 112” are not regulated by CAA section 112 with 

respect to all pollutants, but only with respect to HAP. Thus, 

it is reasonable to interpret the House amendment of the Section 

112 Exclusion as only excluding the regulation of HAP emissions 

under CAA section 111(d) and only when that source category is 

regulated under CAA section 112. We note that this 

interpretation of the House amendment alone is the same as the 

2005 CAMR interpretation of the two amendments combined: where a 

source category has been regulated under CAA section 112, a CAA 

section 111(d) standard of performance cannot be established to 

address any HAP listed under CAA section 112(b) that may be 

emitted from that particular source category. See 70 FR 15994, 

16029-30 (March 29, 2005). 

There are a number of reasons why the EPA’s interpretation 

is reasonable and avoids the issues discussed above. 

First, the EPA’s interpretation reads the House amendment 

to the Section 112 Exclusion as determining the scope of what 

air pollutants are to be regulated under CAA section 111(d), as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 271 of 1546

opposed to creating a wholesale exclusion for source 

categories. The other text in subsections 111(d)(1)(A)(i) and 

(ii) modify the phrase “any air pollutant.” Thus, reading the 

Section 112 Exclusion to also address the question of what air 

pollutants may be regulated under CAA section 111(d) is 

consistent with the overall structure and focus of section 

111(d)(1)(A)e. 

Second, the EPA’s interpretation furthers – rather than 

undermines – the purpose of CAA section 111(d) within the longstanding structure of the CAA. That is, this interpretation 

supports the comprehensive structure for regulating various 

pollutants from existing sources under the criteria 

pollutant/NAAQS program under sections 108-110, the HAP program 

under section 112, and other pollutants under section 111(d), 

and avoids creating a gap in that structure. See King v. Burwell, 

2015 U.S. LEXIS 4248, *28 (2015)(“A provision that may seem 

ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of 

the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible 

meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with 

the rest of the law.”) (quoting United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. 

Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371, 

108 S. Ct. 626, 98 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1988)”) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 272 of 1546

Third, by avoiding the creation of gaps in the statutory 

structure, the EPA’s interpretation is consistent with the 

legislative history demonstrating that Congress’s intent in the 

1990 CAA Amendments was to expand the EPA’s regulatory authority 

across the board, compelling the agency to regulate more 

pollutants, under more programs, more quickly.290 Conversely, the 

EPA is aware of no statement in the legislative history 

indicating that Congress simultaneously sought to restrict the 

EPA’s authority under CAA section 111(d) or to create gaps in 

the comprehensive structure of the statute. If Congress had 

intended this amendment to make such a change, one would expect 

to see some indication of that in the legislative history. 

 

290 See S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 133 (“There is now a broad 

consensus that the program to regulate hazardous air pollutants 

. . . should be restructured to provide the EPA with authority 

to regulate industrial and area sources of air pollution . . . 

in the near term”), reprinted in 5 A Legislative History of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (“Legis. Hist.”) 8338, 8473 

(Comm. Print 1993); S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 14 (“The bill gives 

significant authority to the Administrator in order to overcome 

the deficiencies in [the NAAQS program]”) & 123 (“Experience 

with the mobile source provisions in Title II of the Act has 

shown that the enforcement authorities . . . need to be 

strengthened and broadened . . .”), reprinted in 5 Legis. Hist. 

at 8354, 8463; H.R. Rep. No. 101-952 at 336-36, 340, 345 & 347 

(discussing enhancements to Act’s motor vehicle provisions, the 

EPA’s new authority to promulgate chemical accident prevention 

regulations, the enactment of the Title V permit program, and 

enhancements to the EPA’s enforcement authority), reprinted in 5 

Legis. Hist. at 1786, 1790, 1795, & 1997. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 273 of 1546

Fourth, when applied in the context of this rule, the EPA’s 

interpretation of the House amendment is consistent with the 

Senate amendment. Thus, this interpretation avoids creating a 

conflict within the statute. See discussion above of Scialabba, 

134 S. Ct. 2191 at 2220 (citing and quoting, among other 

authorities, A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The 

Interpretation of Legal Texts 180 (2012) (“The provisions of a 

text should be interpreted in a way that renders them 

compatible, not contradictory. . . . [T]here can be no 

justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if 

they can be interpreted harmoniously”)). 

In sum, when this interpretation of the House amendment is 

applied in the context of this rule, the result is that the EPA 

may promulgate CAA section 111(d) regulations covering carbon 

dioxide emissions from existing power plants notwithstanding 

that power plants are regulated for their HAP emissions under 

CAA section 112. 

5. The Two Amendments Are Easily Reconciled And Can Be Given Full 

Effect 

 Given that both the House and Senate amendments should be 

read individually as having the same meaning in the context 

presented in this rule, giving each amendment full effect is 

straight-forward: the Section 112 Exclusion in section 111(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 274 of 1546

does not foreclose theregulation of non-HAP from a source 

category regardless of whether that source category is also 

regulated under CAA section 112. As applied here, the EPA has 

the authority to promulgate CAA boswellsection 111(d) 

regulations for CO2 from power plants notwithstanding that power 

plants are regulated for HAP under CAA section 112. 

C. Authority to Regulate EGUs 

In a separate, concurrent action, the EPA is also 

finalizing a CAA section 111(b) rulemaking that regulates CO2

emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed EGUs. The 

promulgation of standards for new, modified, or reconstructed 

sources is the requisite predicate for applicability of CAA 

section 111(d). 

 CAA section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to promulgate 

regulations under which states must submit state plans 

regulating “any existing source” of certain pollutants “to which 

a standard of performance would apply if such existing source 

were a new source.” A “new source” is “any stationary source, 

the construction or modification of which is commenced after the 

publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed 

regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under [CAA 

section 111] which will be applicable to such source.” It should 

be noted that these provisions make clear that a “new source” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 275 of 1546

includes one that undertakes either new construction or a 

modification. It should also be noted that the EPA’s 

implementing regulations define “construction” to include 

“reconstruction,” which the implementing regulations go on to 

define as the replacement of components of an existing facility 

to an extent that (i) the fixed capital cost of the new 

components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that 

would be required to construct a comparable entirely new 

facility, and (ii) it is technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable standards. 

 Under CAA section 111(d)(1), in order for existing sources 

to become subject to that provision, the EPA must promulgate 

standards of performance under CAA section 111(b) to which, if 

the existing sources were new sources, they would be subject. 

Those standards of performance may include standards for sources 

that undertake new construction, modifications, or 

reconstructions. 

The EPA is finalizing a rulemaking under CAA section 111(b) 

for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs concurrently with this CAA 

section 111(d) rulemaking, which will provide the requisite 

predicate for applicability of CAA section 111(d).291

 

291 In the past, the EPA has issued standards of performance under 

section 111(b) and emission guidelines under section 111(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 276 of 1546

D. Definition of Affected Sources 

For the emission guidelines, an affected EGU is any fossil 

fuel-fired electric utility steam generating unit (i.e., utility 

boiler or integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) unit) or 

stationary combustion turbine that was in operation or had 

commenced construction as of January 8, 2014,292 and that meets 

the following criteria, which differ depending on the type of 

unit. To be an affected EGU, such a unit, if it is a fossil 

fuel-fired electric utility steam generating unit (i.e., a 

utility boiler or IGCC unit), must serve a generator capable of 

selling greater than 25 MW to a utility power distribution 

system and have a base load rating greater than 260 GJ/h (250 

MMBtu/h) heat input of fossil fuel (either alone or in 

combination with any other fuel). If such a unit is a stationary 

combustion turbine, the unit must meet the definition of a 

combined cycle or combined heat and power combustion turbine, 

serve a generator capable of selling greater than 25 MW to a 

 

simultaneously. See “Standards of Performance for new Stationary 

Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills – Final Rule,” 61 Fed. Reg. 9905 

(March 12, 1996). 

292 Under Section 111(a) of the CAA, determination of affected 

sources is based on the date that the EPA proposes action on 

such sources. January 8, 2014 is the date the proposed GHG 

standards of performance for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs were 

published in the Federal Register (79 FR 1430).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 277 of 1546

utility power distribution system, and have a base load rating 

of greater than 260 GJ/h (250 MMBtu/h). 

When considering and understanding applicability, the 

following definitions may be helpful. Simple cycle combustion 

turbine means any stationary combustion turbine which does not 

recover heat from the combustion turbine engine exhaust gases 

for purposes other than enhancing the performance of the 

stationary combustion turbine itself. Combined cycle combustion 

turbine means any stationary combustion turbine which recovers 

heat from the combustion turbine engine exhaust gases to 

generate steam that is used to create additional electric power 

output in a steam turbine. Combined heat and power (CHP) 

combustion turbine means any stationary combustion turbine which 

recovers heat from the combustion turbine engine exhaust gases 

to heat water or another medium, generate steam for useful 

purposes other than exclusively for additional electric 

generation, or directly uses the heat in the exhaust gases for a 

useful purpose.

We note that certain affected EGUs are exempt from 

inclusion in a state plan. Affected EGUs that may be excluded 

from a state’s plan are those that (1) are subject to subpart 

TTTT as a result of commencing modification or reconstruction; 

(2) steam generating units or IGCC units that are currently and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 278 of 1546

always have been subject to a federally enforceable permit 

limiting net-electric sales to one-third or less of its 

potential electric output or 219,000 MWh or less on an annual 

basis; (3) non-fossil units (i.e., units that are capable of 

combusting 50 percent or more non-fossil fuel) that have 

historically limited the use of fossil fuels to 10 percent or 

less of the annual capacity factor or are subject to a federally 

enforceable permit limiting fossil fuel use to 10 percent or 

less of the annual capacity factor; (4) stationary combustion 

turbines that are not capable of combusting natural gas (i.e., 

not connected to a natural gas pipeline); (5) are a combined 

heat and power unit that are subject to a federally enforceable 

permit limiting, or have historically limited, annual net 

electric sales to a utility power distribution system to the 

product of the design efficiency and the potential electric 

output or 219,000 MWh (whichever is greater) or less; (6) serve 

a generator along with other steam generating unit(s), IGCC(s), 

or stationary combustion turbine(s) where the effective 

generation capacity (determined based on a prorated output of 

the base load rating of each steam generating unit, IGCC, or 

stationary combustion turbine) is 25 MW or less; (7) are a 

municipal waste combustor unit subject to subpart Eb of Part 60; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 279 of 1546

or (8) are a commercial or industrial solid waste incineration 

unit that is subject to subpart CCCC of Part 60.

The rationale for applicability of this final rule is 

multi-fold. We had proposed that affected EGUs were those 

existing source fossil fuel-fired EGUs that met the 

applicability criteria for coverage under the final GHG 

standards for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs being promulgated under 

section 111(b). However, we are finalizing that States need not 

include certain units that would otherwise meet the CAA section 

111(b) applicability in this CAA section 111(d) emission 

guidelines. These include simple cycle turbines, certain nonfossil units, and certain combined heat and power units. The 

final 111(b) standards include applicability criteria for simple 

cycle combustion turbines, for reasons relating to 

implementation and minimizing emissions from all future 

combustion turbines. However, for the following reasons none of 

the building blocks would result in emission reductions from 

simple cycle turbines so we are not requiring that States 

including them in their CAA section 111(d) plans. 

First, even more than combined cycle units, simple cycle 

units have limited opportunities, compared to steam generating 

units, to reduce their heat rate. Most combustion turbines 

likely already follow the manufacturer’s recommended regular 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 280 of 1546

preventive/restorative maintenance for both reliable and 

efficiency reasons. These regularly scheduled maintenance 

practices are highly effective methods to maintain heat rates, 

and additional fleet-wide reductions from simple cycle 

combustion turbines are likely less than 2 percent. In addition, 

while approximately one-fifth of overall fossil fuel-fired 

capacity (GW) consists of simple cycle turbines, these units 

historically have operated at capacity factors of less than 5 

percent and only provide about 1 percent of the fossil fuelfired generation (GWh). Combustion turbine capacity can 

therefore only contribute CO2 emissions amounting to 

approximately 2 percent of total coal-steam CO2 emissions. Any 

single-digit percentage reduction in combustion turbine heat 

rates would therefore provide less than 1 percent reduction in 

total fossil-fired CO2 emissions. 

Further, we are not aware of an approach to estimate any 

limited opportunities that existing simple cycle turbines may 

have to reduce their heat rate. Similar to coal-steam EGUs, we 

do not have the unit-specific detailed design information on 

existing individual simple cycle combustion turbines that is 

necessary for a detailed assessment of the heat rate improvement 

potential via best practices and upgrades for each unit. While 

the EPA could conduct a “variability analysis” of simple cycle 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 281 of 1546

historical hourly heat rate data (as was done for coal-steam 

EGUs), the various simple cycle models in use and the 

historically lower capacity factors of the simple cycle fleet 

(less run time per start, and more part load operation) would 

require a simple cycle analysis that includes more complexity 

and likely more uncertainty than in the coal-steam analysis. 

Therefore, we do not consider it feasible to estimate potential 

reductions due to heat rate improvements from simple cycle 

turbines, and even if it were, we have concluded those 

reductions would be negligible compared to the reductions from 

steam generating units. Hence, we do not consider building block 

1 as practically applicable to simple cycle units. 

Second, the vast majority of simple cycle turbines serve a 

specific need – providing power during periods of peak electric 

demand (i.e., peaking units). The existing block of simple cycle 

turbines are the only units that are able to start fast enough 

and ramp to full load quickly enough to serve as peaking units. 

If these units were to be used under building block 2 to 

displace higher emitting coal-fired units, they would no longer 

be available to serve as peaking units. Therefore, building 

block 2 could not be applied to simple cycle combustion turbines 

without jeopardizing grid reliability. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 282 of 1546

Third, many commenters on the CAA section 111(b) proposal 

stated that simple cycle turbines will be used to provide backup 

power to intermittent renewable sources of power such as wind 

and solar. Consequently, adding additional generation from 

intermittent renewable sources has the potential to actually 

increase emissions from simple cycle turbines. Therefore, 

applying building block 3 based on the capacity of simple cycle 

turbines would not result in emission reductions from simple 

cycle combustion turbines. Finally, the EPA expects existing 

simple cycle turbines to continue to operate as they 

historically have operated, as peaking units. Including simple 

cycle turbines in CAA section 111(d) applicability would impact 

the numerical value of state goals, but it would not impact the 

stringency of the plans. Such inclusion would increase burden 

but result in no environmental benefit. 

FAdditionally, under CAA section 111(b) final applicability 

criteria, new dedicated non-fossil and industrial CHP units are 

not affected sources if they include permit restrictions on the 

amount of fossil fuel they burn and the amount of electricity 

they sell. Such units historically have had no regulatory 

mandate to include permit requirements limiting the use of 

fossil fuel or electric sales. We are exempting them from 

inclusion in CAA section 111(d) state plans in the interest of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 283 of 1546

consistency with CAA section 111(b) and based on their 

historical fuel use and electric sales. 

We discuss changes in applicability of units in relation to 

state plans in Section VIII of this preamble. 

E. Combined Categories and Codification in the Code of Federal 

Regulations 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is combining the listing of 

sources from the two existing source categories for the affected 

EGUs, as listed in 40 CFR subpart Da and 40 CFR subpart KKKK, 

into a single location, 40 CFR subpart UUUU, for purposes of 

addressing the CO2 emissions from existing affected EGUs. The EPA 

is also codifying all of the requirements for the affected EGUs 

in a new subpart UUUU of 40 CFR part 60 and including all GHG 

emission guidelines for the affected sources – fossil fuel–fired 

electric utility steam generating units, as well as stationary 

combustion turbines -- in that newly created subpart.293

We believe that combining the emission guidelines for 

affected sources into a new subpart UUUU is appropriate because 

the emission guidelines the EPA is establishing do not vary by 

type of source. Combining the listing of sources into one 

location, subpart UUUU, will facilitate implementation of CO2

 

293 The EPA is not codifying any of the requirements of this 

rulemaking in subparts Da or KKKK. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 284 of 1546

mitigation measures, such as shifting generation from higher to 

lower-carbon intensity generation among existing sources (e.g., 

shifting from utility boilers to NGCC units), and emission 

trading among sources in the source category. 

As discussed in the January 8, 2014 proposal for the CAA 

section 111(b) standards for GHG emissions from EGUs (79 FR 

1430), in 1971 the EPA listed fossil fuel-fired steam generating 

boilers as a new category subject to section 111 rulemaking, and 

in 1979 the EPA listed fossil fuel-fired combustion turbines as 

a new category subject to the CAA section 111 rulemaking. In the 

ensuing years, the EPA has promulgated standards of performance 

for the two categories and codified those standards, at various 

times, in 40 CFR part 60 subparts D, Da, GG, and KKKK. 

In the January 8, 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed separate 

standards of performance for new sources in the two categories 

and proposed codifying the standards in the same Da and KKKK 

subparts that currently contain the standards of performance for 

conventional pollutants from those sources. In addition, the EPA 

co-proposed combining the two categories into a single category 

solely for purposes of the CO2 emissions from new construction of 

affected EGUs, and codifying the proposed requirements in a new 

40 CFR part 60 subpart TTTT. For the final standards of 

performance for new construction of affected EGUs, the EPA is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 285 of 1546

codifying the final requirements in a new 40 CFR part 60 subpart 

TTTT. 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is combining the two listed source 

categories into a single source category for purposes of the 

emission guidelines for the CO2 emissions from existing affected 

EGUs. Because the two source categories are pre-existing and the 

EPA would not be subjecting any additional sources to 

regulation, the combined source category is not considered a new 

source category that the EPA must list under CAA section 

111(b)(1)(A). As a result, this final rule does not list a new 

source category under section 111(a)(1)(A), nor does this final 

rule revise either of the two source categories – fossil fuel–

fired electric utility steam generating units and stationary 

combustion turbines – that the EPA has already listed under that 

provision. Thus, the EPA is not required to make a finding that 

the combined source category causes or contributes significantly 

to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. 

V. The Best System of Emission Reduction and Associated Building 

Blocks 

 In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed to determine 

that the best system of emission reduction adequately 

demonstrated (BSER) for reducing CO2 emissions from existing EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 286 of 1546

was a combination of measures –- (1) increasing the operational 

efficiency of existing coal-fired steam EGUs, (2) substituting 

increased generation at existing NGCC units for generation at 

existing steam EGUs, (3) substituting generation from low- and 

zero-carbon generating capacity for generation at existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and (4) increasing demand-side energy 

efficiency to reduce the amount of fossil fuel-fired generation 

–- which we categorized as four “building blocks.” As an 

alternative to the proposed building blocks 2, 3, and 4, the EPA 

also identified reduced generation in the amount of those 

building blocks as part of the BSER. These measures are not the 

only approaches EGUs can take to reduce CO2, but are those that 

the EPA felt best met the statutory criteria. We solicited 

comment on all aspects of our BSER determination, including 

other approaches. We have considered thoroughly the extensive 

comments submitted on a variety of topics related to the BSER 

and the individual building blocks, along with our own continued 

analysis, and we are finalizing the BSER based on the first 

three building blocks, with certain refinements. 

 Consistent with the approach taken in the proposed rule, in 

determining the BSER we have taken account of the global nature 

of CO2 pollution and the unique characteristics of the source 

category, particularly the exceptional degree of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 287 of 1546

interconnectedness among individual affected EGUs and the 

longstanding practice of coordinating planning and operations 

across multiple sources, reflecting the fact that each EGU’s 

function is interdependent with the function of other EGUs. Each 

building block is a proven approach for reducing emissions from 

the affected source category that is appropriate in this 

pollutant- and industry-specific context. Each building block 

also encompasses a variety of actions that individual affected 

EGUs may take, including (i) direct investment in efficiency 

improvements and in lower- and zero-carbon generation, (ii) 

cross-investment in these activities through mechanisms such as 

emissions trading approaches, where the state-established 

standards of performance to which sources are subject 

incorporate such approaches, and (iii) reduction of highercarbon generation. 

 With attention to costs, electricity rates, and the 

importance of ensuring continued reliability of electricity 

supplies, the individual building blocks and the overall BSER 

have been defined not at the maximum possible degree of 

stringency but at a reasonable degree of stringency designed to 

appropriately balance consideration of the various BSER factors. 

Additional, non-building block specific aspects of the BSER 

quantification methodology discussed below are similarly mindful 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 288 of 1546

of these considerations. This approach to determination of the 

BSER provides compliance headroom that ensures that the emission 

limitations reflecting the BSER are achievable by the source 

category, but nevertheless, as required by the CAA, will result 

in meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions from this sector. The 

wide range of actions encompassed in the building blocks, and a 

further wide range of possible emissions-reducing actions not 

included in the BSER but nevertheless available to help with 

compliance, ensure that the BSER is achievable by individual 

affected EGUs as well. 

 The final BSER incorporates certain changes from the 

proposed rule, reflecting the EPA’s consideration of comments 

received and further analysis. The principal changes are the 

exclusion from the BSER of emission reductions achievable 

through demand-side energy efficiency and through nuclear 

generation; a revised approach to determination of emission 

reductions achievable through increased renewable energy 

generation; a consistent approach to determination of emission 

reductions achievable through all the building blocks that 

better reflects the regional nature of the electricity system; 

and a revised interim goal period of 2022 to 2029 (instead of 

the proposed interim period of 2020 to 2029). These changes to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 289 of 1546

the BSER and the building blocks are discussed in more detail 

later in this section of the preamble. 

 Also in response to comments, in the final rule we have 

represented the emission limitations achievable through the BSER 

in the form of uniform CO2 emission performance rates for each of 

two affected source subcategories: steam generating units and 

stationary combustion turbines. However, like the proposed rule, 

the final rule also provides weighted-average state-specific 

goals that a state may choose as an alternative method for 

complying with its obligation to set standards of performance 

for its affected EGUs -– an alternative, that is, to adopting 

the nationwide subcategory-based CO2 emission performance rates 

as the standard of performance for its affected EGUs. The change 

to uniform CO2 emission performance rates is discussed in this 

section and in section VI of the preamble, and the relation of 

the performance rates to the state-specific goals and states’ 

section 111(d) plan options is discussed in sections VII and 

VIII of the preamble. 

 Section V.A. describes our determination of the final BSER, 

including a discussion of the associated emissions performance 

level, and provides the rationale for our determination. In 

section V.B. we address certain legal issues in greater detail, 

including key issues raised in comments. Sections V.C. through 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 290 of 1546

V.E. contain more detailed discussions of the three individual 

building blocks included in the final BSER. Further information 

can be found in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP 

Final Rule, the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule, the Response to Comments 

document, and, about certain topics, the Legal Memorandum for 

the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, all of which are available in 

the docket. 

A. The Best System of Emission Reduction 

 This section sets forth our determination of the BSER for 

reducing CO2 emissions from existing EGUs, including a discussion 

of the associated emissions performance level, and the rationale 

for that determination. In section V.A.1., we describe the legal 

framework for determination of the BSER in general. Section 

V.A.2. summarizes the determination of the BSER for this rule. 

In section V.A.3., we discuss changes from the proposal. Section 

V.A.4. provides more detail on our determination of the BSER, 

including our determinations regarding the individual elements 

of the BSER, as applied to two subcategories of fossil steam 

units and combustion turbines. In section V.A.5., we explain the 

specific actions that individual affected EGUs in the two 

subcategories may take to implement the BSER and thereby achieve 

the EPA-identified source subcategory-specific emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 291 of 1546

performance rates that, in turn, form the basis for the 

standards of performance that states must set. Because these 

actions implement the BSER, they may be understood as part of 

the BSER. In this discussion, we recognize that states can 

choose to set sources’ standards of performance in different 

forms and that the form of the standard affects how various 

types of actions can be used to comply with the standard. In 

section V.A.6., we discuss the substantial compliance 

flexibility provided by additional measures, not included in the 

BSER, that individual affected EGUs can use to achieve their 

standards of performance. Finally, section V.A.7. addresses 

severability of the building blocks. 

1. Legal requirements for BSER in the emission guidelines 

a. Introduction. In the June 2014 proposal for this rule, we 

described the principal legal requirement for standards of 

performance under CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1). We based our 

description in part on our discussion of the legal requirements 

for standards of performance under CAA section 111(b) and 

(a)(1), which we included in the January 2014 proposal for 

standards of performance for CO2 emissions from new fossil fuelfired EGUs. In the latter proposal, we noted that the D.C. 

Circuit has handed down numerous decisions that interpret CAA 

section 111(a)(1), including its component elements, and we 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 292 of 1546

reviewed that case law in detail.294

We received comments on our proposed interpretation, and in 

light of those comments, in this final rule, we are clarifying 

our interpretation in certain respects. We discuss our 

interpretation below.295 

b. CAA requirements and court interpretation.296 Section 

111(d)(1) directs the EPA to promulgate regulations establishing 

a section 110-like procedure under which states submit state 

plans that establish “standards of performance” for emissions of 

certain air pollutants from sources which, if they were new 

 

294 79 FR 1430, 1462 (January 8, 2014). 295

 We also discuss our interpretation of the requirements for 

standards of performance and the BSER under section 111(b), for 

new sources, in the section 111(b) rulemaking that the EPA is 

finalizing simultaneously with this rule and in the Legal 

Memorandum for this rule. Our interpretations of these 

requirements in the two rules are generally consistent except to 

the extent that they reflect distinctions between new and 

existing sources. For example, as discussed in the section 

111(b) rule, the legislative history indicates that Congress 

intended that the BSER for new industrial facilities, which were 

expected to have lengthy useful lives, would include the most 

advanced pollution controls available, but Congress had a 

broader conception of the BSER for existing facilities. 

296 Our interpretation of the CAA provisions at issue is guided 

by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). In 

Chevron, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an agency must, at 

Step 1, determine whether Congress’s intent as to the specific 

matter at issue is clear, and, if so, the agency must give 

effect to that intent. If congressional intent is not clear, 

then, at Step 2, the agency has discretion to fashion an 

interpretation that is a reasonable construction of the statute.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 293 of 1546

sources, would be regulated under section 111(b), and that 

implement and enforce those standards of performance. 

The term “standard of performance” is defined to mean— 

a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction which 

(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. 

Section 111(a)(1). 

These provisions authorize the EPA to determine the BSER 

for the affected sources and, based on the BSER, to establish 

emission guidelines that identify the minimum amount of emission 

limitation that a state, in its state plan, must impose on its 

sources through standards of performance. Consistent with these 

CAA requirements, the EPA’s regulations require that the EPA’s 

guidelines reflect-- 

the degree of emission reduction achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction which 

(taking into account the cost of such reduction) the 

Administrator has determined has been adequately 

demonstrated.297 

The EPA’s approach in this rulemaking is to determine the 

 

297 40 C.F.R. § 60.21(e). This definition was promulgated as part 

of the EPA’s CAA 111(d) implementing regulations and was not 

updated to reflect the textual changes adopted by Congress in 

1977. That said, Congress recognized that those changes “merely 

make[] explicit what was implicit in the previous language.” 

H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 190 (May 12, 1977). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 294 of 1546

BSER on a source category-wide basis, to determine the emission 

limitation that results from applying the BSER to the sources, 

and then to establish emission guidelines for the states that 

incorporate those emission limitations. The EPA expresses these 

emission limitations in the form of the performance levels, and 

they must be achievable by the source category.298 

Following the EPA’s promulgation of emission guidelines, 

each state must determine the standards of performance for its 

sources, which the EPA’s regulations terms “designated 

facilities.”299 A state has broad discretion in doing so. CAA 

section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA’s regulations to “permit the 

State in applying a standard of performance to any particular 

source ... to take into consideration, among other factors, the 

remaining useful life of the ... source....”300 In addition, 

 

298

See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 330 (“The language of 

section 111 not only authorizes variable control but also gives 

EPA authority when determining the best technological system to 

weigh cost, energy, and environmental impacts in the broadest 

sense at the national and regional levels and over time as 

opposed to simply at the plant level in the immediate present. 

... The standard is, after all, a national standard with longterm effects.”). 

299 40 C.F.R. § 60.24(b)(3). 300 The EPA’s regulations, promulgated prior to enactment of the 

“remaining useful life” provision of section 111(d)(1), provide: 

“Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a caseby-case basis for particular designated facilities, or classes 

of facilities, States may provide for the application of less 

stringent emission standards or longer compliance schedules than 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 295 of 1546

under CAA section 116, the state is authorized to set a standard 

of performance for any particular source that is more stringent 

than the emission limit contained in the EPA’s emission 

guidelines.301 Thus, for any particular source, a state may apply 

a standard of performance that is either more stringent or less 

stringent than the performance level in the emission guidelines, 

as long as, in total, the state’s sources achieve at least the 

same degree of emission limitation as included in the EPA’s 

emission guidelines. The states must include the standards of 

performance in their state plans and submit the plans to the EPA 

for review.302 Under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A), the EPA approves 

state plans as long as they are “satisfactory.” 

As noted in the January 2014 proposal and discussed in more 

detail above under section II.G, Congress first included the 

definition of “standard of performance” when enacting CAA 

section 111 in the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), amended 

 

those otherwise required” by the corresponding emission 

guideline. 40 C.F.R. § 60.24(f). Some of the factors that a 

state may consider for this case-by-case analysis include the 

“cost of control resulting from plant age, location, or basic 

process design” and the “physical impossibility of installing 

necessary control equipment,” among other factors “that make 

application of a less stringent standard or final compliance 

time significantly more reasonable.” Id. 301 In addition, CAA section 116 authorizes the state to set 

standards of performance for all of its sources that, together, 

are more stringent than the EPA’s emission guidelines. 

302 40 C.F.R. § 60.23. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 296 of 1546

it in the 1977 CAAA, and then amended it again in the 1990 CAAA 

to largely restore the definition as it read in the 1970 CAAA. 

It is in the legislative history for the 1970 and 1977 CAAA that 

Congress primarily addressed the definition as it read at those 

times and that legislative history provides guidance in 

interpreting this provision.303 In addition, although the D.C. 

 

303 In the 1970 CAAA, Congress defined “standard of performance,” 

under §111(a)(1), as: 

a standard for emissions of air pollutants which 

reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the best system of emission 

reduction which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction) the Administrator determines 

has been adequately demonstrated. 

In the 1977 CAAA, Congress revised the definition to 

distinguish among different types of sources, and to require 

that for fossil fuel-fired sources, the standard (i) be based 

on, in lieu of the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated,” the “best technological system of 

continuous emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated;” and 

(ii) require a percentage reduction in emissions. In addition, 

in the 1977 CAAA, Congress expanded the parenthetical 

requirement that the Administrator consider the cost of 

achieving the reduction to also require the Administrator to 

consider “any nonair quality health and environment impact and 

energy requirements.” 

In the 1990 CAAA, Congress again revised the definition, 

this time repealing the requirements that the standard of 

performance be based on the best technological system and 

achieve a percentage reduction in emissions, and replacing those 

provisions with the terms used in the 1970 CAAA version of 

§111(a)(1) that the standard of performance be based on the 

“best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” 

This 1990 CAAA version is the current definition, which is 

applicable at present. Even so, because parts of the definition 

as it read under the 1977 CAAA were retained in the 1990 CAAA, 

the explanation in the 1977 CAAA legislative history, and the 

interpretation in the case law, of those parts of the definition 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 297 of 1546

Circuit has never reviewed a section 111(d) rulemaking, the 

Court has reviewed section 111(b) rulemakings on numerous 

occasions during the past 40 years, handing down decisions dated 

from 1973 to 2011,304 through which the Court has developed a 

body of case law that interprets the term “standard of 

performance.” 

c. Key elements of interpretation. The emission guidelines 

promulgated by the Administrator must include emission 

limitations that are “achievable” by the source category by 

application of a “system of emission reduction” that is 

“adequately demonstrated” and that the EPA determines to be the 

“best,” “taking into account” the factors of “cost ... nonair 

quality health and environmental impact and energy 

requirements.” The D.C. Circuit has stated that in determining 

the “best” system, the EPA must also take into account “the 

amount of air pollution”305 reduced and the role of 

“technological innovation.”306 The Court has emphasized that the 

 

in the case law remain relevant to the definition as it reads 

today. 

304 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, (D.C. 

Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 (D.C. 

Cir. 2011). See also Delaware v. EPA, No. 13-1093 (D.C. Cir. May 

1, 2015). 

305 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir. 

1981). 

306 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 347. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 298 of 1546

EPA has discretion in weighing those various factors.307, 308

Our overall approach to determining the BSER and emission 

guidelines, which incorporates the various elements, is as 

follows: In developing an emission guideline, we generally 

engage in an analytical approach that is similar to what we 

conduct under CAA section 111(b) for new sources. First, we 

identify “system[s] of emission reduction” that have been 

“adequately demonstrated” for a particular source category. 

Second, we determine the “best” of these systems after 

evaluating the amount of reductions, costs, any nonair health 

and environmental impacts, energy requirements, and, in the 

alternative, the advancement of technology (that is, we apply a 

formulation of the BSER with the above noted factors, and then, 

 

307 See Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. 

Cir. 1999). 

308 Although CAA section 111(a)(1) may be read to state that the 

factors enumerated in the parenthetical are part of the 

“adequately demonstrated” determination, the D.C. Circuit’s case 

law appears to treat them as part of the “best” determination. 

See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 330 (recognizing that CAA 

section 111 gives the EPA authority “when determining the best 

technological system to weigh cost, energy, and environmental 

impacts”). Nevertheless, it does not appear that those two 

approaches would lead to different outcomes. See, e.g., Lignite 

Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(rejecting challenge to the EPA’s cost assessment of the “best 

demonstrated system”). In this rule, the EPA treats the factors 

as part of the “best” determination, but, as noted, even if the 

factors were part of the “adequately demonstrated” 

determination, our analysis and outcome would be the same. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 299 of 1546

in the alternative, we apply a formulation of the BSER with 

those same factors plus the advancement of technology). And 

third, we select an achievable emission limit –- here, the 

emission performance standard -- based on the BSER.309 In 

contrast to subsection (b), however, subsection (d)(1) assigns 

to the states, not the EPA, the obligation of setting standards 

of performance for the affected sources. Thus, we also take into 

account whether states can establish standards of performance 

that can implement the measures under consideration for 

inclusion in the BSER. As discussed below in the following 

subsection, in examining the range of reasonable options for 

states to consider in setting standards of performance under 

these guidelines, we identified a number of considerations, 

including the interconnected operations of the affected sources 

and the global nature of the CO2 pollutant. And third, we select 

an achievable emission limit –- here, the emission performance 

standard -- based on the BSER.310 

 

309

See, e.g., Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

pollutants Reviews, 77 FR 49490, 49494 (Aug. 16, 2012) 

(describing the three-step analysis in setting a standard of 

performance). 

310

See, e.g., Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

pollutants Reviews, 77 FR 49490, 49494 (Aug. 16, 2012) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 300 of 1546

The remainder of this subsection discusses the various 

elements in our general analytical approach. 

(1) System of emission reduction. 

As we discuss below, the CAA does not define the phrase 

“system of emission reduction.” The ordinary, everyday meaning 

of “system” is a set of things or parts forming a complex whole; 

a set of principles or procedures according to which something 

is done; an organized scheme or method; and a group of 

interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements.311 With 

this definition, the phrase “system of emission reduction” takes 

a broad meaning: a set of measures that work together to reduce 

emissions. The EPA interprets this phrase to carry an important 

limitation: because the emission guidelines for the existing 

sources must reflect “the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of the best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated,” the system must 

be limited to measures that can be implemented -– “appl[ied]” -- 

 

(describing the three-step analysis in setting a standard of 

performance). 

311 Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.) (2010), available at

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english

/system; see also American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.) (2013), 

available at 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/system#americanheritage; and The 

American College Dictionary (C.L. Barnhart, ed. 1970) (“an 

assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex 

or unitary whole”). 

Deleted: http://www.yourdictionary.com/system#a

mericanheritage
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 301 of 1546

by the sources themselves, that is, as a practical matter, by 

actions taken by the owners or operators of the sources. As we 

discuss below, this definition is sufficiently broad to include 

the building blocks. 

(2) “Adequately demonstrated.” 

Under section 111(a)(1), in order for a “system of emission 

reduction” to serve as the basis for an “achievable” emission 

limitation, the Administrator must determine that the system is 

“adequately demonstrated.” This means, according to the D.C. 

Circuit, that the system is “one which has been shown to be 

reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient, and which can 

reasonably be expected to serve the interests of pollution 

control without becoming exorbitantly costly in an economic or 

environmental way.”312 It does not mean that the system “must be 

in actual routine use somewhere.”313 Rather, the Court has said, 

“[t]he Administrator may make a projection based on existing 

technology, though that projection is subject to the restraints 

of reasonableness and cannot be based on ‘crystal ball’ 

 

312

Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 

1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974). 313

Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973) (citations omitted) (discussing the Senate and House 

bills and reports from which the language in CAA section 111 

grew). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 302 of 1546

inquiry.”314 Similarly, the EPA may “hold the industry to a 

standard of improved design and operational advances, so long as 

there is substantial evidence that such improvements are 

feasible.”315 Ultimately, the analysis “is partially dependent on 

‘lead time,’” that is, “the time in which the technology will 

have to be available.”316 Unlike for CAA section 111(b) standards 

that are applicable immediately after the effective date of 

their promulgation, under CAA section 111(e), compliance with 

CAA section 111(d) standards may be set sometime in the future. 

This is due, in part, to the period of time for states to submit 

state plans and for the EPA to act on them. 

(3) “Best.” 

In determining which adequately demonstrated system of 

emission reduction is the “best,” the EPA considers the 

following factors: 

(a) Costs. 

Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take 

into account “the cost of achieving” the required emission 

reductions. As described in the January 2014 proposal,317 in 

 

314 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973) (citations omitted). 

315 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 364 (1981). 316 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973) (citations omitted). 

317 79 FR 1430, 1464 (January 8, 2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 303 of 1546

several cases the D.C. Circuit has elaborated on this cost 

factor and formulated the cost standard in various ways, stating 

that the EPA may not adopt a standard the cost of which would be 

“exorbitant,”318 “greater than the industry could bear and 

survive,”319 “excessive,”320 or “unreasonable.”321 These 

formulations appear to be synonymous, and for convenience, in 

this rulemaking, we will use reasonableness as the standard, so 

that a control technology may be considered the “best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” if its costs are 

reasonable, but cannot be considered the best system if its 

 

318 Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 

1999). 

319 Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 513 F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 

1975). 

320 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 321 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 304 of 1546

costs are unreasonable.322, 323 

The D.C. Circuit has never invalidated a standard of 

performance on grounds that it was too costly. In several cases, 

the Court upheld standards that entailed significant costs, 

consistent with Congress’s view that “the costs of applying best 

 

322 These cost formulations are consistent with the legislative 

history of section 111. The 1977 House Committee Report noted: 

In the [1970] Congress [sic: Congress’s] view, it was 

only right that the costs of applying best practicable 

control technology be considered by the owner of a 

large new source of pollution as a normal and proper 

expense of doing business. 

1977 House Committee Report at 184. Similarly, the 1970 Senate 

Committee Report stated: 

The implicit consideration of economic factors in 

determining whether technology is “available” should 

not affect the usefulness of this section. The 

overriding purpose of this section would be to prevent 

new air pollution problems, and toward that end, 

maximum feasible control of new sources at the time of 

their construction is seen by the committee as the 

most effective and, in the long run, the least 

expensive approach. 

S. Comm. Rep. No. 91-1196 at 16. 

323 We received comments that we do not have authority to revise 

the cost standard as established in the case law, e.g., 

“exorbitant,” “excessive,” etc., to a “reasonableness” standard 

that the commenters considered less protective of the 

environment. We agree that we do not have authority to revise 

the cost standard as established in the case law, and we are not 

attempting to do so here. Rather, our description of the cost 

standard as “reasonableness” is intended to be a convenient term 

for referring to the cost standard as established in the case 

law. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 305 of 1546

practicable control technology be considered by the owner of a 

large new source of pollution as a normal and proper expense of 

doing business.”324 See Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 

F.2d 427, 440 (D.C. Cir. 1973);325 Portland Cement Association v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 387-88 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club 

v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (upholding 

standard imposing controls on SO2 emissions from coal-fired power 

plants when the “cost of the new controls ... is 

substantial”).326 

As discussed below, the EPA may consider costs on both a 

source-specific basis and a sector-wide, regional, or nationwide 

basis. 

(b) Non-air health and environmental impacts. 

Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take 

into account “any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact” in determining the BSER. As the D.C. Circuit has 

 

324 1977 House Committee Report at 184. 325 The costs for these standards were described in the 

rulemakings. See 36 FR 24876 (December 23, 1971), 37 FR 5767, 

5769 (March 21, 1972). 

326 Indeed, in upholding the EPA’s consideration of costs under 

other provisions requiring consideration of cost, courts have 

also noted the substantial discretion delegated to the EPA to 

weigh cost considerations with other factors. Chemical Mfr’s 

Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F. 2d 177, 251 (5th Cir. 1989); Association of 

Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027, 1054 (3d Cir. 

1975); Ass’n of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F. 2d 794, 808 

(9th Cir. 1980). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 306 of 1546

explained, this requirement makes explicit that a system cannot 

be “best” if it does more harm than good due to cross-media 

environmental impacts.327

(c) Energy considerations. 

Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take 

into account “energy requirements.” As discussed below, the EPA 

may consider energy requirements on both a source-specific basis 

and a sector-wide, region-wide, or nationwide basis. Considered 

on a source-specific basis, “energy requirements” entails, for 

example, the impact, if any, of the system of emission reduction 

on the source’s own energy needs. 

(d) Amount of emissions reductions. 

In the proposed rulemakings for this rule and the 

associated section 111(b) rule, we noted that although the 

definition of “standard of performance” does not by its terms 

identify the amount of emissions from the category of sources or 

the amount of emission reductions achieved as factors the EPA 

must consider in determining the “best system of emission 

reduction,” the D.C. Circuit has stated that the EPA must do so. 

See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 

 

327 Portland Cement v. EPA, 486 F. 2d at 384; Sierra Club v. 

Costle, 657 F. 2d at 331; see also Essex Chemical Corp. v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d at 439 (remanding standard to consider 

solid waste disposal implications of the BSER determination). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 307 of 1546

(“we can think of no sensible interpretation of the statutory 

words “best ... system” which would not incorporate the amount 

of air pollution as a relevant factor to be weighed when 

determining the optimal standard for controlling ... 

emissions”).328 The fact that the purpose of a “system of 

emission reduction” is to reduce emissions, and that the term 

itself explicitly incorporates the concept of reducing 

emissions, supports the Court’s view that in determining whether 

a “system of emission reduction” is the “best,” the EPA must 

consider the amount of emission reductions that the system would 

yield. Even if the EPA were not required to consider the amount 

of emission reductions, the EPA has the discretion to do so, on 

grounds that either the term “system of emission reduction” or 

the term “best” may reasonably be read to allow that discretion. 

 (e) Sector- or nationwide component of factors in 

determining the BSER. 

As discussed in the January 2014 proposal for the section 

 

328 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981) was 

governed by the 1977 CAAA version of the definition of “standard 

of performance,” which revised the phrase “best system” to read, 

“best technological system.” As noted above, the 1990 CAAA 

deleted “technological,” and thereby returned the phrase to how 

it read under the 1970 CAAA. The court’s interpretation of this 

phrase in Sierra Club v. Costle to require consideration of the 

amount of air emissions remains valid for the phrase “best 

system.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 308 of 1546

111(b) rulemaking and the proposal for this rulemaking, another 

component of the D.C. Circuit’s interpretations of CAA section 

111 is that the EPA may consider the various factors it is 

required to consider on a national or regional level and over 

time, and not only on a plant-specific level at the time of the 

rulemaking.329 The D.C. Circuit based this interpretation – which 

it made in the 1981 Sierra Club v. Costle case, which concerned 

the NSPS for new power plants -- on a review of the legislative 

history, stating, 

[T]he Reports from both Houses on the Senate and House 

bills illustrate very clearly that Congress itself was 

using a long-term lens with a broad focus on future 

costs, environmental and energy effects of different 

technological systems when it discussed section 111.330 

The Court has upheld EPA rules that the EPA “justified ... in 

terms of the policies of the Act,” including balancing long-term 

national and regional impacts: 

The standard reflects a balance in environmental, 

economic, and energy consideration by being 

sufficiently stringent to bring about substantial 

reductions in SO2 emissions (3 million tons in 1995) 

yet does so at reasonable costs without significant 

energy penalties.... By achieving a balanced coal 

demand within the utility sector and by promoting the 

development of less expensive SO2 control technology, 

the final standard will expand environmentally 

acceptable energy supplies to existing power plants 

 

329 79 FR 1430, 1465 (January 8, 2014) (citing Sierra Club v. 

Costle, 657 F.2d at 351). 330 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 331 (citations omitted) 

(citing legislative history).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 309 of 1546

and industrial sources. 

By substantially reducing SO2 emissions, the standard 

will enhance the potential for long term economic 

growth at both the national and regional levels.331

As with the final rule under section 111(b) that is 

associated with this rule, the EPA is considering costs and 

energy implications on the basis of both their sourcespecific impacts and a sector-wide, regional, or national 

basis. 

(4) Achievability of the emission limitation in the 

emission guidelines. 

Before discussing the requirement under section 111(d) that 

the emission limitation in the emission guidelines must be 

“achievable,” it is useful to discuss the comparable requirement 

under section 111(b) for new sources. For new sources, CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B) and (a)(1) provides that the EPA must 

establish “standards of performance,” which are standards for 

emissions that reflect the degree of emission limitation that is 

“achievable” through the application of the BSER. According to 

the D.C. Circuit, a standard of performance is “achievable” if a 

 

331 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 327-28 (quoting 44 Fed. 

Reg. at 33,583/3-33,584/1). In the January 2014 proposal, we 

explained that although the D.C. Circuit decided Sierra Club v. 

Costle before the Chevron case was decided in 1984, the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision could be justified under either Chevron step 

1 or 2. 79 FR 1430, 1466 (January 8, 2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 310 of 1546

technology can reasonably be projected to be available to an 

individual source at the time it is constructed that will allow 

it to meet the standard.332 Moreover, according to the Court, 

”[a]n achievable standard is one which is within the realm of 

the adequately demonstrated system’s efficiency and which, while 

not at a level that is purely theoretical or experimental, need 

not necessarily be routinely achieved within the industry prior 

to its adoption.”333 To be achievable, a standard “must be 

capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can be 

reasonably be expected to recur and which are not or cannot be 

taken into account in determining the ‘cost of compliance.’”334

To show a standard is achievable, the EPA must “(1) identify 

variable conditions that might contribute to the amount of 

expected emissions, and (2) establish that the test data relied 

on by the agency are representative of potential industry-wide 

performance, given the range of variables that affect the 

achievability of the standard.”335

 

332 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 364, n. 276 (D.C. Cir. 

1981). 

333 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433-34 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974). 334 Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433, n.46 (D.C. Cir. 

1980). 

335 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 377 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 

(citing Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

In considering the representativeness of the source tested, the 

EPA may consider such variables as the “‘feedstock, operation, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 311 of 1546

The D.C. Circuit established these standards for 

achievability in cases concerning CAA section 111(b) new source 

standards of performance. There is no case law under CAA section 

111(d). Assuming that those standards for achievability apply 

under section 111(d), in this rulemaking, we are taking a 

similar approach for the emission limitation that the EPA 

identifies in the emission guidelines. For existing sources, 

section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to establish requirements for 

state plans that, in turn, must include “standards of 

performance.” Through long-standing regulations336 and consistent 

practice, the EPA has interpreted this provision to require the 

EPA to promulgate emission guidelines that determine the BSER 

for a source category and that identify the amount of emission 

limitation achievable by application of the BSER. 

The EPA has promulgated these emission guidelines on the 

basis that the existing sources can achieve the limitation, even 

though the State retains discretion to apply standards of 

performance to individual sources that are more or less 

stringent. 

 

size and age’ of the source.” Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 

416, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Moreover, it may be sufficient to 

“generalize from a sample of one when one is the only available 

sample, or when that one is shown to be representative of the 

regulated industry along relevant parameters.” Nat’l Lime Ass’n 

v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 434, n.52 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 336 40 C.F.R. § 60.21(e). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 312 of 1546

(a) Technical feasibility. 

As indicated in the proposed rulemakings for this rule and 

the associated section 111(b) rule, the requirement that the 

emission limitation in the emission guidelines be “achievable” 

based on the “best system of emission reduction ... adequately 

demonstrated” indicates that the technology or other measures 

that the EPA identifies as the BSER must be technically 

feasible. See 79 FR 1430, 1463 (January 8, 2014). At least in 

some cases, in determining whether the emission limitation is 

achievable, it is useful to analyze the technical feasibility of 

the system of emission reduction, and we do so in this 

rulemaking. 

(5) Expanded use and development of technology. 

The D.C. Circuit has long held that Congress intended for 

CAA section 111 to create incentives for new technology and 

therefore that the EPA is required to consider technological 

innovation as one of the factors in determining the “best system 

of emission reduction.” See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 

346-47. The Court has grounded its reading in the statutory 

text.337 In addition, the Court’s interpretation finds firm 

 

337 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F. 2d at 346 (“Our interpretation 

of section 111(a) is that the mandated balancing of cost, 

energy, and nonair quality health and environmental factors 

embraces consideration of technological innovation as part of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 313 of 1546

support in the legislative history.338 The legislative history 

identifies three different ways that Congress designed CAA 

section 111 to authorize standards of performance that promote 

technological improvement: (i) the development of technology 

that may be treated as the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated;” under section 111(a)(1);339 (ii) the 

expanded use of the best demonstrated technology;340 and (iii) 

the development of emerging technology.341 Even if the EPA were 

not required to consider technological innovation as part of its 

determination of the BSER, it would be reasonable for the EPA to 

consider it, either because technological innovation may be 

 

that balance. The statutory factors which EPA must weigh are 

broadly defined and include within their ambit subfactors such 

as technological innovation.”). 

338 See S. Rep. 91-1196 at 16 (1970) (“Standards of performance 

should provide an incentive for industries to work toward 

constant improvement in techniques for preventing and 

controlling emissions from stationary sources”); S. Rep. 95-127 

at 17 (1977) (cited in Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 346 n. 

174) (“The section 111 Standards of Performance ... sought to 

assure the use of available technology and to stimulate the 

development of new technology”). 

339 See Portland Cement Ass’n v.Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 

(D.C. Cir. 1973) (the best system of emission reduction must 

“look[] toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated 

future, rather than the state of the art at present”). 

340 See 1970 Senate Committee Report No. 91-1196 at 15 (“The 

maximum use of available means of preventing and controlling air 

pollution is essential to the elimination of new pollution 

problems”). 

341 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 351 (upholding a 

standard of performance designed to promote the use of an 

emerging technology). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 314 of 1546

considered an element of the term “best,” or because the term 

“best system of emission reduction” is ambiguous as to whether 

technological innovation may be considered, and it is reasonable 

for the EPA to interpret it to authorize consideration of 

technological innovation in light of Congress’s emphasis on 

technological innovation. 

In any event, as discussed below, the EPA may justify the 

control technologies identified in this rule as the BSER even 

without considering the factor of incentivizing technological 

innovation or development. 

(6) EPA discretion. 

The D.C. Circuit has made clear that the EPA has broad 

discretion in determining the appropriate standard of 

performance under the definition in CAA section 111(a)(1), 

quoted above. Specifically, in Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 

298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the Court explained that “section 111(a) 

explicitly instructs the EPA to balance multiple concerns when 

promulgating a NSPS,”342 and emphasized that “[t]he text gives 

the EPA broad discretion to weigh different factors in setting 

the standard.”343 In Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 

 

342

Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 319. 343 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 321; see also New York v. 

Reilly, 969 F. 2d at 1150 (because Congress did not assign the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 315 of 1546

(D.C. Cir. 1999), the Court reiterated: 

Because section 111 does not set forth the weight that 

should be assigned to each of these factors, we have 

granted the agency a great degree of discretion in 

balancing them.... EPA's choice [of the ‘best system’] 

will be sustained unless the environmental or economic 

costs of using the technology are exorbitant.... EPA 

[has] considerable discretion under section 111.344 

d. Approach to the source category and subcategorizing. Section 

111 requires the EPA first to list source categories that may 

reasonably be expected to endanger public health or welfare and 

then to regulate new sources within each such source category. 

Section 111(b)(2) grants the EPA discretion whether to 

“distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories 

of new sources for the purpose of establishing [new source] 

standards,” which we refer to as “subcategorizing.” Section 

111(d)(1), in conjunction with section 111(a)(1), simply 

 

specific weight the Administrator should assign to the statutory 

elements, “the Administrator is free to exercise [her] 

discretion” in promulgating an NSPS). 

344

Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 

1999) (paragraphing revised for convenience). See New York v. 

Reilly, 969 F.2d 1147, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“Because Congress 

did not assign the specific weight the Administrator should 

accord each of these factors, the Administrator is free to 

exercise his discretion in this area.”); see also NRDC v. EPA, 

25 F.3d 1063, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (EPA did not err in its 

final balancing because “neither RCRA nor EPA’s regulations 

purports to assign any particular weight to the factors listed 

in subsection (a)(3). That being the case, the Administrator was 

free to emphasize or deemphasize particular factors, constrained 

only by the requirements of reasoned agency decisionmaking.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 316 of 1546

requires the EPA to determine the BSER, does not prescribe the 

method for doing so, and is silent as to whether the EPA may 

subcategorize. The EPA interprets this provision to authorize 

the EPA discretion as to whether and, if so, how to 

subcategorize. In addition, the regulations under CAA section 

111(d) provide -- 

The Administrator will specify different emission 

guidelines or compliance times or both for different 

sizes, types, and classes of designated facilities 

when costs of the control, physical limitations, 

geographical location, or similar factors make 

subcategorization appropriate.345

 As with any of its own regulations, the EPA has authority 

to interpret or revise these regulations. 

 Of course, regardless of whether the EPA subcategorizes 

within a source category for purposes of determining the BSER 

and the emissions performance level for the emission guideline, 

as part of its section 111(d) plan, a state retains great 

flexibility in assigning standards of performance to its 

affected EGUs. Thus, the state may, if it wishes, impose 

different emission reduction obligations on different sources, 

as long as the overall level of emission limitation is at least 

as stringent as the emission guidelines. 

2. The BSER for this Rule -– Overview 

 

345 40 CFR 60.22(b)(5). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 317 of 1546

a. Summary. This section describes the EPA’s overall approach to 

establishing the BSER. This rule, promulgated under CAA section 

111(d), establishes emission guidelines for states to use in 

establishing standards of performance for affected EGUs, and the 

BSER is the central determination that the EPA must make in 

formulating the guidelines. In order to establish the BSER we 

have considered the subcategory of the steam affected EGUs as a 

whole, and the subcategory of the combustion turbine affected 

EGUs as a whole, and have identified the BSER for each 

subcategory as the measures that the sources, viewed together 

and operating under the standards of performance established for 

them by the states, can implement to reduce their emissions to 

an appropriate amount, and that meet the other requirements for 

the BSER including, for example, cost reasonableness.346 After 

identifying the BSER in this manner, the EPA determines the 

performance levels –- in this case, the CO2 emission performance 

rates –- for the steam generators and for the combustion 

turbines. 

 

346 In this rulemaking, our determination that the costs are 

reasonable means that the costs meet the cost standard in the 

case law no matter how that standard is articulated, this is, 

whether the cost standard is articulated through the terms that 

the case law uses, e.g., “exorbitant,” “excessive,” etc., or 

through the term we use for convenience, “reasonableness”. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 318 of 1546

In establishing the BSER the EPA also considered the set of 

actions that an EGU, operating under a standard of performance 

established by its state, may take to achieve the applicable 

performance rate, if the state adopts that rate as the standard 

of performance and applies it to the EGUs in its jurisdiction, 

or to achieve the equivalent mass-based limit, and that meet the 

other requirements for the BSER. These actions implement the 

BSER and may therefore be understood as part of the BSER. 

An example illustrating the relationship between the 

measures determined to constitute the BSER for the source 

category and the actions that may be undertaken by individual 

sources that are therefore also part of the BSER is the 

substitution of non-emitting generation for CO2-emitting 

generation. This measure involves two distinct actions: 

increasing the amount of non-emitting generation and reducing 

the amount of CO2-emitting generation. From the perspective of 

the source category, the two actions are halves of a single 

balanced endeavor, but from the perspective of any individual 

affected EGU, the two actions are separable, and a particular 

affected EGU may decide to implement either or both of the 

actions. Further, an individual source may choose to invest 

directly in actions at its own facility or an affiliated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 319 of 1546

facility or to cross-invest in actions at other facilities on 

the interconnected electricity system. 

To reiterate the overall context for the BSER: In this 

rule, the EPA determined the BSER, and applied it to the 

category of affected EGUs to determine the performance levels –- 

that is, the CO2 emission performance rates -- for steam 

generators and for combustion turbines. States must impose 

standards of performance on their sources that implement the CO2

emissions performance rates, or, as an alternative method of 

compliance, in total, achieve the same emissions performance 

level that the CO2 emission performance rates would achieve if 

applied directly to each source as the standard or emissions 

limitation it must meet.347 Each state has flexibility in how it 

assigns the emission limitations to its affected EGUs –- and in 

fact, the state can be more stringent than the guidelines 

require –- but one of the state’s choices is to convert the CO2

emission performance rates into standards of performance –- 

which may incorporate emissions trading –- for each of its 

affected EGUs. If a state does so, then the affected EGUs may 

achieve their emission limits by taking the actions that qualify 

as the BSER. Since the BSER and, in this case its constituent 

 

347 The approaches that states may take in their plans are 

discussed in section VIII. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 320 of 1546

elements, reflect the critical criteria of feasibility, 

reasonable cost, and other BSER criteria, the BSER assures that 

there is at least one pathway –- the CO2 emission performance 

rates -- for the state and its affected EGUs to take that 

achieves the requisite level of emission reductions, while, 

again, assuring that the affected EGUs can achieve those 

emission limits at reasonable cost and consistent with the other 

factors for the BSER. 

This section describes the EPA’s process and basis for 

determining the BSER for the purpose of determining the CO2

emission performance rates.348 The EPA is identifying the BSER as 

a well-established set of measures that have been used by EGUs 

for many years to achieve various business and policy purposes, 

and have been used in recent years for the specific purpose of 

reducing EGUs’ CO2 emissions, and that are appropriate to the 

global nature of carbon pollution and afforded by the highly 

integrated nature of the utility power sector. We evaluated 

these measures with a view to the states’ obligation to 

establish standards of performance and included in our BSER 

determination consideration of the range of options available 

for states to employ in establishing those standards of 

 

348 Other sections in this preamble describe how EPA calculated 

the CO2 emission performance rates based on the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 321 of 1546

performance. These measures include (i) increasing the 

operational efficiency of existing coal-fired steam EGUs on 

average by a specified percentage (building block 1); (ii) 

substituting increased generation from existing NGCC units for 

reduced generation at existing steam EGUs in specified amounts 

(building block 2); and (iii) substituting increased generation 

from new zero-emitting renewable energy generating capacity for 

reduced generation at existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs in 

specified amounts (building block 3). It should be noted that 

building block 2 incorporates reduced generation from steam EGUs 

on a source category-wide basis and building block 3 

incorporates reduced generation from all fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

on a source category-wide basis. Further, as discussed below, 

given the global nature of carbon pollution and the highly 

integrated utility power sector, each of the building blocks 

incorporates various mechanisms for facilitating crossinvestment by individual affected EGUs in emission rate 

improvements or emission reduction activities at other locations 

on the interconnected electricity system. The range of 

mechanisms includes bilateral investment of various kinds; the 

issuance and acquisition of emission rate credits representing 

the emissions-reducing effects of specific activities, where 

available under state plans; and more general emissions trading 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 322 of 1546

using rate-based credits or mass-based allowances (as discussed 

in section V.A.2.f. below), where the affected EGUs are 

operating under standards of performance that incorporate 

emissions trading .349

The set of measures identified as the BSER for the source 

category encompasses a menu of actions that are part of the BSER 

and that individual affected EGUs may implement in different 

amounts and combinations in order to achieve their emission 

limits at reasonable cost. This menu includes actions that (i) 

affected steam EGUs can implement to improve their heat rates; 

(ii) affected steam EGUs can implement to increase generation 

from lower-emitting existing NGCC units in specified amounts, 

(iii) all affected EGUs can implement to increase generation 

from new low- or zero-carbon generation sources in specified 

amounts, (iv) all affected EGUs can implement to reduce their 

generation in specified amounts, and (v) all affected EGUs 

operating under a standard of performance that incorporates 

emissions trading can implement by means of purchasing ratebased emission credits or mass-based emission allowances from 

other affected EGUs, since the effect of the purchase would be 

 

349 Conditions for the use of these mechanisms under various 

state plans are discussed in section VIII. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 323 of 1546

the same as achieving the other listed actions through direct 

means.350 

Importantly, affected EGUs also have available numerous 

other measures that are not included in the BSER but that could 

materially help the EGUs achieve their emission limits and 

thereby provide compliance flexibility. Examples include, among 

numerous other approaches, investment in demand-side energy 

efficiency, co-firing with natural gas (for coal-fired steam 

EGUs), and investment in new generating units using low- or 

zero-carbon generating technologies other than those that are 

part of building block 3. 

b. The EPA’s review of measures for determining the BSER. The 

EPA described in the proposal for this rule the analytical 

process by which the EPA determined the BSER for this source 

category. The EPA is finalizing large parts of that analysis, 

but the EPA is also refining that analysis as informed by the 

information and data provided by commenters and our further 

evaluation. What follows is the EPA’s final determination. 

As described in the proposal, to determine the BSER, the 

EPA began by considering the characteristics of CO2 pollution and 

the utility power sector. Not surprisingly, whenever the EPA 

 

350 Again, conditions for the use of these mechanisms under 

various state plans are discussed in section VIII. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 324 of 1546

begins the regulatory process under section 111, it initially 

undertakes these same inquiries and then proceeds to fashion the 

rule to fit the industry. For example, in 1979, the EPA 

finalized new standards of performance to limit emissions of SO2

from new, modified, and reconstructed EGUs.351 In assessing the 

final SO2 standard, the EPA carried out extensive analyses of a 

range of alternative SO2 standards “to identify environmental, 

economic, and energy impacts associated with each of the 

alternatives considered at the national and regional levels.”352

In identifying the best system underlying the final standard, 

the EPA evaluated “coal cleaning and the relative economics of 

FGD [flue gas desulfurization] and coal cleaning” together as 

the “best demonstrated system for SO2 emission reduction.”353 The 

 

351

 The need for new standards was due in part to findings that in 

1976, steam electric generating units were responsible for “65 

percent of the SO2 ... emissions on a national basis.” 44 FR 

33580, 33587 (June 11, 1979). The EPA explained that [u]nder the 

current performance standards for power plants, national SO2

emissions are projected to increase approximately 17 percent 

between 1975 and 1995. Impacts will be more dramatic on a 

regional basis.” Id. Thus, “[o]n January 27, 1977, EPA announced 

that it had initiated a study to review the technological, 

economic, and other factors needed to determine to what extent 

the SO2 standard for fossil-fuel-fired steam generators should be 

revised.” Id. at 33587-33588. 352 44 FR 33580, 33582 (June 11, 1979). 353 44 FR 33580, 33593. The EPA considered an investigation by 

the U.S. Department of the Interior regarding the amount of 

sulfur that could be removed from various coals by physical coal 

cleaning. Id. at 33593. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 325 of 1546

EPA also took into account the unique features of power 

transmission along the interconnected grid and the unique 

commercial relationships that rely on those features.354=

Similarly, in 1996, the EPA finalized section 111(b) 

standards and 111(d) emission guidelines to ensure that certain 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills controlled landfill gases 

to the level achievable through application of the BSER.355 EPA’s 

identification of this BSER was critically influenced by the 

“unique emission pattern of landfills.”356 Unlike “typical 

stationary source[s],” which only generate emissions while in 

operation, MSW landfills can “continue to generate and emit a 

significant quantity of emissions” long after the facility has 

 

354 See 44 FR 33580, 33597-33600 (taking into account “the amount 

of power that could be purchased from neighboring interconnected 

utility companies” and noting that “[a]lmost all electric 

utility generating units in the United States are electrically 

interconnected through power transmission lines and switching 

stations” and that “load can usually be shifted to other 

electric generating units”). 

355

 61 FR 9905, 9905 (March 12, 1996). In the rule, the EPA 

referred to the BSER for both new and existing MSW landfills as 

“the best demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction,” 

as well as the “BDT”—short for “best demonstrated technology.” 

See, e.g., id. at 9905–07, 9913–14. 356 61 FR 9905, 9908; see 56 FR 24468, 24478 (May 30, 1991) 

(explaining at proposal that because landfill-gas emission rates 

“gradually increase” from zero after the landfill opens, and 

“gradually decrease” from peak emissions after closure, the 

EPA’s identification of the BSER for landfills inherently 

requires a determination of “when controls systems must be 

installed and when they may be removed”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 326 of 1546

closed or otherwise stopped accepting waste.357 In recognition of 

this salient and unique characteristic of landfills, the EPA set 

the BSER based on an emission-reducing system of gas collection 

and control that remained in place as long as emissions remained 

above a certain threshold -- even after the regulated landfill 

had permanently closed.358 The EPA acknowledged that for some 

landfills, it could take 50 to 100 years for emissions to drop 

below the cutoff.359

For this rule, we discuss at length in the proposed rule 

and in section II above the unique characteristics of CO2

pollution. The salient facts include the global nature of CO2, 

which makes the specific location of emission reductions 

unimportant; the enormous quantities of CO2 emitted by the 

utility power sector, coupled with the fact that CO2 is 

relatively unreactive, which make CO2 much more difficult to 

mitigate by measures or technologies that are typically utilized 

within an existing power plant; the need to make large 

reductions of CO2 in order to protect human health and the 

 

357 See U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: 

Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance 

Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills, Docket No. EPA-453R/96-004 at 1-3 (February 1999). 358 61 FR 9905, 9907–08. 359 61 FR 9905, 9908. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 327 of 1546

environment; and the fact that the utility power sector is the 

single largest source category by a considerable margin. 

We also discuss at length in the proposal and in section II 

above the unique characteristics of the utility power sector. 

Topics of that discussion include the physical properties of 

electricity and the integrated nature of the electricity system. 

Here, we reiterate and emphasize that the utility power sector 

is unique in the extent to which it must balance supply and 

demand on a real-time basis, with limited electricity storage 

capacity to act as a buffer. In turn, the need for real-time 

synchronization across each interconnection has led to a 

uniquely high degree of coordination and interdependence in both 

planning and real-time system operation among the owners and 

operators of the facilities comprised within each of the three 

large electrical interconnections covering the contiguous 48 

states. Given these unique characteristics, it is not surprising 

that the North American power system has been characterized as a 

“complex machine.”360 The core function of providing reliable 

electricity service is carried out not by individual electricity 

generating units but by the complex machine as a whole. 

Important subsidiary functions such as management of costs and 

 

360 S. Massoud Amin, “Securing the Electricity Grid,” The Bridge, 

Spring 2010, at 13, 14; Phillip F. Schewe, The Grid: A Journey 

Through the Heart of Our Electrified World 1 (2007). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 328 of 1546

management of environmental impacts are also carried out to a 

great extent on a multi-unit basis rather than an individualunit basis. Generation from one generating unit can be and 

routinely is substituted for generation from another generating 

unit in order to keep the complex machine operating while 

observing the machine’s technical, environmental, and other 

constraints and managing its costs. 

The EPA also reviewed broad trends within the utility power 

sector.361 It is evident that, in the recent past, coal-fired 

electricity generation has been reduced, and projected future 

trends are for continued reduction. By the same token, loweremitting NGCC generation and renewable generation have 

increased, and projected future trends are for continued 

increases.362 A survey of integrated resource plans (IRPs), 

included in the docket, shows that fossil fuel-fired EGUs are 

taking actions to reduce emissions of both non-GHG air 

pollutants and GHGs.363 Some fossil fuel-fired EGUs are investing 

in lower- or zero-emitting generation. In fact, our review 

indicates that the great majority of fossil fuel-fired 

 

361 These trends are discussed in more detail in sections V.D. 

and V.E. below. 

362 Demand-side energy efficiency measures have also increased, 

and the projected future trends are for continued increase. 

363 The IRPs typically also indicate planned investment in 

demand-side energy efficiency. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 329 of 1546

generators surveyed are including new renewable energy resources 

in their planning. In addition, some fossil fuel-fired EGUs are 

using those measures to replace their higher-emitting 

generation. Some fossil fuel-fired generators appear to be 

reducing their higher-emitting generation without fully 

replacing it. These measures in aggregate result in the 

replacement of higher-emitting generation with lower- or zeroemitting generation, reflecting the integrated nature of the 

electricity system. 

The EPA examined state and company programs intended at 

least in part to reduce CO2 from fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

These programs include GHG performance standards established by 

states including California, New York, Oregon, and Washington; 

utility planning approaches carried out by companies in Colorado 

and Minnesota; and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) 

established in more than 25 states.364 They also include marketbased initiatives, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative (RGGI) and the GHG emissions trading program 

established by the California Global Warming Solutions Act, and 

conservation and demand reduction programs. 

We also examined federal legislative and regulatory 

programs, as well as state programs currently in operation, that 

 

364 See 79 FR 34848-34850. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 330 of 1546

address pollutants other than CO2 emitted by the power sector. 

These programs include, among others, the CAA Title IV program 

to reduce SO2 and NOX, the MATS program to reduce mercury and air 

toxic emissions, and the CSAPR program to reduce SO2 and NOX.365

This analysis demonstrated that, among other measures, the 

application of control technology, fuel-switching, and 

improvements in the operational efficiency of EGUs all resulted 

in reductions in a range of pollutants. These programs also 

demonstrate that replacement of higher-emitting generation with 

lower-emitting generation -- including generation shifts between 

coal-fired EGUs and natural gas-fired EGUs –- and zero-emitting 

generation such as renewable energy, also reduces emissions. 

Some of these programs also include emissions trading among the 

power plants. 

In this rule, when evaluating the types and amounts of 

measures that the source category can take to reduce CO2

emissions, we have appropriately taken into account the global 

nature of the pollutant and the high degree to which each 

individual affected EGU is integrated into a “complex machine” 

that makes it possible for generation from one generating unit 

to be replaced with generation from another generating unit for 

the purpose of reducing generation from CO2–emitting generating 

 

365 Many of these programs are discussed in section V.B. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 331 of 1546

units. We have also taken into account the trends away from 

higher-carbon generation toward lower- and zero-carbon 

generation and trends towards demand-side energy efficiency. 

These factors strongly support consideration of emission 

reduction approaches that focus on the machine as a whole –- 

that is, the overall source category –- by shifting generation 

from dirtier to cleaner sources in addition to emission 

reduction approaches that focus on improving the emission rates 

of individual sources. 

The factors just discussed that support consideration of 

emission reduction measures at the source-category level 

likewise strongly support consideration of mechanisms such as 

emissions trading approaches, especially since, as discussed in 

section VIII, the states will have every opportunity to design 

their section 111(d) plans to allow the affected EGUs in their 

respective jurisdictions to employ emissions trading approaches 

to achieve the standards of performance established in those 

plans. In short, as discussed in more detail in section V.A.2.f. 

below, it is entirely feasible for states to establish standards 

of performance that incorporate emissions trading, and it is 

reasonable to expect that states will do so. These approaches 

lower overall costs, add flexibility, and make it easier for 

individual sources to address pollution control objectives. To 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 332 of 1546

the extent that the purchase of an emissions credit or allowance 

represents the purchase of surplus emission reductions by an 

emitting source, emissions trading represents, in effect, the 

investment in pollution control by the purchasing source, 

notwithstanding that the control activity may be occurring at 

another source. As noted above, the utility power sector has a 

long history of using the “complex machine” to address 

objectives and constraints of various kinds. When afforded the 

opportunity to address environmental objectives on a multi-unit 

basis, the industry has done so. Congress and the EPA have 

selected emissions trading approaches when addressing regional 

pollution from the utility power sector contributing to problems 

such as acid precipitation and interstate transport of ozone and 

particulate matter. Similarly, states have selected market-based 

approaches for their own programs to address regional and global 

pollutants. The industry has readily adapted to that form of 

regulation, taking advantage of the flexibility and 

incorporating those programs into the planning and operation of 

the “machine.” Further reinforcing our conclusion that reliance 

on trading is appropriate is the extensive interest in using 

such mechanisms that states and utilities demonstrated through 

their formal comments and in discussions during the outreach 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 333 of 1546

process. The role of emissions trading is discussed further in 

section V.A.2.f. below. 

This entire review has made clear that there are numerous 

measures that, alone or in various combinations, merit analysis 

for inclusion in the BSER. The review has also made clear that 

the global nature of CO2 pollution and the unique, interconnected 

and interdependent manner in which affected EGUs and other 

generating sources operate within the electricity sector make 

certain types of measures and mechanisms available and 

appropriate for consideration as the BSER for this rule that 

would not be appropriate for other pollutants and other 

industrial sectors. For purposes of this discussion, the 

measures can be categorized in terms of the essential 

characteristics of the four building blocks described in the 

proposal: Measures that (i) reduce the CO2 emission rate at the 

unit, (ii) substitute generation from existing lower-emitting 

fossil fuel-fired units for generation from higher-emitting 

fossil fuel-fired units, (iii) substitute generation from new 

low- or zero-emitting generating capacity, especially renewable 

energy, for generation from fossil fuel-fired units, and (iv) 

increase demand-side energy efficiency to avoid generation from 

fossil fuel-fired units. In the proposal, we described our 

evaluations of various measures in each of these categories. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 334 of 1546

this rule, with the benefit of comments, we have refined our 

evaluation of which specific measures should comprise the first 

three building blocks, and, for reasons discussed below, we have 

determined that the fourth building block, demand-side energy 

efficiency, should not be included in the BSER in these 

guidelines. 

The measures are discussed more fully below, but it should 

be noted here that because of the integrated nature of the 

utility power sector, in which individual EGUs’ operations 

intrinsically depend on the operations of other generators, 

coupled with the sector’s high degree of planning and 

reliability safeguards, the measures in the second and third 

categories, which involve generation shifts to lower- and zeroemitting sources, may occur through several different actions 

from the perspective of an individual source, all of which are 

equivalent from the perspective of the source category as a 

whole. First, a higher-emitting fossil unit may invest in 

cleaner generation without reducing its own generation, which 

would result in less demand for, and therefore reductions in 

generation by, other higher-emitting units. Second, a higheremitting fossil unit may reduce its generation, which, in the 

presence of requirements for the source category as a whole to 

reduce CO2 emissions, would result in increased demand for, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 335 of 1546

therefore increased amounts of, cleaner generation. Third, a 

higher-emitting fossil unit may do both of these things, 

directly replacing part of its generation with investments in 

lower- or zero-emitting generation.366 In addition, for measures 

in all of the categories, multiple mechanisms exist by which an 

individual affected EGU may make these investments, ranging from 

bilateral investments, to purchase of credits representing the 

emissions-reducing benefits of specific activities, to purchase 

of general rate-based emissions credits or mass-based emission 

allowances. As discussed below, mechanisms involving tradable 

credits or allowances are well within the realm of consideration 

for the standards of performance states can choose to apply to 

their EGUs and hence, are entirely appropriate for EPA to 

consider in evaluating these measures in the course of making 

its BSER determination. 

c. State establishment of standards of performance and source 

compliance. Before identifying in detail the measures that the 

BSER comprises, it is useful to describe the process by which 

the states establish the standards of performance with which the 

affected EGUs must comply, and the implications for the sources 

that will be operating subject to those standards of 

 

366 The same is true for demand-side energy efficiency measures, 

although, as discussed elsewhere, demand-side energy efficiency 

measures are not included in the BSER in the final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 336 of 1546

performance. As part of the EPA’s emission guidelines in this 

rule, and based on the BSER, the EPA is identifying CO2 emission 

performance rates that reflect the BSER and, pursuant to 

subsection 111(d)(1), requiring states to establish standards of 

performance for affected EGUs in order to implement those rates. 

States, of course, could simply impose those rates on each 

affected EGU in their respective jurisdictions, but we are also 

offering states alternative approaches to carrying out their 

obligations. For purposes of defining these alternatives and 

facilitating states’ efforts to formulate compliance plans 

encompassing maximum flexibilities, we are aggregating the 

performance rates into goals for each state. The state, in turn, 

has the option of setting specific standards of performance for 

its EGUs such that the emission limitations from the EGUs 

operating under those standards of performance together meet the 

performance rates or the state goal. To do this, the state must 

adopt a plan that establishes the EGUs’ standards of performance 

and that implements and enforces those standards. 

Each state has significant flexibility in several respects. 

For example, as mentioned, a state may impose standards of 

performance on its steam EGU sources and on its combustion 

turbine sources that simply reflect the respective CO2 emission 

performance rates for those subcategories set in the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 337 of 1546

guidelines. Alternatively, a state may impose standards with 

differing degrees of stringency on various sources, and, in 

fact, may be more stringent overall than its state goal 

requires. In addition –- and most importantly for purposes of 

describing the BSER -- a state may set standards of performance 

either as emission rates (e.g., lbs of CO2 per MWh) or mass 

limits (e.g., tons of CO2 per year). Moreover, a state may make 

those limits tradable (subject to conditions described in 

section VIII below). The form of the emission limits, whether 

emission rate limits or mass limits, has implications for what 

specific actions that are part of the BSER the individual 

affected EGUs may take to achieve those limits as well as what 

specific non-BSER measures are available to the individual 

affected EGUs for compliance flexibility. For example, if an 

individual source chooses to adopt building block 3 by both 

investing in lower- or zero-emitting generation and reducing its 

own generation, both those actions will be accounted for in its 

emission rate and both will therefore help the source meet its 

rate-based limit. If the same individual source takes the same 

actions but is subject to a mass-based limit, the action of 

reducing its generation will directly count in helping the 

source meet its own mass-based limit but the action of investing 

in cleaner generation will not. However, the investment in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 338 of 1546

lower-or zero-emitting generation by that source and other 

sources collectively will help the overall source category 

achieve the emission limits consistent with the BSER and in 

doing so will make it easier for that source and other sources 

collectively to meet their mass-based limits. 

In instances where a state establishes standards of 

performance that incorporate emissions trading, the tradable 

credits or allowances can serve as a medium through which 

affected EGUs can invest in any emission reduction measure. 

d. Identification of the BSER measures. We now discuss the 

evaluation of potential measures for inclusion in the BSER for 

the source category as a whole. 

(1) Measures that reduce individual affected EGUs’ CO2

emission rates. 

As described in the proposal, the measures that the 

affected EGUs could implement to improve their CO2 emission rates 

includes a set of measures that the EPA determined would result 

in improvements in heat rate at coal-fired steam EGUs in the 

amount of 6 percent on average, and the EPA proposed that this 

set of measures qualifies as a component of the BSER. In this 

final rule, the EPA concludes that those measures do qualify as 

a component of the BSER. However, as described in section V.C. 

below, based on comments and further evaluation, the EPA is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 339 of 1546

narrowing the set of these types of measures that qualify as a 

component of the BSER and has quantified the emission reductions 

achievable through application of the measures on a regional 

basis, consistent with the treatment of the other building 

blocks in this final rule, rather than the nationwide basis used 

for building block 1 in the proposed rule. As a result of these 

refinements, the EPA is identifying the heat rate improvements 

achievable by coal-fired steam EGUs as 4.3 percent for the 

Eastern Interconnection, 2.1 percent for the Western 

Interconnection, and 2.3 percent for the Texas Interconnection. 

The refinements are based, in significant part, on the numerous 

comments we received on these points, especially those from 

states and utilities. 

 These heat rate improvement measures include best practices 

such as improved staff training; boiler chemical cleaning; 

cleaning air preheater coils, and use of various kinds of 

software, as well as equipment upgrades such as turbine 

overhauls. These are measures that the owner/operator of an 

affected coal-fired steam EGU may take that would have the 

effect of reducing the amount of CO2 the source emits per MWh. As 

a result, these measures would help the source achieve an 

emission limit expressed as either an emission rate limit or as 

a mass limit. We note again that in the context both of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 340 of 1546

integrated electricity system and of available and anticipated 

state approaches to setting standards of performance, emissions 

trading approaches could be used as mechanisms through which one 

affected EGU could invest in heat rate improvements at another 

EGU. We note this aspect below in describing the actions an 

individual affected EGU can take to implement the BSER and 

discuss it in more detail in section V.A.2.f. 

These heat rate improvements are a low-cost option that fit 

the criteria for the BSER, except that they lead to only small 

emission reductions for the source category.367 Given the 

magnitude of the environmental problem and projections by 

climate scientists that much larger emission reductions are 

needed from fossil fuel-fired EGUs to address climate change, 

the EPA looked at additional measures to reduce emission rates. 

This reflects our conclusion that, given the availability of 

other measures capable of much greater emission reductions, the 

emission reductions limited to this set of heat rate improvement 

measures would not meet one of the considerations critical to 

 

367 As further discussed below, if heat rate improvements at 

coal-fired steam EGUs were implemented in isolation, without 

other measures to reduce CO2 emissions, the heat rate 

improvements could lead to increases in competitiveness and 

utilization of the coal-fired EGUs – a so-called “rebound 

effect” - causing increases in CO2 emissions that could partially 

or even entirely offset the CO2 emission reductions achieved 

through the reductions in the amount of CO2 emissions per MWh of 

generation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 341 of 1546

the BSER determination –- the quantity of emissions reductions 

resulting from the application of these measures is too small 

for these measures to be the BSER by themselves for this source 

category. 

Specifically, as described in the proposal, the EPA also 

considered co-firing (including 100 percent conversion) with 

natural gas, a measure that presented itself in part because of 

the recent increase in availability and reduction in price of 

natural gas, and the industry’s consequent increase in reliance 

on natural gas.368 The EPA also considered implementation of 

carbon capture and storage (CCS).369 The EPA found that some of 

these co-firing and CCS measures are technically feasible and 

within price ranges that the EPA has found to be cost effective 

in the context of other GHG rules, that a segment of the source 

category may implement these measures, and that the resulting 

emission reductions could be potentially significant. 

However, these co-firing and CCS measures are more 

expensive than other available measures. This is because the 

integrated nature of the electricity system affords 

significantly lower cost options, ones that fossil fuel-fired 

 

368 The EPA further addressed co-firing in the NODA. 79 FR 64549-

51. 

369 CCS is also sometimes referred to as carbon capture and 

sequestration. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 342 of 1546

power plants throughout the United States and in foreign nations 

are already using to reduce their CO2. 

The less expensive options include shifting generation to 

existing NGCC units -- an option that has become particularly 

attractive in light of the increased availability and lower 

prices of natural gas -- as well as shifting generation to new 

renewable energy generating units.370 A comparison of the costs 

of converting an existing coal-fired boiler to burn 100 percent 

natural gas compared to the cost of shifting generation to an 

existing NGCC unit illustrates this point. Because an NGCC unit 

burns natural gas significantly more efficiently than an 

affected steam EGU does, the cost of shifting generation from 

the steam EGU to an existing NGCC unit is significantly cheaper 

in most cases than more aggressive emission rate reduction 

measures at the steam EGU. As a result, as a practical matter, 

were the EPA to include co-firing and CCS in the BSER and 

promulgate performance standards accordingly, few EGUs would 

likely comply with their emission standards through co-firing 

and CCS; rather, the EGUs would rely on the lower cost options 

 

370 Similarly, demand-side energy efficiency measures are lowcost measures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 343 of 1546

of substituting lower- or zero-emitting generation or, as a 

related matter, reducing generation.371

The EPA also considered heat rate improvement opportunities 

at oil- and gas-fired steam EGUs and NGCC units and found that 

the available emission reductions would likely be more expensive 

or too small to merit consideration as a material component of 

the BSER. 

 Thus, in reviewing the entire range of control options, it 

became clear that controlling CO2 from affected EGUs at levels 

that are commensurate with the sector’s contribution to GHG 

emissions and thus necessary to mitigate the dangers presented 

by climate change, could depend in part, but not primarily, on 

measures that improve efficiency at the power plants. Rather, 

most of the CO2 controls need to come in the form of those other 

measures that are available to the utility power sector thanks 

specifically to the integrated nature of the electricity system, 

and that involve, in one form or another, replacement of higher 

emitting generation with lower- or zero-emitting generation. 

Although the presence of lower-cost options that achieve 

the emission reduction goals mean that the EPA is not 

identifying either natural gas co-firing or CCS at coal-fired 

 

371 Many EGUs would also rely on demand-side energy efficiency 

measures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 344 of 1546

steam EGUs, or heat rate improvements at other types of EGUs, as 

part of the BSER, those controls remain measures that some 

affected EGUs may be expected to implement and that as a result, 

will provide reductions that those affected EGUs may rely on to 

achieve their emission limits or may sell, through emissions 

trading, to other affected EGUs to achieve emission limits (to 

the extent permitted under the relevant section 111(d) plans). 

Another example of a non-BSER measure that an affected EGU in 

certain circumstances could choose to implement is the 

conversion of waste heat from electricity generation into useful 

thermal energy. The EPA further discusses the potential use of 

these non-BSER measures for compliance flexibility below. 

The EPA’s quantification of the CO2 emission reductions 

achievable through heat rate improvements as a component of the 

BSER (building block 1) is discussed in section V.C. of this 

preamble and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP 

Final Rule. 

(2) Measures available because of the integrated 

electricity system. 

To determine the BSER that meets the expectations and 

requirements of the CAA, including the achievement of meaningful 

reductions of CO2, the EPA turned next to the set of measures 

that presented themselves as a result of the fact that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 345 of 1546

operations of individual affected EGUs are interdependent on and 

integrated with one another and with the overall electricity 

system. Those are the measures in the categories represented in 

the proposal by building blocks 2, 3, and 4. This section 

discusses the components of the BSER that relate to building 

blocks 2 and 3, which the EPA is finalizing as components of the 

BSER. This section also discusses the measures comprising the 

proposed building block 4, which the EPA is not including in the 

BSER in this final rule. 

It bears reiterating that the extent to which the 

operations of individual affected EGUs are integrated with one 

another and with the overall electricity system is a highly 

salient and unique attribute of this source category. Because of 

this integration, the individual sources in the source category 

operate through a network that physically connects them to each 

other and to their customers, an interconnectedness that is 

essential to their operation under the status quo and by all 

indications is projected to be augmented further on a continual 

basis in the future to address fundamental objectives of 

reliability assurance and cost reduction. This physical 

interconnectedness exists to serve a set of interlocking regimes 

that, to a substantial extent, determine, if not dictate, any 

given EGU’s operations on a nearly moment-to-moment basis. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 346 of 1546

analyzing BSER from the perspective of the overall source 

category, because the affected EGUs are connected to each other 

operationally, a combination of dispatching and investment in 

lower- and zero-emitting generation allows the replacement of 

higher-emitting generation with lower-emitting and zero-emitting 

generation (measures in building blocks 2 and 3), and thereby 

reduces emissions while continuing to serve load. 

 As noted above, substitution of higher-emitting generation 

for lower- or zero-emitting generation may include reduced 

generation, depending on the specific action taken by the 

individual EGU. Likewise, when incorporated into standards of 

performance, emissions trading mechanisms may be readily used 

for implementing these building blocks. We discuss these aspects 

below in describing the actions that individual sources may take 

to implement the BSER. 

 (a) Substituting generation from lower-emitting affected 

EGUs for reduced generation from higher-emitting affected EGUs 

(building block 2). 

In the proposal, the EPA observed that substantial CO2

emission reductions could be achieved at reasonable cost by 

increasing generation from existing NGCC units and 

commensurately reducing generation from steam EGUs. Because NGCC 

units produce much less CO2 per MWh of generation than steam EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 347 of 1546

–- typically less than half as much CO2 as coal-fired steam EGUs, 

which account for most generation from steam EGUs –- this 

generation shift reduces CO2 emissions. We also noted that 

because NGCC units can generate as much as 46 percent more 

electricity from a given quantity of natural gas than a steam 

unit can, generation shifting from coal-fired steam EGUs to 

existing NGCC units is a more cost-effective strategy for 

reducing CO2 emissions from the source category than converting 

coal-fired steam EGUs to combust natural gas or co-firing coal 

and natural gas in steam EGUs. We proposed to find that shifting 

generation consistent with a 70 percent target utilization rate 

(based on nameplate capacity) for NGCC units was feasible and 

should be a component of the BSER. 

As described in section V.D. below, analysis reflecting 

consideration of the many comments we received on this issue 

supports the inclusion of generation shifting from higheremitting to lower-emitting EGUs as a component of the BSER. 

Shifting of generation among EGUs is an everyday occurrence 

within the integrated operations of the utility power sector 

that is used to ensure that electricity is provided to meet 

customer demands in the most economic manner consistent with 

system constraints. Generation shifting to lower-emitting units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 348 of 1546

has been recognized as an approach for reducing emissions in 

other EPA rules such as CSAPR. 

The EPA’s analysis continues to show that the magnitude of 

emission reductions included in the proposed rule from 

generation shifting is achievable. Some commenters stated that 

summer capacity ratings are a more appropriate basis upon which 

to compute a target utilization than nameplate capacity ratings 

used at proposal. We agree, and accordingly, using the same data 

on historical generation as at proposal, we have reanalyzed 

feasible NGCC utilization levels expressed in terms of summer 

capacity ratings and have found that a 75 target utilization 

rate based on summer capacity ratings is feasible. 

The EPA is finalizing a determination that generation shift 

from higher-emitting affected EGUs to lower-emitting affected 

EGUs is a component of the BSER (building block 2). Our 

quantification of the associated emission reductions is 

discussed in section V.D. of this preamble and in the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule. 

(b) Substituting increased generation from new low- or 

zero-carbon generating capacity for reduced generation from 

affected EGUs (building block 3). 

Reducing generation from fossil fuel-fired EGUs and 

replacing it with generation from lower- or zero-emitting EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 349 of 1546

is another method for reducing CO2 emissions from the utility 

power sector. In the proposal, the EPA identified renewable 

energy (RE) generating capacity and nuclear generating capacity 

as potential sources of lower- or zero-CO2 generation that could 

replace higher-CO2 generation from affected EGUs. 

(i) Increased generation from new RE generating capacity. 

The EPA’s survey of trends and actions already being taken 

in the utility power sector indicated that RE generating 

capacity and generation have grown rapidly in recent years, in 

part because of the environmental benefits of shifting away from 

fossil fuel-fired generation and in part because of improved 

economics of RE generation relative to fossil fuel-fired 

generation. It is clear that increasing the amount of new RE 

generating capacity and allowing the increased RE generation to 

replace generation from fossil fuel-fired EGUs can reduce CO2

emissions from the affected source category. Accordingly, we 

proposed to include replacement of defined quantities of fossil 

generation by RE generation in the BSER. 

With the benefit of comments, the EPA is finalizing the 

determination that substitution of RE generation from new RE 

generating capacity is a component of the BSER but has adjusted 

the approach for determining the quantities of RE generation. As 

part of the adjustment in approach, we have also refocused the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 350 of 1546

quantification solely on generation from new RE generating 

capacity rather than total (new and existing) RE generating 

capacity as in the proposal. Our quantification of the RE 

generation component of the BSER is discussed in section V.E. of 

the preamble and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP 

Final Rule. 

(ii) Increased and preserved generation from nuclear 

generating capacity. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA also identified the 

replacement of generation from fossil fuel-fired EGUs with 

generation from nuclear units as a potential approach for 

reducing CO2 emissions from the affected source category. We 

proposed to include two elements of nuclear generation in the 

BSER: an element representing projected generation from nuclear 

units under construction, and an element representing preserved 

generation from existing nuclear generating capacity at risk of 

retirement. 

Like generation from new RE generating capacity, generation 

from new nuclear generating capacity can clearly replace fossil 

fuel-fired generation and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. However, 

there are also important differences between these types of lowor zero-CO2 generation. Investments in new nuclear capacity are 

very large, “lumpy,” capital-intensive investments and the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 351 of 1546

building of nuclear facilities historically has been subject to 

delays, which tend to raise costs. By comparison, investments in 

new RE generating capacity are relatively small with relatively 

more certain costs. Based on the small number of new nuclear 

generating projects, it is difficult to ascertain a trend of 

increasing nuclear generation in the industry, in contrast to 

the clear trend of increasing RE generation. These differences 

create greater uncertainty regarding the achievability and cost 

of generation from new nuclear capacity as a replacement for 

fossil fuel-fired generation, two important factors in 

determination of the BSER. Accordingly, as described in section 

V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing increased generation from new 

nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER. 

The EPA is likewise not finalizing the proposal to include 

a component representing preserved existing nuclear generation 

in the BSER. On further consideration, we believe it is 

inappropriate to base the BSER on elements that will not reduce 

CO2 emissions from affected EGUs below current levels. Existing 

nuclear generation helps make existing CO2 emissions lower than 

they would otherwise be, but will not further lower CO2 emissions 

below current levels. Accordingly, as described in section 

V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing preservation of generation 

from existing nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 352 of 1546

(iii) Generation from new NGCC units. 

 New NGCC units –- that is, units that had not commenced 

construction as of January 8, 2014, the date of publication of 

the proposed CO2 standards of performance for new EGUs under 

section 111(b) –- are not subject to the standards of 

performance that will be established for existing sources under 

section 111(d) plans based on the BSER determined in this final 

rule. In the June 2014 proposed emission guidelines for existing 

EGUs, the EPA solicited comment on whether to include this 

measure in the BSER. Commenters raised numerous concerns, and 

after consideration of the comments, we are not including 

replacement of generation from affected EGUs through the 

construction of new NGCC capacity in the BSER. In this section, 

we discuss the reasons for our approach. 

 The EPA did not include reduced generation from affected 

EGUs achieved through construction and operation of new NGCC 

capacity in the proposed BSER because we expected that the CO2

emission reductions achieved through such actions would, on 

average, be more costly than CO2 emission reductions achieved 

through the proposed BSER measures. However, our determination 

not to include new construction and operation of new NGCC 

capacity in the BSER in this final rule rests primarily on the 

achievable magnitude of emission reductions rather than costs. 

Deleted: Our
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 353 of 1546

 Unlike emission reductions achieved through the use of any 

of the building blocks, emission reductions achieved through the 

use of new NGCC capacity require the construction of additional 

CO2-emitting generating capacity, a consequence that is 

inconsistent with the long-term need to continue reducing CO2

emissions beyond the reductions that will be achieved through 

this rule. New generating assets are planned and built for long 

lifetimes –- frequently 40 years or more –-that are likely 

longer than the expected remaining lifetimes of the steam EGUs 

whose CO2 emissions would initially be displaced be the 

generation from the new NGCC units. The new capacity is likely 

to continue to emit CO2 throughout these longer lifetimes, absent 

decisions to retire the units before the end of their planned 

lifetimes or to install CCS technology in the future at 

substantial additional cost. Because of the likelihood of CO2

emissions for decades, the overall net emission reductions 

achievable through the construction and operation of new NGCC 

are less than for the measures including in the BSER, such as 

increased generation at existing NGCC capacity, which would be 

expected to reach the end of its useful life sooner than new 

NGCC capacity, or construction and operation of zero-emitting RE 

generating capacity. We view the production of long-term CO2

emissions that otherwise would not be created as inconsistent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 354 of 1546

with the BSER requirement that we consider the magnitude of 

emissions reductions that can be achieved. For this reason, we 

are not including replacement of generation from affected EGUs 

through the construction and operation of new NGCC capacity in 

the final BSER. 

 Commenters also raised a concern with the interrelation of 

section 111(b) and section 111(d). New NGCC capacity is 

distinguished from the other non-BSER measures discussed above 

by the fact that its CO2 emissions would be subject to the CO2

standards for new EGUs being established under section 111(b). 

Section 111 creates an express distinction between the sources 

subject to section 111(b) and the sources subject to section 

111(d), and commenters expressed concern that to allow section 

111(b) sources to play a direct role in setting the BSER under 

section 111(d) would be inconsistent with congressional intent 

to treat the two sets of sources separately. Section VIII of 

this preamble includes a discussion of ways to address new NGCC 

capacity in the context of different types of section 111(d) 

plans. 

(c) Increasing demand-side energy efficiency to avoid 

generation and emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 

The final category of approaches for reducing generation 

and CO2 emissions from affected EGUs that the EPA considered in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 355 of 1546

the proposal involves increasing demand-side energy efficiency. 

When demand-side energy efficiency is increased, energy 

consumers need less electricity in order to provide the same 

level of electricity-dependent services – e.g., heating, 

cooling, lighting, and use of motors and electronic devices. 

Through the integrated electricity system, including the 

connection of customers to affected EGUs through the electricity 

grid, reduced demand for electricity, in turn, leads to reduced 

generation and reduced CO2 emissions. Our examination of actions 

and trends underway in the utility power sector confirmed that 

demand-side energy programs are being implemented widely across 

the sector and that investments are increasing. We proposed to 

include avoidance of defined quantities of fossil fuel-fired 

generation through increased demand-side energy efficiency as a 

component of the BSER (proposed building block 4). 

Commenters expressed a wide range of views on the proposed 

reliance on demand-side energy efficiency in the BSER. Some 

commenters strongly supported the proposal, with suggestions for 

improvements, while some commenters strongly opposed the 

proposal and took the position that it exceeded the EPA’s legal 

authority. We do not address the merits of these comments here 

because, for the reasons discussed in section V.B.3.b.(1) below, 

we are not finalizing the proposal to include avoided generation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 356 of 1546

achieved through demand-side energy efficiency as a component of 

the BSER. However, we note that most commenters also supported 

the use of demand-side energy efficiency for compliance whether 

or not it is used in determining the BSER, and we are allowing 

demand-side energy efficiency to be used for that purpose. 

(3) Further analysis to quantify the BSER. 

While the discussion above summarizes how and why the 

components of the BSER were determined in terms of qualitative 

characteristics, it still leaves a wide range of potential 

stringencies for the BSER. As explained in sections V.C., V.D., 

and V.E. below, discussing building blocks 1, 2, and 3 

respectively, the EPA has determined a reasonable level of 

stringency for each of the building blocks rather than the 

maximum possible level of stringency. We have taken this 

approach in part to ensure that there is “headroom” within the 

BSER measures that provides greater assurance of the 

achievability of the BSER for the source category and for 

individual sources. We believe this approach is permissible 

under the CAA. We note that a feature of the method by which we 

have quantified the degree of emission limitation achievable 

through application of the BSER to the two source subcategories 

-– namely, the use of the least stringent CO2 emission 

performance rate quantified for a given source subcategory for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 357 of 1546

any of the three major Interconnections as the CO2 emission 

performance rate for that source subcategory in all three 

Interconnections372 –- provides additional headroom within the 

BSER for sources in the two Interconnections that did not set 

the CO2 emission performance rates ultimately used. Additional 

headroom within the BSER is available through the use of 

emissions trading approaches, because the final rule does not 

limit the use of these mechanisms to sources within the same 

Interconnections. In fact, in response to proposals that emerged 

from the comment record and direct engagement with states and 

stakeholders reflecting their strong interest in pursuing multistate approaches, the guidelines include mechanisms for 

implementing standards of performance that incorporate 

interstate trading, as discussed in section VIII. (In addition, 

as further discussed below, the rule also permits section 111(d) 

plans to allow the use of non-BSER measures for compliance in 

certain circumstances, increasing both compliance flexibility 

and the assurance that the emission limitations reflecting 

application of the BSER are achievable.) 

 

372 Specifically, the respective CO2 emission performance rates 

quantified for the steam EGU subcategory and for the stationary 

combustion turbine subcategory in the Eastern Interconnection 

are being applied to those subcategories in the Western and 

Texas Interconnections as well. This aspect of the BSER 

quantification methodology is discussed below in section V.A.3 

and section VI. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 358 of 1546

Further, the sets of measures in each of these individual 

building blocks, in the stringency assigned in this rule, meet 

the criteria for the BSER. That is, they each achieve the 

appropriate level of reductions, are of reasonable cost, do not 

impose energy penalties on the affected EGUs and do not result 

in non-air quality pollutants, and have acceptable cost and 

energy implications for the energy sector as a whole. In 

addition, as explained below, each is adequately demonstrated. 

Importantly, past industry practice and current trends strongly 

support each of the building blocks, as do federal and state 

pollution control programs that require or result in similar 

measures. 

For example, all of the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 

have been implemented for decades, initially for reasons 

unrelated to pollution control, then in recent years in order to 

control non-GHG air pollutants, and more recently, for purposes 

of CO2-emission control by states and companies. Moreover, 

Congress itself recognized in enacting the acid rain provisions 

of CAA Title IV that renewable energy measures reduce CO2 from 

affected EGUs. In addition, the EPA has relied on the measures 

in building blocks 2 and 3 in other rules. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 359 of 1546

It should also be noted that building blocks 2 and 3 also 

meet the criteria for the BSER in combination with one another 

and with building block 1, as described below. 

e. Actions that individual affected EGUs can take to implement 

the BSER measures. We now turn to a summary of actions that 

individual EGUs can take to implement the BSER and that are 

therefore part of the BSER. 

 (1) Improvement in CO2 emission rate at the unit. 

An affected EGU may take steps to improve its CO2 emission 

rate as discussed above for the source category as a whole. As 

discussed in section V.C., the record makes clear that coalfired steam EGUs can make, and have made, heat rate improvements 

to a greater or lesser degree, resulting in reductions in CO2

emissions. The resulting improvement in an EGU’s CO2 emission 

rate would help the EGU achieve an emission limit imposed in the 

form of an emission rate. If the EGU’s emission limit is imposed 

in the form of a mass standard, the heat rate improvement would 

also lower the EGU’s mass emissions provided that the EGU held 

the amount of its generation constant or increased its 

generation by a smaller percentage than the efficiency 

improvement. Under a mass-based standard that incorporates 

emission trading, an EGU that improves its heat rate would need 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 360 of 1546

fewer emission allowances for each MWh of generation whatever 

level of generation it chose to produce. 

(2) Actions to implement measures in building blocks 2 and 

3. 

Viewing the BSER from the perspective of an individual EGU, 

there are several ways that affected EGUs can access the 

measures in building blocks 2 and 3, thanks to the integrated 

nature of the electricity system, coupled with the system’s high 

degree of planning and reliability mechanisms. The affected EGUs 

can (a) invest in lower- or zero-emitting generation, which will 

lead to reductions in higher-emitting generation at other units 

in the integrated system; (b) reduce their generation, which in 

the presence of emission reduction requirements applicable to 

the source category as a whole will have the effect of 

increasing demand for and thereby incentivize investment in the 

measures in the building blocks elsewhere in the integrated 

system; or (c) both invest in the measures in the building 

blocks and reduce their own generation, effectively replacing 

their generation with cleaner generation. The availability of 

these options is further enhanced where the individual EGU is 

operating under a standard of performance that incorporates 

emissions trading. 

(a) Investment in measures in building blocks 2 and 3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 361 of 1546

An affected EGU may take the following actions to invest in 

the measures in building blocks 2 and 3: For building block 2, 

the owner/operator of a steam EGU may increase generation at an 

existing NGCC unit it already owns, or one that it purchases or 

invests in. In addition, the owner/operator may, through a 

bilateral transaction with an existing NGCC unit, pay the unit 

to increase generation, and acquire the CO2-reducing effects of 

that increased generation. 

Similarly, for building block 3, an owner/operator of an 

affected EGU may build, or purchase an ownership interest in, 

new renewable energy generating capacity and acquire the CO2-

reducing effects of that increased generation. Alternatively, an 

owner/operator may, through bilateral transactions, purchase the 

CO2-reducing effects of that increased generation from renewable 

generation providers. 

In case of an investment in either building block 2 or 

building block 3 by a unit subject to a rate-based form of CO2

performance standard, it would be reasonable for state plans to 

authorize affected EGUs to use an approved and validated 

instrument such as an “emission rate credit” (ERC) representing 

the emissions-reducing benefit of the investment.373 

 

373 Criteria for issuance of valid emission rate credits and for 

tracking credits after issuance are discussed in section VIII 

below. 

Commented [A22]: what would be the mechanism through 

which this would be possible? Is the intent to communicate that this 

can be done through the ERC credit mechanism discussed below? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 362 of 1546

When combined with reduced generation, either at the 

affected EGU or elsewhere in the interconnected system, the 

types of actions listed above would be fully equivalent to 

building blocks 2 and 3 when viewed from perspective of the 

overall source category. Thus, a source could achieve a standard 

of performance identical to the applicable CO2 emission 

performance rate in the EPA emission guidelines, through 

implementation of the actions described above for building 

blocks 2 and 3, along with the actions described further above 

for building block 1. 

The EPA anticipates that in instances where section 111(d) 

plans provide for the use of instruments such as emission rate 

credits as a mechanism to facilitate use of these measures, 

organized markets will develop so that owner/operators of 

affected EGUs that have invested in measures eligible for the 

issuance of emission rate credits will be able to sell those 

credits and other affected EGUs will be able to purchase them. 

Such markets have developed for other instruments used for 

emissions trading purposes. For example, liquid markets for SO2

allowances developed rapidly following the implementation of 

Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments establishing the 

Acid Rain Program. Members of Congress and industry had 

expressed concern during the legislative debate that the lack of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 363 of 1546

a liquid SO2 allowance market would create challenges for 

affected sources that needed to acquire allowances to meet their 

compliance obligations. Congress added statutory provisions to 

ensure that, should a market not develop, sources could purchase 

needed allowances directly from EPA. In fact, these provisions 

went unused because a liquid market for allowances did develop 

very quickly. Sources engaged in allowance transactions directly 

with other sources as they sought to lower compliance costs. 

Market intermediaries offered services to sources to match 

allowance buyers and sellers and helped sources understand their 

compliance options. Trade associations worked with members to 

develop standardized contracts and other tools to facilitate 

allowance transactions, thereby reducing transaction costs. 

Similar developments have occurred in state-level renewable 

portfolio standard programs.374 

If states choose to allow through their section 111(d) 

plans mechanisms or standards of performance involving 

instruments such as emission rate credits (ERCs), the EPA 

 

374 The emergence of markets under the Acid Rain Program and 

other environmental programs where trading has been permitted, 

as well as state and industry support for the development of 

markets under states’ section 111(d) plans, is discussed in a 

recent report by the Advanced Energy Economy Institute. AEE 

Institute, Markets Drive Innovation – Why History Shows that the 

Clean Power Plan Will Stimulate a Robust Industry Response (July 

2015), available at https://www.aee.net/aeei/initiatives/epa111d.html#epa-reports-and-white-papers. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 364 of 1546

believes that there would be an ample supply of such credits, 

for several reasons. First, as discussed in sections V.D. and 

V.E., the EPA has established the stringencies for building 

blocks 2 and 3 at levels that are reasonable and not at the 

maximum achievable levels, providing headroom for investment in 

the measures in these building blocks beyond the amounts 

reflected in the CO2 emission performance rates reflecting 

application of the BSER. In addition, if emission limits are set 

at the CO2 emission performance rates, affected EGUs in the 

Western and Texas Interconnections on average do not need to 

implement the building blocks to their full extent in order to 

achieve their emission limits because the performance rates for 

sources in these regions are set at the less stringent rates 

determined to be reasonable for application of the BSER to 

sources in the Eastern Interconnection. Further, to the extent 

that section 111(d) plans take advantage of the latitude the 

final guidelines provide for states to set standards of 

performance incorporating emissions trading on an interstate 

basis among affected EGUs in different Interconnections, all 

sources can take advantage of the headroom available in other 

Interconnections. As a result, significant amounts of existing 

NGCC capacity and potential for renewable energy remain 

available to serve as the basis for issuance of ERCs for all 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 365 of 1546

affected EGUs in both source subcategories to rely on to achieve 

their emission limits. Because we recognize the ready 

availability to states of standards of performance that 

incorporate emissions trading –- and because such standards can 

easily encompass interstate trading -- this rule includes by 

express design a variety of options that states and utilities 

can select to pursue interstate compliance regimes that mirror 

the interconnected operation of the electricity system. As a 

result, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to anticipate 

that a virtually nationwide emission trading market for 

compliance will emerge, and that ERCs will be effectively 

available to any affected EGU wherever located, as long as its 

state plan authorizes emissions trading among affected EGUs.375

It should also be noted that although the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3 can be taken into account directly in 

computations to determine whether an individual affected EGU has 

achieved an emissions limit set in an emission rate-based form 

 

375 There is a theoretical possibility – which we view as 

extremely unlikely – that the affected EGUs in a given state 

that has chosen to pursue a rate-based approach could have 

insufficient access to ERCs because of the choices of all or 

most other states to pursue mass-based approaches. In such a 

situation, it might be appropriate to allow the affected EGUs in 

that state to assume for purposes of demonstrating compliance 

with their standards of performance that the generation 

replacing any reductions in generation at those affected EGUs 

that was not paired with verified ERCs came from existing NGCC 

units in other states. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 366 of 1546

if, as expected, the state chooses to authorize a mechanism for 

doing so, they are not taken into account directly in 

computations to determine whether an individual affected EGU has 

achieved an emissions limit set in a mass-based form. However, 

by reducing generation and therefore CO2 emissions from the group 

of affected EGUs within a region, these measures facilitate the 

ability of the individual EGUs within the region to achieve 

mass-based limits by choosing to reduce their own generation and 

emissions. 

(b) Reduced generation. 

In addition, the owner/operator of an affected EGU may help 

itself meet its emission limit by reducing its generation. If 

the owner/operator reduces generation and therefore the amount 

of its CO2 emissions, then, if the affected EGU is subject to an 

emission rate limit, the owner/operator will need to implement 

fewer of the building block measures, e.g., buy fewer emission 

rate credits, to achieve its emission rate; and if the affected 

EGU is subject to a mass emissions limit, the owner/operator 

will need fewer mass allowances. 

An owner/operator may take actions to ensure that it 

reduces its generation. For example, it may accept a permit 

restriction on the amount of hours that it generates. In 

addition or alternatively, it may represent the cost of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 367 of 1546

additional emission credits or allowances that would be required 

due to incremental generation as an additional variable cost 

that increases the total variable cost considered when dispatch 

decisions are made for the unit. 

Because of the integrated nature of the electricity system, 

combined with the system’s high degree of planning and 

reliability safeguards, as well as the long planning horizon 

afforded by this rule, individual affected EGUs can in aggregate 

achieve the requisite level of reductions in generation adequate 

to achieve emission limits reflecting the BSER.376 Individual 

affected steam EGUs can reduce their generation in the amounts 

of building blocks 2 and 3, while individual affected NGCC units 

can reduce their generation in the amount of building block 3. 

With emission limits for the source category as a whole in 

place, the resulting reduction in supply of higher-emitting 

generation will incentivize additional utilization of existing 

NGCC capacity, and the resulting reduction in overall fossil 

fuel-fired generation will incentivize investment in additional 

renewable energy generating capacity, and the integrated 

 

376 For purposes of this discussion, we assume that coal-fired 

steam generators also implement building block 1 measures so 

that they will implement the full set of measures needed to 

achieve their emission limit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 368 of 1546

system’s response to these incentives will ensure that the 

demand for electricity services will continue to be met.

(c) Emissions trading. 

As described above, viewed from the perspective of the 

source category as a whole, it is reasonable for our analysis of 

the BSER to include an element of source-category-wide multiunit compliance which could be implemented via a state-set 

standard of performance incorporating emissions trading, under 

which EGUs could engage in trading of rate-based emission 

credits or mass-based emission allowances. By the same token, 

viewed from the perspective of an individual EGU, consideration 

of the ready availability to states of the opportunity to 

establish standards of performance that incorporate emissions 

trading is integral to our analysis, and our assessment of the 

actions available to individual EGUs for achieving standards of 

performance reflecting the BSER therefore include the purchase 

of rate-based emission credits or mass-based emission 

allowances, because one of the things an affected EGU can do to 

achieve its emission limit is to buy a credit or an allowance 

from another affected EGU that has over-complied. The use of 

purchased credits or allowances would have to be authorized, of 

course, in the purchasing EGUs’ states’ section 111(d) plans and 

would have to meet conditions set out for such approaches in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 369 of 1546

section VIII below. The role of emissions trading in the BSER 

analysis is discussed further in section V.A.2.f. below. 

f. The role of emissions trading. In making its BSER 

determination here, the EPA examined a number of technologies 

and emissions reduction measures that result in lower levels of 

CO2 emissions and evaluated each one on the basis of the several 

criteria on which the EPA relies in determining the BSER. In 

contrast to section 111(b), however, section 111(d)(1) obliges 

the states, not the EPA, to set standards of performance for the 

affected EGUs in order to implement the BSER. Accordingly, with 

respect to each measure or control strategy under consideration, 

the EPA also evaluated whether or not the states could establish 

standards of performance for affected EGUs that would allow 

those sources to adopt the measure in question. In this case, 

the EPA identified a host of factors that persuaded us that a 

state could establish a standard of performance that 

incorporated emissions trading.377 These wide-ranging factors 

include (i) the global nature of the air pollutant in question – 

i.e., CO2; (ii) the transactional nature of the industry; (iii) 

the interconnected functioning of the industry and the 

 

377 As an alternative to authorizing trading that would still 

provide a degree of multi-unit flexibility, a state could choose 

in its state plan to give an owner of multiple affected EGUs 

flexibility regarding how the owner distributes any credits or 

allowances it acquires among its affected EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 370 of 1546

coordination of generation resources at the level of the 

regional grid; (iv) the extensive experience that states – and 

EGUs – already have with emissions trading; and (v) material in 

the record demonstrating strong interest on the part of many 

states and affected EGUs in using emissions trading in meeting 

their obligations.378 

 

378 Numerous states submitted comments urging the EPA to allow 

states to develop trading programs, including interstate trading 

programs. They include, for example, Alabama (EPA should develop 

and issue guidelines that allow options for multi‐state plans and 

interstate credit trading programs, comment 23584), California 

(EPA should provide flexibility for allowance trading programs 

to be integrated into state plans, comment 23433), Hawaii 

(supports use of emission credit trading with other entities to 

achieve compliance, comment 23121), Massachusetts (EPA should 

explore possibility of hosting a third‐party emissions trading 

bank that can allow states interested in allowance trading to 

plug and play in to a wider, more cost‐effective market, comment 

31910), Michigan (supports emissions trading programs, comment 

23987), Minnesota (develop model trading rule that states could 

incorporate by reference as part of plan and automatically be 

included in multi-state mass trading program, comment 23987), 

North Carolina (EPA should examine a system of banking and 

trading for energy efficiency, comment 23542), Oregon (EPA 

should expand the explicit options for multi‐state plans beyond 

cap‐and-trade, comment 20678), Washington (supporting trading, 

comment 22764), Wisconsin (requesting EPA to develop a national 

trading program, Post‐111(d) Proposal Questions to EPA WI 

Questions for 7/16 Hub call). 

In addition, several groups of states supported trading 

programs: Georgetown Climate Center (a group of state 

environmental agency leaders, energy agency leaders, and public 

utility commissioners from California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Washington) (“We believe states should have maximum flexibility 

to determine what kinds of collaborations might work for them. 

These could include submission of joint plans, standardized 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 371 of 1546

 

approaches to trading renewable or energy efficiency credits.... 

We also encourage EPA to help facilitate such interstate 

agreements or multi-state collaborations by working with states 

to either identify or provide a platform or framework that 

states may elect to use for the tracking and trading of avoided 

generation or emissions credits due to interstate efficiency or 

renewable energy.” comment 23597, at 39-40); Regional Greenhouse 

Gas Initiative (including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, 

Vermont) (“[E]very serious proposal to reduce carbon emissions 

from EGUs, from proposed US legislation to programs in place in 

California and Europe, has identified allowance trading as the 

best approach.” Comment 22395 at 7-8); Western States Center for 

New Energy Economy (including Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington) 

(“Some degree of RE and EE credit trading among states may 

support compliance, even in the absence of a comprehensive 

regional plan. Therefore, EPA should support approaches which 

allow states flexibility to allocate credit for these zerocarbon resources, along with approaches which allow states to 

reach agreements on the allocation of carbon liabilities. This 

includes ensuring that existing tracking mechanisms for 

renewable energy in the West, such as the Western Renewable 

Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), are compatible 

with the final proposal.” Comment 21787 at 5); Midcontinent 

States Environmental and Energy Regulators (including Arkansas, 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota Missouri, Wisconsin) (EPA should 

also provide states with optional ... systems (or system) for 

tracking emissions, allowances, reduction credits, and/or 

generation attributes that states may choose to use in their 

111(d) plans,” comment 22535 at 3). 

In addition, trading programs were supported by, among 

others, a group of Attorneys General from 11 states and the 

District of Columbia. Comment 25433 (Attorneys General from New 

York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District 

of Columbia, and New York City Corporation Counsel). 

Numerous industry commenters also supported trading, 

including Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (comment 

22934), Calpine (comment 23167), DTE Energy (comment 24061), 

Exelon (comment 23428 and 23155), Michigan Municipal Electric 

Association (MMEA) (comment 23297), National Climate Coalition 

(comment 22910), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (comment 

23198), Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) (comment 22860). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 372 of 1546

The states’ and EGUs’ interest in emissions trading is 

rooted in the well-recognized benefits that trading provides. 

The experience of multiple trading programs over many years has 

shown that some units can achieve emissions reductions at lower 

cost than others, and a system that allows for those lower-cost 

reductions to be maximized is more cost-effective overall to the 

industry and to society. Trading provides an affected EGU other 

options besides direct implementation of emission reduction 

measures in its own facility or an affiliated facility when 

lower-cost emission reduction opportunities exist elsewhere. 

Specifically, the affected EGU can cross-invest, that is, invest 

in actions at facilities owned by others, in exchange for ratebased emission credits or mass-based emission allowances. 

Through cross-investment, trading allows each affected EGU to 

access the control measures that other affected EGUs decide to 

implement, which in this case include all the building blocks as 

well as other measures. 

Accordingly, our analysis of the measures under 

consideration in our BSER determination reflected the wellfounded conclusion that it is reasonable for states to 

 

Environmental advocates also supported trading, including Clean 

Air Task Force (comment 22612), Environmental Defense Fund 

(comment 23140), Institute for Policy Integrity, New York 

University School of Law (comment 23418). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 373 of 1546

incorporate emissions trading in the standards of performance 

they establish for affected EGUs and that many, if not all, 

would do so. 

Whether viewed from the perspective of an individual EGU or 

the source category as a whole, emissions trading is thus an 

integral part of our BSER analysis. Again, we concluded that 

this is reasonable given the global nature of the pollutant, the 

transactional and interconnected nature of this industry, and 

the long history and numerous examples demonstrating that, in 

this sector, trading is integral to how regulators have 

established, and sources have complied with, environmental and 

similar obligations (such as renewable energy standards) when it 

was appropriate to do so given the program objective. The 

reasonableness is further demonstrated by the numerous comments 

(some of which are noted above) from industry, states, and other 

stakeholders in this rulemaking that supported allowing states 

to adopt trading programs to comply with section 111(d) and 

encouraged EPA to facilitate trading across state lines through 

the use of trading-ready state plans. The EPA’s reliance on 

trading in its BSER determination does not mean, however, that 

states are required to establish trading programs (just as 

states are not required to implement the building blocks that 

comprise BSER). Nor does it mean that trading is the only 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 374 of 1546

transactional approach that we could have considered in setting 

the BSER or that states could use to effectuate the building 

blocks were they to decide that they did not want to take on the 

responsibility of running a trading program. Rather, it is 

simply a recognition of the nature of this industry and the long 

history of trading as an important regulatory tool in 

establishing regulatory regimes for this industry and its 

reasonable availability to states in establishing standards of 

performance. 

As an initial matter, trading is permissible for these 

emission guidelines because CO2 is a global pollutant; the 

location of its emission does not affect the location of the 

environmental harm it causes. For CO2, it is the total amount of 

emissions from the source category that matters, not the 

specific emissions from any one EGU. The fact that trading 

allows sources to shift emissions from one location to another 

does not impede achievement of the environmental goal of 

reducing CO2 pollution. In its character as a pollutant whose 

impacts extend beyond local areas, CO2 pollution resembles to 

some extent the regional SO2 pollution that Congress chose to 

address with the emissions trading program enacted in Title IV 

of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The argument in support of trading 

approaches is even stronger for CO2 pollution, whose adverse 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 375 of 1546

effects are global rather than merely regional like the SO2

emissions contributing to acid precipitation. 

Further, as discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the 

utility power sector – and the affected EGUs and other 

generation assets that it encompasses – has a long history of 

working on a coordinated basis to meet operating and 

environmental objectives, necessitated and facilitated by the 

unique interconnectedness and interdependence of the sector. 

That history includes joint dispatch for economic and 

reliability purposes, both within large utility systems and in 

multi-utility power pools that have evolved into RTOs; joint 

power plant ownership arrangements; and long-term and short-term 

bilateral power purchase arrangements. More recently, the 

sector’s history also includes emissions trading programs 

designed by Congress, the EPA, and the states to address 

regional environmental problems and, most recently, climate 

change. Examples of such programs are noted below. 

Essentially, trading does nothing more than commoditize 

compliance, with the following two important results emerging 

from that: it reduces the overall costs of controls and spreads 

those costs among the entire category of regulated entities 

while providing a greater range of options for sources that may 

not want to make on-site investments for controlling their 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 376 of 1546

emissions and may prefer to make the same investment, via the 

purchase of the tradable compliance instrument, at another 

generating source. Building blocks 2 and 3 entail affected EGUs 

investing in increased generation from existing NGCC units and 

renewable energy. The affected EGUs could do so in any number of 

ways, including acquiring ownership interests in existing NGCC 

or renewable energy facilities or entering into bilateral 

transactions with the owners of existing NGCC facilities or 

renewable energy sources. As discussed elsewhere, it is 

reasonable to expect that these actions can develop into 

discrete, tradable commodities (e.g., an emission rate credit, 

or ERC) and that liquid markets will develop, which would reduce 

transaction costs and allow an affected EGU to comply with its 

emission limits by purchasing discrete units in amounts tailored 

closely to its compliance needs. The existence of such tradable 

commodities also incentivizes over-compliance by affected EGUs, 

which can then sell their over-compliance in the form of ERCs or 

allowances to other affected EGUs. Moreover, as noted elsewhere, 

the opportunity to trade is consistent with the EPA’s regional 

approach for the building blocks. 

By the same token, the opportunity to trade incentivizes 

affected EGUs to over-comply with building block 1. Thus, the 

opportunity to trade supports the EPA’s assumptions about what 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 377 of 1546

an average affected EGU can achieve with regards to heat rate 

improvement even if each and every affected EGU cannot achieve 

that level of improvement. In addition, trading incentivizes 

affected EGUs to consider low-cost, non-BSER methods to reduce 

emissions as well, and, as discussed below, there are numerous 

non-BSER methods, ranging from implementation of demand-side 

energy efficiency programs to natural gas co-firing. 

Trading has become an important mechanism for achieving 

environmental goals in the electricity sector in part because 

trading allows environmental regulators to set an environmental 

goal while preserving the ability of the operators of the 

affected EGUs to decide the best way to meet it taking account 

of the full range of considerations that govern their overall 

operations. For example, commenters were concerned that because 

of building block 2, the emission guidelines would require state 

environmental regulators to make dispatch decisions for the 

electricity markets, a role that state environmental regulators 

do not currently play. Although building block 2 entails 

substituting existing NGCC generation for steam generation, 

implementing the emission limits that are based in part on 

building block 2 through a trading program provides the 

individual affected EGUs with a great deal of control over their 

own generation while the industry as a whole achieves the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 378 of 1546

environmental goals. For example, individual steam generators 

have the option of maintaining their generation as long as they 

acquire additional ERCs. Moreover, trading provides a way for 

states to set standards of performance that realize the required 

emissions reduction without requiring any form of “environmental 

dispatch” because, as many existing trading programs have shown, 

monetization of the environmental constraint is consistent with 

a least-cost dispatch system. Trading also supports the EPA’s 

approach to the “remaining useful life” provision in section 

111(d)(1) because with trading, an affected EGU with a limited 

remaining useful life can avoid the need to implement long-term 

emission reduction measures and can instead purchase ERCs or 

other tradable instruments, such as mass-based allowances, 

thereby allowing the state to meet the requirements of this 

rule. 

The EPA’s job in issuing these emission guidelines is to 

determine the BSER that has been adequately demonstrated and to 

set emission limitations that are achievable through the 

application of the BSER and implementable through standards of 

performance established by the states. The three building blocks 

are the EPA’s determination of what technology is adequately 

demonstrated. We also consider trading an integral part of the 

BSER analysis because, in addition to being available to states 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 379 of 1546

for incorporation in the standards of performance they set for 

affected EGUs, trading has been adequately demonstrated for this 

industry in circumstances where systemic rather than unit-level 

reductions are central. Congress, the EPA, and state regulators 

have established successful environmental programs for this 

industry that allow trading of environmental (or similar) 

attributes, and trading has been widely used by the industry to 

comply with these programs. Examples include the CAA Title IV 

Acid Rain Program, the NOX SIP Call (currently referred to as the 

NOX Budget Trading Program), the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),379 the 

Regional Haze trading programs, the Clean Air Mercury Rule,380

 

379 For example, in CSAPR, which covered the states in the 

eastern half of the U.S., the EPA assumed the existence of 

trading across those states in the rule’s cost estimates 

contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). “Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 

States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States” 32 (June 

2011), http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf 

In addition, the rule is being implemented either through 

federal implementation plans (FIPs) that authorize interstate 

emission trading or state implementation plans (SIPs) that 

authorize interstate emissions trading. 

380 Although the CAMR trading program never took effect because 

the rule was vacated on other grounds, it consisted of a 

nationwide trading program that the EPA adopted under CAA 

section 111(d). Some states declined to allow their sources to 

participate in the trading program on the grounds that 

nationwide trading was not appropriate for the air pollutant at 

issue, mercury, a hazardous air pollutant that caused adverse 

local impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 380 of 1546

RGGI, the trading program established by California AB32, and 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District RECLAIM program. 

We describe these programs in section II.E. of this preamble. In 

addition, we note in the Legal Memorandum accompanying this 

preamble that Congress, in enacting the Title IV acid rain 

trading program, and the EPA, in promulgating the regulatory 

trading programs listed, recognized both the suitability of 

trading for the EGU industry and the benefits of trading in 

reducing costs, spreading costs to affected EGUs throughout the 

sector, and facilitating the ability of affected EGUs to comply 

with their emission limits. In addition, as we discuss in 

section V.E. of this preamble, many states have adopted 

renewable energy standards that promote renewable energy through 

the trading of renewable energy certificates (RECs). 

Based on this history, it is reasonable for the EPA to 

determine that states can establish standards of performance 

that incorporate trading and, as a result, for purpose of making 

a BSER determination here to evaluate prospective emissions 

control measures in light of the availability of trading. 

Trading is a regulatory mechanism that works well for this 

industry. The environmental attributes in the preceding programs 

(representing emissions of air pollutants) are identical to or 

similar in nature to the environmental attribute here (CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 381 of 1546

emissions). The markets for RECs show that robust markets for 

renewable energy, in particular, already exist. 

Given the benefits of trading and the background of multiunit coordination grounded in the nature of the utility power 

sector, it is natural for sources and states to look for 

opportunities to apply similar coordination to a regional 

problem such as reduction of CO2 emissions from the sector. As 

noted earlier, the EPA heard this interest expressed during the 

outreach process for this rulemaking and saw it reflected in 

comments on the proposal. Emissions trading was prominent in 

these expressions of interest: while the proposal allowed 

trading and encouraged the development of multi-state plans 

which would allow the benefits of trading to extend over larger 

regions, we heard that interest was even greater in “tradingready” plans that would use trading mechanisms and market-based 

coordination, rather than state-to-state coordination, as the 

primary means of facilitating multi-unit approaches to 

compliance. The general industry and state preference for multiunit compliance approaches makes great sense in the context of 

the industry and this pollutant, as does the specific preference 

for trading-ready section 111(d) plans, and we have made efforts 

in the final rule to accommodate trading-ready plans as 

described in section VIII. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 382 of 1546

g. Measures that reduce CO2 emissions or CO2 emission rates but 

are not included in the BSER. There are numerous other measures 

that are available to at least some affected EGUs to help assure 

that they can achieve their emission limits, even though the EPA 

is not identifying these measures as part of the BSER. These 

measures include demand-side energy efficiency implementable by 

affected EGUs; new or up-rated nuclear generation; renewable 

measures other than those that are part of building block 3, 

including distributed generation solar power and off-shore wind; 

combined heat and power and waste heat power; and transmission 

and distribution improvements. In addition, a state may 

implement measures that yield emission reductions for use in 

reducing the obligations on affected EGUs, such as demand-side 

energy efficiency measures not implementable by affected EGUs, 

including appliance standards, building codes, and drinking 

water or wastewater system efficiency measures. The availability 

of these measures further assures that the appropriate level of 

emission reductions can be achieved and that affected EGUs will 

be able to achieve their emission limits. 

h. Ability of EGUs to implement the BSER. The EPA’s analysis, 

based in part on observed decades-long behavior of EGUs, shows 

that all types and sizes of affected EGUs in all locations are 

able to undertake the actions described as the BSER, including 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 383 of 1546

investor-owned utilities, merchant generators, rural 

cooperatives, municipally-owned utilities, and federal 

utilities. Some may need to focus more on certain measures; for 

example, an owner of a small generation portfolio consisting of 

a single coal-fired steam EGU may need to rely more on crossinvestment approaches, possibly including the purchase of 

emission credits or allowances, because of a lack of sufficient 

scale to diversify its own portfolio to include NGCC capacity 

and RE generating capacity in addition to coal-fired capacity. 

As noted elsewhere, as a legal matter, it is not necessary that 

each affected EGU be able to implement the BSER, but in any 

event, in this rule, all affected EGUs can do so. Since states 

can reasonably be expected to establish standards of performance 

incorporating emissions trading, affected EGUs may rely on 

emissions trading approaches authorized under their states’ 

section 111(d) plans to, in effect, invest in building block 

measures that are physically implemented at other locations. As 

discussed above, the EPA’s quantification of the CO2 emission 

performance rates in a manner that provides headroom within the 

BSER also contributes to the ability of all affected EGUs to 

implement the BSER and achieve emissions limitations consistent 

with those performance rates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 384 of 1546

i. Subcategorization. As noted above, in this rule, we are 

treating all fossil fuel-fired EGUs as a single category, and, 

in the emission guidelines that we are promulgating with this 

rule, we are treating steam EGUs and combustion turbines as 

separate subcategories. We are determining the BSER for steam 

EGUs and the BSER for combustion turbines, and applying the BSER 

to each subcategory to determine a performance rate for that 

subcategory. We are not further subcategorizing among different 

types of steam EGUs or combustion turbines. As we discuss below, 

this approach is fully consistent with the provisions of section 

111(d), which simply require the EPA to determine the BSER, do 

not prescribe the method for doing so, and are silent as to 

subcategorization. This approach is also fully consistent with 

other provisions in section 111, which require the EPA first to 

list source categories that may reasonably be expected to 

endanger public health or welfare and then to regulate new 

sources within each such source category, and which grant the 

EPA discretion whether to subcategorize the sources for purposes 

of determining the BSER. 

 As discussed below, each affected EGU can achieve the 

performance rate by implementing the BSER, specifically, by 

taking a range of actions –- some of which depend on features of 

the section 111(d) plan chosen by the state, such as the choice 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 385 of 1546

of rate-based or mass-based standards of performance and the 

choice of whether and how to permit emissions trading -- 

including investment in the building blocks, replaced or reduced 

generation, and purchase of emission credits or allowances. 

Further, in the case of a rate-based state plan, several other 

compliance options not included in the BSER for this rule are 

also available to all affected EGUs, including investment in 

demand-side energy efficiency measures. Such compliance options 

may also indirectly help affected EGUs achieve compliance under 

a mass-based plan. 

 Our approach of subcategorizing between steam EGUs and 

combustion turbines is reasonable because building blocks 1 and 

2 apply only to steam EGUs. Moreover, our approach of not 

further subcategorizing as between different types of steam EGUs 

or combustion turbines reflects the reasonable policy that 

affected EGUs with higher emission rates should reduce their 

emissions by a greater percentage than affected EGUs with lower 

emission rates and can do so at a reasonable cost using the 

approaches we have identified as the BSER as well as other 

available measures. 

 Of course, a state retains great flexibility in assigning 

standards of performance to its affected EGUs and can impose 

different emission reduction obligations on its sources, as long 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 386 of 1546

as the overall level of emission limitation is at least as 

stringent as the emission guidelines, as discussed below. 

3. Changes from proposal 

 For the BSER determined in this final rule, based on 

consideration of comments, the EPA has adopted certain 

modifications to the proposed BSER. In this subsection we 

describe the most significant modifications, including some that 

relate to individual building blocks and some that are more 

general. Additional modifications that relate to individual 

building blocks are discussed in the respective sections for 

those building blocks below (sections V.C. through V.E.). 

 We note that taken together, the modifications yield 

emission reductions requirements that commence more gradually 

than the proposed goals but are projected to produce greater 

emission reductions overall by 2030.381 We also note that the 

modifications lead to requirements that are more uniform across 

states than was the case in the proposal, with the final 

requirements generally becoming more stringent in states with 

 

381 For the proposed rule, the EPA projected total CO2 emission 

reductions from 2005 levels of 29% in 2025 and 30% in 2030. For 

the final rule, the EPA projects total CO2 emissions reductions 

from 2005 levels of 28% in 2025 and 32% in 2030. See Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for the CPP Proposed Rule, Table 3-6, and 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the CPP Final Rule, Table 3-6, 

available in the docket. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 387 of 1546

the highest 2012 CO2 emission rates and less stringent in states 

with lower 2012 CO2 emission rates. 

a. Interpretations of CAA section 111. In the June 2014 proposal, 

the EPA proposed interpretations of section 111(a)(1) and (d), 

and applied these interpretations to existing fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs.382 Informed by comments, the EPA has clarified some of 

these interpretations, and has developed a more refined 

understanding of how some of these interpretations should be 

applied. The clarified and more refined interpretations replace 

the proposed interpretations. 

 Two of these points merit mention here. First, the EPA is 

clarifying in this rule that the interpretation of “system of 

emission reduction” does not include emission reduction measures 

that the states have authority to mandate without the affected 

EGUs being able to implement the measures themselves (e.g., 

appliance standards or building codes). In the final rule, we 

have clarified that the components of the BSER must be 

implementable by the affected EGUs, not by the states, and we 

show that all the components of the BSER have been demonstrated 

to be achievable on that basis without reliance on actions that 

 

382 The June 2014 proposal in part referenced proposed 

interpretations of section 111(a)(1) that the EPA explained in 

the January 2014 proposal to address CO2 emissions from new 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs under section 111(b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 388 of 1546

can be accomplished only through government mandates. Further 

discussion of these points can be found throughout this section 

on the BSER and the following sections on the individual 

building blocks. 

 Second, the EPA has adopted a combined interpretation of 

sections 111(a)(1) and 111(d) that, compared to the proposal, 

places more weight on the historical interpretations of section 

111(a)(1), which have generally supported emissions standards 

that are nationally uniform for sources incorporating a given 

technology, and less weight on the state-focused character of 

section 111(d), which calls for emissions standards to be 

implemented through the development of individual state plans. 

The proposed state goals were heavily (although not entirely) 

dependent on the emission reduction opportunities available to 

the EGUs in each individual state, and because the relative 

magnitudes of these opportunities varied by state, states with 

similar EGU fleet compositions could have faced state goals of 

different stringencies, potentially making it difficult for 

multiple states to set the same standards of performance for 

affected EGUs using the same technologies (assuming the states 

were interested in setting standards of performance for their 

various affected EGUs in such a manner). Some commenters viewed 

this potential result as inconsistent with section 111(a)(1), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 389 of 1546

inequitable, or both. In this final rule, we are obviating those 

concerns by assessing the emission reduction opportunities at an 

appropriate regional scale and formulating nationally uniform 

emissions standards for the emission guidelines.383 National 

uniformity is consistent with prior section 111 rulemaking. The 

methodological refinements related to regional assessment of 

emission reduction opportunities and the use of uniform 

emissions standards by technology subcategory are further 

discussed below. 

b. Approach to quantification of emission reductions from 

increased RE generation. In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA 

described two possible approaches for quantifying the amount of 

emission reductions achievable from affected EGUs through the 

use of renewable energy generation. The proposed approach used 

information on state RPS aggregated at a regional level along 

with historical RE generation data to project the amount of RE 

generation used in quantifying the emission reductions 

achievable through the BSER. The alternative approach used 

information on the technical and market potential for 

 

383 Of course, a source in one state may face different 

requirements than similar sources in other states, depending on 

whether the state adopts the state measures approach or, if it 

adopts the emission standards approach, whether it imposes a 

mass limit or an emission rate and, if the latter, at what 

level. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 390 of 1546

development of renewable resources in each state to project the 

RE-related emission reductions. In the October 30, 2014 Notice 

of Data Availability, we provided notice that some commenters 

had suggested modifying the alternative approach to aggregate 

the state-level information to a regional level. In this final 

rule we are adopting a combination of these approaches that uses 

historical RE generating capacity deployment data aggregated to 

a regional level, supported and confirmed by projections of 

market potential developed through a techno-economic approach. 

 In the June 2014 proposal, RE generation was also 

quantified as generation from total –- that is, existing and new 

–- RE generating capacity, a formulation that was consistent 

with the formulation of most RPS, which are typically framed in 

terms of total rather than incremental generation. Commenters 

observed that this quantification approach was inconsistent with 

the approach taken for other building blocks, and that 

generation from RE generating capacity that already existed as 

of 2012 should not be treated as reducing emissions of affected 

EGUs from 2012 levels. As just noted, we are not using the RPSbased methodology in the final rule, and we agree with comments 

that quantification of RE generation on an incremental basis is 

both more consistent with the treatment of other building blocks 

and more consistent with the general principle that the BSER 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 391 of 1546

should comprise incremental measures that will reduce emissions 

below existing levels, not measures that are already in place, 

even if those in-place measures help current emission levels be 

lower than would be the case without the measures. The final 

rule therefore defines the RE component of the BSER in terms of 

incremental rather than total RE generation.384 Further details 

regarding the final rule’s quantification of RE generation are 

provided in section V.E. below. 

c. Exclusion from the BSER of emission reductions from use of new 

or preserved nuclear capacity. In the June 2014 proposal, the 

EPA included in building block 3 provisions reflecting the 

ability for nuclear generation to replace fossil generation and 

thereby reduce CO2 emissions at affected EGUs. We proposed to 

include in building block 3 the potential generation from five 

under-construction nuclear generating units whose construction 

had commenced prior to the issuance of the proposal. In 

addition, to address the potential that some currently operating 

nuclear facilities may shut down prior to 2030, the proposal 

incorporated into the BSER for each state with nuclear capacity 

 

384 Generation from existing RE capacity will continue to make 

compliance with mass-based standards easier to achieve by making 

the overall amount of fossil fuel-fired generation that is 

required to meet the demand for energy services lower than it 

would otherwise be, thereby keeping CO2 emissions lower than they 

would otherwise be. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 392 of 1546

a projected 5.8 percent reduction in nuclear generation, based 

on an estimate of potential nationwide loss of nuclear 

generation from existing units. We sought comment on all aspects 

of these proposed approaches. While we recognize the important 

role nuclear power plants have to play in providing carbon-free 

generation in an all-of-the-above energy system, for this final 

rule, the BSER does not include either of the components related 

to nuclear generation. 

 The EPA received numerous comments on the proposed BSER 

components related to nuclear power. With respect to generation 

from new nuclear units, some commenters expressed strong 

opposition to the inclusion of this generation in the BSER and 

the setting of state goals, stating that inclusion would result 

in very stringent state goals for the states where the new units 

are being built and that the inclusion of the generation in the 

goals is premature because the units’ actual completion dates 

could be delayed. Commenters also stated that inclusion of the 

new nuclear generation in the BSER would be inequitable because 

states where the same heavy investment in zero-CO2 generation was 

not being made would have relatively less stringent goals. 

 With respect to generation from existing nuclear units, 

some commenters stated that our method of accounting for 

potential unit shutdowns was flawed, observing that even if the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 393 of 1546

prediction of a 5.8 percent nationwide loss of nuclear 

generation were accurate, the actual shutdowns would occur in a 

handful of states, resulting in much larger losses of generation 

in those particular states. 

 Upon consideration of comments and the accompanying data, 

the EPA has determined that the BSER should not include either 

of the components related to nuclear generation from the 

proposal. With respect to nuclear units under construction, 

although we believe that other refinements to this final rule 

would address commenters’ concerns that goals for the particular 

states where the units are located would be overly stringent 

either in absolute terms or relative to other states, we also 

acknowledge that, in contrast to RE generating technology, 

investments in new nuclear units tend to be very large and 

“lumpy” and have historically been susceptible to delays that 

increase costs. Also, there is no clear trend demonstrating 

increased construction of new nuclear capacity. We view these 

factors as distinguishing the under-construction nuclear units 

from RE generating capacity, indicating that the new nuclear 

capacity is of higher cost and therefore less appropriate for 

inclusion in the BSER. Excluding the under-construction nuclear 

units from the BSER, but allowing emission reductions 

attributable to generation from the units to be used for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 394 of 1546

compliance as discussed below and in section VIII, will 

recognize the CO2 emission reduction benefits achievable through 

the significant ongoing commitment required to complete these 

major investments. 

 With respect to existing nuclear units, although again we 

believe that other refinements in the final rule would address 

the concern about disparate impacts on particular states, we 

acknowledge that we lack information on shutdown risk that would 

enable us to improve the estimated 5.8 percent factor for 

nuclear capacity at risk of retirement. Further, based in part 

on comments received on another aspect of the proposal –- 

specifically, the proposed inclusion of existing RE generation 

in the goal-setting computations –- we believe that it is 

inappropriate to base the BSER in part on the premise that the 

preservation of existing low- or zero-carbon generation, as 

opposed to the production of incremental, low- or zero-carbon 

generation, could reduce CO2 emissions from current levels. 

Accordingly, we have determined not to reflect either of the 

nuclear elements in the final BSER. 

 Generation from new nuclear units and capacity uprates at 

existing nuclear units would still be able to help sources meet 

emission rate-based standards of performance through the 

creation and use of credits, as noted in section V.A.6.b. and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 395 of 1546

section VIII.K.1.a.(8), and would help sources meet mass-based 

standards of performance through reduced utilization of fossil 

generating capacity leading to reduced CO2 emissions at affected 

EGUs. However, consistent with the reasons just discussed for 

not reflecting preservation of existing nuclear capacity in the 

BSER –- namely, that such preservation does not actually reduce 

existing levels of emissions from affected EGUs –- the rule does 

not allow preservation of generation from existing or relicensed 

nuclear capacity to serve as the basis for creation of credits 

that individual affected EGUs could use for compliance, as 

further discussed in section VIII.K.1.a.(8).385 

d. Exclusion from the BSER of emission reductions from demandside energy efficiency. The June 2014 proposal included demandside energy efficiency measures in building block 4 as part of 

the BSER. Building block 4 was a topic of considerable 

controversy among commenters. While many commenters emphasized 

the cost-effectiveness of demand-side energy efficiency measures 

as a means of reducing CO2 emissions from the utility power 

 

385 As with generation from existing RE capacity, generation from 

existing nuclear capacity will continue to make compliance with 

mass-based standards easier to achieve by making the overall 

amount of fossil fuel-fired generation that is required to meet 

the demand for energy services lower than it would otherwise be, 

thereby keeping CO2 emissions lower than they would otherwise be. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 396 of 1546

sector and strongly supported the inclusion of such measures in 

the BSER, other commenters expressed significant concerns. 

For the reasons discussed in section V.B.3.b.(1) below, the 

EPA is not finalizing the proposal to include demand-side energy 

efficiency measures as part of the BSER. 

 It should be noted that commenters also took the position 

that the EPA should allow demand-side energy efficiency as a 

means of compliance with the requirements of this rule, and, as 

discussed in section V.A.6.b. and section VIII below, we agree. 

e. Consistent regionalized approach to quantification of emission 

reductions from all building blocks. In the June 2014 proposal, 

the EPA treated each of the building blocks differently with 

respect to the regional scale on which the building block was 

applied for purposes of assessing the emission reductions 

achievable through use of that building block. Building block 1 

was quantified at a national scale, identifying a single heat 

rate improvement opportunity applicable on average to all coalfired steam EGUs. Building block 2 was quantified at the scale 

of each individual state, considering the amount of generation 

that could be shifted from steam EGUs to NGCC units within the 

state, although we solicited comment on considering generation 

shifts at a broader regional scale. The RE component of building 

block 3 was quantified at a regional scale using RPS information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 397 of 1546

as a proxy for RE development potential, and the regional 

results were then applied to each state in the region using the 

state’s baseline data; an alternative methodology on which we 

requested comment quantified the RE component using a technoeconomic approach on a state-specific basis. In the October 2014 

NODA, we requested comment on using a techno-economic approach 

to quantify RE generation potential at a regional scale.386 

 For the final rule, with the benefit of comments received, 

we have adopted a consistent regionalized approach to 

quantification of emission reductions achievable through all the 

building blocks. Further, compared to the proposal’s more statefocused quantification approach, a regionalized approach better 

reflects the interconnected system within which interdependent 

affected EGUs actually carry out planning and operations in 

order to meet electricity demand. We have already discussed the 

relevance of the interconnected system and the interdependent 

operations of EGUs as factors supporting consideration of 

building blocks 2 and 3 as elements of the BSER for this 

pollutant and this industry, and these same factors support 

quantifying the emission reductions achievable through building 

blocks 2 and 3 on a regionalized basis. Because it better 

reflects how the industry works, a regionalized approach also 

 

386 79 FR 64543, 64551-62 

Deleted: A regionalized approach is more 

consistent with the global nature of CO2 as a 

pollutant than a state-focused approach. 

Commented [A23]: Recommend deleting or clarifying how this 

is relevant to the statutory factors 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 398 of 1546

better represents the full scope of emission reduction 

opportunities available to individual affected EGUs through the 

normal transactional processes of the industry, which do not 

stop at state borders. With respect to building block 1, which 

comprises types of emission reduction measures that in other 

rulemakings under CAA section 111 would typically be evaluated 

on a nationwide basis, for this rule, as discussed in section 

V.C. below, we are quantifying the emission reductions 

achievable through building block 1 on a regional basis as well 

in order to treat the building blocks consistently and to ensure 

that for each region the quantification of the BSER represents 

only as much potential emission reduction from building block 1 

as our analysis indicates can be achieved on average by the 

affected EGUs in that region. 

 Characterizing and quantifying the measures included in the 

BSER on a regional basis is also appropriate because states can 

establish standards of performance that incorporate emissions 

trading, including trading between and among EGUs operating in 

different states, and thus provide EGUs the opportunity to 

trade. Emissions trading provides at least one mechanism by 

which owners of affected EGUs can access any of the building 

blocks at other location. With emissions trading, an affected 

EGU whose access to heat rate improvement opportunities, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 399 of 1546

incremental generation from existing NGCC units, or generation 

from new renewable energy generating capacity is relatively 

favorable can overcomply with its own standard of performance 

and sell rate-based emission credits or mass-based emission 

allowances to other affected EGUs. Purchase of the credits or 

allowances by the other EGUs represents cross-investment in the 

emission reduction opportunities, and such cross-investment can 

be carried out on as wide a geographic scale as trading rules 

allow. 

 The regions we have determined to be appropriate for the 

regionalized approach in the final rule are the Eastern, 

Western, and Texas Interconnections, as we explain in more 

detail below.387 Each of the building blocks is quantified and 

applied at the regional level, resulting in the computation for 

each region of a performance rate for steam EGUs and a 

performance rate for NGCC units. For each of the technology 

subcategories, we identify the most conservative –- that is, the 

least stringent –- of the three regional performance rates. We 

then apply these subcategory-specific performance rates to the 

baseline data for each state in all three regions to establish 

 

387 The Texas Interconnection encompasses the portion of the 

Texas electricity system commonly known as ERCOT (for the 

Electric Reliability Council of Texas). The state of Texas has 

areas within the Eastern and Western Interconnections as well as 

the Texas Interconnection. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 400 of 1546

state goals of consistent stringency across the states within 

and across the three regions (although the actual state goals 

vary among states to reflect the differences in generation mix 

among states). Further description of the steps in this overall 

process is contained in the preamble sections addressing the 

individual building blocks (sections V.C., V.D., and V.E.), CO2

emission performance rate computation (section VI), and state 

goal computation (section VII), as well as the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule 

available in the docket. 

 In determining that the appropriate regional level for 

quantification of the BSER was the level of the interconnection, 

the EPA considered several factors. First, we considered the 

regional scale on which electricity is actually produced, 

physically coordinated, and consumed in real time –- 

specifically the Eastern, Western, and Texas Interconnections. 

The Bulk Power System (BPS) in the contiguous United States 

(including adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico) consists of 

these three interconnections, which are alternating current (AC) 

power grids where power flows freely from generating sources to 

consuming loads. These interconnections are separately planned 

and operated; they are connected to each other only through low-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 401 of 1546

capacity direct current (DC) tie lines. Each interconnection is 

managed to maintain a single frequency and to maintain stable 

voltage levels throughout the interconnection. Physically, each 

interconnection functions as a large pool, where all electricity 

delivered to the electric grid flows by displacement over all 

transmission lines in the interconnection and must be 

continually balanced with load to ensure reliable electricity 

service to customers throughout each interconnection. “Since 

power flows on all transmission paths, it is not uncommon to 

find circumstances in which part of a power delivery within one 

balancing area flows on transmission lines in adjoining areas, 

or part of a power delivery between two balancing areas flows 

over the transmission facilities of a third area.”388 The 

Interconnections are the “complex machines” within which EGUs 

plan, coordinate, and operate, manifesting a degree of both 

long-term and real-time interdependence that is unique to this 

industry. We concluded that, absent a compelling reason to adopt 

a smaller regional scale for evaluation of CO2 emission reduction 

opportunities for the electric power sector –- which we have not 

found, as discussed below –- the Interconnections should be the 

regions used for evaluation of the BSER for CO2 emission 

 

388 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 188 (2d ed. 2010). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 402 of 1546

reductions from the electric power sector because of the 

fundamental characteristics of electricity, the industry’s basic 

interconnected physical infrastructure, and the interdependence 

of the affected EGUs within each interconnection. 

 Second, we considered whether the interconnection 

subregions for which various planning and operational functions 

are carried out by separate institutional actors would represent 

more appropriate regions than the entire Interconnnections, and 

concluded that they would not. Interconnection planning and 

management follows the NERC functional model, which defines 

subregional areas and regional entities within each 

interconnection for the purposes of balancing generation with 

load and ensuring that reliability is maintained. While a 

variety of organizations plan and operate these subregions, 

those activities always occur in the context of the 

interconnections, and the subregions cannot be operated 

autonomously. The need to maintain common frequency and stable 

voltage levels throughout the interconnections requires 

constantly changing flows of electricity between the planning 

and operating subregions within each interconnection. 

 Because each interconnection is a freely flowing AC grid, 

any power generated or consumed flows through the entire 

interconnection in real time; as a result of this highly 

Deleted: the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 403 of 1546

interconnected nature of the power system, the management of 

generation and load on the grid must be carefully maintained. 

This management is carried out principally by subregional 

entities responsible for the operation of the grid, but this 

operation must be coordinated in real time to ensure the 

reliability of the system. Regional operators must coordinate 

the dispatch of power, not only in their own areas, but also 

with the other regions within the interconnection. Although this 

coordination has always been important, grid planning and 

management has evolved to be increasingly interconnection-wide, 

through the development of larger regional entities, such as 

RTO/ISOs, or large-utility dispatch across multiple balancing 

areas. As a result, the fact that much of the necessary 

coordination for the interconnections is performed regionally on 

a partially decentralized basis (at least in the case of the 

Eastern and Western Interconnections) or occurs through the 

operation of automated equipment and the physics of the grid 

does not render the subregions more relevant than the 

interconnections as the ultimate regions within which 

electricity supply and demand must balance. 

 Moreover, some planning and standard setting activities are 

undertaken explicitly at the interconnection level. For example, 

interconnections also have interconnection reliability operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 404 of 1546

limits (IROLs).389 A joint FERC-NERC report on the September 8, 

2011 Arizona-Southern California outages outlined the importance 

of IROLs.390 The report noted that to ensure the reliable 

operation of the bulk power system, entities must identify a 

plan for IROLs to avoid cascading outages. “In order to ensure 

the reliable operation of the BPS, entities are required to 

identify and plan for IROLs, which are SOLs that, if violated, 

can cause instability, uncontrolled separation, and cascading 

outages. Once an IROL is identified, system operators are then 

required to create plans to mitigate the impact of exceeding 

such a limit to maintain system reliability.”391 

Congress recognized the significance of the three 

interconnections in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

 

389 For example, the Eastern Interconnection has Reliability 

Standard IRO-006-EAST-1, Transmission Loading Relief Procedure 

for the Eastern Interconnection, available at 

http://www.nerc.com/files/IRO-006-EAST-1.pdf (providing an 

“Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure 

(TLR) for the Eastern Interconnection that can be used to 

prevent and/or mitigate potential or actual System Operating 

Limit (SOL) and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit 

(IROL) exceedances to maintain reliability of the Bulk Electric 

System (BES).”). 

390 FERC-NERC, Arizona-Southern California Outages on September 

8, 2011: Causes and Recommendations (Apr. 2012), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/04-27-2012-ferc-nercreport.pdf. 

391 FERC-NERC, Arizona-Southern California Outages on September 

8, 2011: Causes and Recommendations, at 97 (Apr. 2012), 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/04-27-2012-

ferc-nerc-report.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 405 of 1546

of 2009 (Recovery Act) when it provided $80 million in funding 

for interconnection-based transmission planning.392 In order to 

fulfill this Congressional mandate, DOE and FERC signed a 

memorandum of understanding to enumerate their roles “for 

activities related to the Resource Assessment and 

Interconnection Planning project funded by the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Among the 

objectives of the project is to facilitate the development or 

strengthening of capabilities in each of the three 

interconnections serving the contiguous lower forty-eight 

States, to prepare analyses of transmission requirements under a 

broad range of alternative futures and develop long-term 

interconnection-wide transmission plans.”393 DOE issued awards to 

five organizations that performed work in the Western, Eastern, 

and Texas Interconnections to develop long-term interconnectionwide transmission expansion plans.394 

 

392 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, Title IV, 

Public Law 111-5 (2009). 

393 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of 

Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, available 

at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/mou/mou-doe-ferc.pdf. 394 DOE, Recovery Act Interconnection Transmission Planning, 

available at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policycoordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/recoveryact. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 406 of 1546

In Order No. 1000, FERC also took a broader regional view 

of transmission planning.395 FERC required each public utility 

transmission provider to participate in a regional transmission 

planning process that produces a regional transmission plan. 

FERC also required neighboring transmission planning regions to 

coordinate with each other. This interregional coordination 

includes identifying methods for evaluating interregional 

transmission facilities as well as establishing a common method 

or methods of cost allocation for interregional transmission 

facilities. 

In addition to Congressional, DOE, and FERC recognition of 

the importance of the three interconnections, NERC also 

considers them to be significant. NERC Organizational Standards 

“are based upon certain Reliability Principles that define the 

foundation of reliability for North American bulk electric 

systems.”396 These principles take a broad view of electric 

system reliability, considering the reliability of 

 

395 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission 

Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000-

A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC 

¶ 61,044 (2012), aff’d sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 

762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

396 NERC, Reliability and Market Interface Principles, at 1, 

available at 

http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Standards/ReliabilityandMarketInter

facePrinciples.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 407 of 1546

interconnected bulk electric systems. For example, Reliability 

Principle 1 states, “Interconnected bulk electric systems shall 

be planned and operated in a coordinated manner to perform 

reliably under normal and abnormal conditions as defined in the 

NERC standards.”397 NERC took a similarly broad view of system 

reliability when it delegated its authority to monitor and 

enforce mandatory reliability standards to a single Regional 

Entity in both the Western and Texas Interconnections (WECC in 

the West and the Texas Reliability Entity in the ERCOT region of 

Texas).398 Moreover, both WECC and ERCOT have interconnectionwide reliability standards.399 The Eastern Interconnection has 

multiple reliability regions with some differences in standards, 

but power flows and reliability are managed through a single 

Reliability Coordinator Information System that tracks power 

flows for all transmission transactions.400 

 

397 NERC, Reliability and Market Interface Principles, at 1, 

available at 

http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Standards/ReliabilityandMarketInter

facePrinciples.pdf. 

398 NERC, Key Players, available at

http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Pages/default.aspx. 

399 WECC, Standards, available at

https://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Pages/Default.aspx (last visited 

July 3, 2015); Texas Reliability Entity, Reliability Standards, 

available at 

http://www.texasre.org/standards_rules/Pages/Default.aspx (last 

visited July 3, 2015). 

400 The NERC glossary defines the Reliability Coordinator 

Information System as the “system that Reliability Coordinators 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 408 of 1546

 The importance that Congress, DOE, FERC, and NERC each 

place upon the interconnections for electric reliability and 

operational issues is another factor supporting our decision to 

set the interconnections as the regional boundaries for the 

establishment of BSER. The utilization of the three 

interconnections for both planning and reliability purposes is a 

clear indication of the importance that electricity system 

regulators, operators, and industry place upon the 

interconnections. Those responsible for the electricity system 

recognize the need to ensure that there is a free flow of 

electricity throughout each interconnection such that 

transmission planning and reliability analysis are occurring at 

the interconnection level. Further, this vigilance with respect 

to considering reliability from an interconnection-wide basis 

recognizes that each of the interconnections behaves as a single 

machine where “outages, generation, transmission changes, and 

problems in any one area in the synchronous network can affect 

the entire network.”401 By setting the three interconnections as 

the regions for purposes of BSER, we are affirming the way in 

 

use to post messages and share operating information in real 

time.” NERC, Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards

(Apr. 20, 2009), available at

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia411/nerc_glossary_2009.pd

f. 

401 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems, IEEE Press, at 159 (2d ed. 2010). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 409 of 1546

which planning, reliability, and industry experts view the 

electricity system. 

An additional factor weighing against the use of planning 

or operational subregions of the Interconnections as the regions 

for our BSER analysis for this rule is that the borders of those 

subregions occasionally change as planning and management 

functions evolve or as owners of various portions of the grid 

change affiliations. This is not a merely theoretical 

consideration; numerous ISO/RTO and other regional boundaries 

have substantially changed in recent years. For example, in 

2012, Duke Energy Ohio and Duke Energy Kentucky integrated into 

PJM.402 The following year, in December 2013, Entergy and its six 

utility operating companies joined MISO, creating the MISO South 

Region.403 The integration of MISO South correspondingly led to 

changes in NERC’s regional assessment areas.404 FERC also 

 

402 PJM, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., 

Successfully Integrated Into PJM (Jan. 3, 2012), available at 

http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/newsroom/2012-

releases/20120103-duke-ohio-and-kentucky-integrate-intopjm.ashx.

403 Miso, South Region Integration, available at 

https://www.misoenergy.org/WhatWeDo/StrategicInitiatives/Souther

nRegionIntegration/Pages/SouthernRegionIntegration.aspx (noting 

that the creation of the MISO South Region “brought over 18,000 

miles of transmission, ~50,000 megawatts of generation capacity, 

and ~30,000 MW of load into the MISO footprint.”). 

404 NERC previously included Entergy and its six operating areas 

as part of the SERC Assessment Areas. NERC, 2014 Reliability 

Assessment (May 2014). “MISO now coordinates all RTO activities 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 410 of 1546

recently approved the integration of the Western Areas Power 

Administration – Upper Great Plains, Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative, and Heartland Consumers Power District into SPP.405

Additionally, PacifiCorp and the CAISO recently began operating 

the western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM).406 Other entities such 

as NV Energy, Arizona Public Service Co., and Puget Sound Energy 

are planning to participate in the EIM in the future.407 The EIM 

“creates significant reliability and renewable integration 

benefits for consumers by sharing and economically dispatching a 

broad array of resources.”408 This history of changing regional 

boundaries leads us to the conclusion that selecting smaller 

regional boundaries for purposes of setting the BSER would 

merely represent a snapshot of current, changeable regional 

 

in the newly combined footprint, consisting of all or parts of 

15 states with the integration of Entergy and other MISO South 

entities. This transition has led to substantial changes to 

MISO’s market dispatch, creating the potential for unanticipated 

flows across the following systems: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA), Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. (AECI), and Southern 

Balancing Authority.” Id. at 7. 405 SPP, FERC approves Integrates System joining SPP (Nov. 12, 

2014), available at 

http://www.spp.org/publications/FERC%20approves%20IS%20membershi

p.pdf.

406NREL, Energy Imbalance Market, available at

http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/energy_imbalance.ht

ml. 

407 CAISO, EIM Company Profiles (May 2015), available at

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/EIMCompanyProfiles.pdf. 

408 CAISO, Energy Imbalance Market, available at

http://www.caiso.com/informed/pages/stakeholderprocesses/energyi

mbalancemarket.aspx. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 411 of 1546

boundaries. As we have seen with recent, large-scale changes 

regarding ISO/RTO boundaries and NERC reliability assessment 

areas, such regions would likely not stand the test of the time, 

nor would smaller regional boundaries accurately reflect 

electricity flows on the grid. The EPA believes that the 

interconnections are the most stable and reasonable regional 

boundaries for setting BSER. 

 Third, we considered whether transmission constraints, and 

the fact that the specific locations of generation resources and 

loads within each interconnection clearly matter to grid 

planning and operations, necessitate evaluation of the emission 

reductions available from the building blocks at scales smaller 

than the interconnections. We concluded that no reduction in 

scale was needed due to such constraints. The same industry 

trends that are reflected in the BSER -- the changing 

efficiencies and mix of existing fossil EGUs and the development 

of renewable energy throughout each interconnection -- as well 

as the management of the interconnected grid as loads are 

reduced through energy efficiency, which is not reflected in the 

final BSER, are already driving power system development and are 

being managed through interconnection-wide planning, 

coordination and operations, and will continue to be managed in 

that manner in the future with or without this rule. While 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 412 of 1546

electricity supply and demand must be balanced in real time in a 

manner that observes all security constraints at that point in 

time, and key aspects of that management are carried out at a 

subregional scale, the emissions standards established in this 

rule can be met over longer timeframes through processes managed 

at larger geographic scales, just as they are today. We believe 

this rule will reinforce these developments and help provide a 

secure basis for moving forward. If a local transmission 

constraint requires that for reliability reasons a higheremitting resource must operate during a certain period of time 

in preference to a lower-emitting resource that would otherwise 

be the more economic choice when all costs are considered, 

nothing in this rule prevents the higher-emitting source from 

being operated. If the same transmission constraint causes the 

same conditions to occur frequently, the extra cost associated 

with finding alternative ways to reduce emissions will provide 

an economic incentive for concerned parties to explore ways to 

relieve the transmission constraint. If relieving the constraint 

would be more costly than employing alternative measures to 

reduce emissions, the rule allows parties to pursue those 

alternative emission reduction measures. Accommodation of 

intermittent constraints and evaluation of alternatives for 

relieving or working around them have been routine operating and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 413 of 1546

planning practices within the utility power sector for many 

years; the rule will not change these basic economic practices 

that occur today. The 2022-29 schedule for the rule’s interim 

goals and the 2030 schedule for the rule’s final goals allow 

time for planning and investment comparable to the sector’s 

typical planning horizons. 

 Finally, the EPA also considered whether the smaller 

geographic scales on which affected EGUs may typically engage in 

energy and capacity transactions necessitate evaluating the 

emission reductions available from the building blocks at scales 

smaller than the interconnections, and again concluded that a 

smaller scale was not necessary or justified. We first note that 

electricity trading occurs today throughout the interconnection 

through RTO/ISO markets and active spot markets, often over 

large areas such as RTO/ISOs, or managed over large dispatch 

areas outside RTOs. These trades result in interconnection-wide 

changes in flow that are managed in real time. Moreover, the 

exchange of power is not limited to these areas. For example, 

RTOs regularly manage flows between RTOs, and EGUs near the 

boundaries of RTOs impact multiple subregions across the 

interconnections, so that any subregional boundaries that might 

be evaluated for potential relevance as trading region 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 414 of 1546

boundaries will change as conditions and EGU choices change, 

while interconnection boundaries will remain stable. 

 In addition, the final rule permits trading of rate-based 

emission credits or mass-based emission allowances. Emission 

allowances and other commodities associated with electricity 

generation activities, such as renewable energy certificates, 

which, again, represent investments in pollution control 

measures, are already traded separately from the underlying 

electric energy and capacity. There is no reason that whatever 

geographic limits may exist for electricity and capacity 

transactions by an affected EGU should also limit the EGU’s 

transactions for validly issued rate-based emission credits or 

mass-based emission allowances. In fact, as discussed below, the 

final rule not only allows national trading without regard to 

the interconnection boundaries, but also includes a number of 

options that readily facilitate states’ and utilities’ very 

extensive reliance on emissions trading. It is appropriate for 

the rule to take this approach, in part, because the non-local 

nature of the impacts of CO2 pollution do not necessitate 

geographic constraints, and in the absence of a policy reason to 

constrain the geographic scope of trading, the largest possible 

scope is the most efficient scope. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 415 of 1546

f. Uniform CO2 emission performance rates by technology 

subcategory. In conjunction with the refinements to the 

interpretations of section 111 reflected in the final rule, the 

EPA has refined the methodology for applying the BSER to the 

affected EGUs so as to incorporate performance rates that are 

uniform across technology subcategories. 

 Specifically, the final rule reflects a performance rate of 

1305 lbs. per net MWh for all affected steam EGUs nationwide and 

a performance rate of 771 lbs. per net MWh for all affected 

stationary combustion turbines nationwide. The computations of 

these performance rates and the determinations of state goals 

reflecting the performance rates are described in sections VI 

and VII of the preamble, respectively. This modification is 

consistent with a number of comments we received on the proposal 

and is a logical outgrowth of the proposal informed by the 

comments. The commenters took the position that the proposed 

state goals varied too much among states and unavoidably 

implied, or would inevitably result in, states establishing 

inconsistent standards of performance for sources of the same 

technology type in their respective states, which in the 

commenters’ view was not appropriate under section 111. 

 Evaluating the emission reduction opportunities achievable 

through application of the BSER on a broad regionalized basis, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 416 of 1546

which is appropriate for the reasons discussed above, makes it 

possible to express the degree of emission limitation reflecting 

the BSER as CO2 emission performance rates that are uniform for 

all affected EGUs in a technology subcategory within each 

region. Recognizing the comments favoring the use of nationally 

uniform performance rates by technology subcategory, the EPA 

further considered whether any of the regional emission 

performance rates could represent the emission limitation 

achievable through application of the BSER for its respective 

technology subcategory nationwide. The Eastern, Western, and 

Texas Interconnections each encompass large and diverse 

populations of EGUs with many and diverse opportunities to 

reduce CO2 emissions through application of the measures in each 

of the three building blocks. Based on these considerations of 

scale and diversity, we conclude that each of the 

Interconnections is sufficiently representative of the source 

subcategories and emission reduction opportunities encompassed 

in the BSER to potentially serve as the basis for CO2 emission 

performance rates applicable to the respective source 

subcategories on a nationwide basis. 

 Having determined that the performance rates determined on 

a regional basis merit consideration as nationally applicable 

performance rates, we are also determining that it would be more 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 417 of 1546

appropriate to use the least stringent of the regional 

performance rates for the three interconnections for each 

technology subcategory as the basis for nationally uniform 

performance rates for that technology subcategory than to use 

the most stringent or the region-specific performance rates. 

Under this approach, the CO2 emission performance rate reflecting 

the BSER for all steam EGUs is uniform across the contiguous 

U.S., regardless of the state or Interconnection where the steam 

EGUs are located. While it is true that steam EGUs in the 

Western and Texas Interconnections have opportunities to 

implement the measures in the building blocks to a greater 

extent than the steam EGUs in the Eastern Interconnection –- for 

example, under building block 2, they have greater amounts of 

incremental NGCC generation available to replace their 

generation in all years for which performance rates were 

computed -- we do not conclude that this means that the EGUs in 

the Western and Texas Interconnections should be assigned a more 

stringent CO2 emission performance rate. Through the use of a 

common CO2 emission performance rate across all of the steam EGUs 

in all three regions, the burdens of the BSER are allocated 

equally across the steam EGU source subcategory. The same is 

true for the combustion turbine source subcategory, even though, 

in any year for which emission performance rates are computed, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 418 of 1546

the combustion turbines in two of the Interconnections have 

greater amounts of renewable energy available to replace their 

generation than combustion turbines in the third 

Interconnection.409 

In addition, using the least stringent rate provides 

greater “headroom” –- that is, emission reduction opportunities 

beyond those reflected in the performance rates –- to affected 

EGUs in the Interconnections that do not set the nationwide 

level. This greater “headroom” provides greater compliance 

flexibility and assurance that the standards set by the states 

based on the emission guidelines will be achievable at 

reasonable cost and without adverse impacts on reliability. This 

is because affected EGUs in the Interconnections that do not set 

the nationwide level have more opportunities to directly invest 

in each of the building blocks in their respective regions, and 

affected EGUs in the Interconnection that does set the 

 

409 As discussed in section VI and the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and State Goal Computation TSD, the emission performance 

rates for each technology subcategory are computed by region for 

each year from 2022 through 2030, and the region with the least 

stringent emission rate for a particular subcategory, whose rate 

therefore is used for all three regions, can differ across 

years. In the case of the steam EGU subcategory, the nationwide 

rate for all years is the rate computed for the Eastern 

Interconnection. In the case of the NGCC subcategory, the 

nationwide rate is the rate computed for the Texas 

Interconnection for the years from 2022 through 2026 and the 

rate computed for the Eastern Interconnection for the years from 

2027 through 2030. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 419 of 1546

nationwide level may in effect invest in the opportunities in 

the other Interconnections through trading. At the same time, 

our approach still represents the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through use of an appropriately large and diverse set 

of emission reduction opportunities and can therefore reasonably 

be considered the “best” system of emission reduction for each 

technology subcategory. 

 Our approach in this rulemaking thus not only addresses the 

comments we received regarding the appropriateness of setting 

uniform rates for the same plant types, it is also generally 

consistent with the approach we have taken in other NSPS 

rulemakings, where standards of performance or emission 

guidelines have typically been established at uniform 

stringencies for all units in a given source subcategory, and 

where once the best system of emission reduction has been 

identified, stringencies are generally set based on what is 

reasonably achievable using that system. 

 We continue to believe that, as in the proposal, providing 

each state with a state-specific weighted average rate-based 

goal allows the state to determine how the emission reduction 

requirements should be allocated among the state’s affected EGUs 

and is an important source of flexibility for states in 

developing their section 111(d) plans. Accordingly, in this 

Deleted: potentially disparate impacts

Commented [A24]: edit 

Deleted: the approach presented in

Deleted: proposal

Deleted: appropriate control technology

Commented [A25]: edit 

Deleted: technology
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 420 of 1546

final rule we are providing uniform CO2 emission performance 

rates for each source subcategory and also translating those to

state-specific weighted average goals. For additional 

flexibility, we are also translating the state-specific emission 

rate goals into state-specific mass-based goals. Our 

determinations of the emission performance rates are described 

in section VI below, and our determinations of the rate-based 

and mass-based goals are described in section VII below. 

 We note here that the weighted-average state goals reflect 

the application of the uniform CO2 emission performance rates for 

affected steam EGUs and affected NGCC units to the respective 

units in each subcategory in each state. Each state goal 

therefore reflects uniform stringency of emission reduction 

requirements with respect to affected units in each source 

subcategory, but also reflects the EGU fleet composition and 

historical generation specific to that particular state. 

Compared to the proposal, the approach of quantifying the BSER 

through regionalized analysis and use of uniform emission 

performance rates by source subcategory results in more 

stringent goals for states whose generation has historically 

been most heavily concentrated at coal-fired steam EGUs. This 

shift is an expected consequence of the use of uniform 

performance rates by source subcategory. At proposal, these 

Deleted: equivalent

Deleted: in addition to providing the uniform 

CO2 emission performance rates for each source 

subcategory

Deleted: providing equivalent 

Commented [A26]: edits 

Deleted: equivalent

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 421 of 1546

states’ goals reflected assumptions in the goal quantification 

methodology that to a considerable extent limited their emission 

reduction opportunities based on their states’ borders, and the 

proposed goals therefore were less stringent in states which had 

substantial coal generation and little local NGCC capacity. The 

final rule more realistically recognizes that emission reduction 

opportunities, like other aspects of the interconnected 

electricity system, are regional and are not constrained by 

state borders. We consequently apply the same emission 

performance rates to coal-fired units in states with heavy 

reliance on coal-fueled generation as we do to coal-fired units 

in other states, which produces more stringent state goals than 

at proposal for the states with the highest concentrations of 

coal-fired generation. At the same time, the final goals for 

some states are less stringent than their proposed goals –- for 

example, because a goal based on the least stringent regional 

rates is less stringent than a goal based on state-specific 

emission reduction opportunities would be -- so that the 

differences among the final state goals are generally smaller 

than the differences among the proposed state goals. All of the 

final rate-based state goals are necessarily in the range 

bounded by the CO2 emission performance rate for NGCC units and 

the CO2 emission performance rate for steam EGUs because all of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 422 of 1546

the state goals are computed as a weighted average of those two 

performance rates, and this range is narrower than the range of 

state goals in the proposal. 

 The computations of the regionally uniform performance 

rates applicable to affected EGUs in the states and areas of 

Indian country410 located in each of the three Interconnections 

are shown in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule. We have not applied the 

uniform performance rates to states and territories that are 

isolated from the three major interconnections –- that is, 

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam411 –- nor are we finalizing 

state goals for these jurisdictions based on those performance 

rates. These jurisdictions are distinct from the contiguous 

portions of the U.S. with respect to the isolated nature of 

their electricity systems, and their EGUs lack the same 

opportunities as EGUs in the contiguous areas to access emission 

reduction opportunities from physically interconnected 

 

410 As explained in section III.A. above, an Indian tribe whose 

area of Indian country has affected EGUs will have the 

opportunity but not the obligation to seek authority to develop 

and implement a section 111(d) plan. If no tribal plan is 

approved, the EPA has the responsibility to establish a plan if 

it determines that such a plan is necessary or appropriate. 

411 The section 111(d) requirements do not currently apply to the 

other isolated U.S. territories –- the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands –- because no 

affected EGUs currently operate in these territories. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 423 of 1546

generators across wide regions. Important aspects of the basis 

that the EPA has used to define the BSER therefore do not apply 

in these isolated areas. In addition, at present we lack the 

data to quantify the emissions reductions available from 

building block 3 in these isolated areas using the same 

methodology used for the contiguous portions of the U.S. Further 

discussion regarding the isolated jurisdictions can be found in 

section VII.F. of the preamble. 

g. Establishment of a 2022-2029 interim compliance period. The 

June 2014 proposal separately quantified emission limitations 

applicable to an interim 2020-29 period and to the period 

beginning in 2030. Although the proposal provided flexibility in 

the timing with which emission reductions could be made over the 

course of the 2020-2029 period in order to achieve compliance 

with the emission limitations applicable to that interim period, 

many commenters perceived the start of the period as too soon 

and stated that it provided insufficient time for planning and 

investments necessary for sources to begin implementation 

activities while maintaining reliable electricity supplies. 

 The EPA has considered these comments and in the final rule 

has established an interim compliance period of 2022-2029, 

providing two additional years for planning and investment 

before the start of compliance. We are persuaded by comments and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 424 of 1546

by our own further analysis that this timeframe is appropriate 

and will, in combination with the glide path of emission 

reductions reflected in the final building blocks and the 

states’ flexibility to define their own paths of emission 

reductions over the interim period (provided that their affected 

EGUs still meet the interim performance rates or interim goal 

over the period as a whole), provide adequate time for necessary 

planning and investment activities, thereby enabling the final 

rule’s requirements to be implemented in an orderly manner while 

reliability of electricity supplies is maintained. Further 

discussion is provided in the sections of the preamble 

addressing the individual building blocks (sections V.C., V.D., 

and V.E.) and on electricity system reliability (section 

VIII.G.2.). 

The initial compliance date of 2022, coupled with the fact 

that the 2030 standard is phased in over the subsequent eight 

years, affords affected EGUs the benefit of having an extended 

planning period before they need to incur any significant 

obligations. Where needed, states may take the period through to 

September 2018 to develop their final plans, and affected EGUs 

will be able to work with the states during that period to 

develop compliance approaches. States will also have the 

flexibility to select their own emissions trajectories in such a 

Deleted: We expect that many

Commented [A28]: edits 

Deleted: will not adopt and submit to 

Deleted: EPA 

Deleted: state 

Deleted: until September 2018, and in these 

states

Deleted: three-year process
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 425 of 1546

way that certain emission reduction measures could be 

implemented later in the interim period (again, provided that 

their affected EGUs still meet the interim performance rates or 

interim goal over the interim period as a whole). As a result, 

the affected EGUs in those states will not need to incur 

significant expenses before the adoption of the final state 

plans. It is also possible that some states will not submit 

initial plan submittals by September 6, 2016, and that the EPA 

will promulgate federal plans. Sources in those states will have 

approximately six years to meet their 2022 compliance 

obligations, a lengthy period that will afford them the 

opportunity to plan before incurring significant expenditures. 

 These periods of time are consistent with current industry 

practice in changing generation or adding new generation. For 

example, in June 2015, Alabama Power Company announced plans to 

acquire 500 MW of renewable energy generation over the next six 

years. This amount would make up between four and five percent 

of Alabama Power’s generation mix.412 In addition, the study of 

 

412 Alabama Power Co., “Petition for a Certificate of Convenience 

and Necessity,” submitted to the Alabama Public Service 

Commission (June 25, 2015) (petition requests “a certificate of 

convenience and necessity for the construction or acquisition of 

renewable energy and environmentally specialized generating 

resources and the acquisition of rights and the assumption of 

payment obligations under power purchase arrangements pertaining 

to renewable energy and environmentally specialized generating 

Deleted: It is possible that some states may 

adopt and submit to the EPA state plans by 

September

Deleted: 6, 2016, but those states are likely 

to be limited to ones that already have 

established programs for limiting CO2

emissions from power plants, such as 

California or the northeast states in RGGI. In 

those states, sources will already have 

developed compliance approaches to meet state 

law requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 426 of 1546

utility IRPs placed in the docket for this rulemaking shows that 

sources are able to replace coal-fired generation with naturalgas fired generation and add incremental amounts of renewable 

energy (as well as take other actions, such as implement demandside energy efficiency programs), on a gradual basis, after a 

several-year lead time, over an extended period, as provided for 

under the final rule. 

h. Refinements to stringency for individual building blocks. For 

each individual building block, the EPA has reexamined the data 

and assumptions used at proposal in light of comments received 

and has made a number of refinements in the final rule based on 

that information. The refinements are discussed in the preamble 

sections for each building block (sections V.C., V.D., and V.E.) 

and emission performance rate computation (section VI) and in 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule and the 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for the 

CPP Final Rule. As previously noted, viewed in terms of 

projected nationwide emission reductions (but not necessarily 

with respect to each individual state), these refinements 

 

resources, together with all transmission facilities, fuel 

supply and transportation arrangements, appliances, 

appurtenances, equipment, acquisitions and commitments necessary 

for or incident thereto”) (included in the docket for this 

rulemaking). See Swartz, Kristi, “Alabama Power plan would 

dramatically boost its renewables portfolio,” E&E Publishing, 

July 16, 2015. 

Commented [A30]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 427 of 1546

generally tend to make the interim goals somewhat less stringent 

than at proposal and the national 2030 reductions somewhat more 

stringent than at proposal. In addition to the changes described 

above, the refinements include the following: 

 Use of regional rates ranging from 2.1 percent to 4.3 

percent (rather than 6 percent) as the average heat rate 

improvement opportunity achievable by steam units under 

building block 1. 

 Use of 75 percent of summer capacity (rather than 70 

percent of nameplate capacity) as the target capacity 

factor for existing NGCC units under building block 2. 

 Use of updated information from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) on renewable energy costs and 

potential, and revision of the list of quantified RE 

technologies to exclude landfill gas under building block 

3. 

4. Determination of the BSER 

 In this rule, the EPA is finalizing as the BSER a 

combination of building blocks 1, 2, and 3, with refinements as 

discussed below. The building blocks constitute the BSER from 

the perspective of the source category as a whole. Each building 

block can be implemented through standards of performance set by 

the states and includes a set of actions that individual sources 

Deleted: goals

Commented [A31]: the majority of states will have weaker 

2030 targets than proposal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 428 of 1546

can use to achieve the emission limitations reflecting the BSER. 

These actions and mechanisms, which include reduced generation 

and emissions trading approaches where the state-set standards 

of performance incorporate trading and which may be understood 

as part of the BSER, will be discussed below in section V.A.5. 

Each of the building blocks consists of measures that the source 

category and individual affected EGUs have already demonstrated 

the ability to implement. In quantifying the application of each 

building block, the EPA has identified reasonable levels of 

stringency rather than the maximum possible levels. 

 As discussed above, one of the modifications being made in 

this rule is the establishment of uniform performance rates by 

technology type. The emission reductions achievable through use 

of the building blocks are being evaluated on a regional basis 

that reflects the regional nature of the interconnected 

electricity system and the region-wide scope of opportunities 

available for affected EGUs in each region to access emission 

reduction measures. However, the EPA recognizes that the 

emission reduction opportunities under these building blocks 

vary by region because of regional differences in the existing 

mix of types of fossil fuel-fired EGUs and the available 

opportunities to increase low- and zero-carbon generation. In 

order to achieve uniform performance rates by technology type, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 429 of 1546

and to do so in a way that respects regional differences in 

emission reduction opportunities, we have determined that it is 

reasonable not to establish the stringency of the BSER 

separately by region based on the maximum emission reduction 

that would be achievable in that region, but instead to 

establish uniform stringency across all regions at a level that 

is achievable at reasonable cost in any region. Thus, for each 

technology subcategory, the BSER is the combination of the 

elements described above at the combined stringency that is 

reasonably achievable in the region where the CO2 emission 

performance rates determined to be achievable at reasonable cost 

by the EGUs in that subcategory were least stringent.413 

 This approach is consistent with the approach we have taken 

in other NSPS rulemakings, where the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the BSER for 

each subcategory of affected sources generally has been 

determined not on the basis of what is achievable by the sources 

 

413 The determinations of stringency for each source subcategory 

were made independently for each year from 2022 through 2030, 

and in the case of the NGCC category, the limiting region 

changed over time. Thus, for the NGCC category, the uniform CO2

emission performance rate is based on the stringency achievable 

in the Texas Interconnection for the years from 2022 through 

2026 and the stringency achievable in the Eastern 

Interconnection for the years from 2027 through 2030. For the 

steam EGU subcategory, the uniform CO2 emission performance rate 

is based on the stringency achievable in the Eastern 

Interconnection in all years. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 430 of 1546

that can reduce emissions most easily, but instead on the basis 

of what is reasonably achievable through the application of the 

BSER. This approach also provides compliance headroom –- in 

addition to the headroom provided by our approach to setting the 

stringency for each individual building block -- for affected 

EGUs in regions where the emission reductions that could be 

achieved at reasonable cost exceed the reductions that are 

achievable at reasonable cost in the limiting region, thereby 

promoting compliance flexibility. Further, because we are 

authorizing states to establish standards of performance that 

incorporate trading without geographic restrictions, the 

opportunity of affected EGUs to engage in emissions trading, to 

the extent allowed under the relevant section 111(d) plans, 

ensures the availability of additional, lower-cost emission 

reduction opportunities in other regions that will also promote 

compliance flexibility and reduces compliance costs. 

 As discussed in section XI of the preamble and the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, application of the BSER determined 

as summarized above is projected to result in substantial and 

meaningful reductions of CO2 emissions. 

 Briefly, the elements of the BSER are: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 431 of 1546

Building block 1: Reducing the carbon intensity of generation at 

individual affected coal-fired steam EGUs through heat rate 

improvements in specified percentages. 

Building block 2: Substituting increased generation from 

existing affected NGCC units for reduced generation from 

affected steam EGUs in specified quantities. 

Building block 3: Substituting generation from new zero-emitting 

RE generating capacity for reduced generation from affected EGUs 

in specified quantities. 

a. Building block 1. Building block 1 -- reducing the carbon 

intensity of generation at individual affected coal-fired steam 

EGUs through heat rate improvements -- is a component of the 

BSER with respect to coal-fired steam EGUs414 because the 

measures the affected EGUs may undertake to achieve heat rate 

improvements are technically feasible and of reasonable cost, 

and perform well with respect to other factors relevant to a 

determination of the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated.” Building block 1 is a “system of 

emission reduction” for steam EGUs because owners of these EGUs 

 

414 For the reasons discussed in the proposal, the EPA is not 

determining that heat rate improvements at other types of 

affected EGUs, such as NGCC units and oil-fired and natural gasfired steam EGUs, are components of the BSER. However, all types 

of affected EGUs would be able to employ heat rate improvements 

as measures to help achieve compliance with their assigned 

standards of performance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 432 of 1546

can take actions that will improve their heat rates and thereby 

reduce their rates of CO2 emissions with respect to generation. 

 The EPA has analyzed the technical feasibility, costs, and 

magnitude of CO2 emission reductions achievable through heat rate 

improvements at coal-fired steam EGUs based on engineering 

studies and on these EGUs’ reported operating and emissions 

data. We conclude that taking action to improve heat rates is a 

common and well-established practice within the industry that is 

capable of achieving meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions at 

reasonable cost, although, as discussed earlier, we also 

conclude that the quantity of emission reductions achievable 

through heat rate improvement measures is insufficient for these 

measures alone to constitute the BSER. Specifically, we have 

determined that an average heat rate improvement ranging from 

2.1 to 4.3 percent by all affected coal-fired EGUs, depending on 

the region, is an element of the BSER, based on the inclusion of 

those amounts of improvement in the three regions, determined 

through our regional analysis. Our analysis and conclusions are 

discussed in Section V.C. below and in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule. 

 Consideration of other BSER factors also favors a 

conclusion that building block 1 is a component of the BSER. For 

example, with respect to non-air health and environmental 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 433 of 1546

impacts, heat rate improvements cause fuel to be used more 

efficiently, reducing the volumes of, and therefore the adverse 

impacts associated with, disposal of coal combustion solid waste 

products. By definition, heat rate improvements do not cause 

increases in net energy usage. Although we are justifying 

building block 1 as part of the BSER without reference to 

technological innovation, we also consider technological 

innovation in the alternative, and we note that building block 1 

encourages the spread of more advanced technology to EGUs 

currently using components with older designs. 

 As noted in the June 2014 proposal, the EPA is concerned 

about the potential “rebound effect” associated with building 

block 1 if applied in isolation. More specifically, we noted 

that in the context of the integrated electricity system, absent 

other incentives to reduce generation and CO2 emissions from 

coal-fired EGUs, heat rate improvements and consequent variable 

cost reductions at those EGUs would cause them to become more 

competitive compared to other EGUs and increase their 

generation, leading to smaller overall reductions in CO2

emissions (depending on the CO2 emission rates of the displaced 

generating capacity). Unless mitigated, the occurrence of a 

rebound effect would reduce the emission reductions achieved by 

building block 1, exacerbating the inadequacy of emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 434 of 1546

reductions that is the basis for our conclusion that building 

block 1 alone would not represent the BSER for this industry. 

However, we believe that our concern about the potential rebound 

effect can be readily addressed by ensuring that the BSER also 

reflects other CO2 reduction strategies that encourage increases 

in generation from lower- or zero-carbon EGUs, thereby allowing 

building block 1 to be considered an appropriate part of the 

BSER for CO2 emissions at affected EGUs as long as the building 

block is applied in combination with other building blocks. 

b. Building block 2. Building block 2 –- reducing CO2 emissions 

at, and substituting for generation from, the most carbonintensive affected EGUs with generation from less carbonintensive affected EGUs (specifically NGCC units that are 

currently operating or under construction) –- is a component of 

the BSER for steam EGUs because generation shifts that will 

reduce the amount of CO2 emissions at higher-emitting EGUs and 

from the source category as a whole are technically feasible, 

are of reasonable cost, and perform well with respect to other 

factors relevant to a determination of the “best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” Building block 

2 is a “system of emission reduction” for steam EGUs because 

incremental generation from existing NGCC units will result in 

reduced generation and emissions from steam EGUs, and owners of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 435 of 1546

steam EGUs can, and many do, invest in incremental generation 

from NGCC units through a variety of possible mechanisms. A 

steam EGU investing in incremental generation from NGCC units 

may choose to reduce its own generation or may maintain its 

generation level and choose to allow the reduction in generation 

to occur at other steam EGUs through the coordinated planning 

and operation of the interconnected electricity system. An 

affected EGU may also invest in emission reductions from 

building block 2 through the mechanism of engaging in emissions 

trading where the EGU is operating under a standard of 

performance that incorporates trading. 

 The EPA’s analysis and conclusions regarding the technical 

feasibility, costs, and magnitude of CO2 emission reductions 

achievable at high-emitting EGUs through generation shifts to 

lower-emitting affected EGUs are discussed in Section V.D. 

below. We consider generation shifts among the large number of 

diverse EGUs that are linked to one another and to customers by 

extensive regional transmission grids to be a routine and wellestablished operating practice within the industry that is used 

to facilitate the achievement of a wide variety of objectives, 

including environmental objectives, while meeting the demand for 

electricity services. In the interconnected and integrated 

electricity industry, fossil fuel-fired steam EGUs are able to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 436 of 1546

reduce their generation and NGCC units are able to increase 

their generation in a coordinated manner through mechanisms –- 

in some cases centralized and in others not -- that regularly 

deal with such changes on both a short-term and a longer-term 

basis. Our analysis demonstrates that the emission reductions 

that can be achieved or supported by such generation shifts are 

substantial and of reasonable cost. Further, both the 

achievability of this building block and the reasonableness of 

its costs are supported by the fact that there has been a longterm trend in the industry away from coal-fired generation and 

toward NGCC generation for a variety of reasons. 

 Building block 2 is adequately demonstrated as a “system of 

emission reduction” for affected steam EGUs. As discussed in 

section V.B., Congress has long recognized that generation 

shifts among EGUs are one means of reducing emissions from the 

utility power sector and multiple provisions of the CAA reflect 

that recognition, and generation shifts similarly have been 

recognized as means of reducing emissions under trading programs 

established by the EPA to implement the Act’s provisions. It is 

common practice in the industry to account for the cost of 

emission allowances as a variable cost when making securityconstrained, cost-based dispatch decisions; doing so integrates 

generation shifts into the operating practices used to achieve 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 437 of 1546

compliance with environmental requirements in an economical 

manner. These industry trends are further discussed in section 

V.D. Thus, legislative history, regulatory precedent, and 

industry practice support interpreting the broad term “system of 

emission reduction” as including generation shifts among 

affected EGUs. 

 An important additional consideration supporting the 

determination that building block 2 is adequately demonstrated 

as a “system of emission reduction” is that owners of affected 

steam EGUs have the ability to invest in generation shifts as a 

way of reducing emissions. The owner of an affected EGU could 

invest in such generation shifts in several ways, including by 

operating an NGCC unit it already owns more or by purchasing an 

existing NGCC unit and operating that unit more. Increases in 

generation by NGCC units over baseline levels can also serve as 

the basis for creation of CO2 emission rate credits (ERCs) –- 

that is, instruments representing the ability of incremental 

electricity generated by NGCC units to cause emission reductions 

at affected steam EGUs, as distinct from the incremental 

electricity itself. Again, it is important to note that the 

acquisition of such ERCs represents an investment in the actions 

of the facility or facilities whose alteration of utilization 

levels generated the emissions rate improvement or reduction. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 438 of 1546

the context of the BSER, purchase of instruments representing 

the emissions-reducing benefit of an action is simply a medium 

of investment in the underlying emissions reduction action. 

These mechanisms are discussed further in section V.A.5. In this 

rule, the EPA is establishing minimum criteria for the creation 

of valid ERCs by NGCC units and for the use of such ERCs by 

affected steam EGUs for demonstrating compliance with emission 

rate-based standards of performance established under state 

plans. The existence of minimum criteria will ensure that 

crediting mechanisms are feasible and will facilitate the 

development of organized markets to simplify the process of 

buying and selling ERCs. The minimum criteria are discussed in 

section VIII of this preamble. 

 We note that an affected EGU investing in building block 2 

to reduce emissions may, but need not, also choose to reduce its 

own generation as part of its approach for meeting the standard 

of performance assigned to it by its state. Through the 

coordinated operation of the integrated electricity system, 

subject to the collective requirements that will be imposed on 

affected EGUs in order to meet the emissions standards 

representing the BSER, an increase in NGCC generation will be 

offset elsewhere in the interconnection by a decrease in other 

generation. Because of the need to meet the collective 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 439 of 1546

requirements, the decrease in generation resulting from that 

coordinated operation is most likely to be generation from an 

affected steam EGU. Measures taken by affected EGUs that result 

in emission reductions from other EGUs in the source category 

may appropriately be deemed components of a “system of emission 

reduction.” 

 Consideration of other BSER factors also supports a 

determination to include building block 2 as a component of the 

BSER. For example, we expect that building block 2 would have 

positive non-air health and environmental impacts. Coal 

combustion for electricity generation produces large volumes of 

solid wastes that require disposal, with some potential for 

adverse environmental impacts; these wastes are not produced by 

natural gas combustion. The intake and discharge of water for 

cooling at many EGUs also carries some potential for adverse 

environmental impacts; NGCC units generally require less cooling 

water than steam EGUs.415 With respect to energy impacts, 

building block 2 represents replacement of electrical energy 

 

415 For example, according to a DOE/NETL study, the relative 

amount of water consumption for a new pulverized coal plant is 

2.5 times the consumption for a new NGCC unit of similar size. 

“Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants: Volume 

1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity,” Rev 2a, 

September 2013, National Energy Technology Laboratory Report 

DOE/NETL-2010/1397. EPA believes the difference would on average 

be even more pronounced when comparing existing coal and NGCC 

units. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 440 of 1546

from one generator with electrical energy from another generator 

that consumes less fuel, so the overall energy impact should be 

a reduction in fuel consumption by the overall source category 

as well as by individual affected coal-fired steam EGUs. 

Although for purposes of this rule we consider the incentive for 

technological innovation only in the alternative, we note that 

building block 2 promotes greater use of the NGCC technology 

installed in the existing fleet of NGCC units, which is newer 

and more advanced than the technology installed in much of the 

older existing fleet of steam EGUs. For all these reasons, the 

measures in building block 2 qualify as a component of the “best 

system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” 

 It should be observed that, by definition of the elements 

of this building block, the shifts in generation taking place 

under building block 2 occur entirely among existing EGUs 

subject to this rulemaking.416 Through application of this 

building block considered in isolation, some affected EGUs –- 

mostly coal-fired steam EGUs -- would reduce their generation 

and CO2 emissions, while other affected EGUs –- NGCC units –- 

would increase their generation and CO2 emissions. However, 

 

416 For purposes of this rulemaking, “existing” EGUs include 

units under construction as of January 8, 2014, the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of the Carbon Pollution 

Standards for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 441 of 1546

because for each MWh of generation, NGCC units produce fewer CO2

emissions than coal-fired steam EGUs, the total quantity of CO2

emissions from all affected EGUs in aggregate would decrease. In 

the context of the integrated electricity system, where the 

operation of affected EGUs of multiple types is routinely 

coordinated to provide a highly substitutable service, and in 

the context of CO2 emissions, where location is not a 

consideration, in contrast with other pollutants, a measure that 

takes advantage of that integration to reduce CO2 emissions from 

the overall set of affected EGUs is readily encompassed within 

the meaning of a “system of emission reduction” for CO2 emissions 

at affected EGUs even if the measure would increase CO2 emissions 

from a subset of those affected EGUs. Indeed, some industry 

participants are already moving in this direction for this 

purpose (while other participants are moving in the same 

direction for other purposes). Standards of performance that 

incorporate emissions trading can facilitate the implementation 

of such a “system” and such approaches have already been used in 

the electricity industry to address CO2 as well as other 

pollutants, as discussed above. 

c. Building block 3. Building block 3 –- reducing CO2 emissions 

at, and substituting for generation from, affected EGUs by using 

generation from expanded RE generating capacity –- is a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 442 of 1546

component of the BSER because the expansion and use of renewable 

generating capacity to reduce emissions from affected EGUs is 

technically feasible, is of reasonable cost, and performs well 

with respect to other factors relevant to a determination of the 

“best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” 

Building block 3 is a “system of emission reduction” for all 

affected EGUs because incremental RE generation will result in 

reduced generation and emissions from affected EGUs, and owners 

of affected EGUs can invest in incremental RE generation either 

directly or through the purchase of ERCs. An affected EGU 

investing in incremental RE generation may choose to reduce its 

own generation by a corresponding amount or may choose to allow 

the reduction in generation to occur at other affected EGUs 

through the coordinated planning and operation of the 

interconnected electricity system. An affected EGU can also 

invest in RE generation by means of engaging in emissions 

trading where the EGU is operating under a standard of 

performance that incorporates trading. 

 The EPA’s analysis and conclusions regarding the technical 

feasibility, costs, and magnitude of the measures in building 

block 3 are discussed in Section V.E. below. We consider 

construction and operation of expanded RE generating capacity to 

be proven, well-established practices within the industry 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 443 of 1546

consistent with recent industry trends. States are already 

pursuing policies that encourage production of greater amounts 

of renewable energy, such as the establishment of targets for 

procurement of renewable generating capacity. Moreover, as 

discussed earlier, markets are likely to develop for ERCs that 

would facilitate investment in increased RE generation as a 

means of helping sources comply with their standards of 

performance; indeed, markets for renewable energy certificates, 

which similarly facilitate investment in renewable energy for 

other purposes, are already well-established. As noted in 

Section V.A.5. below, an allowance system or tradable emission 

rate system would provide incentives for affected EGUs to reduce 

their emissions as much as possible where such reductions could 

be achieved economically (taking into account the value of the 

emission credits or allowances), including through substituting 

for their generation with generation from renewable energy, or 

could provide a mechanism, as stated above, for such sources to 

invest in or acquire such generation. 

 Building block 3 is adequately demonstrated as a “system of 

emission reduction” for all affected EGUs. Both Congress and the 

EPA have previously established frameworks under which RE 

generation could be used as a means of achieving emission 

reductions from the utility power sector, as discussed in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 444 of 1546

section V.B. Investment in RE generation has grown rapidly, such 

that in recent years the amount of new RE generating capacity 

brought into service has been comparable to the amount of new 

fossil fuel-fired capacity. Rapid growth in RE generation is 

projected to continue as costs of RE generation fall relative to 

the costs of other generation technologies. These trends are 

further discussed in section V.E. Interpretation of a “system of 

emission reduction” as including RE generation for purposes of 

this rule is thus supported by legislative history, regulatory 

precedent, and industry practice. 

 Also supporting the determination that building block 3 is 

adequately demonstrated as a “system of emission reduction” is 

the fact that owners of affected EGUs have the ability to invest 

in RE generation as a way of reducing emissions. As with 

building block 2, this can be accomplished in several ways. For 

example, the owner of an affected EGU could invest in new RE 

generating capacity and operate that capacity in order to obtain 

ERCs. Alternatively, the affected EGU could purchase ERCs 

created based on the operation of an unaffiliated RE generating 

facility, effectively investing in the actions at another site 

that allow CO2 emission reductions to occur. These mechanisms are 

discussed further in section V.A.5. As with building block 2, in 

this rule the EPA is establishing minimum criteria for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 445 of 1546

creation of valid ERCs by new RE generators and for the use of 

such ERCs by affected EGUs for demonstrating compliance with 

emission rate-based standards of performance established under 

state plans. The existence of minimum criteria will ensure that 

crediting mechanisms are feasible and will facilitate the 

development of organized markets to simplify the process of 

buying and selling credits. The minimum criteria are discussed 

in section VIII of the preamble. 

 As with building block 2, an affected EGU investing in 

building block 3 to reduce emissions may, but need not, also 

choose to reduce its own generation as part of its approach for 

meeting the standard of performance assigned to it by its state. 

Through the coordinated operation of the integrated electricity 

system, subject to the collective requirements that will be 

imposed on affected EGUs in order to meet the emissions 

standards representing the BSER, an increase in RE generation 

will be offset elsewhere in the interconnection by a decrease in 

other generation. Because of the need to meet the collective 

requirements, the decrease in generation resulting from that 

coordinated operation is most likely to be generation from an 

affected EGU. As discussed in section V.B., measures taken by 

affected EGUs that result in emission reductions from other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 446 of 1546

sources in the source category may appropriately be deemed 

components of a “system of emission reduction.” 

 The renewable capacity measures in building block 3 

generally perform well against other BSER criteria. Generation 

from wind turbines and solar voltaic installations, two common 

renewable technologies, does not produce solid waste or require 

cooling water, a better environmental outcome than if that 

amount of generation had instead been produced at a typical 

range of fossil fuel-fired EGUs. With respect to energy impacts, 

fossil fuel consumption will decrease both for the source 

category as a whole and for individual affected EGUs. Although 

the variable nature of generation from renewable resources such 

as wind and solar units requires special consideration from grid 

operators to address possible changes in operating reserve 

requirements, renewable generation has grown quickly in recent 

years, as discussed above, and grid planners and operators have 

proven capable of addressing any consequent changes in 

requirements through ordinary processes. The EPA sbelieves that 

planners and operators will be similarly capable of addressing 

any changes in requirements due to future growth in renewable 

generation through ordinary processes, but notes that in 

addition, the reliability safety valve in this rule, discussed 

in section VIII.G.2, will ensure the absence of adverse energy 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 447 of 1546

impacts. With respect to technological innovation, which we 

consider for the BSER only in the alternative, incentives for 

expansion of renewable capacity encourage technological 

innovation in improved renewable technologies as well as more 

extensive deployment of current advanced technologies. For all 

these reasons, the measures in building block 3 qualify as a 

component of the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated.” 

d. Combination of all three building blocks. The final BSER 

includes a combination of all three building blocks. For the 

reasons described below, and similar to each of the building 

blocks, the combination must be considered a “system of emission 

reduction.” Moreover, as also discussed below, the combination 

qualifies as the “best” system that is “adequately 

demonstrated.” The combination is technically feasible; it is 

capable of achieving meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs at a reasonable cost; it also performs well 

against the other BSER factors; and its components are wellestablished. The combination of the three building blocks will 

achieve greater CO2 emission reductions at reasonable costs than 

possible combinations with fewer building blocks and will also 

perform better against other BSER factors. We therefore find the 

combination of all three building blocks to be the “best system 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 448 of 1546

of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” for reducing 

CO2 emissions at affected EGUs. 

As already discussed, each of the individual building 

blocks generally performs well with respect to the BSER factors 

identified by the statute and the D.C. Circuit. (The exception, 

which we have pointed out above, is that building block 1, if 

implemented in isolation, would achieve an insufficient 

magnitude of emission reductions to be considered the BSER.) The 

EPA expects that combinations of the building blocks would 

perform better than the individual building blocks. Beginning 

with the most obvious and important advantage, combinations of 

the building blocks will achieve greater emission reductions 

than the individual building blocks would in isolation, assuming 

that the building blocks are applied with the same stringency. 

Because fossil fuel-fired EGUs generally have higher variable 

costs than other EGUs, it will generally be fossil fuel-fired 

generation that is replaced when low-variable cost RE generation 

is increased. At the levels of stringency determined to be 

reasonable in this rule, opportunities to deploy building block 

2 to replace higher-emitting generation and to deploy building 

block 3 to replace any emitting generation are not exhausted. 

Thus, as the system of emission reduction is expanded to include 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 449 of 1546

each of these building blocks, the emission reductions that will 

be achieved increase. 

Because the stringency and timing of emission reductions 

achievable through use of each individual building block have 

been set based on what is achievable at reasonable cost rather 

than the maximum achievable amount, the stringency of the 

combination of building blocks is also reasonable, and the 

combination provides headroom and additional flexibility for 

states in setting standards of performance and for sources in 

complying with those standards to choose among multiple means of 

reducing emissions. 

With respect to the quantity of emission reductions 

expected to be achieved from building block 1 in particular, the 

BSER encompassing all three building blocks is a substantial 

improvement over building block 1 in isolation. As noted 

earlier, the EPA is concerned that implementation of building 

block 1 in isolation not only would achieve insufficient 

emission reductions assuming generation levels from affected 

steam EGUs were held constant, but also has the potential to 

result in a “rebound effect.” The nature of the potential 

rebound effect is that by causing affected steam EGUs to improve 

their heat rates and thereby lower their variable operating 

costs, building block 1 if implemented in isolation would make 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 450 of 1546

those EGUs more competitive relative to other, lower-emitting 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs, possibly resulting in increased 

generation and higher emissions from the affected steam EGUs in 

spite of their lower emission rates. Combining building block 1 

with the other building blocks addresses this concern by 

ensuring that owner/operators of affected steam EGUs as a group 

would have appropriate incentives not only to improve the steam 

EGUs’ efficiency but also to reduce generation from those EGUs 

consistent with replacement of generation by lower- or nonemitting EGUs. While combining building block 1 with either 

building block 2 or 3 should address this concern, the 

combination of all three building blocks addresses it more 

effectively by strengthening the incentives to reduce generation 

from affected steam EGUs. 

The combination of all three building blocks is also of 

reasonable cost. As described in sections V.C. through V.E. and 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, the EPA determined that the 

cost of each of the three building blocks was reasonable. In 

summary, these cost estimates are $23 per ton of CO2 reductions 

for building block 1, $24 per ton for building block 2, and $37 

per ton for building block 3. The EPA also considered the 

reasonableness of the cost of all three building blocks if 

assessed together. The EPA estimates that, together, the three 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 451 of 1546

building blocks are able to achieve CO2 reductions at an average 

cost of $30 per ton. This estimate is an average of the 

estimates for each building block, weighted by the total 

estimated cumulative CO2 reductions for each of these building 

blocks over the 2022-2030 period. While it is possible to weight 

each building block by other amounts, the EPA believes that 

weighting by cumulative CO2 reductions best reflects the average 

cost of total reduction potential across the three building 

blocks. The EPA considers each of these cost levels reasonable 

for purposes of the BSER established for this rule. 

The EPA views the weighted average cost estimate as a 

conservatively high estimate of the cost of deploying all three 

building blocks simultaneously. The simultaneous application of 

all three building blocks produces interactive dynamics, some of 

which could increase the cost and some of which could decrease 

the cost represented in the individual building blocks. For 

example, one dynamic that would tend to raise costs (and whose 

omission would therefore make the weighted average understate 

costs) is that the emission reduction measures associated with 

building blocks 2 and 3 both prioritize the replacement of 

higher-cost generation (from affected steam EGUs in the case of 

building block 2 and from all affected EGUs in the case of 

building block 3). The EPA recognizes that the increased 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 452 of 1546

magnitude of generation replacement when building blocks 2 and 3 

are implemented together necessitates that some of the 

generation replacement will occur at more efficient affected 

EGUs, at a relatively higher cost; however, this is a 

consequence of the greater emission reductions that can be 

achieved by combining building blocks, not an indication that 

any individual building block has become more expensive because 

of the combined deployment. 

Also, the EPA recognizes that when building block 1 is 

combined with the other building blocks, the combination has the 

potential to raise the cost of the portion of the overall 

emission reductions achievable through heat rate improvements 

relative to the cost of those same reductions if building block 

1 were implemented in isolation (assuming for purposes of this 

discussion that the rebound effect is not an issue and that the 

affected steam EGUs would in fact reduce their emissions if 

building block 1 were implemented in isolation).417 However, we 

 

417 If an EGU produces less generation output, then an 

improvement in that EGU’s heat rate and rate of CO2 emissions per 

unit of generation produces a smaller reduction in CO2 emissions. 

If the investment required to achieve the improvement in heat 

rate and emission rate is the same regardless of the EGU’s 

generation output, then the cost per unit of CO2 emission 

reduction will be higher when the EGU’s generation output is 

lower. Commenters have also stated that operating at lower 

capacity factors may cause units to experience deterioration in 

heat rates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 453 of 1546

believe that the cost of emission reductions achieved through 

heat rate improvements in the context of a three-building block 

BSER will remain reasonable for two reasons. First, as discussed 

in section V.C. below, even when conservatively high investment 

costs are assumed, the cost of CO2 emission reductions achievable 

through heat rate improvements is low enough that the cost per 

ton of CO2 emission reductions will remain reasonable even if 

that cost is substantially increased. Second, although under a 

BSER encompassing all three building blocks the volume of coalfired generation will decrease, that decrease is unlikely to be 

spread uniformly among all coal-fired EGUs. It is more likely 

that some coal-fired EGUs will decrease their generation 

slightly or not at all while others will decrease their 

generation by larger percentages or cease operations altogether. 

We would expect EGU owners to take these changes in EGU 

operating patterns into account when considering where to invest 

in heat rate improvements, with the result that there will be a 

tendency for such investments to be concentrated in EGUs whose 

generation output is expected to decrease the least. This 

enlightened bias in spending on heat rate improvements –- that 

is, focusing investments on EGUs where such improvements will 

have the largest impacts and produce the highest returns, given 

consideration of projected changes in dispatch patterns –- will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 454 of 1546

tend to mitigate any deterioration in the cost of CO2 emission 

reductions achievable through heat rate improvements. 

In contrast with those prior examples, combining the 

building blocks also produces interactive dynamics that 

significantly reduce the cost for CO2 reductions represented in 

the individual building blocks (and whose omission would 

therefore make the weighted average overstate costs). Foremost 

among these dynamics is the stabilization of wholesale power 

prices. When assessed individually, building blocks 2 and 3 have 

opposite impacts on wholesale power prices, although in each 

case, the direction of the wholesale power price impact 

corresponds to an increasing cost of that building block in 

isolation. For example, building block 2 promotes more 

utilization of existing NGCC capacity, which (assessed on its 

own) would increase natural gas consumption and therefore price, 

in turn raising wholesale power prices (which are often 

determined by gas-fired generators as the power supplier on the 

margin); this dynamic puts upward pressure on the cost of 

achieving CO2 reductions through shifting generation from steam 

EGUs to NGCC units.418 Meanwhile, building block 3 increases RE 

deployment; because RE generators have very little variable 

 

418 The EPA’s cost-effectiveness estimate of $24 per ton for 

building block 2 reflects these market dynamics. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 455 of 1546

cost, an increase in RE generation replaces other supply with 

higher variable cost, which would yield lower wholesale power 

prices. Lower wholesale power prices would make further RE 

deployment less competitive against generation from existing 

emitting sources; this dynamic puts upward pressure on the cost 

of achieving CO2 reductions through increased RE deployment.419

Applying building blocks 2 and 3 together produces significantly 

more CO2 reductions at a relatively lower cost because the 

countervailing nature of these wholesale power price dynamics 

mitigates the primary cost drivers for each building block. 

The EPA believes the dynamics tending to cause the weighted 

average above to overstate costs of the combination of building 

blocks are greater than the dynamics tending to cause costs to 

be understated, and that the weighted average costs are 

therefore conservatively high. Analysis performed by the EPA at 

an earlier stage of the rulemaking supports this conclusion. At 

proposal, the EPA evaluated the cost of increasing NGCC 

utilization (building block 2) and deploying incremental RE 

generation (building block 3) independently, as well as the cost 

of simultaneously increasing NGCC utilization and incremental RE 

generation. The average cost (in dollars per ton of CO2 reduced) 

 

419 The EPA’s cost-effectiveness estimate of $37 per ton for 

building block 3 reflects these market dynamics. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 456 of 1546

was less for the combined building block scenario, showing that 

the net outcome of the interactivity effects described above is 

a reduction in cost per ton when compared to cost estimates that 

do not incorporate this interactivity.420 

A final reason why the EPA considers the weighted-average 

cost above conservatively high is that simply combining the 

building blocks at their full individual stringencies overstates 

the stringency of the BSER. As discussed in section V.A.3.f and 

section VI, the BSER reflects the combined degree of emission 

limitation achieved through application of the building blocks 

in the least stringent region. By definition, in the other two 

regions, the BSER is less stringent than the simple combination 

of the three building blocks whose stringency is represented in 

the weighted-average cost above. 

In addition to the weighted-average cost analysis discussed 

above, for the regulatory impacts analysis accompanying this 

final rule, the EPA has assessed the costs, benefits, and other 

impacts of deployment of the final BSER through section 111(d) 

plans. The analysis reflects transmission and pipeline 

capabilities and constraints, fuel market and electricity 

 

420 Specifically, at proposal the EPA quantified the average 

cost, in dollar per ton of CO2 reduced, of building blocks 1, 2, 

and 3 ($22.5 per ton) to be less than the cost of either 

building block 2 ($28.9 per ton) or building block 3 ($23.4 per 

ton) alone. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 457 of 1546

dispatch dynamics, and seasonal electricity load requirements. 

Moreover, the analysis also includes a limited representation of 

the ability for states to craft standards of performance that 

allow the use of emissions trading approaches, which facilitate 

the ability of individual affected EGUs to take advantage of 

instances where other affected EGUs have opportunities to reduce 

emissions at lower cost—and as such, is conservative. As 

described below in section XI, the results indicate that 

compliance with standards of performance consistent with the 

final BSER is readily achievable with no adverse impacts on 

electricity system reliability, and that impacts on retail 

electricity prices are modest and fall within the range of price 

variability seen historically in response to changes in factors 

such as weather and fuel supply. Further, the costs tend to 

decline over time as states and regulated entities take 

advantage of the available flexibility and expand deployment of 

more cost-effective measures (notably demand-side energy 

efficiency). The EPA considers this analysis strong confirmation 

of the reasonableness of the costs of the measures in the three 

building blocks in combination as the best system of emission 

reduction. As discussed above, D.C. Circuit case law authorizes 

the EPA to consider costs on a broader basis, including on the 

sector and the country as a whole, in determining the BSER. 

Deleted: .

Commented [A32]: edit 

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 458 of 1546

Here, we find that whether costs are considered on an individual 

source basis in light of the cost-per-ton of the building 

blocks, or on a broader basis, or both bases together, the costs 

are reasonable. 

Finally, the EPA notes that the combination of all three 

building blocks would perform consistently with the individual 

building blocks with respect to non-air energy and environmental 

impacts. There is no reason to expect an adverse non-air 

environmental or energy impact from deployment of the 

combination of the three building blocks, whether considered on 

a source-by-source basis, on a sector-wide or national basis, or 

both. Likewise, with respect to innovation in emission reduction 

systems, which we consider only in the alternative, the building 

blocks in combination would have the same positive effects that 

they would have if implemented independently. 

e. Other combinations of the building blocks. The EPA has 

considered whether other combinations of the building blocks, 

such as a combination of building blocks 1 and 2 or a 

combination of building blocks 1 and 3, could be the BSER. We 

believe that any such combination is technically feasible and 

would be a “system of emission reduction” capable of achieving 

meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs at a 

reasonable cost. As with the combination of three building 

Deleted: technological 

Commented [A33]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 459 of 1546

blocks discussed above, any combination of building blocks would 

achieve greater emission reductions than the individual building 

blocks encompassed in that combination would achieve if 

implemented in isolation. Further, the cost of any combination 

would be driven principally by the combined stringency and would 

remain reasonable in aggregate. We have already noted our 

determination that building block 1 in isolation is not the BSER 

because it would not produce a sufficient quantity of emission 

reductions. A combination of building block 1 with one of the 

other building blocks would produce greater emission reductions 

and would not be subject to this concern. Any combination of 

building blocks including building block 1 and at least one 

other building block would also address the concern about 

potential “rebound effect,” discussed above, that could occur if 

building block 1 were implemented in isolation. Finally, there 

is no reason to expect any combination of the building blocks to 

have adverse non-air energy or environmental impacts, and the 

implications for innovation in emission reduction systems, which 

we consider only in the alternative, would likewise be positive 

for any combination of the building blocks because those 

implications are positive for the individual building blocks and 

there is no reason to expect negative interaction from a 

combination of building blocks. 

Deleted: technological 

Commented [A34]: edit 

Deleted: of
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 460 of 1546

For these reasons, any combination of the building blocks 

(but not a BSER comprising building block 1 in isolation) could 

be the BSER if it were not for the fact that a BSER comprising 

all three of the building blocks will achieve greater emission 

reductions at a reasonable cost and is therefore “better.” As 

discussed below in section V.A.7., we intend for the individual 

building blocks to be severable, such that if a court were to 

strike down building block 2 or 3, but not both, the BSER would 

comprise the remaining building blocks. 

f. Achievability of emission limits. As noted, based on the 

BSER, the EPA has established a source subcategory-specific 

emission performance rate for fossil steam units and one for 

NGCC units. As discussed in section V.A.1.c., for new sources, 

standards of performance must be “achievable,” under CAA section 

111(a)(1), and the D.C. Circuit has identified criteria for 

achievability.421 In this rule, the EPA is taking the approach 

that while the states are not required to adopt those source 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates as the standards 

of performance for their affected EGUs, those rates must be 

achievable by the steam generator and NGCC subcategories, 

 

421 See Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433-34 

(D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974); Nat’l Lime 

Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433, n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Sierra 

Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 377 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citing Nat’l 

Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 461 of 1546

respectively. In addition, the EPA is assuming that the criteria 

in the case law for new sources apply to existing sources under 

section 111(d). For the reasons discussed next, for this rule, 

the source subcategory-specific emission performance rates are 

achievable in accordance with those criteria in the case law. 

As noted, the building blocks include several features that 

assure that affected EGUs may implement them. EPA’s assessment 

of each building block uses a reasonable potential of emission 

reduction from each, rather than the full stringency available. 

The building blocks are phased in gradually over time. 

Compliance must be demonstrated with the interim target across 

an eight-year period, which allows for averaging across time as 

well as the averaging allowed across sources and states. The 

building blocks may be implemented through a range of methods, 

including through the purchase of ERCs and emission credit 

trading. In addition, the building blocks incorporate 

“headroom.” Moreover, the source subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates apply on an annual basis, so that short-term 

issues need not jeopardize compliance. In addition, we quantify 

the emission performance rates based on the degree of emission 

limitation achievable by affected EGUs in the region where 

application of the combined building blocks results in the least 

stringent emission rate. Because the means to implement the 

Commented [A35]: edit 

Commented [A36]: edit 

Commented [A37]: suggested language above that is more 

explicit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 462 of 1546

building blocks are widely available and because of the justnoted flexibilities and approaches to the emission performance 

rates, all types of affected steam generating units, operating 

throughout the lower-48 states and under all types of regulatory 

regimes, are able to implement building blocks 1, 2 and 3 and 

thereby achieve the emission performance rate for fossil steam 

units, and all types of NGCC units operating in all states under 

all types of regulatory requirements are able to implement 

building block 3 and thereby achieve the emission performance 

rate for NGCC units.422 

Commenters have raised questions about whether particular 

circumstances could arise, such as the sudden loss of certain 

generation assets, that would cause the implementation of the 

building blocks to cause reliability problems, and have 

cautioned that these circumstances could preclude implementation 

of the building blocks and thus achievement of the emission 

performance rates. Commenters have also raised concerns about 

whether affected EGUs with limited remaining useful lives can 

implement the building blocks and achieve the emission 

performance rates. We address those concerns in section VIII, 

where we authorize state plans to include a reliability 

 

422 We discuss the ability of affected EGUs to implement the 

building blocks in more detail in sections V.C., V.D., and V.E. 

and the accompanying support documents. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 463 of 1546

mechanism and discuss affected EGUs with limited remaining 

useful lives. Accordingly, we conclude that the source 

subcategory specific emission performance standards are 

achievable in accordance with the case law. 

5. Actions under the BSER that sources can take to achieve 

standards of performance 

 Based on the determination of the BSER described above, the 

EPA has identified a performance rate of 1305 lbs. per net MWh 

for affected steam EGUs and a performance rate of 771 lbs. per 

net MWh for affected stationary combustion turbines. The 

computations of these performance rates and the determinations 

of state goals reflecting these rates are described in sections 

VI and VII of the preamble, respectively. 

 Under section 111(d), states determine the standards of 

performance for individual sources. The EPA is authorizing 

states to express the standards of performance applicable to 

affected EGUs as either emission rate-based limits or mass-based 

limits. As described above, the sets of actions that sources can 

take to comply with these standards may be understood as part of 

the BSER. 

 A source to which a state applies an emission rate-based 

limit can achieve the limit through a combination of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 464 of 1546

following set of measures (to the extent allowed by the state 

plan), all of which are components of the BSER: 

 Reducing its heat rate (building block 1). 

 Directly investing in, or purchasing emission rate credits 

created as a result of, incremental generation from 

existing NGCC units (building block 2). 

 Directly investing in, or purchasing emission rate credits 

created as a result of, generation from new or up-rated RE 

generators (building block 3). 

 Reducing its utilization, coupled with direct investment in 

or purchase of emission rate credits representing building 

blocks 2 and 3 as indicated above. 

 Investing in surplus emission rate reductions at other 

affected EGUs through the purchase or other acquisition of 

rate-based emission credits. 

 A source to which a state applies a mass-based limit can 

achieve the limit through a combination of the following set of 

measures (to the extent allowed by the state plan), all of which 

are likewise components of the BSER: 

 Reducing its heat rate (building block 1). 

 Reducing its utilization and allowing its generation to be 

replaced or avoided through the routine operation of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 465 of 1546

industry reliability planning mechanisms and market 

incentives. 

 Investing in surplus emission reductions at other affected 

EGUs through the purchase or other acquisition of massbased emission allowances. 

 The EPA has determined appropriate CO2 emission performance 

rates for each of the two source subcategories as a whole 

achievable through application of the building blocks. The wide 

ranges of measures included in the BSER and available to 

individual sources as indicated above provide assurance that the 

source category as a whole can achieve standards of performance 

consistent with those emissions standards using components of 

the BSER, whether states choose to establish emission rate-based 

limits or mass-based limits. The wide ranges of measures 

included in the BSER also provide assurance that each individual 

affected EGU could achieve the standard of performance its state 

establishes for it using components of the BSER. Of course, 

sources may also employ measures not included in the BSER, to 

the extent allowed under the applicable state plan. 

 In the remainder of this subsection, we discuss further how 

affected EGUs can use each of the measures listed above to 

achieve emission rate-based forms of performance standards and 

mass-based forms of performance standards, indicating that all 

Deleted: o

Deleted: 2 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 466 of 1546

types of owner/operators of affected EGUs –- i.e., vertically 

integrated utilities and merchant generators; investor-owned, 

government-owned, and customer-owned (cooperative) utilities; 

and owner/operators of large, small, and single-unit fleets of 

generating units –- have the ability to deploy each of the 

building blocks in some way. In the following subsection we 

discuss the use of measures not in the BSER that can help 

sources achieve the standards of performance. 

a. Use of BSER measures to achieve an emission rate-based 

standard. Under an emission-rate based form of performance 

standards, compliance is nominally determined through a 

comparison of the affected EGU’s emission rate to the emission 

rate standard. The emissions-reducing impact of BSER measures 

that reduce CO2 emissions through reductions in the quantity of 

generation rather than through reductions in the amount of CO2

emitted per unit of generation would not be reflected in an 

affected EGU’s emission rate computed solely based on measured 

stack emissions and measured electricity generation but can 

readily be reflected in an emission rate computation by 

averaging ERCs acquired by the affected into the rate 

computation. 

 In section VIII.K., we discuss the processes for issuance 

and use of ERCs that can be included in the emission rate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 467 of 1546

computations that affected EGUs perform to demonstrate 

compliance with an emission rate standard. This ERC mechanism is 

analogous to the approach the EPA has used to reflect building 

blocks 2 and 3 in the uniform emission rates representing the 

BSER, as discussed in section VI below. As summarized below and 

as discussed in greater detail in section VIII.K., the existence 

of a clearly feasible path for usage of ERCs ensures that 

emission reductions achievable through implementation of the 

measures in building blocks 2 and 3 are available to assist all 

affected EGUs in achieving compliance with standards of 

performance based on the BSER. 

 (1) Building block 1. 

 The owner/operator of an affected steam EGU can take steps 

to reduce the unit’s heat rate, thereby lowering the unit’s CO2

emission rate. Examples of actions in this category are included 

in section V.C. below and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for 

the CPP Final Rule. Any type of owner/operator can take 

advantage of this measure. 

 (2) Building block 2. 

 The owner/operator of an affected EGU can average the EGU’s 

emission rate with ERCs issued on the basis of incremental 

generation from an existing NGCC unit. As permitted under the 

EGU’s state’s section 111(d) plan, the owner/operator of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 468 of 1546

affected EGU could accomplish this through either common 

ownership of the NGCC unit, a bilateral transaction with the 

owner/operator of the NGCC unit, or a transaction for ERCs 

through an intermediary, which could but need not involve an 

organized market.423 As discussed earlier, based on observation 

of market behavior both inside and outside the electricity 

industry, we expect that intermediaries will seek opportunities 

to participate in such transactions and that organized markets 

are likely to develop as well if section 111(d) plans authorize 

the use of ERCs. While the opportunity to acquire ERCs through 

common ownership of NGCC facilities might not extend to 

owner/operators of single EGUs or small fleets, all 

owner/operators would have the ability to engage in bilateral or 

intermediated purchase transactions for ERCs just as they can 

engage in transactions for other kinds of goods and services. 

 In section VIII.K. below, the EPA sets out the minimum 

criteria that must be satisfied for generation and issuance of a 

valid ERC based upon incremental electricity generation by an 

existing NGCC unit. Those criteria generally concern ensuring 

 

423 Each of these methods of implementing building block 2 meets 

the criteria for the BSER in that (i) as we discuss in section 

V.D. and supporting documents, each of these methods is 

adequately demonstrated;(ii) the costs of each of these methods 

on a source-by-source basis are reasonable, as discussed above; 

and (iii) none of these methods causes adverse energy impacts or 

non-quality environmental impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 469 of 1546

that the physical basis for the ERC –- i.e., qualifying 

generation by an existing NGCC unit and the NGCC unit CO2

emissions associated with that qualifying generation –- is 

adequately monitored and that there is an adequate 

administrative process for tracking credits to avoid doublecounting. In the case of ERCs related to building block 2, the 

monitoring criteria would generally be satisfied by standard 40 

CFR part 75 monitoring. 

 The owner/operator of an affected steam EGU would use the 

ERCs it has acquired for compliance –- whether acquired through 

ownership of NGCC capacity, a bilateral transaction, or an 

intermediated transaction –- by adding the ERCs to its measured 

net generation when computing its CO2 emission rate for purposes 

of demonstrating compliance with its emission rate-based 

standard of performance. 

 (3) Building block 3. 

 The owner/operator of an affected EGU can average the EGU’s 

emission rate with ERCs issued on the basis of generation from 

new (i.e., post-2012) RE generating capacity, including both 

newly constructed capacity and new uprates to existing RE 

generating capacity. As permitted under the EGU’s state’s 

section 111(d) plan, the owner/operator of the affected EGU 

could accomplish this through either common ownership of the RE 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 470 of 1546

generating capacity, a bilateral transaction with the 

owner/operator of the RE generating capacity, or a transaction 

for ERCs through an intermediary, which could, but need not, 

involve an organized market.424 As discussed earlier, based on 

observation of market behavior both inside and outside the 

electricity industry, we expect that intermediaries will seek 

opportunities to participate in such transactions and that 

organized markets are likely to develop as well if section 

111(d) plans authorize the use of ERCs. While the opportunity to 

acquire ERCs through common ownership of RE generating 

facilities might not extend to owner/operators of single EGUs or 

small fleets, all owner/operators would have the ability to 

engage in bilateral or intermediated purchase transactions for 

ERCs just as they can engage in transactions for other kinds of 

goods and services. 

 In section VIII.K. below, the EPA sets out the minimum 

criteria that must be satisfied for generation and issuance of a 

valid ERC based upon generation from new RE generating capacity. 

 

424 As with building block 2, each of these methods of 

implementing building block 3 meets the criteria for the BSER in 

that (i) as we discuss in section V.E. and supporting documents, 

each of these methods is adequately demonstrated;(ii) the costs 

of each of these methods on a source-by-source basis are 

reasonable, as discussed above; and (iii) none of these methods 

causes adverse energy impacts or non-quality environmental 

impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 471 of 1546

Those criteria generally concern assuring that the physical 

basis for the ERC –- i.e., generation by from qualifying new RE 

capacity –- is adequately monitored and that there is an 

adequate administrative process for tracking credits to avoid 

double-counting and to facilitate enforceability of emission 

limits.425 

 As with building block 2, the owner/operator of an affected 

EGU would use the ERCs it has acquired for compliance –- whether 

acquired through ownership of qualifying RE generating capacity, 

a bilateral transaction, or an intermediated transaction –- by 

adding the ERCs to its measured net generation when computing 

its CO2 emission rate for purposes of demonstrating compliance 

with its emission rate-based standard of performance. 

 (4) Reduced generation. 

 The owner/operator of an affected EGU can reduce the unit’s 

generation and reflect that reduction in the form of a lower 

emission rate provided that the owner/operator also acquires 

some amount of ERCs to use in computing the unit’s emission rate 

for purposes of demonstrating compliance. As permitted under the 

EGU’s state’s section 111(d) plan, the ERCs could be acquired 

through investment in incremental generation from existing NGCC 

 

425 The possible use of types of RE generating capacity that are 

not included in the BSER is discussed in section V.A.6. and 

section VIII of the preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 472 of 1546

capacity, generation from new RE generating capacity, or 

purchase from an entity with surplus ERCs. If the owner/operator 

does not average any ERCs into the unit’s emission rate, 

reducing the unit’s own generation will proportionately reduce 

both the numerator and denominator of the fraction and therefore 

will not affect the computed emission rate (unless the unit 

retires, reducing its emission rate to zero). However, if the 

owner/operator does average ERCs into the unit’s emission rate, 

then a proportional reduction in both the numerator and the 

portion of the denominator representing the unit’s measured 

generation will amplify the effect of the acquired ERCs in the 

computation, with the result that the more the unit reduces its 

generation, the fewer ERCs will be needed to reach a given 

emission rate-based standard of performance. All owner/operators 

have the ability to reduce generation, and as discussed above 

all also would be capable of acquiring ERCs, so all would be 

capable of reflecting reduced utilization in their emission 

rates for purposes of demonstrating compliance. 

 (5) Emissions trading approaches. 

 To the extent allowed under standards of performance that 

incorporate emissions trading or otherwise through the relevant 

section 111(d) plans, the owner/operator of an affected EGU can 

acquire tradable rate-based emission credits representing an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 473 of 1546

investment in surplus emission rate reductions not needed by 

another affected EGU and can average those credits into its own 

emission rate for purposes of demonstrating compliance with its 

rate-based standard of performance. The approach would have to 

be authorized in the appropriate section 111(d) plan and would 

have to conform to the minimum conditions for such approaches 

described in section VIII below. As we have repeatedly noted, we 

read the comment record and the discussions that occurred during 

the outreach process to support the prediction that such 

authorization will be forthcoming from virtually all states that 

submit plans establishing standards of performance for their 

affected EGUs. 

 Under a rate-based emissions trading approach, credits are 

initially created and issued according to processes defined in 

the state plan. After credits are initially issued, the 

owner/operator of an affected EGU needing additional credits can 

acquire credits through common ownership of another affected EGU 

or through a bilateral transaction with the other affected EGU, 

or the owner/operator of the affected EGU can acquire credits in 

a transaction through an intermediary, which could, but need 

not, involve an organized market. As discussed earlier, based on 

observation of market behavior both inside and outside the 

electricity industry, we expect that intermediaries will seek 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 474 of 1546

opportunities to participate in such transactions and that 

organized markets are likely to develop as well if section 

111(d) plans and/or standards of performance established 

thereunder authorize emissions trading. While the opportunity to 

acquire credits through common ownership might not extend to 

owner/operators of single EGUs or small fleets, all 

owner/operators would have the ability to engage in bilateral or 

intermediated purchase transactions for credits just as they can 

engage in transactions for other kinds of goods and services. 

 Further details regarding the possible use of rate-based 

emission credits in a state plan (using ERCs issued on the basis 

of investments in building blocks 2 and 3 and potentially other 

measures as the credits) are provided in section VIII.K. 

b. Use of BSER measures to achieve a mass-based standard. Under 

a mass-based form of the standard, compliance is determined 

through a comparison of the affected EGU’s monitored mass 

emissions to a mass-based emission limit. Although a state could 

choose to impose specific mass-based limits that each EGU would 

be required to meet on a physical basis, in past instances where 

mass-based limits have been established for large numbers of 

sources it has been typical for the limit on each affected EGU 

to be structured as a requirement to periodically surrender a 

quantity of emission allowances equal to the source’s monitored 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 475 of 1546

mass emissions. The EPA believes that section 111(d) encompasses 

the flexibility for plans to impose mass-based standards in the 

typical manner where the standard of performance for each 

affected EGU consists of a requirement to surrender emission 

allowances rather than a requirement to physically comply with a 

unit-specific emissions cap. 

 Measurements of mass emissions at a given affected EGU 

capture reductions in the EGU’s emissions arising from both 

reductions in generation and reductions in the emission rate per 

MWh. Accordingly, under a mass-based standard there is no need 

to provide a mechanism such as the ERC mechanism described above 

in order to properly account for emission reductions 

attributable to particular types of BSER measures. The relative 

simplicity of the mechanics of monitoring and determining 

compliance are significant advantages inherent in the use of 

mass-based standards rather than emission rate-based standards. 

 (1) Building block 1. 

 The owner/operator of an affected steam EGU can take steps 

to reduce the unit’s heat rate, thereby lowering the unit’s CO2

mass emissions. Examples of actions in this category are 

included in section V.C. below and in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule. Any type of owner/operator 

can take advantage of this measure. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 476 of 1546

 (2) Reduced generation. 

 The owner/operator of an affected EGU can reduce its 

generation, thereby lowering the unit’s CO2 mass emissions. Any 

type of owner/operator can take advantage of this measure. 

Although some action or combination of actions to increase 

lower-carbon generation or reduce electricity demand somewhere 

in the interconnected electricity system of which the affected 

EGU is a part will be required to enable electricity supply and 

demand remain in balance, the affected EGU does not need to 

monitor or track those actions in order to use its reduction in 

generation to help achieve compliance with the mass-based 

standard. Instead, multiple participants in the interconnected 

electricity system will act to ensure that supply and demand 

remain in balance, subject to the complex and constantly 

changing set of constraints on operation of the system, just as 

those participants have routinely done for years. 

 Of course, if the owner/operator of the affected EGU wishes 

to play a direct role in driving the increase in lower-carbon 

generation or demand-side energy efficiency required to offset a 

reduction in the affected EGU’s generation, the owner/operator 

may do so as part of whatever role it happens to play as a 

participant in the interconnected electricity system. However, 

the owner/operator will achieve the benefit that reduction in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 477 of 1546

generation brings toward compliance with the mass-based standard 

whether it takes those additional actions itself or instead 

allows other participants in the interconnected electricity 

system to play that role. 

 (3) Emissions trading approaches. 

 To the extent allowed under the relevant section 111(d) 

plans -- as the record indicates that it will be -- the 

owner/operator of an affected EGU can acquire tradable massbased emission allowances representing investment in surplus 

emission reductions not needed by another affected EGU and can 

aggregate those allowances with any other allowances it already 

holds for purposes of demonstrating compliance with its massbased standard of performance. The approach would have to be 

authorized in the appropriate section 111(d) plan and would have 

to conform to the minimum conditions for such approaches 

described in section VIII below. 

 Under a mass-based emissions trading approach, the total 

number of allowances to be issued is defined in the state plan, 

and affected EGUs may obtain an initial quantity of allowances 

through an allocation or auction process. After that initial 

process, the owner/operator of an affected EGU needing 

additional allowances can acquire allowances through common 

ownership of another affected EGU or through a bilateral 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 478 of 1546

transaction with the other affected EGU, or the owner/operator 

of the affected EGU can acquire allowances in a transaction 

through an intermediary, which could but need not involve an 

organized market. As discussed earlier, based on observation of 

market behavior both inside and outside the electricity 

industry, we expect that intermediaries will seek opportunities 

to participate in such transactions and that organized markets 

are likely to develop as well if section 111(d) plans authorize 

the use of emissions trading. While the opportunity to acquire 

allowances through common ownership might not extend to 

owner/operators of single EGUs or small fleets, all 

owner/operators would have the ability to engage in bilateral or 

intermediated purchase transactions for allowances just as they 

can engage in transactions for other kinds of goods and 

services. 

 Further details regarding the possible use of mass-based 

emission allowances in a state plan are provided in section 

VIII.J. 

6. Use of non-BSER measures to achieve standards of performance 

 In addition to the BSER-related measures that affected EGUs 

can use to achieve the standards of performance set in section 

111(d) plans, there are a variety of non-BSER measures that 

could also be employed (to the extent permitted under a given 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 479 of 1546

plan). This final rule does not limit the measures that affected 

EGUs may use for achieving standards of performance to measures 

that are included in the BSER; thus, the existence of these nonBSER measures provides flexibility allowing the individual 

affected EGUs and the source category to achieve emission 

reductions consistent with application of the BSER at the levels 

of stringency reflected in this final rule even if one or more 

of the building blocks is not implemented to the degree that the 

EPA has determined to be reasonable for purposes of quantifying 

the BSER. In this way, non-BSER measures therefore provide 

additional flexibility to states in establishing standards of 

performance for affected EGUs through section 111(d) plans and 

to individual affected EGUs for achieving those standards. 

 Any of the non-BSER measures described below would help the 

affected source category as a whole achieve emission limits 

consistent with the BSER. The non-BSER measures either reduce 

the amount of CO2 emitted per MWh of generation from the set of 

affected EGUs or reduce the amount of generation, and therefore 

associated CO2 emissions, from the set of affected EGUs. However, 

the manner in which the various non-BSER measures would help 

individual affected EGUs meet their individual standards of 

performance varies according to the type of measure and the type 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 480 of 1546

of standard of performance –- i.e., whether the standard is 

emission rate-based or mass based. 

 In general, a non-BSER measure that reduces the amount of 

CO2 emitted per MWh of generation at an affected EGU will reduce 

the amount of CO2 emissions monitored at the EGU’s stack 

(assuming the quantity of generation is held constant). Measures 

of this type can help the EGU meet either an emission rate-based 

or mass-based standard of performance. 

 Other non-BSER measures do not reduce an affected EGU’s CO2

emission rate but rather facilitate reductions in CO2 emissions 

by reducing the amount of generation from affected EGUs. Under a 

mass-based standard, the collective reduction in emissions from 

the set of affected EGUs is reflected in the collective 

monitored emissions from the set of affected EGUs. An individual 

EGU that reduces its generation and emissions will be able to 

use the measure to help achieve its mass-based limit. Individual 

EGUs that do not reduce their generation and emissions will be 

able to use the measure, if the relevant section 111(d) plans 

provide for allowance trading, by purchasing emission allowances 

no longer needed by EGUs that have reduced their emissions. 

 Under an emission rate-based standard, non-BSER measures 

that reduce generation from affected EGUs but do not reduce an 

affected EGU’s emission rate generally can facilitate compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 481 of 1546

by serving as the basis for ERCs that affected EGUs can average 

into their emission rates for purposes of demonstrating 

compliance. Section VIII.K. includes a discussion of the 

issuance of ERCs based on various non-BSER measures. Affected 

EGUs could use such ERCs to the extent permitted by the relevant 

section 111(d) plans. 

 The remainder of this section discusses some specific types 

of non-BSER measures. The first set discussed includes measures 

that can reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per MWh of generation, 

and the second set discussed includes measures that can reduce 

CO2 emissions by reducing the amount of generation from affected 

EGUs. In some cases, considerations related to use of these 

measures for compliance are discussed below in section VIII on 

state plans. The EPA notes that this is not an exhaustive list 

of non-BSER measures that could be employed to reduce CO2

emissions from affected EGUs, but merely a set of examples that 

illustrate the extent of the additional flexibility such 

measures provide to states and affected EGUs under the final 

rule. 

a. Non-BSER measures that reduce CO2 emissions per MWh generated. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA discussed several potential 

measures that could reduce CO2 emissions per MWh generated at 

affected EGUs but that were not proposed to be part of the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 482 of 1546

The measures discussed included heat rate improvements at 

affected EGUs other than coal-fired steam EGUs; fuel switching 

from coal to natural gas at affected EGUs, either completely 

(conversion) or partially (co-firing); and carbon capture and 

storage by affected EGUs. One reason for not proposing to 

consider these measures to be part of the BSER was that they 

were more costly than other measures. Another reason was that 

the emission reduction potential was limited compared to the 

potential available from the measures that were proposed to be 

included in the BSER. However, we also noted that circumstances 

could exist where these measures could be sufficiently 

attractive to deploy, and that the measures could be used to 

help affected EGUs achieve emission limits consistent with the 

BSER. 

 In the final rule, the EPA has reached determinations 

consistent with the proposal with respect to these measures: 

namely, that they do not merit inclusion in the BSER, but that 

they are capable of helping affected EGUs achieve compliance 

with standards of performance and are likely to be used for that 

purpose by some units. To the extent that they are selectively 

employed, they provide flexibility for the source category as a 

whole and for individual affected EGUs to achieve emission 

limits reflective of the BSER, as discussed above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 483 of 1546

 (1) Heat rate improvement at affected EGUs other than coalfired steam EGUs. 

 Building block 1 reflects the opportunity to improve heat 

rate at coal-fired steam EGUs but not at other affected EGUs. As 

the EPA stated at proposal, the potential CO2 reductions 

available from heat rate improvements at coal-fired steam EGUs 

are much larger than the potential CO2 reductions available from 

heat rate improvements at other types of EGUs, and comments 

offered no persuasive basis for reaching a different conclusion. 

Nevertheless, we recognize that there may be instances where an 

owner/operator finds heat rate improvement to be an attractive 

option at a particular non-coal-fired affected EGU, and nothing 

in the rule prevents the owner/operator from implementing such a 

measure and using it to help achieve a standard of performance. 

 (2) Carbon capture and storage at affected EGUs. 

 Another approach for reducing CO2 emissions per MWh of 

generation from affected EGUs is the application of carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) technology. Consistent with the June 

2014 proposal, we are determining that use of full or partial 

CCS technology should not be part of the BSER for existing EGUs 

because it would be more expensive than the measures determined 

to be part of the BSER, particularly if applied broadly to the 

overall source category. At the same time, we note that retrofit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 484 of 1546

of CCS technology may be a viable option at some individual 

facilities, particularly where the captured CO2 can be used for 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR). For example, construction of one 

CCS retrofit application with EOR has already been completed at 

a unit at the Boundary Dam plant in Canada, and construction of 

another CCS retrofit application with EOR is underway at the 

W.A. Parish plant in Texas. We expect the costs of CCS to 

decline as implementation experience increases. CO2 emission rate 

reductions achieved through retrofit of CCS technology would be 

available to help affected EGUs achieve emission limits 

consistent with the BSER. State plan considerations related to 

CCS are discussed in section VIII.I.2.a. 

 (3) Fuel switching to natural gas at affected EGUs. 

 In the proposal we discussed the opportunity to reduce CO2

emissions at an individual affected EGU by switching fuels at 

the EGU, particularly by switching from coal to natural gas. 

Most coal-fired EGUs could be modified to burn natural gas 

instead, and the potential CO2 emission reductions from this 

measure are large – approximately 40 percent in the case of 

conversion from 100 percent coal to 100 percent natural gas, and 

proportionately smaller for partial co-firing of coal with 

natural gas. The primary reason for not considering this measure 

part of the BSER, both at proposal and in this final rule, is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 485 of 1546

that it is more expensive than other BSER measures. In 

particular, combusting natural gas in a steam EGU is less 

efficient and generally more costly than combusting natural gas 

in an NGCC unit. For the category as a whole, CO2 emissions can 

be achieved far more cheaply by combusting additional natural 

gas in currently underutilized NGCC capacity and reducing 

generation from coal-fired steam EGUs (building block 2) than by 

combusting natural gas instead of coal in steam EGUs. 

 Some owner/operators are already converting some affected 

EGUs from coal to natural gas, and it is apparent that the 

measure can be attractive compared to alternatives in certain 

circumstances, such as when a unit must meet tighter unitspecific limits on emissions of non-GHG pollutants, the options 

for meeting those emission limits are costly, and retirement of 

the unit would necessitate transmission upgrades that are costly 

or cannot be completed quickly. CO2 emission reductions achieved 

in these situations are available to help achieve emission 

limits consistent with the BSER. 

 (4) Fuel switching to biomass at affected EGUs. 

 Some affected EGUs may seek to co-fire qualifying biomass 

with fossil fuels. The EPA recognizes that the use of some 

biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in controlling 

increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As with the other non-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 486 of 1546

BSER measures discussed in this section, the EPA expects that 

use of biomass may be economically attractive for certain 

individual sources even though on a broader scale it would 

likely be more expensive or less achievable than the measures 

determined to be part of the BSER. Section VIII.I.2.c. describes 

the process and considerations for states proposing to use 

different kinds of biomass in state plans. 

 (5) Waste heat-to-energy conversion at affected EGUs. 

 Certain affected EGUs in urban areas or located near 

industrial or commercial facilities with needs for thermal 

energy may be able add new equipment to capture some of the 

waste heat from their electricity generation processes and use 

it to create useful thermal output, thereby engaging in combined 

heat and power (CHP) production. While the set of affected EGUs 

in locations making this measure feasible may be limited, where 

feasible the potential CO2 emission rate improvements can be 

substantial: depending on the process used, the efficiency with 

which fuel is converted to useful energy can be increased by 25 

percent or more. The final rule allows an owner/operator 

applying CHP technology to an affected EGU to account for the 

increased efficiency by counting the useful thermal output as 

additional MWh of generation, thereby lowering the unit’s 

computed emission rate and assisting with achievement of an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 487 of 1546

emission rate-based standard of performance. (The EPA notes that 

unless the unit also reduced its fuel usage, the addition of the 

capability to capture waste heat and produce useful thermal 

output would not reduce the unit’s mass emissions and therefore 

would not directly help the unit achieve a mass-based standard 

of performance.426)

b. Non-BSER measures that reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil 

fuel-fired generation. A second group of non-BSER measures has 

the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs by 

reducing the amount of generation from those EGUs. As discussed 

above, under a section 111(d) plan with mass-based standards of 

performance, no special action is required to enable measures of 

this nature to help the source category as a whole and 

individual affected EGUs achieve their emission limits, because 

the CO2-reducing effects are captured in monitored stack 

emissions. However, under a section 111(d) plan with rate-based 

standards of performance, affected EGUs would need to acquire 

ERCs based on the non-BSER activities that could be averaged 

into their emission rate computations for purposes of 

determining compliance with their standards of performance. 

 

426 However, the EPA notes that a state could establish a 

mechanism for encouraging affected EGUs to apply CHP technology 

under a mass-based plan, for example, through awards of emission 

allowances to CHP projects. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 488 of 1546

 (1) Demand-side energy efficiency. 

 One of the major approaches available for achieving CO2

emission reductions from the utility power sector is demand-side 

energy efficiency. In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA identified 

demand-side energy efficiency as one of the four proposed 

building blocks for the BSER. We continue to believe that 

significant emission reductions can be achieved by the source 

category through use of such measures at reasonable costs. In 

fact, we believe that the potential emission reductions from 

demand-side energy efficiency rival those from building blocks 2 

and 3 in magnitude, and that demand-side energy efficiency is 

likely to represent an important component of state plans, 

particularly in instances where a state prefers to develop a 

plan reflecting the state measures approach discussed in section 

VIII below. We also expect that many sources would be interested 

in including demand-side energy efficiency in their compliance 

strategies to the extent permitted, and we received comment that 

it should be permitted. 

 For the reasons discussed in section V.A.3.d. above, the 

EPA has determined not to include demand-side energy in the BSER 

in this final rule. However, the final rule authorizes 

generation avoided through investments in demand-side energy 

efficiency to serve as the basis for issuance of ERCs when 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 489 of 1546

appropriate conditions are met. In section VIII.K. below, the 

EPA sets out the minimum criteria that must be satisfied for 

generation and issuance of a valid ERC based upon implementation 

of new demand-side EE programs. Those criteria generally concern 

ensuring that the physical basis for the ERC -– in this case, 

generation avoided through implementation of demand-side EE 

measures –- is adequately evaluated, measured, and verified and 

that there is an adequate administrative process for tracking 

credits. 

Through their authority over legal requirements such as 

building codes, states have the ability to drive certain types 

of demand-side energy efficiency measures that are beyond the 

reach of private-sector entities. The EPA recognizes that, by 

definition, this type of measure is beyond the ability of 

affected EGUs to invest in either directly or through bilateral 

arrangements. However, the final rule also authorizes generation 

avoided through such state policies to serve as the basis for 

issuance of ERCs that in turn can be used by affected EGUs. The 

section 111(d) plan would need to include appropriate provisions 

for evaluating, measuring, and verifying the avoided MWh 

associated with the state policies, consistent with the criteria 

discussed in section VIII.K. below. 

 (2) New or up-rated nuclear generating capacity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 490 of 1546

 In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA included generation from 

the five nuclear units currently under construction as part of 

the proposed BSER. As discussed above in section V.A.3.c., upon 

consideration of comments, we have determined that generation 

from these units should not be part of the BSER. However, we 

continue to observe that the zero-emitting generation from these 

units would be expected to replace generation from affected EGUs 

and thereby reduce CO2 emissions, and the continued commitment of 

the owner/operators to completion of the units is essential in 

order to realize that result. Accordingly, a section 111(d) plan 

may rely on ERCs issued on the basis of generation from these 

units and other new nuclear units. For the same reason, a plan 

may rely on ERCs issued on the basis of generation from up-rates 

to the capacity of existing nuclear units. Requirements for 

state plan provisions intended to serve this purpose are 

discussed in section VIII.K. 

 (3) Zero-emitting RE generating technologies not reflected 

in the BSER. 

 The range of available zero-emitting renewable energy 

generating technologies is broader than the range of RE 

technologies determined to be suitable for use in quantification 

of building block 3 as an element of the BSER. Examples of 

additional zero-emitting RE technologies not included in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 491 of 1546

BSER that could be used to achieve emission limits consistent 

with the BSER include offshore wind, distributed solar, and fuel 

cells. These technologies were not included in the range of RE 

technologies quantified for the BSER because they are generally 

more expensive than the measures that were included and the 

other measures in the BSER. However, these technologies are 

equally capable of replacing generation from affected EGUs and 

thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Further, as with any technology, 

there are likely to be certain circumstances where the costs of 

these technologies are more attractive relative to alternatives, 

making the technologies likely to be deployed to some extent. 

Indeed, distributed solar is already being widely deployed in 

much of the United States and offshore wind, while still unusual 

in this country, has been extensively deployed in some other 

parts of the world. We expect innovation in RE generating 

technologies to continue, making such technologies even more 

attractive over time. A section 111(d) plan may rely on ERCs 

issued on the basis of generation from new and uprated 

installations of these technologies. The necessary state plan 

provisions are discussed in section VIII.K. 

 (4) Non-zero-emitting RE generating technologies. 

 Generation from new or expanded facilities that combust 

qualifying biomass or biogenic portions of municipal solid waste 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 492 of 1546

(MSW) to produce electricity can also replace generation from 

affected EGUs and thereby control CO2 levels in the atmosphere.427

While the EPA believes it is reasonable to consider generation 

from these fuels and technologies to be forms of RE generation, 

the fact that they can produce stack emissions containing CO2

means that a section 111(d) plan seeking to permit use of such 

generation to serve as the basis for issuance of ERCs must 

include appropriate consideration of feedstock characteristics 

and climate benefits. Specifically, the use of some kinds of 

biomass has the potential to offer a wide range of environmental 

benefits, including carbon benefits. However these benefits can 

only be realized if biomass feedstocks are sourced responsibly 

and attributes of the carbon cycle related to the biomass 

feedstock are taken into account. Section VIII.I.2.c. describes 

the process and considerations for states proposing to use 

biomass in state plans. Section VIII.K. describes additional 

provisions related to ERCs. 

 (5) Waste heat-to-electricity conversion at non-affected 

facilities. 

 

427 The EPA and many states have recognized the importance of 

integrated waste materials management strategies that emphasize 

a hierarchy of waste prevention and all other productive uses of 

waste materials to reduce the volume of disposed waste materials 

(see section VIII for more discussion of waste to energy 

strategies). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 493 of 1546

 Industrial facilities that install new equipment to capture 

waste heat from an existing combustion process and then use the 

waste heat to generate electricity –- a form of combined heat 

and power (CHP) production –- can produce generation that 

replaces generation from affected EGUs and thereby reduces CO2

emissions. A section 111(d) plan may rely on ERCs issued on the 

basis of generation of this nature provided that the facility 

does not generate and sell sufficient electricity to qualify as 

a new EGU for purposes of section 111(b) and is not covered 

under section 111(d) for another source category. More 

information is provided in section VIII.K. 

 (6) Reduction in transmission and distribution line losses. 

 Reductions of electricity line losses incurred from the 

transmission and distribution system between the points of 

generation and the points of consumption by end-users allow the 

same overall demand for electricity services to be met with a 

smaller overall quantity of electricity generation. Such 

reductions in generation quantities would tend to reduce 

generation by affected EGUs, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. The 

opportunity for improvement is large because, on average, line 

losses account for approximately seven percent of all 

electricity generation. The EPA recognizes that, in general, 

only the owner/operators of the transmission and distribution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 494 of 1546

facilities have the ability to undertake line loss reduction 

investments, and that merchant generators may have little 

opportunity to engage a contractor to pursue such opportunities 

on a bilateral basis. Nevertheless, for entities that do have 

the opportunity to make such investments, generation avoided 

through investment that reduces transmission and distribution 

line losses may serve as the basis for issuance of ERCs that in 

turn can be used by affected EGUs. Further information is 

provided in section VIII.K. 

7. Severability. 

 The EPA intends that the components of the BSER summarized 

above be severable. It is reasonable to consider the building 

blocks severable because the building blocks do not depend on 

one another. Building blocks 2 and 3 are feasible and 

demonstrated means of reducing CO2 emissions from the utility 

power sector that can be implemented independently of the other 

building blocks. If implemented in combination with at least one 

of the other building blocks, building block 1 is also a 

feasible and demonstrated means of reducing CO2 emission from the 

utility power sector.428 As discussed in sections V.C. through 

 

428 The heat rate improvement measures included in building block 

1 are capable of being implemented independently of the measures 

in the other building blocks but, as discussed earlier, unless 

at least one other building block is also implemented, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 495 of 1546

V.E. below, we have determined that each building block is 

independently of reasonable cost whether or not the other 

building blocks are applied, and that alternative combinations 

of the building blocks are likewise of reasonable cost, and we 

have determined reasonable schedules and stringencies for 

implementation of each building block independently, based on 

factors that generally do not vary depending on the 

implementation of other building blocks. 

 Further, building block 2, building block 3, and all 

combinations of the building blocks (implemented on the 

schedules and at the stringencies determined to be reasonable in 

this rule) would achieve meaningful degrees of emission 

reductions,429 although less than the combination of all three 

building blocks. No combination of the building blocks would 

lead to adverse non-air environmental or energy impacts or 

impose a risk to the reliability of electricity supplies. 

 In the event that a court should strike down building block 

2 or 3, but not both, the standards and state goals can be 

recomputed on the basis of the remaining building blocks. All of 

 

“rebound effect” arising from improved competitiveness and 

increased generation at the EGUs implementing heat rate 

improvements could weaken or potentially even eliminate the 

ability of building block 1 to achieve CO2 emission reductions. 429 This conclusion would not extend to a BSER comprising solely 

building block 1 because of the possibility of rebound effects 

discussed earlier. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 496 of 1546

the data and procedures necessary to determine recomputed state 

goals using any combination of the building blocks are set forth 

in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

the CPP Final Rule available in the docket. 

B. Legal Discussion of Certain Aspects of the BSER 

This section includes a legal analysis of various aspects 

of EPA’s determination of the BSER, including responses to some 

of the major adverse comments. These aspects include (1) the 

EPA’s authority to determine the BSER; (2) the approach to 

subcategorization; (3) the EPA’s basis for determining that 

building blocks 2 and 3 qualify as part of the BSER under CAA 

sections 111(d)(1) and (a)(1), notwithstanding commenters’ 

arguments that these building blocks cannot be considered part 

of the BSER because they are not based on measures integrated 

into the design or operation of the affected source’s own 

production processes or methods or because they are dependent on 

actions by entities other than the affected source; (4) the 

relationship between an affected EGU’s implementation of 

building blocks 2 and 3 and CO2 emissions reductions; (5) how 

reduced generation relates to the BSER; (6) reasons why, 

contrary to assertions by commenters, this rule is within the 

EPA’s statutory authority, is not inconsistent with the Federal 

Power Act or state laws governing public utility commissions, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 497 of 1546

and does not result in what the U.S. Supreme Court described as 

“an enormous and transformative expansion in [the] EPA’s 

regulatory authority”;430 and (7) reasons that, contrary to 

assertions by commenters, the stringency of the BSER for this 

rule for CO2 emissions from existing affected EGUs is not 

inconsistent with the stringency of the BSER for the rules the 

EPA is promulgating at the same time for CO2 emissions from new 

or modified affected EGUs. 

1. The EPA’s authority to determine the BSER. 

In this section, we explain why the EPA, and not the 

states, has the authority to determine the BSER and, therefore, 

the level of emission limitation required from the existing 

sources in the source category in section 111(d) rulemaking and 

the associated state plans. 

CAA section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to establish a 

section 110-like procedure under which each state submits a plan 

that “establishes standards of performance for any existing 

source of air pollutant” and “provides for the implementation 

and enforcement of such standards of performance.” As CAA 

section 111(d) was originally adopted in the 1970 CAA 

Amendments, however, state plans were required to establish 

 

430 Util. Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 

(2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 498 of 1546

“emission standards” –- an undefined term -- rather than 

“standards of performance,” a term that was limited to CAA 

section 111(b).431 The 1970 provision was in effect when the EPA 

issued the 1975 implementing regulations for CAA section 

111(d),432 which remain in effect to this day. 

These regulations establish a cooperative framework that is 

similar to that under CAA section 110. First, the EPA develops 

“emission guidelines” for source categories, which are defined 

as a final guideline document reflecting “the degree of emission 

reduction achievable through the application of the best system 

of emission reduction ... which the Administrator has determined 

has been adequately demonstrated.” Then, the states submit 

implementation plans to regulate any existing sources.433 

The preamble to these regulations carefully considered the 

allocation of responsibilities as between the EPA and the states 

for purposes of CAA section 111(d), and concluded that the EPA 

is responsible for determining the level of emission limitation 

from the source category, while the states have the 

 

431 See 1970 CAA Amendments, § 4, 84 Stat. at 1683-84. 

Subsequently, in 1977, Congress replaced the term “emission 

standard” with “standards of performance.” See 1977 CAA 

Amendments, § 109, 91 Stat. at 699. 

432 See “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

433 See “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 499 of 1546

responsibility of assigning emission requirements to their 

sources that assured their achievement of that level of emission 

limitation.434 The EPA explained “that some substantive criterion 

was intended to govern not only the Administrator’s promulgation 

of standards but also [her] review of state plans.”435 The EPA 

added, “it would make no sense to interpret [CAA] section 111(d) 

as requiring the Administrator to base approval or disapproval 

of state plans solely on procedural criteria. Under that 

interpretation, states could set extremely lenient standards -- 

even standards permitting greatly increased emissions -- so long 

as [the] EPA’s procedural requirements were met.”436 The EPA 

concluded that “emission guidelines, each of which will be 

subjected to public comment before final adoption, will serve 

[the] function” of providing substantive criteria “in advance to 

the states, to industry, and to the general public” to aid 

states in “developing and enforcing control plans under [CAA] 

 

434 As we made clear in the proposed rulemaking, we are not reopening these regulations (on the issue of the authority to 

determine the BSER or any other issue, unless specifically 

indicated otherwise) in this rulemaking, and our discussion of 

these regulations in responding to comments does not constitute 

a re-opening. 

435 “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53340, 53342 (Nov. 17, 1975). 

436 “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53340, 53343 (Nov. 17, 1975). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 500 of 1546

section 111(d).”437 Thus, the implementing regulations make clear 

that the EPA is responsible for determining the level of 

emission limitation that the state plans must achieve. 

In 1977, Congress revised CAA section 111(d) to require 

that the states adopt “standards of performance,” as defined 

under CAA section 111(a)(1). As noted above, a standard of 

performance is defined as “a standard for emissions of air 

pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of the best system of 

emission reduction which ... the Administrator determines has 

been adequately demonstrated.” (Emphasis added.) By its terms, 

this provision provides that the EPA has the responsibility of 

determining whether the “best system of emission reduction” is 

“adequately demonstrated.” By giving the EPA this 

responsibility, this provision is clear that Congress assigned 

the role of determining the “best system of emission reduction” 

to the EPA. Even if the provision may be considered to be silent 

or ambiguous on that question, the EPA reasonably interprets the 

provision to assign the responsibility of identifying the “best 

system of emission reduction” to the Administrator for the same 

 

437 “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From 

Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53340, 53343 (Nov. 17, 1975). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 501 of 1546

reasons discussed in the preamble to the 1975 implementing 

regulations. 

In addition, in the legislative history of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, when Congress replaced the term “emission standards” 

under CAA section 111(d)(1) with the term “standards of 

performance,” Congress endorsed the overall approach of the 

implementing regulations, which lends further credence to the 

proposition that the EPA has the responsibility for determining 

the “best system of emission reduction” and the amount of 

emission limitation from the existing sources. Specifically, in 

the House report that introduced the substantive changes to CAA 

section 111, the Committee explained that “[t]he Administrator 

would establish guidelines as to what the best system for each 

category of existing sources is.”438 States, on the other hand, 

“would be responsible for determining the applicability of such 

guidelines to any particular source or sources.”439 The use of 

the term “guidelines,” which does not appear in CAA section 

111(d), indicates Congress was aware of and approved of the 

approach taken in the EPA’s implementing regulations for 

establishing guidelines, which determine the BSER. At a minimum, 

if Congress disapproved of the EPA’s implementing regulations, 

 

438 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 195 (May 12, 1977) (emphasis added). 439 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 195 (May 12, 1977) (emphasis added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 502 of 1546

we would not expect the House report to adopt the EPA’s 

terminology to clarify CAA section 111(d). 

In addition, Congress expressly referred to our 

“guidelines” in CAA section 129, added as part of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. Congress added CAA section 129 to address solid 

waste combustion and specifically directed the Administrator to 

establish “guidelines (under section 111(d) and this section) 

and other requirements applicable to existing units.”440 This 

reference also indicates that Congress was aware of and approved 

the EPA’s regulations under section 111(d). 

The EPA has followed the same approach described in the 

implementation regulations in all its rulemakings under section 

111(d). Thus, in all cases, the EPA has identified the type of 

emission controls for the source category and the level of 

emission limitation based on those controls.441 The EPA’s 

 

440 CAA section 129(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). 441 See Part 60, Subpart Ca (large municipal waste combustors), 

56 Fed. Reg. 5514 (Feb. 11, 1991), 40 C.F.R. § 60.30a-.39a 

(subsequently withdrawn and superseded by Subpart Cb, see 60 

Fed. Reg. 65,387 (Dec. 19, 1995)); Subpart Cb (large municipal 

waste combustors constructed on or before September 20, 1994), 

60 Fed. Reg. 65,387 (Dec. 19, 1995), 40 C.F.R. § 60.30b-.39b (as 

amended in 1997, 2001, and 2006); Subpart Cc (municipal solid 

waste landfills), 61 Fed. Reg. 9905 (Mar. 12, 1996), 40 C.F.R. § 

60.30c-.36c (as amended in 1998, 1999, and 2000); Subpart Cd 

(sulfuric acid production units), 60 Fed. Reg. 65,387 (Dec. 19, 

1995), 40 C.F.R. § 60.30d-.32d; Subpart Ce 

(hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators), 62 Fed. Reg. 

48,348 (Sept. 15, 1997), 40 C.F.R. § 60.30e-.39e (as amended in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 503 of 1546

longstanding and consistent interpretation of CAA section 111(d) 

is also “evidence showing that the statute is in fact not 

ambiguous,” and that the EPA’s interpretation should be 

adopted.442 

Lastly, this interpretation is consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s reading of CAA section 111(d) in American Electric Power 

Co. There, the Court explained that “EPA issues emissions 

guidelines, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.22, .23 (2009); in compliance 

with those guidelines and subject to federal oversight, the 

 

2009 and 2011); Subpart BBBB (small municipal waste combustion 

units constructed on or before August 30, 1999), 65 Fed. Reg. 

76,738 (Dec. 6, 2000), 40 C.F.R. § 60.1500-.1940; Subpart DDDD 

(commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units that 

commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999), 65 Fed. 

Reg. 75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000), 40 C.F.R. § 60.2500-.2875 (as 

amended in 2005, 2011, and 2013); Subpart FFFF (other solid 

waste incineration units that commenced construction on or 

before December 9, 2004), 70 Fed. Reg. 74,870 (Dec. 16, 2005), 

40 C.F.R. § 60.2980-.3078 (as amended in 2006); Subpart HHHH 

(coal-electric utility steam generating units), 70 Fed. Reg. 

28,606 (May 18, 2005) (subsequently vacated by the D.C. Circuit 

in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008)); Subpart 

MMMM (existing sewage sludge incineration units), 76 Fed. Reg. 

15,372 (Mar. 21, 2011), 40 C.F.R. § 60.5000-.5250; “Phosphate 

Fertilizer Plants, Final Guideline Document Availability,” 42 

Fed. Reg. 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977) (not codified); “Kraft Pulp 

Mills; Final Guideline Document; Availability,” 44 Fed. Reg. 

29,828 (May 22, 1979) (not codified); and “Primary Aluminum 

Plants; Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 45 Fed. Reg. 

26,294 (Apr. 17, 1980) (not codified). 

442 Scalia, Antonin, Judicial Deference to Administrative 

Interpretations of Law, 1989 Duke L.J. 511, 518; see Riverkeeper 

v. Entergy, 556 U.S. 208, 235 (2009). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 504 of 1546

States then issue performance standards for stationary sources 

within their jurisdiction, § 7411(d)(1).”443

 As noted in the response to comment document, some 

commenters agreed with our interpretation, just discussed, while 

others argued that the states should be given the authority to 

determine the best system of emission reduction and, therefore, 

the level of emission limitation from their sources. For the 

reasons just discussed, this latter interpretation is an 

incorrect interpretation of CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1), 

and we are not compelled to abandon our longstanding practice. 

2. Approach to subcategorization. 

 As noted above, in this rule, we are treating all fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs as a single category, and, in the emission 

guidelines that we are promulgating with this rule, we are 

treating steam EGUs and combustion turbines as separate 

subcategories. We are determining the BSER for steam EGUs and 

the BSER for combustion turbines, and applying the BSER to each 

subcategory to determine a performance rate for that 

subcategory. We are not further subcategorizing among different 

types of steam EGUs or combustion turbines. 

 

443 Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537-38 

(2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 505 of 1546

 This approach is fully consistent with the provisions of 

section 111(d), which simply require the EPA to determine the 

BSER, do not prescribe the method for doing so, and are silent 

as to subcategorization. This approach is also fully consistent 

with other provisions in CAA section 111, which require the EPA 

first to list source categories that may reasonably be expected 

to endanger public health or welfare444 and then to regulate new 

sources within each such source category,445 and which grant the 

EPA discretion whether to subcategorize new sources for purposes 

of determining the BSER.446 

 For this rule, our approach of subcategorizing between 

steam EGUs and combustion turbines is reasonable because 

building blocks 1 and 2 apply only to steam EGUs. No further 

subcategorization is appropriate because each affected EGU can 

achieve the performance rate by implementing the BSER. 

Specifically, as noted, each affected EGU may take a range of 

actions including investment in the building blocks, replacing 

or reducing generation, and emissions trading, as enabled or 

facilitated by the implementation programs the states adopt. 

Further, in the case of a rate-based state plan, several other 

compliance options not included in the BSER for this rule are 

 

444 CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). 445 CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). 446 CAA section 111(b)(2). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 506 of 1546

also available to all affected sources, including investment in 

demand-side energy efficiency measures. Such compliance options 

help affected sources achieve compliance under a mass-based 

plan, even if indirectly. Our approach to subcategorization in 

this rule is consistent with our approach to subcategorization 

in previous section 111 rules for this industry, in which we 

determined whether or not to subcategorize on the basis of the 

ability of affected EGUs with different characteristics (e.g., 

size or type of fuel used) to implement the BSER and achieve the 

emission limits).447 

 

447 Compare “Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating 

Units; Revisions to Reporting Requirements for Standards of 

Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units: 

Final Rule,” 63 FR 49442 (Sept. 16, 1998) and “Proposed 

Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units: 

Proposed Revisions,” 62 FR 36948, 36943 (July 9, 1997) 

(establishing a single NOx emission limit for new fossil-fuel 

fired steam generating units, and not subcategorizing, because 

the affected units could implement the BSER of SCR and achieve 

the promulgated emission limits) with “National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of 

Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, IndustrialCommercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units: Final Rule,” 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012) (MATS rule) and “National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of 

Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, IndustrialCommercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units: Proposed Rule,” 76 FR 

24976, 25036-37 (May 3, 2011) (subcategorizing coal fired units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 507 of 1546

 

 In addition, there are numerous possible criteria to use in 

subcategorizing, including, among others, subcategorizing on the 

basis of age; size; steam conditions (i.e., subcritical or 

supercritical); type of fuel, including type of coal (i.e., 

lignite, bituminous, and sub-bituminous), and coal refuse; and 

method of combustion (i.e., fluidized bed combustion, pulverized 

coal combustion, and gasification). In addition, there are 

different possible combinations of those categories. At least 

some of those criteria do not have logical cut-points. 

Furthermore, we have not been presented with, nor can we 

discern, a method of subcategorizing based on these or other 

criteria that is appropriate in light of the BSER for the 

affected EGUs and their ability to meet the emission limits. 

Moreover, our approach of not further subcategorizing as between 

different types of steam EGUs or combustion turbines reflects 

 

designed to burn coal with greater than or equal to 8,300 Btu/lb 

(for Hg emissions only), coal-fired units designed to burn coal 

with less than 8,300 Btu/lb (for Hg emissions only), IGCC units, 

liquid oil units, and solid oil-derived units; evaluating 

“subcategorization of lignite coal vs. other coal ranks; 

subcategorization of Fort Union lignite coal vs. Gulf Coast 

lignite coal vs. other coal ranks; subcategorization by EGU size 

(i.e., MWe); subcategorization of base load vs. peaking units 

(e.g., low capacity utilization units); subcategorization of 

wall-fired vs. T fired units; and subcategorization of small, 

non-profit-owned units vs. other units;” but deciding not to 

adopt those latter subcategorizations). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 508 of 1546

the reasonable policy that affected EGUs with higher emission 

rates should reduce their emissions by a greater percentage than 

affected EGUs with lower emission rates, and can do so by 

implementing the BSER we are identifying. 

 In addition, a section 111(d) rule presents less of a need 

to subcategorize because the states retain great flexibility in 

assigning standards of performance to their affected EGUs. Thus, 

a state can, if it wishes, impose different emission reduction 

obligations on its sources, as long as the overall level of 

emission limitation is at least as stringent as the emission 

guidelines, as discussed below. This means that if a state is 

concerned that its different sources have different capabilities 

for compliance, it can adjust the standards of performance in 

imposes on its sources accordingly. 

3. Building blocks 2 and 3 as a “system of emission reduction”

a. Overview. As we explain above, the emission performance rates 

that we include in this rule’s emission guidelines are 

achievable by the affected EGUs through the application of the 

BSER, which includes the three building blocks. Commenters 

object that building blocks 2 (generation shift) and 3 

(renewable energy) cannot, as a legal matter, be considered part 

of the BSER under CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1). These 

commenters explain that in their view, under CAA section 111, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 509 of 1546

the emission performance rates must be based on, and therefore 

the BSER must be limited to, methods for emissions control that 

the owner/operator of the affected source can integrate into the 

design or operation of the source itself, and cannot be based on 

actions taken beyond the source or actions involving third-party 

entities.448 For these reasons, these commenters argue that the 

phrase “system of emission reduction” cannot be interpreted to 

include building blocks 2 and 3. 

We disagree with these comments, and note that other 

commenters were supportive of our determination to include 

building blocks 2 and 3. Under CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1), 

 

448 See, e.g., comments by UARG at 6-7 (“Standards promulgated 

under section 111 must be source-based and reflect measures that 

the source’s owner can integrate into the design or operation of 

the source itself. A standard cannot be based on actions taken 

beyond the source itself that somehow reduce the source’s 

utilization.”); comments by UARG at 31 (the building blocks 

other than building block 1 take a “‘beyond-the-source’ 

approach” and “impermissibly rely on measures that go beyond the 

boundaries of individual affected EGUs and that are not within 

the control of individual EGU owners and operators”); comments 

by UARG at 33 (the “system” of emission reduction “can refer 

only to reductions resulting from measures that are incorporated 

into the source itself;” section 111 is “designed to improve the 

emissions performance of new and existing sources in specific 

categories based on the application of achievable measures 

implemented in the design or production process of the source at 

reasonable cost.”); comments by American Chemistry Council et 

al. (“Associations”) at 60-61 (EPA’s proposed BSER analysis is 

unlawful because it “looks beyond the fence line of the fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs that are the subject of this rulemaking;” “the 

standard of performance must ... be limited to the types of 

actions that can be implemented directly by an existing source 

within [the appropriate] class or category.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 510 of 1546

the EPA’s emission guidelines must establish achievable emission 

limits based on the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated.” While some commenters assert that 

emission guidelines must be limited in the manner summarized 

above, the phrase “system of emission reduction,” by its terms 

and when read in context, contains no such limits. To the 

contrary, its plain meaning is deliberately broad and is 

capacious enough to include actions taken by the owner/operator 

of a stationary source designed to reduce emissions from that 

affected source, including actions that may occur off-site and 

actions that a third party takes pursuant to a commercial 

relationship with the owner/operator, so long as those actions 

enable the affected source to achieve its emission limitation. 

Such actions include the measures in building blocks 2 and 3, 

which, when implemented by an affected source, enable the source 

to achieve their emission limits because of the unique 

characteristics of the utility power sector. For purposes of 

this rule, we consider a “system of emission reduction” -- as 

defined under CAA section 111(a)(1) and applied under CAA 

section 111(d)(1) -– to encompass a broad range of pollutionreduction actions, which includes the measures in building 

blocks 2 and 3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 511 of 1546

Our interpretation that a “system of emission reduction” is 

broad enough to include the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 

is supported by the following: our interpretation of CAA section 

111(a)(1) is consistent with its plain meaning and statutory 

context; the phrase “system of emission reduction” accommodates 

the very design of CAA section 111(d)(1), which covers a range 

of source categories and air pollutants;449 the legislative 

history of CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1), which indicates 

Congress’s intent to give the EPA broad discretion in 

determining the basis for CAA section 111 control requirements, 

particularly for existing sources, and Congress’s intent to 

authorize the EPA to consider measures that could be carried out 

by parties other than the affected sources; and through 

comparisons to CAA provisions that give the EPA similar 

authority to consider such measures and through comparisons to 

CAA provisions that would preclude the EPA from considering such 

measures. 

To the extent the phrase “system of emission reduction” is 

ambiguous, the EPA's interpretation is reasonable for the 

reasons stated above, as well as the following reasons: (i) 

 

449 Because it is designed to apply to a range of air pollutants 

not regulated under other provisions, CAA section 111(d) may be 

described as a “catch-all” or “gap-filler.” As such, a “system 

of emission reduction” as applied under CAA section 111(d) 

should be interpreted flexibly to accommodate this role. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 512 of 1546

Building blocks 2 and 3 fit well within the structure and 

economics of the utility power sector. (ii) Fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs are already implementing the measures in these building 

blocks for various reasons, including for purposes of reducing 

CO2 emissions. (iii) Interpreting the phrase “system of emission 

reduction” to incorporate building blocks 2 and 3 is consistent 

with (a) other provisions in the CAA, including the acid rain 

provisions in Title IV and the SIP provisions in CAA section 

110, along with the EPA’s regulations implementing the CAA SIP 

requirements concerning interstate transport and regional haze, 

each of which is based on at least some of the same measures 

included in building blocks 2 and 3; (b) prior EPA action under 

CAA section 111(d), including the 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule,450

which is based on some of the same measures in building blocks 2 

and 3; (c) the various provisions of the CAA that authorize 

emissions trading, because emissions trading entails a source 

meeting its emission limitation based on the actions of another 

entity; and (d) the pollution prevention provisions of the CAA, 

which make clear that a primary goal of the CAA is to encourage 

federal and state actions that reduce or eliminate, through any 

 

450 This rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit on other grounds. 

New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 583-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. 

denied sub nom. Util. Air Reg. Group v. New Jersey, 555 U.S. 

1169 (2009). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 513 of 1546

measures, the amount of pollution produced at the source. (iv) 

Lastly, interpreting the phrase “system of emission reduction” 

to authorize the EPA, in formulating its BSER determination, to 

weigh a broad range of emission-reducing measures that includes 

building blocks 2 and 3 is consistent with Congress’s intent to 

address urgent environmental problems and to protect public 

health and welfare against risks, as well as Congress’s 

expectation that American industry would be able to develop the 

innovative solutions necessary to protect public health and 

welfare. 

Congress passed the CAA, including its several amendments, 

to protect public health and welfare from “mounting dangers,” 

including “injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to 

and the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground 

transportation.”451 In doing so, Congress established numerous 

programs to address air pollution problems and provided the EPA 

with guidance and flexibility in carrying out many of those 

programs. In the context of this industry and this pollutant it 

is reasonable to reject the narrow interpretation urged by some 

commenters that the “system of emission reduction” applicable to 

the affected EGUs must be limited to only those measures that 

can be integrated into the design or operation of the source 

 

451 CAA section 101(a)(2). 

Commented [A38]: arguably these standards are a system 

integrated into the operation of the source itself—through reduced 

utilization relative to the acquisition of ERCs or allowances. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 514 of 1546

itself. The plain language of the statute does not support such 

an interpretation, and to adopt it would limit the “system of 

emission reduction” to measures that are either substantially 

more expensive or substantially less effective at reducing 

emissions than the measures in building blocks 2 and 3, 

notwithstanding the absence of any statutory language imposing 

such a limit. Such a result would be contrary to the goals of 

the CAA and would ignore the facts that sources in the electric 

generation industry routinely address planning and operating 

objectives on a broad, multi-source basis using the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3 and would seek to use building blocks 2 

and 3 (as well as non-BSER measures) to comply with whatever 

emission standards are set as a result of this rule. Indeed, as 

already observed, building blocks 2 and 3 are already being used 

to reduce emissions, and to do so specifically by operation of 

the industry’s inherent multi-source functions. 

b. System of emission reduction as a broad range of measures. 

(1) Plain meaning and context of “system of emission 

reduction.” 

 The phrase “system of emission reduction” appears in the 

definition of a “standard of performance” under CAA section 

111(a)(1). That definition reads: 

a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 515 of 1546

application of the best system of emission reduction which 

(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. 

Pursuant to this definition, it is clear that a “system of 

emission reduction” serves as the basis for emission limits 

embodied by CAA section 111 standards. For this reason, emission 

limits must be “achievable” through the “application” of the 

“best” “system of emission reduction” “adequately demonstrated.” 

Under CAA section 111(d)(1), such a limit is established for 

“any existing source,” which is defined as any existing 

“building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or 

may emit any air pollutant.”452 

Although a “system of emission reduction” lays the 

groundwork for CAA section 111 standards, the term “system” is 

not defined in the CAA. As a result, we look first to its 

ordinary meaning. 

 

452 See CAA section 111(d)(1) (applying a standard of performance 

to any existing source); (a)(6) (defining the term “existing 

source” as any stationary source other than a new source); and 

(a)(3) (defining the term “stationary source” as “any building, 

structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any 

air pollutant,” however, explaining that “[n]othing in 

subchapter II [i.e., Title II] of this chapter relating to 

nonroad engines shall be construed to apply to stationary 

internal combustion engines.”) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 516 of 1546

Abstractly, the term “system” means a set of things or 

parts forming a complex whole; a set of principles or procedures 

according to which something is done; an organized scheme or 

method; and a group of interacting, interrelated, or 

interdependent elements.453 As a phrase, “system of emission 

reduction” takes a broad meaning to serve a singular purpose: it 

is a set of measures that work together to reduce emissions. 

 When read in context, the phrase “system of emission 

reduction” carries important limitations: because the “degree of 

emission limitation” must be “achievable through the application

of the best system of emission reduction,” (emphasis added), the 

“system of emission reduction” must be limited to a set of 

measures that work together to reduce emissions and that are 

implementable by the sources themselves. 

As a practical matter, the “source” includes the “owner or 

operator” of any building, structure, facility, or installation 

for which a standard of performance is applicable. For instance, 

under CAA section 111(e), it is the “owner or operator” of a 

 

453 Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.) (2010), available at

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english

/system; see also American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.) (2013), 

available at 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/system#americanheritage; and The 

American College Dictionary (C.L. Barnhart, ed. 1970) (“an 

assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex 

or unitary whole”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 517 of 1546

source who is prohibited from operating “in violation of any 

standard of performance applicable to such source.”454

Thus, a “system of emission reduction” for purposes of CAA 

section 111(d) means a set of measures that source owners or 

operators can implement to achieve an emission limitation 

applicable to their existing source.455 

In contrast, a “system of emission reduction” does not 

include actions that only a state or other governmental entity 

could take that would have the effect of reducing emissions from 

the source category, and that are beyond the ability of the 

affected sources’ owners/operators to take or control. 

Additionally, actions that a source owner or operator could take 

that would not have the effect of reducing emissions from the 

source category, such as purchasing offsets, would also not 

qualify as a “system of emission reduction.” 

Building blocks 2 and 3 each fall within the meaning of a 

“system of emission reduction” because they consist of measures 

 

454 While this section provides for enforcement in the context of 

new sources, a CAA section 111(d) plan must provide for the 

enforcement of a standard of performance for existing sources. 

455 Some commenters read the proposed rulemaking as taking the 

position that the phrase “system of emission reduction” includes 

anything whatsoever that reduces emissions, and criticized that 

interpretation as too broad. See UARG comment, at 3-4. We are 

not taking that interpretation here. In this final rule, we 

agree that the phrase should be limited to exclude, inter alia, 

actions beyond the ability of the owners/operators to control. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 518 of 1546

that the owners/operators of the affected EGUs can implement to 

achieve their emission limits. In doing so, the affected EGUs 

will achieve the overall emission reductions the EPA identifies 

in this rule. We describe these building block 2 and 3 measures 

in detail elsewhere in this rule, including the specific actions 

that owners/operators of affected EGUs can take to implement the 

measures. 

It should be noted that defining the scope of a “system of 

emission reduction” is not the end of our inquiry under CAA 

section 111(a)(1); rather, as noted above, a standard of 

performance must reflect the application of the “best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” (Emphasis 

added.) Thus, in determining the BSER, the Administrator must 

first determine whether the available systems of emission 

reduction are “adequately demonstrated,” based on the criteria, 

described above, set out by Congress in the legislative history 

and the D.C. Circuit in case law. After identifying the 

“adequately demonstrated” systems of emission reduction, the 

Administrator then selects the “best” of these, based on several 

factors, including amount of emission reduction, cost, non-air 

quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. 

Only after the Administrator weighs all of these considerations 

can she determine the BSER and, based on that, establish a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 519 of 1546

standard of performance under CAA section 111(b) or an emission 

guideline under CAA section 111(d). 

Although we do not need to determine the overall scope of 

the phrase “system of emission reduction,” we recognize that 

commenters have raised extensive legal concerns about building 

block 4. We recognize that building block 4 is different from 

building blocks 1, 2, and 3 and the pollution control measures 

that we have considered under CAA section 111. Accordingly, in 

light of our past practice and current policy in implementing 

section 111, as well as the legal concerns raised in public 

comment, today’s final action excludes building block 4 from the 

BSER. 

Traditionally, CAA section 111 standards have been ratebased, allowing regulated entities to produce as much of a 

particular good as they desire provided that they do so through 

an appropriately clean (or low-emitting) process. CAA section 

111 performance standards have primarily targeted the means of 

production in an industry and not consumers’ demand for the 

product. Thus, the focus for the BSER has been on how to most 

cleanly produce a good, not on how much of the good should be 

produced. Building blocks 1, 2 and 3 fall squarely within this 

paradigm; they do not require reductions in the total amount of 

electricity produced. Building block 4, however, is outside this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 520 of 1546

paradigm as it targets consumer-oriented behavior and demand for 

the good, which would reduce the amount of electricity to be 

produced. 

Although numerous commenters urged us to include demandside energy efficiency measures as part of the BSER, as we had 

proposed to do, we conclude that we cannot do so under our 

historic and current interpretation of section 111. As explained 

above, including building block 4 in the BSER would require a 

paradigm shift in our interpretation and implementation of CAA 

section 111, which we are not making. 

Excluding demand-side energy efficiency measures from the 

BSER has the benefit of allaying legal and other concerns raised 

by commenters, including concerns that individuals could be 

“swept into” the regulatory process by imposing requirements on 

“every household in the land.”456 While building block 4 could be 

implemented without imposing requirements on individual 

households, we are mindful of the unintended consequences that 

the Supreme Court cautioned against. Accordingly, this final 

rule resolves any doubt on this matter and is not based on the 

inclusion of demand-side energy efficiency as part of the BSER. 

 

456 See Util. Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2436 

(2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 521 of 1546

Strong policy reasons also support our interpretation that 

CAA section 111 targets supply-side activities that allow 

continued production of a product through use of a cleaner 

process, rather than targeting consumer-oriented behavior. This 

continues our long-standing practice of promoting cleaner 

production measures “to protect and enhance the quality of the 

Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and 

welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” This 

principle is also consistent with promoting “reasonable ... 

governmental actions ... for pollution prevention.” 

The statute is clear, moreover, that the Administrator has 

discretion to interpret CAA section 111. Specifically, as we 

describe in detail above, Congress expected that the 

Administrator “should determine the achievable limits”457 and 

“would establish guidelines as to what the best system for each 

such category of existing sources is.”458 As the D.C. Circuit 

explained, “[i]t seems likely that if Congress meant ... to 

curtail EPA’s discretion to weigh various policy considerations 

it would have explicitly said so in section 111, as it did in 

 

457 Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15-16 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 415-16 (explaining that the “[Administrator] 

should determine the achievable limits and let the owner or 

operator determine the most economic, acceptable technique to 

apply.”). 

458 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 195 (May 12, 1977). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 522 of 1546

other parts of the statute.”459 The D.C. Circuit case law, 

discussed in section V.A., also is clear that the EPA has broad 

discretion to determine the appropriate BSER. 

 By the same token, we are not finalizing our proposed 

alternative identification of the BSER as reduced generation. 

Reduced generation focuses on the amount of electricity 

generation, rather than lower-emitting processes for producing 

electricity.460 

For purposes of this final rule, it is not necessary to 

enumerate all of the types of measures that do or do not 

constitute a “system of emission reduction.” What is relevant is 

that building blocks 2 and 3 each qualify as part of the “system 

of emission reduction.” As noted, they focus on supply-side 

activities and they each constitute measures that the affected 

EGUs can implement that will allow those EGUs to achieve the 

degree of emission limitation that the EPA has identified based 

on those building blocks. Further, these building blocks also 

satisfy the other statutory criteria enumerated in CAA section 

111(a)(1). 

 

459 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 460 As discussed below, however, reduced generation remains 

important to this rule in that it is one of the methods for 

implementing the building blocks. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 523 of 1546

(2) Other indications that the BSER provisions encompass a 

broad range of measures. 

The EPA’s plain meaning interpretation that the BSER 

provisions in CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) are designed to 

include a broad range of measures, including building blocks 2 

and 3, is supported by several other indications in the CAA and 

the legislative history of section 111. 

(a) Scope of CAA section 111(d)(1). 

First, the scope of CAA section 111(d)(1) supports our 

broad interpretation of the BSER because a wide range of control 

measures is appropriate for the wide range of source categories 

and air pollutants covered under CAA section 111(d). 

 In the 1970 CAA Amendments, Congress established a 

regulatory regime for existing stationary sources of air 

pollutants that may be envisioned as a three-legged stool, 

designed to address “three categories of pollutants emitted from 

stationary sources”: (1) criteria pollutants (identified under 

CAA section 109 and regulated under section 110); (2) hazardous 

air pollutants (identified and regulated under section 112); and 

(3) “pollutants that are (or may be) harmful to public health or 

welfare but are not” criteria or hazardous air pollutants.461

 

461 40 FR 53340, 53340 (Nov. 17, 1975) (EPA regulations 

implementing CAA section 111(d)). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 524 of 1546

Congress enacted CAA section 111(d) to cover this third category 

of air pollutants and, in this sense, Congress designed it to 

apply to any air pollutants that were not otherwise regulated as 

toxics or NAAQS pollutants.462 This would include air pollutants 

that the EPA might later, when more information became 

available, designate as NAAQS or hazardous air pollutants, as 

well as air pollutants that Congress may not have been aware of 

at the time.463 In addition, the indications are that Congress 

expected CAA section 111(d) to be a significant source of 

regulatory activity, by some measures, more active than CAA 

section 112. This is evident because Congress expected that CAA 

section 111(d) would cover more air pollutants than either CAA 

section 109/110 (criteria pollutants) or CAA section 112 

(hazardous air pollutants).464 In addition, in the 1990 CAA 

 

462 See Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 420 (“It should be noted that the emission 

standards for pollutants which cannot be considered hazardous 

(as defined in section 115 [i.e., the bill’s version of CAA 

section 112] could be established under section 114 [i.e., the 

bill’s version CAA section 111]. Thus, there should be no gaps 

in control activities pertaining to stationary source emissions 

that pose any significant danger to public health or welfare.”). 

463 See Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 420. 

464 See Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 9; 18-20, 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 418-20. The Senate Committee Report identified 14 substances 

as subject to the provision that became section 111(d), four 

substances as hazardous air pollutants that would be regulated 

under the provision that became section 112, and 5 substances as 

criteria pollutants that would be regulated under the provisions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 525 of 1546

Amendments, Congress enacted CAA section 129 to achieve emission 

reductions from a major source category, solid waste 

incinerators, and established CAA section 111(d) as the basic 

mechanism for that provision. The EPA subsequently promulgated a 

number of CAA section 129/111(d) rulemakings.465 Finally, it 

should be noted that Congress designed CAA section 111(d) to 

cover a wide range of source categories –- including any source 

category that the EPA identifies under subsection 111(b)(1)(A) 

as meeting the criteria of, in general, causing or contributing 

significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare -- along with 

the wide range of air pollutants. 

Because Congress designed CAA section 111(d) to cover a 

wide range of air pollutants -- including ones that Congress may 

not have been aware of at the time it enacted the provision –- 

and a wide range of industries, it is logical that Congress 

 

that became sections 109-110 (and more “as knowledge 

increases”). In particular, the Report recognized that in 

particular, relatively few air pollutants may qualify as 

hazardous air pollutants, but that other air pollutants that did 

not qualify as hazardous air pollutants would be regulated under 

what became section 111(d). 

465 See, e.g., Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, 62 Fed. Reg. 

48,348, 48359 (Sept. 15, 1997); Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 65 

Fed. Reg. 75338, 75341 (Dec. 1, 2000). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 526 of 1546

intended that the BSER provision, as applied to CAA section 

111(d), have a broad scope so as to accommodate the range of air 

pollutants and source categories. 

(b) Legislative history of CAA section 111. 

(i) Breadth of “system of emission reduction.” 

The phrase “system of emission reduction,” particularly as 

applied under CAA section 111(d), should be broadly interpreted 

consistent with its plain meaning but also in light of its 

legislative history. The version of CAA section 111(d)(1) that 

Congress adopted as part of the 1970 CAA Amendments read largely 

as CAA section 111(d)(1) does at present, except that it 

required states to impose “emission standards” on any existing 

source. (Congress replaced that term with “standards of 

performance” in the 1977 CAA Amendments.) The 1970 CAA 

Amendments version of CAA section 111(d)(1) neither defined 

“emission standards” nor imposed restrictions on the EPA in 

determining the basis for the emission standards.466 

 

466 Although not defined under CAA section 111, the term was used 

in other provisions and defined in some of them. The term was 

defined under the CAA’s citizen suit provision. See 1970 CAA 

Amendments, Pub. L. 91-604, § 12, 84 Stat. 1676, 1706 (Dec. 31, 

1970) (defined as “(1) a schedule or timetable of compliance, 

emission limitation, standard of performance or emission 

standard, or (2) a control or prohibition respecting a motor 

vehicle fuel or fuel additive....”). Congress also used it in the 

CAA’s NAAQS provisions and in CAA section 112. Under the CAA’s 

NAAQS provisions (i.e., the “Ambient Air Quality and Emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 527 of 1546

For new sources, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), as enacted in 

the 1970 CAA Amendments (and as it largely still reads), 

required the EPA to promulgate “standards of performance,” and 

defined that term, much like the present definition, as emission 

standards based on the “best system of emission reduction ... 

adequately demonstrated.” This quoted phrase was not included in 

either the House or Senate versions of the provision, and, 

instead, was added during the joint conference between the House 

and Senate. The conference report accompanying the text offers 

no clarifications. 

The House and Senate bills do, however, provide some 

insights. The House bill, H.R. 17255, would have required new 

sources of non-hazardous air pollutants to “prevent and control 

such emissions to the fullest extent compatible with the 

available technology and economic feasibility, as determined by 

 

Standards” provisions), Congress directed the EPA to issue 

information on “air pollution control techniques,” and include 

data on “available technology and alternative methods of 

prevention and control of air pollution” as well as on 

“alternative fuels, processes, and operating methods which will 

result in elimination or significant reduction of emissions.” 

Id., § 4, 84 Stat. at 1679. Similarly, under CAA section 112, 

the Administrator was required to “from time to time, issue 

information on pollution control techniques for air pollutants” 

subject to emission standards. Id., 84 Stat. at 1685. These 

statements provide additional context for the term’s broad 

intent. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 528 of 1546

the Secretary.”467 The Senate bill, S. 4358, would have 

established “Federal standards of performance for new sources,” 

which, in turn, were to “reflect the greatest degree of emission 

control which the Secretary determines to be achievable through 

application of the latest available control technology, 

processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.”468 The 

Senate Committee Report explains that “performance standards 

should be met through application of the latest available 

emission control technology or through other means of preventing 

or controlling air pollution.”469 This Report further elaborates 

that the term “standards of performance” 

refers to the degree of emission control which can be 

achieved through process changes, operation changes, 

direct emission control, or other methods. The 

Secretary should not make a technical judgment as to 

how the standard should be implemented. He should 

determine the achievable limits and let the owner or 

operator determine the most economic, acceptable 

technique to apply.470 

Thus, the Senate bill clearly envisioned that standards of 

performance would not be based on a particular technology or 

 

467 H.R. 17255, § 5, 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 921-22. The 

reference to “Secretary” was to the Secretary of Health 

Education and Welfare, which, at the time, was the agency with 

responsibility for air pollution regulations. 

468 S. 4358, § 6, 1970 Legis. Hist. at 554-55 (emphasis added). 469 Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15-16 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 415-16 (emphasis added). 

470 Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15-16 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 415-16 (emphasis added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 529 of 1546

even a particular method to prevent or control air pollution.471

This vision contrasted with the House bill, which would have 

restricted performance standards to economically feasible 

technical controls. 

Following the House-Senate Conference, the enacted version 

of the legislation defined a “standard of performance” to mean 

a standard for emissions of air pollutants which 

reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the best system of emission 

reduction which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction) the Administrator determines 

has been adequately demonstrated.472 

While the phrase “system of emission reduction” was not 

discussed in the Conference Report, an exhibit titled “Summary 

of the Provisions of Conference Agreement on the Clean Air 

Amendments of 1970” was added to the record during the Senate’s 

consideration of the Conference Report and sheds some light on 

the phrase. According to the summary, “[t]he agreement 

authorizes regulations to require that new major industry plants 

such as power plants, steel mills, and cement plants achieve a 

 

471 Notably, the Senate report identifies pollution control and

pollution prevention as objectives of the Senate provision. 

Pollution prevention is discussed more generally below as a 

“primary purpose” of the CAA, however, the report makes clear 

that pollution prevention measures – which the EPA understands 

to include such measures as building blocks 2 and 3 -- are 

appropriate under CAA section 111. 

472 CAA section 111(a)(1) under the 1970 CAA Amendments (emphasis 

added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 530 of 1546

standard of emission performance based on the latest available 

control technology, processes, operating methods, and other 

alternatives.”473 In light of this summary, the phrase “system of 

emission reduction” appears to blend the broad spirit of S. 4358 

(which required the “latest available control technology, 

processes, operating methods, or other alternatives”) with the 

cost concerns identified in H.R. 17255 (which required 

consideration of “economic feasibility” when establishing 

federal emission standards for new stationary sources). This 

history strongly suggests that Congress intended to authorize 

the EPA to consider a wide range of measures in calculating a 

standard of performance for stationary sources. At a minimum, 

there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude 

certain measures or actions from the EPA’s assessment of the 

BSER. 

In 1977, Congress amended CAA section 111 to reflect a 

narrower conception of CAA section 111(a)(1). Congress was 

clear, however, that existing source standards, which were no 

longer developed as “emission standards,” would not be limited 

to technological measures. Specifically, the 1977 CAA Amendments 

revised CAA section 111(a)(1) to require all new sources to meet 

 

473 Sen. Muskie, Sen. Consideration of H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-

1783 (Dec. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 130. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 531 of 1546

emission standards based on the reductions achievable through 

the use of the ”best technological system of continuous emission 

reduction.”474 According to the legislative history, [t]his 

mean[t] that new sources may not comply merely by burning 

untreated fuel, either oil or coal.” 475 The new requirement 

stemmed in part from Congress’s concern over the shocks that the 

country experienced during the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo, which 

led Congress to revise CAA section 111 to “encourage and 

facilitate the increased use of coal, and to reduce reliance (by 

new and old sources alike), upon petroleum to meet emission 

requirements.”476 Imposing a new technological requirement (along 

with a new percentage reduction requirement) under CAA section 

111 was designed to “force new sources to burn high-sulfur fuel 

thus freeing low-sulfur fuel for use in existing sources where 

it is harder to control emissions and where low-sulfur fuel is 

needed for compliance.” 477 Congress nonetheless recognized that 

despite narrowing new source standards to the best 

“technological system of continuous emission reduction,” many 

 

474 CAA section 111(a)(1) (1977). 475 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 

2659. 

476 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 

2659. 

477 New Stationary Sources Performance Standards; Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units, 44 Fed. Reg. 33580, 33581-33582 

(June 11, 1979). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 532 of 1546

“innovative approaches may in fact reduce the economic and 

energy impact of emissions control,” and the Administrator 

should still be encouraged to consider other technologically 

based techniques for emissions reduction, including 

“precombustion cleaning or treatment of fuels.”478 This is 

discussed in more detail below. 

Despite these changes with respect to new sources, the 1977 

CAA Amendments further reinforce the notion that with respect to 

existing sources, the BSER was never intended to be narrowly 

applied. In 1977, Congress changed CAA section 111(d)(1) to 

require that states adopt “standards of performance” and made 

clear that such standards were to be based on the “best system 

of continuous emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated,”479

but generally maintained the breadth of that term. Although 

Congress inserted the word “continuous” into the phrase, 

Congress explained that “standards in the Section 111(d) state 

plan would be based on the best available means (not necessarily 

technological) for categories of existing sources to reduce 

emissions.”480 This was intended to distinguish existing source 

 

478 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 189 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. 

Hist. at 2656. 

479 CAA section 111(a)(1)(C) under the 1977 CAA Amendments. 480 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 

2662 (emphasis added). Congress also endorsed the EPA’s practice 

of establishing “emission guidelines” under CAA section 111(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 533 of 1546

standards from new source standards, for which “the requirement 

for [BSER] has been more narrowly redefined as best 

technological system of continuous emission reduction.”481,482

In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress restored the 1970s 

vintage definition of a standard of performance as applied to 

both new and existing sources. With respect to existing sources, 

this had the effect of no longer requiring that the BSER be 

“continuous.”483 Further, nothing in the 1990 CAA Amendments or 

 

See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 2662 (“The Administrator would establish guidelines as to 

what the best system for each such category of existing sources 

is. However, the state would be responsible for determining the 

applicability of such guidelines to any particular source or 

sources.”). 

481 Sen. Muskie, Sen. Consideration of the H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 

95-564 (Aug. 4, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 353. 

482 In 1977, Congress added a new substantive definition for 

“emission standard” generally applicable throughout the CAA. 

1977 CAA Amendments, Pub. L. 95-95, § 301, 91 Stat. 685, 770 

(Aug. 7, 1977) (defining “emission limitation” and “emission 

standard” as “a requirement established by the State or the 

Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration 

of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including 

any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a 

source to assure continuous emission reduction.”). Congress also 

added a generally applicable definition of standard of 

performance, defined as “a requirement of continuous emission 

reduction, including any requirement relating to the operation 

or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission 

reduction.” Id. 483 We note that the general definition of a standard of 

performance at CAA section 302(l) still uses “continuous.” Even 

if this provision applies to section 111, it does not affect our 

analysis in this rule, including our interpretation that BSER 

includes building blocks 2 and 3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 534 of 1546

their legislative history indicates that Congress intended to 

impose new constraints on the types of systems of emission 

reduction that could be considered under CAA section 111(d)(1) 

and (a)(1). In contrast, Congress retained the definition of the 

term “technological system of continuous emission reduction,” 

which means 

(A) a technological process for production or operation by 

any source which is inherently low-polluting or 

nonpolluting, or 

(B) a technological system for continuous reduction of the 

pollution generated by a source before such pollution is 

emitted into the ambient air, including precombustion 

cleaning or treatment of fuels. 

That term continues to be used in reference to new sources in 

certain circumstances, under CAA section 111(b), (h), and (j).484

 

484 In many respects, there are indications that Congress prefers 

CAA section 111(b) standards of performance to be based on 

technological control methods. This is due in part to the 

recognition that new sources have long operating lives over 

which initial capital costs can be amortized. Thus, new 

construction is the preferred time to drive capital investment 

in emission controls. See, e.g., Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15-

16, 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 416 (“[t]he overriding purpose of 

this section [concerning new source performance standards] would 

be to prevent new air pollution problems, and toward that end, 

maximum feasible control of new sources at the time of their 

construction is seen by the committee as the most effective and, 

in the long run, the least expensive approach.”); see also 1977 

CAA Amendments, § 109, 91 Stat. at 700, (redefining, with 

respect to new sources, CAA section 111(a)(1) to reflect the 

best “technological system of continuous emission reduction” and 

adding CAA section 111(a)(7) to define this new term). However, 

as a result of the 1990 revisions to CAA section 111(a)(1), 

which replaced the phrase “technological system of continuous 

emission reduction” with “system of emission reduction,” new 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 535 of 1546

However, it is not and never has been used to regulate existing 

sources. In this manner, the 1990 CAA Amendments further 

reinforce the breadth and flexibility of the phrase “system of 

emission reduction,” particularly as it applies to existing 

sources under CAA section 111(d). 

For these reasons, the 1970, 1977, and 1990 legislative 

histories support the EPA’s interpretation in this rule that the 

term is sufficiently broad to encompass building blocks 2 and 3. 

(ii) Reliance on actions taken by other entities. 

The legislative history supports the EPA’s interpretation 

of “system of emission reduction” in another way, as well: The 

legislative history makes clear that Congress intended that 

standards of performance for electric power plants could be 

based on measures implemented by other entities, for example, 

entities that “wash,” or desulfurize, coal (or, for oil-fired 

EGUs, that desulfurize oil). This legislative history is 

consistent with the EPA’s view that the “system of emission 

reduction” may include actions taken by an entity with whom the 

owner/operator of the affected source enters into a contractual 

relationship as long as those actions allow the affected source 

to meet its emission limitation. By the same token, this 

 

source standards would not be restricted to being based on 

technological control measures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 536 of 1546

legislative history directly refutes commenters’ assertions that 

the phrase “system of emission reduction” must not include 

actions taken by entities other than the affected sources.485

As noted above, in the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress 

revised the basis for standards of performance for new fossil 

fuel-fired stationary sources to be a “technological system of 

continuous emission reduction,” including “precombustion 

cleaning or treatment of fuels.”486 Precombustion cleaning or 

treatment reduces the amount of sulfur in the fuel, which means 

that the fuel can be combusted with fewer SO2 emissions, and that 

in turn means that the source can achieve a lower emission 

limit. Congress understood that these fuel cleaning techniques 

would not necessarily be accomplished at the affected source 

and, in revising CAA section 111(a)(1), wanted to ensure that 

such techniques would not be overlooked. For example, the 1977 

 

485 See, e.g., comments by UARG at 31 (the building blocks other 

than building block 1 take a “‘beyond-the-source’ approach” and 

“impermissibly rely on measures that go beyond the boundaries of 

individual affected EGUs and that are not within the control of 

individual EGU owners and operators”); comments by American 

Chemistry Council et al. (“Associations”) at 60-61 (EPA’s 

proposed BSER analysis is unlawful because it “looks beyond the 

fence line of the fossil fuel-fired EGUs that are the subject of 

this rulemaking;” “the standard of performance must ... be 

limited to the types of actions that can be implemented directly 

by an existing source within [the appropriate] class or 

category.”). 

486 1977 CAA Amendments, § 109, 91 Stat. at 700; see also CAA 

section 111(a)(7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 537 of 1546

House Committee report indicates that an assessment of the best 

technological system of continuous emission reduction for fossil 

fuel-fired power plants would include off-site or third-party 

pre-combustion techniques for reducing emissions at the source 

(“e.g., various coal-cleaning technologies such as solvent 

refining, oil desulfurization at the refinery”).487 Thus, the 

standard of performance reflecting the best technological system 

implementable by an affected source could be based, in part, on 

technologies used at off-site facilities owned and operated by 

third-parties. 

In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress eliminated many of the 

restrictions and other provisions added in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments by largely reinstating the 1970 CAA Amendments’ 

definition of “standard of performance.” Nevertheless, there is 

no indication that in doing so, Congress intended to preclude 

the EPA from considering coal cleaning by third parties (which 

 

487 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 

2655 (emphasis added). Generally speaking, coal cleaning 

activities also are conducted by third parties. For instance, 

EPA recognized in a regulatory analysis of new source 

performance standards for industrial-commercial-institutional 

steam generating units that the technology “requires too much 

space and is too expensive to be employed at individual 

industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units.” 

U.S. EPA, Summary of Regulatory Analysis for New Source 

Performance Standards: Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units of Greater than 100 Million Btu/hr Heat Input, 

EPA-450/3-86-005, p. 4-4 (June 1986). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 538 of 1546

had been considered within the scope of the best system of 

emission reduction even under the 1970 CAA Amendments),488 and in 

fact, the EPA’s regulations promulgated after the 1990 CAA 

Amendments continue to impose standards of performance that are 

based on third-party coal cleaning.489

(c) Consistency of a broad interpretation of CAA section 

111 with the overall structure of the CAA. 

Interpreting CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) to authorize 

the EPA’s consideration of the building block 2 and 3 measures 

is consistent with the overall structure of the CAA, 

particularly as it was amended in 1970, when Congress added CAA 

section 111 in much the same form that it reads today. 

 In the 1970 CAA Amendments, for the most part, and 

particularly for stationary source provisions, Congress painted 

with broad brush strokes, giving broad authority to the EPA or 

the states. That is, Congress established general requirements 

 

488 See U.S. EPA, Background Information for Proposed New-Source 

Performance Standards: Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland 

Cement Plants, Nitric Acid Plants, Sulfuric Acid Plants, Office 

of Air Programs Tech. Rep. No. APTD-0711, p. 7 (Aug. 1971) 

(indicating the “desirability of setting sulfur dioxide 

standards that would allow the use of low-sulfur fuels as well 

as fuel cleaning, stack-gas cleaning, and equipment 

modifications” (emphasis added)). 

489 40 C.F.R. § 60.49b(n)(4); see also Amendments to New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units; Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 32742 (June 13, 

2007). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 539 of 1546

that were intended to produce stringent results, but gave the 

EPA or the states great discretion in fashioning the types of 

measures to achieve those results. 

For example, under CAA section 109, Congress authorized the 

EPA to promulgate national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for air pollutants, and Congress established general criteria 

and procedural requirements, but left to the EPA discretion to 

identify the air pollutants and select the standards. Under CAA 

section 110, Congress required the states to submit to the EPA 

state implementation plans (SIPs), required that the plans 

attain the NAAQS by a date certain, and established procedural 

requirements, but allowed the states broad discretion in 

determining the substantive requirements of the SIPs. 

Under CAA section 111(b), Congress directed the EPA to list 

source categories that endanger public health or welfare, and 

established procedural requirements, but did not include other 

substantive requirements, and instead, gave the EPA broad 

discretion to determine the criteria for endangerment. 

Under CAA section 112, Congress required the EPA to 

regulate certain air pollutants and to set “emission standards” 

that meet general criteria, and established procedural 

requirements, but did not include other substantive requirements 

and instead, gave the EPA broad discretion in identifying the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 540 of 1546

types of pollutants and in determining the standards.490 By and 

large, Congress left these provisions intact in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments.491,492

Congress drafted the CAA section 111(d) requirements in the 

1970 CAA Amendments, and revised them in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, in a manner that is similar to the other stationary 

source requirements, just described, in CAA sections 109, 110, 

111(b), and 112. The CAA section 111(d) requirements are broadly 

phrased, include procedural requirements, no more than very 

general substantive requirements, and give broad discretion to 

the EPA to determine the basis for the required emission limits 

 

490 By comparison, under the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 

substantially transformed CAA section 112 to be significantly 

more prescriptive in directing EPA rulemaking, which reflected 

Congress’s increased knowledge of hazardous air pollutants and 

impatience with the EPA’s progress in regulating. 

491 In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress applied the same broad 

drafting approach to the stratospheric ozone provisions it 

adopted in CAA sections 150-159. There, Congress authorized the 

EPA to determine whether, “in the Administrator’s judgment, any 

substance, practice, process, or activity may reasonably be 

anticipated to affect the stratosphere, especially ozone in the 

stratosphere, and such effect may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare,” and then directed the EPA, 

if it made such a determination, to “promulgate regulations 

respecting the control of such process practice, process, or 

activity....” CAA section 157(a). This provision does not further 

specify requirements for the regulations. 

492 On the other hand, in those instances in which Congress had a 

clear idea as to the emission limitations that it thought should 

be imposed, it mandated those emission limits, e.g., in Title II 

concerning motor vehicles. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 541 of 1546

and to the states to set the standards. It should be noted that 

this drafting approach is not unique to the CAA; on the 

contrary, Congress "usually does not legislate by specifying 

examples, but by identifying broad and general principles that 

must be applied to particular factual instances."493 

In light of this statutory framework, it is clear that 

Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to administer CAA 

section 111, including by authorizing the EPA to apply the 

“broad and general principles” contained in CAA section 

111(a)(1) to the particular circumstances we face today. 

(3) Comments and responses. 

While some commenters support the EPA’s interpretation of 

section 111 to authorize the inclusion of building blocks 2 and 

3 in the BSER, other commenters assert that the emission 

standards must be based on measures that the sources subject to 

CAA section 111 –- in this rule, the affected EGUs -- apply to 

their own design or operations, and, as a result, in this rule, 

cannot include measures implemented at entities other than the 

affected EGUs that have the effect of reducing generation, and 

therefore emissions, from the affected EGUs. The commenters 

 

493 Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 475 

(1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 542 of 1546

assert that various provisions in CAA section 111 make this 

limitation clear. We do not find those arguments persuasive. 

First, some commenters state that under CAA section 

111(d)(1) and (a)(1), the existing sources subject to the 

standards of performance must be able to achieve their emission 

limit, but that they are able to do so only through measures 

integrated into the source’s own design and operation. As a 

result, according to these commenters, those are the only types 

of measures that may qualify as a “system of emission reduction” 

that may form the basis of the emissions standards. We disagree. 

We see nothing in CAA section 111(d)(1) or (a)(1) which by its 

terms limits CAA section 111 to measures that must be integrated 

into the sources’ own design or operation. Rather, we recognize 

that in order for an emission limitation based on the BSER to be 

“achievable,” the BSER must consist of measures that can be 

undertaken by an affected source -- that is, its owner or 

operator. As noted elsewhere in the preamble, the affected 

sources subject to this rule are fully able to meet their 

emission standards by undertaking the measures described in all 

three building blocks. Moreover, as discussed, the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3 are highly effective in achieving CO2

emission reductions from these affected EGUs, given the unique 

characteristics of the industry. This reinforces the conclusion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 543 of 1546

that the term “system of emission reduction” is broad enough to 

include these measures. 

The broad nature of CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) is 

also confirmed by comparing it to CAA provisions that explicitly 

require controls on the design or operations of an affected 

source. The most notable comparison is at CAA section 111(a)(7). 

The term “technological system of continuous emission 

reduction,” which was added in 1977 and remains as a separately 

defined term means, in part, “a technological process for 

production or operation by any source which is inherently lowemitting or nonpolluting.” (Emphasis added.) With respect to 

this portion of the definition (and ignoring the additional 

text, which includes “precombustion cleaning or treatment of 

fuels” and clearly encompasses off-site activities), it could be 

argued that between 1977 and 1990 new source performance 

standards should be restricted to measures that could be 

integrated into the design or operation of a source. However, 

commenters’ assertion that the BSER must be limited in a similar 

fashion ignores the deliberate change in 1990 to restore the 

broader definition of a standard of performance (i.e., that it 

be based on the BSER and not the TSCER). In any case, the 

narrower scope of CAA section 111(a)(7) was never applicable to 

the regulation of existing sources under CAA section 111(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 544 of 1546

Several other examples of standard setting in the CAA shed 

light on ways in which Congress has constrained the EPA’s 

review. CAA section 407(b)(2) provides that the EPA base NOx

emission limits for certain types of boilers “on the degree of 

reduction achievable through the retrofit application of the 

best system of continuous emission reduction.” (Emphasis added.) 

Likewise, in determining best available retrofit technology 

under CAA section 169A, the state (or Administrator) must “take 

into consideration the costs of compliance, the energy and 

nonair quality environmental impacts, any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful 

life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology.”494 (Emphasis added.) These provisions make 

clear that Congress knew how to constrain the basis for emission 

limits to measures that are integrated into the design or 

operation of the affected source, and that its choice to base 

CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) standards of performance on a 

 

494 Even under BART, the EPA is authorized to allow emissions 

trading between sources. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1) & 

(2); Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 

2005); and Cent. Ariz. Water Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th 

Cir. 1993). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 545 of 1546

“system of emission reduction” indicates Congress’ intent to 

authorize a broader basis for those standards. 

Some commenters also argue that other provisions in CAA 

section 111 indicate that Congress intended that CAA section 

111(d)(1) and (a)(1) be limited to measures that are integrated 

into the source’s design or operations. This argument is 

unpersuasive for several reasons. First, it would be 

unreasonable to presume that Congress intended to limit the 

BSER, indirectly through these other provisions, to measures 

that are integrated into the affected source’s design or 

operations, when Congress could have done so expressly, as it 

did for the above-discussed CAA section 407(b)(2) NOx

requirements. 

Second, the interpretations that commenters offer for these 

various provisions misapply the text. For example, commenters 

note that under CAA section 111(d)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(6), the 

standards of performance apply to “any existing source,” and an 

“existing source” is defined to include “any stationary source,” 

which, in turn, is defined as “any building, structure, 

facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air 

pollutant.” Commenters assert that these applicability and 

definitional provisions indicate that the BSER provisions in CAA 

section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) must be interpreted to require that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 546 of 1546

the control measures must be integrated into the design or 

operations of the source itself. 

We disagree. These applicability and definitional 

provisions are jurisdictional in nature. Their purpose is simply 

to identify the types of sources whose emissions are to be 

addressed under CAA section 111(d), i.e., stationary sources, as 

opposed to other types of sources, e.g., mobile sources, whose 

emissions are addressed under other CAA provisions (such as CAA 

Title II). This purpose is made apparent by the terms of CAA 

section 111(a)(3), which contains two sentences (the second of 

which commenters seem to ignore). The first sentence provides, 

“The term ‘stationary source’ means any building, structure, 

facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air 

pollutant.” The second sentence provides, “Nothing in subchapter 

II of this chapter relating to nonroad engines shall be 

construed to apply to stationary internal combustion engines.” 

This second sentence explains that stationary internal 

combustion engines are to be regulated under CAA section 111, 

and not Title II (relating to mobile sources), which confirms 

that the purpose of the definition of stationary source is 

jurisdictional in nature -- to identify the emissions that are 

to be regulated under section 111, as opposed to other CAA 

provisions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 547 of 1546

These applicability and definitional provisions say nothing 

about the system of emission reduction –- whether it is limited 

to measures integrated into the design or operation of the 

source itself or may be broader -- that may form the basis of 

the standards for those emissions that are to be promulgated 

under CAA section 111. 

Third, this argument by commenters does not account for the 

commonsense proposition that it is the owner/operator of the 

stationary source, not the source itself, who is responsible for 

taking actions to achieve the emission rate, so that actions 

that the owner/operator is able to take should be considered in 

determining the appropriate standards for the source’s 

emissions. Again, it is commonsense that buildings, structures, 

facilities, and installations can take no actions -- only owners 

and operators can install and maintain pollution control 

equipment; only owners and operators can solicit precombustion 

cleaning or treatment of fuel services; and only owners and 

operators can apply for a permit or trade allowances.495 Other 

provisions in CAA section 111 make clear the role of the 

 

495 Industry commenters also acknowledged that it is the owner or 

operator that implements the control requirements. See UARG 

comment at 19 (section 111(d) “provides for the regulation of 

individual emission sources through performance standards that 

are based on what design or process changes an individual 

source’s owner can integrate into its facility”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 548 of 1546

owner/operator. CAA section 111(e) provides that for new 

sources, the burden of compliance falls on the “owner or 

operator.”496 The same is necessarily true for existing sources. 

This supports the EPA’s view that the basis for whether a 

control measure qualifies as a “system of emission reduction” 

under CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) is whether it is 

something that the owner/operator can implement in order to 

achieve the emissions standard assigned to the source –- if so, 

the control measure should qualify as a “system of emission 

reduction” –- and not whether the control measure is integrated 

into the source’s own design or operation. 

Commenters also argue that CAA section 111(h), which 

authorizes “design, equipment, work practice or operational 

standard[s]” (together, “design standards”) only when a source’s 

emissions are not emitted through a conveyance or cannot be 

measured, makes clear that CAA section 111 standards of 

performance must be based on measures integrated into a source’s 

own design or operations. We disagree. CAA section 111(h) 

concerns the relatively rare situation in which an emission 

standard, which entails a numerical limit on emissions, is not

appropriate because emissions cannot be measured, due either to 

 

496 CAA section 111(e) provides: (“[I]t shall be unlawful for any 

owner or operator of any new source to operate such source in 

violation of any [applicable] standard of performance.”) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 549 of 1546

the nature of the pollutant (i.e., the pollutant is not emitted 

through a conveyance) or the nature of the source category 

(i.e., the source category is not able to conduct measurements). 

CAA section 111(h) provides that imposing a design standard is 

appropriate under those circumstances, but only under those 

circumstances. When an emissions standard is appropriate, 

including in the present rule, CAA section 111(h) is silent on 

which system of emissions reduction –- whether limited to a 

source’s own design or operations -- may form the basis of the 

emissions standard.497 In any event, CAA section 111(h) applies 

only to standards promulgated by the Administrator, and 

therefore appears by its terms to be limited to CAA section 

111(b) rulemakings for new, modified, or reconstructed sources, 

not CAA section 111(d) rulemakings for existing sources. 

Some commenters identify other provisions of CAA section 

111 that, in their view, prove that CAA section 111 is limited 

to control measures that are integrated within the design or 

operations of the source. We do not find those arguments 

 

497 For this same reason, the fact that section 111(h) authorizes 

the EPA to impose certain types of standards –- such as work 

practice standards or operational standards that could include 

limits on production -- only in limited circumstances not 

present in this rulemaking, does not preclude the EPA from 

determining that those same measures are the BSER or means of 

implementing the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 550 of 1546

persuasive, for the reasons discussed in the supporting 

documents for this rule. 

Commenters also argue, more generally, that Congress knew 

how to authorize control measures such as renewable energy, as 

indicated by Congress’s inclusion of those measures in Title IV 

(relating to acid rain), so the fact that Congress did not 

explicitly include these measures in the BSER provisions of CAA 

section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) indicates that Congress did not 

intend that they be included as part of the BSER, and instead 

intended that the BSER be limited to measures integrated into 

the sources’ design or operations. This argument misses the 

mark. The provisions of CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) do not 

explicitly include any specific emission reduction measures –- 

neither renewable energy measures (like the ones Congress wanted 

to incentivize under Title IV), nor measures that are integrated 

into the sources’ design or operations (like the retrofit 

control measures Congress required under CAA section 407(b)). 

But this contrast with other CAA provisions does not mean that 

Congress did not intend the BSER to include any of those types 

of measures. Rather, this contrast supports viewing a “system of 

emission reduction” under CAA section 111 as sufficiently broad 

to encompass a wide range of measures for the purpose of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 551 of 1546

emission reduction of a wide range of pollutants from a wide 

range of stationary sources.498

c. Deference to interpret the BSER to include building blocks 2 

and 3. To the extent that it is not clear whether the phrase 

“system of emission reduction” may include the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3, the EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 

111(d) and (a) is reasonable499 in light of our discretion to 

determine “whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions 

from power plants....”500 

 Our interpretation that a “system of emission reduction” 

for the affected EGUs may include building blocks 2 and 3 is a 

reasonable construction of the statute for the reasons described 

above and in this section below. 

(1) Consistency of building blocks 2 and 3 with the 

structure of the utility power sector. 

(a) Integration of the utility power sector. 

 

498 It should also be noted that Title IV is limited to 

particular pollutants (i.e., SO2 and NOx) and particular sources 

-– fossil fuel-fired EGUs –- and as a result, lends itself to 

greater specificity about the types of control measures. Section 

111(d), in contrast, applies to a wide range of source types, 

which, as discussed above, supports reading it to authorize a 

broad range of control measures. 

499 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1603 

(2014) (“We routinely accord dispositive effect to an agency’s 

reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language.”). 

500 American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2538 

(2011) (“AEP”) (emphasis added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 552 of 1546

Certain characteristics of the utility power sector are of 

central importance for understanding why the measures of 

building blocks 2 and 3 qualify as part of the system of 

emission reduction. As discussed above, electricity is highly 

substitutable and the utility power sector is highly integrated, 

so much so that it has been likened to a big machine. 

Specifically, the utility power sector is characterized by 

physical, as well as operational, interconnections between 

electricity generators themselves, and between those generators 

and electricity users. Because of the physical properties of 

electricity and the current low availability of large scale 

electricity storage, generation and load (or use) must be 

instantaneously balanced in real time. As a result, the utility 

power sector is uniquely characterized by extensive planning and 

highly coordinated operation. These features have been present 

for decades, and in fact, over time, the sector has become more 

highly integrated. Another important characteristics of the 

utility power sector is that although the states have developed 

both regulated and de-regulated markets, the generation of 

electricity reflects a least-cost dispatch approach, under which 

electricity is generated first by the generators with the lowest 

variable cost. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 553 of 1546

These characteristics of the sector have facilitated the 

overall objective of providing reliable electric service at 

least cost subject to a variety of constraints, including 

environmental constraints. Moreover, in each type of market, the 

sector has developed mechanisms, including the participation of 

institutional actors, to safeguard reliability and to assure 

least cost service. 

Congress,501 the Courts,502 the EPA in its regulatory 

actions,503 and states in their regulatory actions504 have 

recognized the integrated nature of the utility power sector. 

(b) Significance of integrated utility power sector for the 

BSER. 

 

501 See CAA section 404(f)(2)(B)(iii)(I) (conditioning a 

utility’s eligibility for certain allowances on implementing an 

energy conservation and electric power plan that evaluates a 

range of resources to meet expected future demand at least 

cost); see also Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 319-20 (Dec. 20, 

1989)(recognizing that “utilities already engage in powerpooling arrangements to ensure maximum flexibility and 

efficiency in supplying power” to support the establishment of 

an allowance system under title IV). 

502 New York v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 535 U.S. 1, 

at 7 (2002) (citing Brief for Respondent FERC 4-5). 

503 “Stack Heights Emissions Balancing Policy,” 53 Fed. Reg. 480, 

482 (Jan. 7, 1988). 

504 See 79 FR 34830, 34880 (June 18, 2014) (discussing State of 

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill 

32, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-

0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf, and quoting December 27, 

2013 Letter from Mary D. Nichols, Chairman of California Air 

Resources Board, to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 554 of 1546

The fungibility of electricity, coupled with the 

integration of the utility power sector, means that, assuming 

that demand is held constant, adding electricity to the grid 

from one generator will result in the instantaneous reduction in 

generation from other generators. Similarly, reductions in 

generation from one generator lead to the instantaneous increase 

in generation from other generators. Thus, the operation of 

individual EGUs is integrated and coordinated with the 

operations of other EGUs and other sources of generation, as 

well as with electricity users. This allows for locational 

flexibility across the sector in meeting demand for electricity 

services. The institutions that coordinate planning and 

operations routinely use this flexibility to meet demand for 

electricity services economically while satisfying constraints, 

including environmental constraints. Because of these 

characteristics, EGU owner/operators have long conducted their 

business, including entering into commercial arrangements with 

third parties, based on the premise that the performance and 

operations of any of their facilities is substantially dependent 

on the performance and operation of other facilities, including 

ones they neither own nor operate. For example, when an EGU goes 

off-line to perform maintenance, its customer base is served by 

other EGUs that increase their generation. Similarly, if an EGU 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 555 of 1546

needs to assure that it can meet its obligations to supply a 

certain amount of generation, it may enter into arrangements to 

purchase that generation, if it needs to, from other EGUs. 

Because of this structure, fossil fuel-fired EGUs can 

reduce their emissions by taking the actions in building blocks 

2 and 3. Specifically, fossil fuel-fired EGUs may generate or 

cause the generation of increased amounts of lower- or zeroemitting electricity –- through contractual arrangements, 

investment, or purchase -- which will back out higher-emitting 

generation, and thereby lower emissions. In addition, fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs may reduce their generation, which, given the 

overall emission limits this rule requires, will have the effect 

of stimulating lower- or zero-emitting generation. 

It should also be noted that CO2 is particularly well-suited 

for building blocks 2 and 3 because it is a global, not local, 

air pollutant, so that the location where it is emitted does not 

affect its environmental impact. The U.S. Supreme Court in the 

UARG case highlighted the importance of taking account of the 

unique characteristics of CO2.505

In light of these characteristics of the utility power 

sector, as well as the characteristics of CO2 pollution, it is 

reasonable for the EPA to reject an interpretation of the term 

 

505 See UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2441 (2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 556 of 1546

“system of emission reduction” that would exclude building 

blocks 2 and 3 from consideration in this rule and instead 

restrict consideration to measures integrated into each 

individual affected source’s design or operation, especially 

since the record and other publicly available information makes 

abundantly clear how effective the two building blocks are in 

reducing emissions and how widely those measures are already 

being used. 

As discussed above, no such restriction on the measures 

that can be considered part of a “system of emission reduction” 

is required by the statutory language, and the legislative 

history demonstrates that Congress intended a broad 

interpretation of the phrase. The narrow interpretation 

advocated by some commenters would permit consideration only of 

potential CO2 reduction measures that are either more expensive 

than building blocks 2 and 3 (such as the use of natural gas cofiring at affected EGUs or the application of CCS technology) or 

measures capable of achieving far less reduction in CO2 emissions 

(such as the heat rate improvement measures included in building 

block 1). Imposing such a restrictive interpretation –- one 

which is not called for by the statute -- would be inconsistent 

with CAA section 111’s specific requirement that standards be 

based on the “best” system of emission reduction and, as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 557 of 1546

discussed below, would be inconsistent with Congressional design 

that the CAA be comprehensive and address the major 

environmental issues.506 

The unique characteristics of the sector described above 

require coordinated action in the fundamental, primary function 

of EGUs – and in meeting current pollution control requirements 

to the extent that EGUs operate in dispatch systems that apply 

variable costs in determining dispatch -- and affected EGUs 

necessarily already plan and operate on a multi-unit basis. In 

doing so, they already make use of building blocks 2 and 3 to 

meet operational and environmental objectives in a costeffective manner, as further described below. CO2 is a global 

pollutant that is exceptionally well-suited to emission 

reduction efforts optimized on a broad geographic scale rather 

than on a unit-by-unit basis. It is also clear from both 

comments and communications received through the Agency’s 

outreach efforts that affected EGUs will seek to use building 

blocks 2 and 3 to achieve compliance with the emission standards 

set in the section 111(d) plans following promulgation of this 

rule. For these reasons –- and the additional reasons discussed 

below -- interpreting “system of emission reduction” so as to 

 

506 See King v. Burwell, No. 14-114 (2015) (slip op., at 21) 

(“But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, 

and take care not to undo what it has done.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 558 of 1546

allow consideration in this rule of only the individual pieces 

of the “complex machine,” and to forbid consideration of the 

ways in which the pieces actually fit and work together as parts 

of that machine, such as building blocks 2 and 3, cannot be 

justified. This is particularly so in light of the dilemma 

presented by the types of control options that commenters argue 

are the only ones authorized under section 111(a)(1), which are 

controls that apply to the design or operation of the affected 

EGUs themselves. On the one hand, the control measures in 

building block 1 yield only a small amount of emission 

reductions. On the other hand, control measures such as carbon 

capture and storage, or co-firing with natural gas, could yield 

much greater emission reductions, but are substantially more 

expensive than building blocks 2 and 3. 

(2) Current implementation of measures in building blocks 2 

and 3. 

The requirement that the “system of emission reduction” be 

“adequately demonstrated” suggests that we begin our review 

under CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) with the systems that 

sources are already implementing to reduce their emissions. As 

noted above, fossil fuel-fired EGUs have long implemented, and 

are continuing to implement, the measures in building blocks 2 

and 3 for various purposes, including for the purpose of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 559 of 1546

reducing CO2 emissions507 –- and certainly always with the effect 

of reducing emissions. This is a strong indicator that these 

measures should be considered part of a “system of emission 

reduction” for CO2 emissions from these sources. The requirement 

that the “system of emission reduction” be “adequately 

demonstrated” indicates that the implementation of control 

mechanisms or other actions that the sources are already taking 

to reduce their emissions are of particular relevance in 

establishing the emission reduction requirements of CAA section 

111(d)(1) and (a)(1). As a result, such measures are a logical 

starting point for consideration as a “system of emission 

reduction” under CAA section 111. 

(3) Reliance in CAA Title IV on building block measures. 

Some of the building block approaches to reducing emissions 

in the utility power sector were first tested around the time 

 

507 A number of utilities have climate mitigation plans. Examples 

include National Grid, 

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/responsibility/how-were-doing/griddata-centre/climate-change/; Exelon, 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/pr_20140423_EXC_Exelon2020.as

px; PG&E, http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/climate/; and 

Austin Energy, 

http://austinenergy.com/wps/portal/ae/about/environment/austinclimate-protectionplan/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOINjCyMPJwNjDzdzY0sDB

zdnZ28TcP8DAMMDPQLsh0VAU4fG7s!/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 560 of 1546

that Congress adopted the 1970 CAA Amendments.508 Over time, 

these techniques have become more established within the 

industry, and by the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress even based 

the Title IV acid rain program for existing fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs in part on the same measures that are considered here. This 

provides an important indication that Congress not only viewed 

such measures as effective emission control techniques but that 

these same measures had been implemented by the industry for at 

least twenty years. 

(a) Overview. 

It is logical that in determining whether the “system of 

emission reduction” that Congress established in CAA section 

111(d)(1) and (a)(1) is broad enough to include the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3 as the basis for establishing emission 

guidelines for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, an inquiry should be made 

into the tools that Congress relied on in other CAA provisions 

to reduce emissions from those same sources. The most useful CAA 

provision to examine for this purpose is Title IV, which 

includes a nationwide cap-and-trade program under which coal-

 

508 See, e.g., Shepard, Donald S., A Load Shifting Model for Air 

Pollution Control in the Electric Power Industry, Journal of the 

Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 20:11, pp. 756-761 

(November 1970). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 561 of 1546

fired power plants must have allowances for their sulfur dioxide 

emissions. 

Title IV includes several signals that it is especially 

relevant for interpreting and implementing CAA section 111(d) 

for purposes of this rule. Title IV applies to most of the same 

sources that this rule applies to -- existing coal-fired EGUs 

and other utility boilers, as well as NGCC units. In addition, 

Congress added Title IV in the 1990 CAA Amendments at the same 

time that Congress largely reinstated the 1970-vintage reading 

of section 111(a)(1) to adopt the currently applicable 

definition of a “standard of performance,” which is based on the 

“best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” 

Moreover, Congress linked Title IV and CAA section 111 in 

certain respects. Specifically, Congress conditioned the 

revisions to CAA section 111(a)(1), i.e., eliminating the 

percentage reduction and most of the other limitations under the 

1977 CAA Amendments, on the continued applicability of the Title 

IV SO2 cap, so that if the cap were eliminated, the changes 

would, by operation of law, also be eliminated, and the 1977 

version of section 111(a)(1) would be reinstated.509

 

509 1990 CAA Amendments, § 403, 104 Stat. at 2631 (requiring 

repeal of amendments to CAA section 111(a)(1) upon any cessation 

of effectiveness of CAA section 403(e), which requires new units 

to hold allowances for each ton of sulfur dioxide emitted). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 562 of 1546

Additionally, Congress authorized the EPA to establish standards 

of performance for new and existing industrial (non-EGU) sources 

of SO2 emissions if emissions from these sources might exceed 

1985 levels and failed to decline at the expected rate.510 While 

industrial sources were not required to participate under Title 

IV -- they could elect to do so, under CAA section 410(a) -- 

Congress believed SO2 reductions from these sources were “an 

essential component of the reductions sought under [Title IV]” 

and intended that Title IV would “assure[] that these projected 

reductions occur and will not be overcome by future growth in 

emissions.”511 As such, Congress viewed federal standards of 

performance as the appropriate backstop to Title IV even for 

sources that could not otherwise be regulated under CAA section 

111(d).512 Together, these signals suggest that it is reasonable 

 

Congress believed that mandating a technological standard 

through the percentage reduction requirement in section 

111(a)(1) would ensure the continued availability of low sulfur 

coal for existing sources. In other words, the percentage 

reduction requirement discouraged compliance with new source 

performance standards based solely on fuel shifting because it 

was much more costly to achieve the percentage reduction with 

lower sulfur coal. This belief was expressed during the 1977 CAA 

Amendments and is discussed above as part of the legislative 

history of section 111. 

510 1990 CAA Amendments, § 406, 104 Stat. at 2632-33; see also

Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 282 (industrial source emissions 

totaled 5.6 million tons of SO2 in 1985). 511 Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 345 (Dec. 20, 1989). 512 To reiterate, ordinarily, standards of performance cannot be 

used to regulate SO2 emissions from existing sources because of 

the pollutant exclusions in CAA section 111(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 563 of 1546

for the EPA to consider Title IV when interpreting and 

implementing CAA section 111. 

For present purposes, the essential features of Title IV 

are that it regulates SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs by 

adopting a nationwide cap of 8.95 million tons to be achieved 

through a tradable allowance system. As we explain below, the 

provisions of Title IV and its legislative history make clear 

that Congress based the stringency of the emission limitation 

requirement (8.95 million tons) and the overall structure of the 

approach (a cap-and-trade system) on Congress’s recognition that 

the affected EGUs had a set of tools available to them to reduce 

their emissions, including through a shift to lower emitting 

generation and use of renewable energy, along with add-on 

controls and other measures. Thus, Title IV provides a close 

analogy to CAA section 111: generation shift and renewable 

energy were part of Congress’s basis for the Title IV emissions 

requirements, and that is analogous to building blocks 2 and 3 

serving as part of the “system of emission reduction” that is 

the EPA’s basis for the section 111(d) emission guidelines. For 

this reason, the fact that in Title IV, Congress relied on 

generation shift and renewable energy as the basis for the SO2

emission limitations for affected EGUs strongly supports 

interpreting CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) to include use of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 564 of 1546

those same measures as part of the “system of emission 

reduction” as the basis for CO2 emission limitations for those 

same sources. 

(b) Title IV provisions. 

Several provisions of Title IV make explicit Congress’s 

reliance on some of the same measures as are in building blocks 

2 and 3. Title IV begins with a statement of congressional 

“findings,” including the following: 

§401(a). Findings 

The Congress finds that – 

* * * * 

(4) strategies and technologies for the control of 

precursors to acid deposition exist now that are 

economically feasible, and improved methods are 

expected to become increasingly available over the 

next decade. 

(Emphasis added.) Title IV then includes the following statement 

of its “purposes:” 

§401(b). Purposes 

The purpose of this subchapter [Title IV] is to reduce 

the adverse effects of acid deposition through 

reductions in annual emissions of sulfur dioxide ... and 

nitrogen oxides.... It is the intent of this subchapter 

to effectuate such reductions by requiring compliance 

by affected EGUs with prescribed emission limitations 

by specified deadlines which limitations may be met 

through alternative methods of compliance provided by 

an emission allocation and transfer system. It is also 

the purpose of this subchapter to encourage energy 

conservation, use of renewable and clean alternative 

technologies, and pollution prevention as a long-range 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 565 of 1546

strategy, consistent with the provisions of this 

subchapter, for reducing air pollution and other 

adverse impacts of energy production and use. 

(Emphasis added). By its terms, this statement of Title IV’s 

purposes explicitly embraces the use of renewable energy. 

Moreover, the legislative history makes clear that the reference 

in the “findings” section quoted above to “strategies and 

technologies” includes generation shift to lower-emitting 

generation. Specifically, the Senate Report stated that an 

“allowance system”513 would encourage such “technologies and 

strategies” as 

energy efficiency; enhanced emissions reduction or 

control technologies—like sorbent injection, cofiring 

with natural gas, integrated gasification combined 

cycles; fuel-switching and least-emissions dispatching

in order to maximize emissions reductions.”514 

Congress’s reliance on generation shifting and renewable energy 

to reduce acid rain precursors from affected EGUs in Title IV 

strongly supports the EPA’s authority to identify those same 

measures as part of the CAA section 111 “system of emission 

reduction” to reduce CO2 emissions from those same sources. 

 In addition, Title IV includes other provisions expressly 

concerning renewable energy. In CAA section 404(f) and (g), 

Congress set aside a special pool of allowances to encourage use 

 

513 See Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 320 (Dec. 20, 1989). 514 See Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 316 (Dec. 20, 1989) (emphasis 

added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 566 of 1546

of renewable energy. In order to obtain a special allowance 

(which would authorize emissions from a coal-fired utility), an 

electric utility needed to pay for qualifying renewable energy 

sources “directly or through purchase from another person.”515

These measures confirm Congress’s recognition that renewable 

energy was available to the industry, was desirable to encourage 

from a policy perspective, and was appropriate to consider in 

determining the amount of pollution reduction the law should 

require. 

(c) Title IV legislative history. 

Numerous statements in the legislative history confirm that 

Congress based the Title IV requirements on the fact that 

affected EGUs could reduce their SO2 emissions through a set of 

measures, including shifting to lower-emitting generation as 

well as reliance on renewable energy. 

For example, the Senate Committee Report516 and Senator 

Baucus,517 a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works and Chairman of the House and Senate Clean Air 

Conferees, both emphasized that affected EGUs could rely on, 

 

515 CAA section 404(f)(2)(B)(i). 516 Sen. Rep. No. 101-228 (Dec. 20, 1989), 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 8656 

517 Sen. Debates on Conf. Rep. to accompany S. 1630, H. Rep. 101-

952 (Oct. 27, 1990), 1990 CAA Legis. Hist. at 1033-35 (statement 

of Senator Baucus, inserting “the Clean Air Conference Report” 

into the record). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 567 of 1546

among other things, “least-emissions dispatching in order to 

maximize emissions reductions.” Similarly, statements supporting 

the renewable energy reserve were included in the legislative 

history on the House side. 

We believe that this provision of the bill will 

establish a balanced and workable approach that will 

provide certainty for utility companies that are 

considering conservation and renewables, while at the 

same time strengthening the environmental goals of 

this legislation.518 

 (4) Reliance on renewable energy measures to reduce carbon 

dioxide. 

The Title IV legislative history also makes clear that 

Congress viewed renewable energy measures as a means to reduce 

carbon dioxide for the purpose of mitigating climate change. By 

the time of the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress had long been 

aware that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gases put upward pressure on world temperatures and threatened 

 

518 H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, at 368-69; 674-76 (May 17, 1990) 

(additional views of Reps. Markey and Moorhead) (“We believe 

that H.R. 3030, as amended, will create a strong and effective 

incentive for utilities to immediately pursue energy 

conservation and renewable energy sources as key components of 

their acid rain control strategies.”); see also Rep. Collins, H. 

Debates on H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-952 (Oct. 26, 1990), 1990 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 1307 (“The bottom line is that our Nation's 

utilities and production facilities must reach beyond coal, oil, 

and fossil fuels. The focus must shift instead toward 

conservation and renewables such as hydropower, solar thermal, 

photovoltaics, geothermal, and wind. These clean sources and 

energy, available in virtually limitless supply, are the way of 

the future.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 568 of 1546

to change the climate in destructive ways. In 1967, President 

Lyndon Johnson sent a letter to Congress recognizing that carbon 

dioxide was changing the composition of the atmosphere.519 The 

record for the 1970 CAA Amendments include hearings520 and a 

report by the National Academy of Sciences noting that carbon 

dioxide emissions could heat the atmosphere.521 A 1976 report 

noting the phenomenon was included in the record for the 1977 

CAA Amendments.522 A 1977 Report by the National Academy of 

 

519 “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and 

Restoration of Natural Beauty (Feb. 8, 1965). 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27285 (“This generation 

has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale 

through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon 

dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”). 

520 Testimony of Charles Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the 

Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service 

(Administration Testimony), Hearing of the House Subcommittee on 

Public Health and Welfare (Mar. 16, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. 

at 1381 (stating that “the carbon dioxide balance might result 

in the heating up of the atmosphere whereas the reduction of the 

radiant energy through particulate matter released to the 

atmosphere might cause reduction in radiation that reaches the 

earth”). 

521 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 244, 257 Sen. Debate on S. 4358 

(Sept. 21, 1970) (statement of Sen. Boggs) (replicating Chapter 

IV of the Council on Environmental Quality’s first annual 

report, which states, “the addition of particulates and carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term 

effects on world climate.”). 

522 122 Cong. Rec. S25194 (daily ed. Aug. 3, 1976) (statement of 

Sen. Bumpers) (inserting into the record, “Summary of Statements 

Received from Professional Societies for the Hearings on Effects 

of Chronic Pollution (in the Subcommittee on the Environment and 

the Atmosphere),” which stated, “there is near unanimity that 

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing 

rapidly. Though even the direction (warming or cooling) of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 569 of 1546

Sciences warned that average temperatures would rise due to the 

burning of fossil fuel.523 By the time of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, the dangers had become more clearly evident. Senate 

hearings beginning in 1988 had presented testimony from Dr. 

James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and other scientists that described the dangers 

of climate change caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gas emissions and asserted that as a result of 

those emissions, the climate was in fact already changing.524 

 In enacting the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress identified 

reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as an important co-

 

climate change to be caused by this is unknown, very profound 

changes in the balance of climate factors that determine 

temperature and rainfall on the earth are almost certain within 

100 years”). 

523 National Academy of Sciences, “Energy and Climate: Studies in 

Geophysics” viii (1977), 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12024 (noting that a 

fourfold to eightfold increase in carbon dioxide by the latter 

part of the twenty-second century would increase average world 

temperature by more than 6 degrees Celsius). 

524 Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 322 (Dec. 20, 1989), at 1990 Leg. 

Hist. at 8662 (“In the last several years, the Committee has 

received extensive scientific testimony that increases in the 

human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gases will lead to catastrophic shocks in the global climate 

system.”); History, Jurisdiction, and a Summary of Activities of 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources During the 100th

Congress, Sen. Rep. No. 101-138, at 5 (Sept. 1989); “Global 

Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate,” New York Times, June 

24, 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warminghas-begun-expert-tells-senate.html. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 570 of 1546

benefit of the reductions in coal use and stressed that the 

renewable energy measures would achieve those reductions. 

Senator Fowler, the author of the provision that established a 

renewable energy technology reserve within the allowance system, 

noted that renewable energy technologies, “can greatly reduce 

emissions of ... global warming gases. That makes them a potent 

weapon against catastrophic climate change....”525 In addition, 

the 1990 CAA Amendments required EGUs covered by the monitoring 

requirements of the Title IV acid rain program to report their 

CO2 emissions.526 

(5) Other EPA actions that rely on the building block 

measures. 

Another indication that it is reasonable to interpret the 

CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) provisions for the BSER to 

include the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 is that the EPA 

and states have relied on these measures to reduce emissions in 

a number of other CAA actions. 

For example, in 2005, the EPA promulgated a rule to control 

mercury emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants under 

section 111(d): the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).527 The EPA 

 

525 Sen. Fowler, Sen. Debate on S. 1630 (Apr. 3, 1990), 1990 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 7106. 

526 1990 CAA Amendments, § 821, 104 Stat. at 2699. 527 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 571 of 1546

established a nationwide cap-and-trade program that took effect 

in two phases: In 2010, the cap was set at 38 tons per year, and 

in 2018, the cap was lowered to 15 tons per year. The EPA 

expected, on the basis of modeling, that sources would achieve 

the second phase, 15-ton per year cap cost-effectively by 

choosing among a set of measures that included shifting 

generation to lower-emitting units.528 CAMR was vacated by the 

D.C. Circuit on other grounds,529 but it shows that in the only 

other section 111(d) rule that the EPA attempted for affected 

EGUs, the EPA relied on shifting generation as part of the BSER 

in a CAA section 111(d) rulemaking for fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 

In 2011, the EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR),530 in which it set statewide emission budgets for 

NOx and SO2 emitted by fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and based those 

standards in part on shifts to lower-emitting generation. CSAPR 

established state-wide emissions budgets based on a range of 

 

528 70 FR 28606, 28619 (May 18, 2005) (“Under the CAMR scenario 

modeled by EPA, units [were] projected to meet their SO2 and NOx

requirements and take additional steps to address the remaining 

[mercury] reduction requirements under CAA section 111, 

including adding [mercury]-specific control technologies (model 

applies [activated carbon injection]), additional scrubbers and 

[selective catalytic reduction], dispatch changes, and coal 

switching.”). 

529 New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 583-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008),

cert. denied sub nom. Util. Air Reg. Group v. New Jersey, 555 

U.S. 1169 (2009). 

530 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 572 of 1546

cost-effective actions that EGUs could take, and set the 

stringency of the deadlines for some required reductions in part 

because of the availability of “increased dispatch of loweremitting generation which can be achieved by 2012.”531 The EPA 

developed a federal implementation plan (FIP) that established a 

trading program to meet the state-wide emission budgets set by 

CSAPR. The EPA projected that sources would meet their emission 

reduction obligations by implementing a range of emission 

control approaches, including the operation of add-on controls, 

switches to lower-emitting coal, and “changes in dispatch and 

generation shifting from higher emitting units to lower emitting 

 

531 76 Fed. Reg. at 48452. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 573 of 1546

units.”532 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld CSAPR in EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P.533

 With respect to renewable energy, in 2004, the EPA provided 

guidance to states for adopting attainment SIPs under CAA 

section 110 that include renewable energy measures.534 Some 

states have done so. For example, Connecticut included in its 

SIP reductions from solar photovoltaic installations.535 In 2012, 

 

532 76 FR at 48279-80. The exact mix of controls varied for 

different air pollutants and different time periods, but in all 

cases, shifting generation from higher to lower emitting units 

was one of the expected control strategies for the fossil fuelfired power plants. Prior to CSAPR, the EPA promulgated two 

other transport rules, the NOx SIP Call (1998) and the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (2005), which similarly established 

standards based on analysis of the availability and cost of 

emission reductions achievable through the use of add-on 

controls and generation shifting, and also authorized and 

encouraged the implementation of renewable energy and demandside energy efficiency measures. CAIR: 70 Fed. Reg. 25162, 

25165, 25256, 25279 (May 12, 2005) (allowing use of allowance 

set-asides for renewables and energy efficiency); NOx SIP Call: 

63 Fed. Reg. 57356, 57362, 57436, 57438, 57449 (Oct. 27, 1998) 

(authorizing and encouraging SIPs to rely on renewables and 

energy efficiency to meet the state budgets). 

533 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 534See, e.g., Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions 

from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Measures (Aug. 2004), 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ereseerem_gd.pdf; 

Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) (Sept. 2004), 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/evm_ievm_g.pdf. 535 CT 1997 8-hour ozone SIP Web site, 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&q=385886&depNav_GID=1

619 (see Attainment Demonstration TSD, Chapter 8 at 31, 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/air/regulations/proposed_and_rep

orts/section_8.pdf). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 574 of 1546

the EPA provided additional guidance on this topic.536 In 

addition, the EPA has partnered with the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and three states 

(Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York) to identify 

opportunities for including renewable energy in a SIP and to 

provide real-world examples and lessons learned through those 

states’ case studies.537

(6) Other rules that relied on actions by other entities. 

The EPA has promulgated numerous actions that establish 

control requirements for affected sources on the basis of 

actions by other entities or actions other than measures 

integrated into the design or operations of the affected 

sources. This section summarizes some of those actions. First, 

virtually all pollution control requirements require the 

affected sources to depend in one way or another on other 

entities, such as control technology manufacturers. Second, the 

EPA has promulgated numerous regulatory actions that are based 

 

536 “Roadmap for Incorporating EE/RE Policies and Programs into 

SIPs/TIPs” (July 2012), 

http://epa.gov/airquality/eere/manual.html.

537 States’ Perspectives on EPA’s Roadmap to Incorporate Energy 

Efficiency/Renewable Energy in NAAQS State Implementation Plans: 

Three Case Studies, Final Report to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (Dec. 2013), 

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/nescaum-final-rept-toepa-ee-in-naaqs-sip-roadmap-case-studies-20140522.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 575 of 1546

on trading of mass-based emission allowances or rate-based 

emission credits, in which many sources meet their emission 

limitation requirements by purchasing allowances or credits from 

other sources that reduce emissions. 

(a) Third-party transactions. 

To reiterate, commenters argue that the “system of emission 

reduction” must be limited to measures taken by the affected 

source itself because only those measures are under the control 

of the affected source, as opposed to third parties, and 

therefore only those measures can assure that the affected 

source will achieve its emission limits. But this argument is 

belied by the fact that for a wide range of pollution control 

measures – including many that are indisputably part of a 

“system of emission reduction” – affected sources are in fact 

dependent on third parties. For example, to implement any type 

of add-on pollution control equipment that is available only 

from a third-party manufacturer, the affected source is 

dependent upon that third party for developing and constructing 

the necessary controls, and for offering them for sale. Indeed, 

the affected sources may be dependent upon third parties to 

install the controls as well, and in fact, in the CAIR rule, the 

EPA established the compliance date based on the limited 

availability of the specialized workforce needed to install the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 576 of 1546

controls needed by the affected EGUs.538 In addition, EGU owners 

and operators may be dependent on the actions of third parties 

to finance the controls and third-party regulators to assure the 

mechanism for repaying that financing. However, this dependence 

does not mean that the emission limit based on that equipment is 

not achievable. Rather, the fact that the owner or operator of 

the affected source can arrange with the various third parties 

to acquire, install, and pay for the equipment means that 

emission limit is achievable. 

In this rule, as noted, the affected EGUs may, in many 

cases, implement the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 

directly, and, in other cases, implement those measures by 

engaging in market transactions with third parties that are as 

much within the affected EGUs’ control as engaging in market 

transactions with the range of third parties involved in 

pollution control equipment. By the same token, the market 

transactions that the affected EGUs engage in with third parties 

to implement the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 are 

comparable to the market transactions that affected EGUs engage 

in as part of their normal course of business, which include, 

 

538 70 Fed. Reg. 25162, 25216–25225 (May 12, 2005). The EPA noted 

that its view was “based on the NOX SIP Call experience.” Id. at 

25217. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 577 of 1546

among many examples, transactions with RTOs/ISOs or balancing 

authorities, entities in organized markets. 

(b) Emissions trading. 

Additional precedent that the “system of emission 

reduction” may include the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 

and is not limited to measures that a source can integrate into 

its own design or operations, without being dependent on other 

entities, is found in the many rules that Congress has enacted 

or that the EPA has promulgated that allow EGUs and other 

sources to meet their emission limits by trading with other 

sources. In a trading rule, the EPA authorizes a source to meet 

its emission limit by purchasing mass-based emission allowances 

or rate-based emission credits generated from other sources, 

typically ones that implement controls that reduce their 

emissions to the point where they are able to sell allowances or 

credits. As a result, the availability of trading reduces 

overall costs to the industry by focusing the controls on the 

particular sources that have the least cost to implement 

controls. For present purposes, what is relevant is that in a 

trading program, some affected sources choose to meet their 

emission limits not by implementing emission controls integrated 

into their own design or operations, but rather by purchasing 

allowances or credits. These affected sources, therefore, are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 578 of 1546

dependent on the actions of other entities, which are the ones 

that choose to meet their emission limits by implementing 

emission controls, which permits them to sell allowances or 

credits. They are “dependent”, however, in exactly the same way 

that a source acquiring pollution control technology for the 

purposes of meeting a NSPS is “dependent” on a vendor of that 

technology to fulfill its contractual obligations. Just so for 

the source operator purchasing a credit or an allowance. In 

essence, the purchasing operator is acquiring an equity in the 

technology or action applied to the credit-selling source for 

purposes of achieving a reduction in emissions occurring at the 

selling source. Trading programs have been commonplace under the 

CAA, particularly for EGUs, for decades. They include the acid 

rain trading program in Title IV of the CAA, the trading 

programs in the transport rules promulgated by the EPA under the 

“good neighbor provision” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the regional haze rules. In each of 

these actions, the Congress or the EPA recognized that some of 

the affected EGUs would implement controls or take other actions 

that would lower their emissions and thereby allow them to sell 

allowances to other EGUs, which were dependent on the purchase 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 579 of 1546

of those allowances to meet their obligations.539 For the reasons 

just described, these trading rules refute commenters’ arguments 

for limiting the scope of the “system of emission reduction.” 

 (c) NSPS rules for EGUs that depend on the integrated 

grid. The EPA has promulgated NSPS for EGUs that include 

requirements based on the fact that an EGU may reduce its 

generation, and therefore its emissions, because the integration 

of the grid allows another EGU to increase generation and 

thereby avoid jeopardizing the supply of electricity. For 

example, in 1979, the EPA finalized new standards of performance 

to limit emissions of SO2 from new, modified, and reconstructed 

EGUs. In evaluating the best system against concerns of electric 

service reliability, the EPA took into account the unique 

 

539 For example, in the enacting the acid rain program under CAA 

Title IV, Congress explicitly recognized that some sources would 

comply by purchasing allowances instead of implementing 

controls. Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, at 303 (Dec. 20, 1989). 

Similarly, in promulgating the NOx SIP Call in 1998, the EPA 

stated, “Since EPA's determination for the core group of sources 

is based on the adoption of a broad-based trading program, 

average cost-effectiveness serves as an adequate measure across 

sources because sources with high marginal costs will be able to 

take advantage of this program to lower their costs.” 63 FR at 

57399 (emphasis added). By the same token, in promulgating the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule, the EPA stated, “the preferred 

trading remedy will allow source owners to choose among several 

compliance options to achieve required emission reductions in 

the most cost effective manner, such as installing controls, 

changing fuels, reducing utilization, buying allowances, or any 

combination of these actions.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 48272 (emphasis 

added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 580 of 1546

features of power transmission along the interconnected grid and 

the unique commercial relationships that rely on those 

features.540

Additionally, in 1982, the EPA recognized that utility turbines 

could meet a NOx emission limit without unacceptable economic 

consequences because “other electric generators on the grid can 

restore lost capacity caused by turbine down time.”541 We 

describe the relevant parts of these rules in greater detail in 

the Legal Memorandum. 

(7) Consistency with the purposes of the Clean Air Act. 

Interpreting the term “system of emission reduction” 

broadly to include building blocks 2 and 3 (so that the “best 

system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” may 

include those measures as long as they meet all of the 

applicable requirements) is also consistent with the purposes of 

the CAA. Most importantly, these purposes include protecting 

public health and welfare by comprehensively addressing air 

pollution, and, particularly, protecting against urgent and 

 

540 See 44 FR 33580, 33597-33600 (taking into account “the amount 

of power that could be purchased from neighboring interconnected 

utility companies” and noting that “[a]lmost all electric 

utility generating units in the United States are electrically 

interconnected through power transmission lines and switching 

stations” and that “load can usually be shifted to other 

electric generating units”). 

541 47 FR 3767, 3768 (Jan. 27, 1982). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 581 of 1546

severe threats. In addition, these purposes include promoting 

pollution prevention measures, as well as the advancement of 

technology that reduces air pollution. 

(a) Purpose of protecting public health and welfare 

The first provisions in the Clean Air Act set out Congress’s 

findings and the CAA’s purposes. They provide as follows, in 

relevant part: 

Section 101. Congressional findings and declaration of 

purpose 

(a) The Congress finds— 

* * * * 

(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of 

air pollution brought about by urbanization, 

industrial development, and the increasing use of 

motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to 

the public health and welfare * * * * 

(3) that air pollution prevention (that is, the 

reduction or elimination, through any measures, of the 

amount of pollutants produced or created at the 

source) and air pollution control at its source is the 

primary responsibility of States and local 

governments; and 

(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership 

is essential for the development of cooperative 

Federal, State, regional, and local programs to 

prevent and control air pollution. 

(b) The purposes of this title are— 

(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s 

air resources so as to promote the public health and 

welfare and the productive capacity of its population; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 582 of 1546

(2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and 

development program to achieve the prevention and 

control of air pollution; 

(3) to provide technical and financial assistance to 

State and local governments in connection with the 

development and execution of their air pollution 

prevention and control programs; and 

(4) to encourage and assist the development and 

operation of regional air pollution prevention and 

control programs. 

(c) POLLUTION PREVENTION.—A primary goal of this Act 

is to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable 

Federal, State, and local governmental actions, 

consistent with the provisions of this Act, for 

pollution prevention. 

As just quoted, these provisions are explicit that the 

purpose of the CAA is “to protect and enhance the quality of the 

Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and 

welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” 

Moreover, Congress designed the CAA to be “the comprehensive 

vehicle for protection of the Nation’s health from air 

pollution,”542 and, in fact, designed CAA section 111(d) to 

address air pollutants not covered under other provisions, 

specifically so that “there should be no gaps in control 

activities pertaining to stationary source emissions that pose 

 

542 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 42 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. 

Hist. at 2509 (discussing a provision in the House Committee 

bill that became CAA section 122, requiring the EPA to study and 

regulate radioactive air pollutants and three other air 

pollutants). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 583 of 1546

any significant danger to public health or welfare.”543

Furthermore, in these purpose provisions, Congress recognized 

that while pollution prevention and control are the primary 

responsibility of the States, “federal leadership” would be 

essential. 

At its core, Congress designed the CAA to address urgent 

and severe threats to public health and welfare. This purpose is 

evident throughout 1970 CAA Amendments, which authorized 

stringent remedies that were necessary to address those 

problems. By 1970, Congress viewed the air pollution problem, 

which had been worsening steadily as the nation continued to 

industrialize and as automobile travel dramatically increased 

after World War II,544 as nothing short of a national crisis.545

 

543 Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 420 (discussing section 114 of the Senate 

Committee bill, which was the basis for CAA section 111(d)). 

544 See Dewey, Scott Hamilton, Don’t Breathe the Air: Air 

Pollution and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945-1970 (Texas A&M 

University Press 2000). 

545 1970 was a significant year in environmental legislation, but 

it was also marked as “a year of environmental concern.” Sen. 

Muskie, Sen. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. 

Hist. at 223. By mid-1970, Congress recognized that “[o]ver 200 

million tons of contaminants [were] spilled into the air each 

year in America.... And each year these 200 million tons of 

pollutants endanger the health of [the American] people.” Id. at 

224. “Cities up and down the east coast were living under clouds 

of smog and daily air pollution alerts.” Sen. Muskie, Sen. 

Consideration of the Conference Rep. (Dec. 18, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 124. Put simply, America faced an “environmental 

crisis.” Sen. Muskie, Sen. Debate on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 584 of 1546

With the 1970 CAA Amendments, Congress enacted a stringent 

response, designed to match the severity of the problem. At the 

same time, Congress did not foreclose the EPA’s ability to 

address new environmental concerns; in fact, Congress largely 

deferred to the EPA’s expertise in identifying pollutants and 

sources that adversely affect public health or welfare. In doing 

so, Congress authorized the EPA to establish national ambient 

air quality standards for the most pervasive air pollutants -- 

including the precursors for the choking smog that blanketed 

urban areas546 --to protect public health with an ample margin of 

safety. Disappointed that the states had not taken effective 

action to that point to curb air pollution, “Congress reacted by 

 

1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 224. The conference agreement, it was 

reported, “faces the air pollution crisis with urgency and in 

candor. It makes hard choices, provides just remedies, requires 

stiff penalties.” Sen. Muskie, Sen. Consideration of the 

Conference Rep. (Dec. 18, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 123. 

“[I]t represents [Congress’] best efforts to act with the 

knowledge available ... in an affirmative but constructive 

manner.” Id. at 150. 

546 See Dewey, Scott Hamilton, Don’t Breathe the Air: Air 

Pollution and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945-1970 (Texas A&M 

University Press 2000) at 230 (“By the mid-1960s, top federal 

officials showed an increasing sense of alarm regarding the 

health effects of polluted air. In June, 1966, Secretary of 

Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner testified before 

the Muskie subcommittee: “We believe that air pollution at 

concentrations which are routinely sustained in urban areas of 

the United States is a health hazard to many, if not all, 

people.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 585 of 1546

taking a stick to the States”547 and including within the 1970 

CAA Amendments both the requirement that the states develop 

plans to assure that their air quality areas would meet those 

standards by no later than five years, and the threat of 

imposition of federal requirements if the states did not timely 

adopt the requisite plans. Congress also required the EPA to 

establish standards for hazardous air pollutants that could 

result in shutting sources down. Congress added stringent 

controls on automobiles, overriding industry objections that the 

standards were not achievable. In addition, Congress added CAA 

section 111(b), which required the EPA to list categories based 

on harm to public health and regulate new sources in those 

categories. Congress then designed CAA section 111(d) to assure, 

as the Senate Committee Report for the 1970 CAA Amendments 

noted, that “there should be no gaps in control activities 

pertaining to stationary source emissions that pose any 

significant danger to public health or welfare.”548 

 

547 Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 64 (1975). 548 Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA 

Legis. Hist. at 420 (discussing section 114 of the Senate 

Committee bill, which was the basis for CAA section 111(d)). 

Note that in the 1977 CAA Amendments, the House Committee Report 

made a similar statement. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 42 (May 12, 

1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 2509 (discussing a provision in 

the House Committee bill that became CAA section 122, requiring 

EPA to study and then take action to regulate radioactive air 

pollutants and three other air pollutants). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 586 of 1546

Similarly, the 1977 and 1990 CAA Amendments were also 

designed to respond to new and/or pressing environmental issues. 

For example, in 1977 then-EPA Administrator Costle testified 

before Congress that the expected increase in coal use (in 

response to various energy crises, including the 1973-74 Arab 

Oil Embargo) “will make vigorous and effective control even more 

urgent.”549 Similarly, by 1990, Congress recognized that “many of 

the Nation’s most important air pollution problems [had] failed 

to improve or [had] grown more serious.”550 Indeed, President 

George H. W. Bush said that “‘progress has not come quickly 

enough and much remains to be done.’”551 

Much remains to be done with climate change. We are now at 

a critical juncture to take meaningful action to curb the growth 

in CO2 emissions and forestall the impending consequences of 

 

549 Statement of Administrator Costle, Hearings before the 

Subcommittee on Energy Production and Supply of the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Apr. 5, 7, May 25, 

June 24 and 30, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 3532 (discussing 

the relationship between the National Energy Plan and the 

Administration’s proposed CAA amendments). Some of the specific 

changes to the CAA include the addition of the PSD program, 

visibility protections, requirements for nonattainment areas, 

and stratospheric ozone provisions. 

550 H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, at 144 (May 17, 1990). 551 H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, at 144 (May 17, 1990). Some of the 

changes adopted in 1990 include revisions to the NAAQS 

nonattainment program, a more aggressive and substantially 

revised CAA section 112, the new acid rain program, an operating 

permits program, and a program for phasing out of certain ozone 

depleting substances. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 587 of 1546

inaction. CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power 

plants are by far the largest source of stationary source 

emissions. They emit almost 3 times as much CO2 as do the next 9 

stationary source categories combined, and approximately the 

same amount of CO2 emissions from all of the nation’s mobile 

sources. The only controls available that can reduce CO2 

emissions from existing power plants in amounts commensurate 

with the problems they pose are the measures in building blocks 

2 and 3, or far more expensive measures such as CCS. 

Thus, interpreting the “system of emission reduction” 

provisions in CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1) to allow the 

nation to meaningfully address the urgent and severe public 

health and welfare threats that climate change pose is 

consistent with what the CAA was designed to do.552 This 

 

552 In addition, as we have noted, in designing the 1970 CAA 

Amendments, Congress was aware that carbon dioxide increased 

atmospheric temperatures. In 1970, when Congress learned that 

“the carbon dioxide balance might result in the heating up of 

the atmosphere” and that particulate matter “might cause 

reduction in radiation,” the Nixon Administration assured 

Congress that “[w]hat we are trying to do, however, in terms of 

our air pollution effort should have a very salutary effect on 

either of these.” Testimony of Charles Johnson, Jr., 

Administrator of the Consumer Protection and Environmental 

Health Service (Administration Testimony), Hearing of the House 

Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare (Mar. 16, 1970), 1970 

CAA Legis. Hist. at 1381. Many years later, scientific consensus 

has formed around the particular causes and effects of climate 

change; and the tools put in place in 1970 can be read fairly to 

address these concerns. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 588 of 1546

interpretation is also consistent with the cooperative purpose 

of section 111(d) to assure that the CAA comprehensively address 

those threats through the mechanism of state plans, where the 

states assume primary responsibility under federal leadership. 

See King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. (2015), No. 14-114 (2015), slip 

op. at 15 (“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their 

own stated purposes” (quoting New York State Dept. of Social 

Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 419-20 (1973)); id. at 21 (“A 

fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the 

legislative plan.”).553

 

553 This final rule is also consistent with the CAA’s purpose of 

protecting health and welfare. For example, the CAA authorizes 

the EPA to regulate air pollutants as soon as the EPA can 

determine that those pollutants pose a risk of harm, and not to 

wait until the EPA can prove that those pollutants actually 

cause harm. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 49 (May 12, 1977), 1977 

CAA Legis. Hist. at 2516 (describing the CAA as being 

designed... to assure that regulatory action can effectively 

prevent harm before it occurs; to emphasize the predominant 

value of protection of public health”).The protective spirit of 

the CAA extends to the present rule, in which the EPA regulates 

on the basis of building blocks 2 and 3 because the range of 

available and cost-effective measures in those building blocks 

achieves more pollution reduction than building block 1 alone. 

Indeed, add-on controls that are technically capable of reducing 

CO2 emissions at the scale necessitated by the severity of the 

environmental risk -– for example, CCS technology -- are not as 

cost-effective as building blocks 2 and 3 on an industry-wide 

basis, and while the costs of the add-on controls can be 

expected to be reduced over time, it is not consonant with the 

protective spirit of the CAA to wait. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 589 of 1546

 (b) Purpose of encouraging pollution prevention. 

Interpreting “system of emission reduction” to include building 

blocks 2 and 3 is also consistent with the CAA’s purpose to 

encourage pollution prevention. CAA section 101(c) states that 

“[a] primary goal of [the CAA] is to encourage or otherwise 

promote reasonable federal, state, and local governmental 

actions, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, for 

pollution prevention.” Indeed, in the U.S. Code, in which the 

CAA is codified as chapter 85, the CAA is entitled, “Air 

Pollution Prevention and Control.”554 CAA section 101(a)(3) 

describes “air pollution prevention” as “the reduction or 

elimination, through any measures, of the amount of pollutants 

produced or created at the source”. (Emphasis added.) The 

reference to “any measures” highlights the breadth of what 

Congress considered to be pollution prevention, that is, any and 

all measures that reduce or eliminate pollutants at the 

source.555 

 

554 See Air Quality Act of 1967, Pub. L. 90-148, § 2, 81 Stat. 

485 (Nov. 21, 1967) (adding “Title I—Air Pollution Prevention 

and Control” to the CAA, along with Congress’ initial findings 

and purposes under CAA section 101). 

555 Section 101 emphasizes the importance of air pollution 

prevention in two other provisions: CAA section 101(b)(4) states 

that one of “the purposes of [title I of the CAA, which includes 

section 111] are ... (b) to encourage and assist the development 

and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control 

programs.” CAA section 101(a)(3) adds: “The Congress finds -- 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 590 of 1546

The measures in building blocks 2 and 3 qualify as 

“pollution prevention” measures because they are “any measures” 

that “reduc[e] or eliminate[e] ... the amount of pollutants 

produced or created at the [fossil fuel-fired affected] 

source[s].” Thus, consistent with the CAA’s primary goals, it is 

therefore reasonable to interpret a “system of emission 

reduction,” as including the pollution prevention measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3. 

(c) Purpose of advancing technology to control air 

pollution. 

This final rule is also consistent with the purpose of CAA 

section 111 to promote the advancement of pollution control 

technology, based on the expectation that American industry will 

be able to develop innovative solutions to the environmental 

problems. 

 The legislative history and case law of CAA section 111 

identify three different ways that Congress designed CAA section 

111 to authorize standards of performance that promote 

technological improvement: (i) the development of technology 

that may be treated as the “best system of emission reduction 

 

... (3) that air pollution prevention ... and air pollution 

control at its source is the primary responsibility of states 

and local governments.” In fact, section 101 mentions pollution 

prevention no less than 6 times. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 591 of 1546

... adequately demonstrated;” under CAA section 111(a)(1);556

(ii) the expanded use of the best demonstrated technology;557 and 

(iii) the development of emerging technology.558 This rule is 

consistent with the second of those ways –- it expands the use 

of the measures in building blocks 2 and 3, which are already 

established and provide substantial reductions at reasonable 

cost. As discussed below, the use of the measures in these 

building blocks will be most fully expanded when organized 

markets develop, and our expectation that those markets will 

develop is consistent with the Congress’s view, just described, 

that CAA section 111 should promote technological innovation. 

This final rule is also consistent with Congress’s overall 

view that the CAA Amendments as a whole were designed to promote 

technological innovation. In enacting the CAA, Congress 

articulated its expectation that American industry would be 

creative and come up with innovative solutions to the urgent and 

severe problem of air pollution. This is manifest in the well-

 

556 See Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 

(D.C. Cir. 1973) (the best system of emission reduction must 

“look[] toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated 

future, rather than the state of the art at present”). 

557 See Sen. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 15 (“The maximum use of 

available means of preventing and controlling air pollution 

is essential to the elimination of new pollution 

problems”). 

558 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 351 (upholding a 

standard of performance designed to promote the use of an 

emerging technology). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 592 of 1546

recognized technology-forcing nature of the CAA, and was 

expressed in numerous, sometimes ringing, statements in the 

legislative history about the belief that American industry will 

be able to develop the needed technology. For example, in the 

1970 floor debates, Congress recalled that the nation had put a 

man on the moon a year before and had won World War II a quarter 

century earlier, and attributed much of the credit for those 

singular achievements to American industry and its ability to be 

productive and innovative. Congress expressed confidence that 

American industry could meet the challenges of developing air 

pollution controls as well.559 

(d) Response to commenters concerning purpose. Commenters 

have stated that the proposed rule “would transform CAA section 

111 into something untethered to its statutory language and 

 

559 Sen. Muskie, Sen. Debates on S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 

CAA Legis. Hist. at 227 (“At the beginning of World War II 

industry told President Roosevelt that his goal of 100,000 

planes each year could not be met. The goal was met, and the war 

was won. And in 1960, President Kennedy said that America would 

land a man on the moon by 1970. And American industry did what 

had to be done. Our responsibility in Congress is to say that 

the requirements of this bill are what the health of the Nation 

requires, and to challenge polluters to meet them.”). See 

Blaime, A.J., The Arsenal of Democracy: FDR, Detroit, and an 

Epic Quest to Arm an America at War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 

2014); Carew, Michael G., Becoming the Arsenal: The American 

Industrial Mobilization for World War II, 1938-1942 (University 

Press of America, Inc. 2010). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 593 of 1546

unrecognizable to the Congress that created it.”560 Commenters 

with this line of comments focused on the ramifications of 

building block 4, which the EPA has decided does not belong in 

BSER using EPA’s historic interpretation of BSER. Regardless of 

whether the comments are accurate with respect to building block 

4 measures, they are certainly not accurate with respect to the 

three building blocks that the EPA is defining as the BSER. 

This rule would be recognizable to the Congresses that created 

and amended CAA section 111 and is carefully fashioned to the 

statutory text in CAA section 111(d) and (a)(1). This final rule 

would be recognizable to the Congress that adopted CAA section 

111 in 1970 as part of a bold,far-reaching law designed to 

address comprehensively an air pollution crisis that threatened 

the health of millions of Americans; to have EPA and the States 

work cooperatively to develop state-specific approaches to 

address a national problem;; to challenge industry to meet that 

crisis with the same creative energy that won World War II; and 

to give the EPA broad authority –- under section 111 and other 

provisions –- to craft the needed emission limitations. This 

final rule would be recognizable to the Congress that revised 

 

560 UARG comment at 31. See id. at 18, 29, 49. This comment 

appears to be a reference to the Supreme Court’s statement in 

UARG. See Util. Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 

(2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 594 of 1546

CAA section 111 in 1977 to explicitly authorize that standards 

be based on actions taken by third parties (fuel cleaners). And 

this final rule would be recognizable to the Congress that 

revised CAA section 111 in 1990 to be linked to the Acid Rain 

Program that Congress adopted at the same time, which regulated 

the same industry (fossil fuel-fired EGUs) through some of the 

same measures (generation shifts and renewable energy), and that 

explicitly acknowledged that those measures (renewable energy) 

would also reduce carbon dioxide and thereby address the dangers 

of climate change. To reiterate, for the reasons explained in 

this preamble, this rule is grounded in our reasonable 

interpretation of CAA section 111(d) and (a)(1). 

(9) Response to comments concerning building blocks 2 and 3 

as precedents. 

Commenters expressed concern that reliance on building 

blocks 2 and 3 would set a precedent for the EPA to rely on 

similar measures in promulgating future air pollution 

controls.561 For example, commenters asserted that the EPA could 

“develop standards of performance for tailpipe emissions from 

motor vehicles” by “requiring car owners to shift some of their 

 

561 Most of the commenters’ concerns over what they viewed as the 

precedential effects of the building blocks concerned building 

block 4. Because the EPA is not finalizing building block 4 as 

part of the BSER, it is not necessary to address those concerns. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 595 of 1546

travel to buses,” which the commenters considered analogous to 

building block 2; “or by requiring there to be more electric 

vehicle purchases,” which the commenters considered analogous to 

building block 3.562

As discussed above, the emission limits in the CAA section 

111(d) emission guidelines that this rule promulgates are based 

on the EPA’s determination, for the affected EGUs, of the 

“system of emission reduction” that is the “best,” taking into 

account “cost” and other factors, and that is “adequately 

demonstrated.” Those components include certain interpretations 

and applications. For example, because the affected EGUs must be 

able to achieve their emission standards through application of 

the BSER, the BSER must be something that the EGUs themselves 

can implement. Likewise, because the emission standards must 

apply to the affected source category, actions taken by affected 

sources that do not result in emission reductions from the 

source category –- that is, offsets (e.g., the planting of 

forests to sequester CO2) –- do not qualify for inclusion in the 

BSER. Furthermore, under the EPA’s historic and continuing 

interpretation of section 111, BSER focuses on supply-side, not 

demand-side, measures for reducing emissions. Because the 

comment examples cited above are demand-side measures, they are 

 

562 UARG comment at 2-3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 596 of 1546

not within the section 111 interpretive paradigm that underlies 

today’s action. Additionally, under this rule, the affected 

sources that are the subject of the emission guidelines can 

employ the BSER to achieve the emission limits that the 

guidelines prescribe. 

For the reasons discussed, building blocks 2 and 3 meet the 

definition of the BSER, as it has been interpreted and applied. 

As a result, they qualify as part of the basis for the emission 

limits in the emission guidelines promulgated in this rule. 

Moreover, as also discussed, the affected EGUs may meet those 

limits by implementing the BSER, including the measures in 

building blocks 2 and 3. Commenters’ concerns over precedential 

impact cannot be taken to mean that the building blocks should 

not be considered to meet the requirements of the BSER or that 

the affected EGUs cannot be considered to meet the emission 

limits by implementing those measures. 

Moreover, the application of building blocks 2 and 3 to 

affected EGUs has a number of unique characteristics that 

negate, or at least significantly limit their precedential 

impact. Building blocks 2 and 3 entail the production of the 

same amount of the same product -- electricity, a highly 

substitutable product that can be produced using a variety of 

generation processes -- through the cleaner (that is, less CO2-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 597 of 1546

intensive) processes of shifting dispatch from steam generators 

to existing NGCC units, and from both steam generators and NGCC 

units to renewable generators. 

The physical properties of electricity and the highly 

integrated nature of the electricity system allow the use of 

these cleaner processes to generate the same amount of 

electricity. In addition, the electricity sector is primarily 

domestic -- little electricity is exported outside the U.S. -- 

and there is low capacity for storage. In addition, the 

electricity sector is highly regulated, planned, and 

coordinated. As a result, holding demand constant, an increase 

in one type of generation will result in a decrease in another 

type of generation. Moreover, the higher-emitting generators, 

which are fossil fuel-fired, have higher variable costs than 

renewable generators, so that increased renewable generation 

will generally back out fossil fuel-fired generation. 

Because of these characteristics, the electricity sector 

has a long and well-established history of substituting one type 

of generation for another. This has occurred for a wide variety 

of reasons, many of which are directly related to the system’s 

primary purposes and functions, as well as for environmental 

reasons. As a result, at present, there is a well-established 

network of business and operational relationships and past 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 598 of 1546

practices that supports building blocks 2 and 3. As noted 

elsewhere, a large segment of steam generators already have 

business relationships with existing NGCC units, and a large 

segment of all fossil fuel-fired EGUs already own, co-own, or 

have invested in renewable energy. 

Many of these characteristics are unique to the utility 

power sector. Moreover, this complex of characteristics, ranging 

from the physical properties of electricity and the integrated 

nature of the grid to the institutional mechanisms that assure 

reliability and the existing practices and business 

relationships in the industry, combine to facilitate the 

implementation of building blocks 2 and 3 in a uniquely 

efficient manner. This supports basing the emission limits on 

the ability of owners and operators of fossil fuel-fired EGUs to 

replace their generation with cleaner generation in other 

locations, sometimes owned by other entities. 

 Because many of these individual characteristics, and their 

inherent complexity, are unique to the utility power sector, 

building blocks 2 and 3 as applied to fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

will have a limited precedent for other industries and other 

types of rulemakings. For example, the commenter’s examples 

noted above are inapposite for several reasons. Title II 

standards are based on “the application of technology which the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 599 of 1546

Administrator determines will be available for the model 

year...,” which is a narrower standard than the “best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” Moreover, the 

examples offered by commenters appear to be premised on 

government action mandating actions not implementable by 

emitting sources (e.g., that a government would “require[e] car 

owners to shift some of their travel to buses, or ... require[e] 

there to be more electric vehicle purchases”), whereas the 

measures in building blocks 2 and 3 can be implemented by the 

affected EGUs. 

4. Relationship between a source’s implementation of building 

blocks 2 and 3 and its emissions. 

In this section, we discuss the relationship between an 

affected EGU’s implementation of the measures in building blocks 

2 and 3 and that affected EGU’s own generation and emissions. As 

discussed above, an affected EGU subject to a CAA section 111(d) 

state plan that imposes an emission rate-based standard may 

achieve that standard in part by implementing the measures in 

building block 2 (for a steam generator) and building block 3 

(for a steam generator or combustion turbine). That is, an 

affected EGU may invest in low- or zero-emitting generation and 

may apply credits from that generation against its emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 600 of 1546

rate. Those credits reduce the affected EGU’s emission rate and 

thereby help it to achieve its emission limit. 

In addition, the additional low- or zero-emitting 

generation that results from the affected EGU’s investment will 

generally displace higher-emitting generation. This is because, 

as described above, higher-emitting generation generally has 

higher variable costs, reflecting its fuel costs, than, at 

least, zero-emitting generation. Displacement of higher-emitting 

generation will lower overall CO2 emissions from the source 

category of affected EGUs. 

If an affected EGU implements building block 2 or 3 by 

reducing its own generation, it will reduce its own emissions. 

However, the affected EGU may also or alternatively choose to 

implement building block 2 or 3 by investing in lower- or zeroemitting generation that does not, in and of itself, reduce the 

amount of its own generation or emissions. Even so, 

implementation of building blocks 2 and 3 will reduce CO2 from 

some affected EGUs, and therefore reduce CO2 on a source 

category-wide basis. 

This outcome is, however, consistent with the requirements 

of CAA section 111(d)(1) and (a)(1). To reiterate, CAA section 

111(d)(1) requires that “any existing source” have a “standard 

of performance,” defined under CAA section 111(a)(1) as “a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 601 of 1546

standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the 

degree of emission limitation achievable through the application 

of the best system of emission reduction ... adequately 

demonstrated [BSER] ....” These provisions require by their 

terms that “any existing source” must have a “standard of 

performance,” but nothing in these provisions requires a 

particular amount –- or, for that matter, any amount -- of 

emission reductions from each and every existing source. That 

the “standard of performance” is defined on the basis of the 

“degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the [BSER]” does not mean that each affected EGU 

must achieve some amount of emission reduction, for the 

following reasons. 

The cornerstone of the definition of the term “standard of 

performance” is the BSER. In determining the BSER, the EPA must 

consider the amount of emission reduction that the system may 

achieve, and must consider the ability of the affected EGUs to 

achieve the emission limits that result from the application of 

the BSER. The EPA is authorized to include in the BSER, for this 

source category, the measures in building blocks 2 and 3 

because, when applied to the source category, these measures 

result in emission standards that may be structured to ensure 

overall emission reductions from the source category and remain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 602 of 1546

achievable by the affected EGUs. This remains so regardless of 

whether the “degree of emission limitation achievable through 

the application of the [BSER]” by any particular source results 

in actual emission reductions from that source. 

The application of the building blocks has an impact that 

is similar to that of an emissions trading program, under which, 

overall, the affected sources reduce emissions, but any 

particular source does not need to reduce its emissions and, in 

fact, may increase its emissions, as long as it purchases 

sufficient credits or allowances from other sources. In fact, we 

expect that that many states will carry out their obligations 

under this rule by imposing standards of performance that 

incorporate trading or other multi-entity generation-replacement 

strategies. Indeed, any emission rate-based standard may not 

necessarily result in emission reductions from any particular 

affected source (or even all of the affected sources in the 

category) as a result of the ability of the particular source 

(or even all of them) to increase its production and, therefore, 

its emissions, even while maintaining the required emission 

rate. 

5. Reduced generation and the BSER 

In the proposed rulemaking, we described the BSER as the 

measures included in building block 1 as well the set of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 603 of 1546

measures included in building blocks 2, 3 and 4 or, in the 

alternative, reduced generation or utilization by the affected 

EGUs in the amount of building blocks 2, 3 and 4. In this final 

rule, based on the comments and further evaluation, we are 

refining our approach to the BSER. Specifically, we are 

determining the BSER as the measures included in building block 

1, as well as the set of measures included in building blocks 2 

and 3, the latter of which sources may implement by choosing 

from a number of methods, including reduced generation. Reduced 

generation is a means of implementing building blocks 2 and 3 

because of the unique characteristics of this industry, which 

tie it closely to the measures in building blocks 2 and 3. The 

amount of generation from the increased utilization of existing 

NGCC units determines a portion of the amount of reduced 

generation that affected fossil fuel-fired steam EGUs could 

undertake to achieve building block 2, and the amount of 

generation from the use of expanded lower- or zero-emitting 

generating capacity that could be provided, determines a portion 

of the amount of reduced generation that affected fossil fuelfired steam EGUs, as well as the entire amount of reduced 

generation that affected NGCC units could undertake to implement 

building blocks 2 and 3. This section discusses the reasons that 

reduced generation is one of the set of reasonable and well-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 604 of 1546

established actions that an affected EGU can implement to 

achieve its emission limits. We are not finalizing our proposal 

that reduced generation may itself be considered the BSER, for 

the reason that reduced generation does not fit within our 

historic and current interpretation of the BSER. Specifically, 

reduced generation is about changing the amount of product 

produced rather than producing the same product with a process 

that has fewer emissions. 

a. Background. As noted, for both rate-based and mass-based 

state plans, affected EGUs may take a set of actions to comply 

with their emission standards. An affected EGU may comply with 

an emission rate-based standard (e.g., a limit on the amount of 

CO2 per MWh) by acquiring, through one means or another, credits 

from lower- or zero-emitting generation (building blocks 2 or 3) 

to reduce its emission rate for compliance purposes. In 

addition, the affected EGU may reduce its generation, and if it 

does so, it then needs to acquire fewer of those credits to meet 

its emission rate.563 Under these circumstances, the affected EGU 

would in effect replace part of its higher-emitting generation 

 

563 An affected EGU that is subject to an emission rate, e.g., 

pounds of CO2 per MWh generated, cannot achieve that rate simply 

by reducing its generation (unless it shuts down, in which case 

it would achieve a zero emission rate). This is because although 

reducing generation results in fewer emissions, it does not, by 

itself, result in fewer emissions per MWh generated. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 605 of 1546

with lower- or zero-emitting generation. On the other hand, an 

affected EGU that is subject to a mass-based standard -- for 

example, a requirement to hold enough allowances to cover its 

emissions (e.g., one allowance for each ton of emissions in any 

year) -- may comply at least in part by reducing its generation 

and, thus, its emissions. Therefore, one type of action that an 

affected EGU may take to achieve either of these emission limits 

is to reduce its generation. Further, reduced generation offers 

a pathway to compliance in-and-of-itself. That is, a state may 

adopt a mass-based goal, assign mass-based standards to its 

sources, and those sources may comply with their mass-based 

limits by, in addition to implementing building block 1 

measures, reducing their generation in the appropriate amounts, 

and without taking any other actions. 

b. Well-established use of reduced generation to comply with 

environmental requirements. Reduced generation is a wellestablished method for fossil fuel-fired power plants to comply 

with their emission limits. 

 Reduced generation in the amounts contemplated in this rule 

reduces emissions from the affected sources, but because of the 

integrated and interconnected nature of the power sector, can be 

accommodated without significant cost or disruption. The 

electric transmission grid interconnects the nation’s generation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 606 of 1546

resources over large regions. Electric system operators 

coordinate, control, and monitor the electric transmission grid 

to ensure cost-effective and reliable delivery of power. These 

system operators continuously balance electricity supply and 

demand, ensuring that needed generation and/or demand resources 

are available to meet electricity demand. Diverse resources 

generate electricity that is transmitted and distributed through 

a complex system of interconnected components to end-use 

consumers. 

The electricity system was designed to meet these core 

functions. The three components of the electricity supply system 

-- generation, transmission and distribution -- coordinate to 

deliver electricity from the point of generation to the point of 

consumption. This interconnectedness is a fundamental aspect of 

the nation’s electricity system, requiring a complicated 

integration of all components of the system to balance supply 

and demand and a federal, state and local regulatory network to 

oversee the physically interconnected network. Electricity from 

a diverse set of generation resources such as natural gas, 

nuclear, coal and renewables is distributed over high-voltage 

transmission lines. The system is planned and operated to ensure 

that there are adequate resources to meet electricity demand 

plus additional available capacity over and above the capacity 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 607 of 1546

needed to meet normal peak demand levels. System operators have 

a number of resources potentially available to meet electricity 

demand, including electricity generated by electric generation 

units of various types as well as demand-side resources. 

Importantly, if generation is reduced from one generator, 

safeguards are in place to ensure that adequate supply is still 

available to meet demand. We describe these safeguards in the 

background section of this preamble. 

Both Congress and the EPA have recognized reduced 

generation as one of the measures that fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

may implement to reduce their emissions of air pollutants and 

thereby achieve emission limits.564 Congress, in enacting the 

allowance requirements in CAA Title IV, under which fossil fuelfired EGUs must hold an allowance for each ton of SO2 emitted, 

explicitly recognized that fossil fuel-fired EGUs could meet 

this requirement by reducing their generation. In fact, Congress 

anticipated that fossil fuel-fired EGUs may choose to comply 

 

564 More generally, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that in 

certain circumstances, the EPA has authority to require 

reductions in production as a means of ensuring compliance with 

legal requirements: under the PSD program, the court has 

determined that EPA is authorized to require that SIPs contain 

provisions to correct any violations of the PSD increments and 

EPA “may even require, in appropriate instances, the relatively 

severe correctives of a rollback in operations....” Alabama Power 

v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 363 (D.C.Cir. 1980). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 608 of 1546

with the SO2 emission limits by reducing utilization, and 

included provisions that specifically addressed reduced 

utilization. For example, CAA section 408(c)(1)(B) includes 

requirements for an owner or operator of an EGU that meets the 

Phase 1 SO2 reduction obligations and the NOx reduction 

obligations “by reducing utilization of the unit as compared 

with its baseline or by shutting down the unit.” 

The EPA has also recognized in several rulemakings limiting 

emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs that reduced generation is 

one of the methods of emission reduction that the EGUs were 

expected to rely on to achieve their emission limitations. 

Examples include rulemakings to impose requirements that sources 

implement BART to reduce their emissions of air pollutants that 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment. As explained 

earlier, for certain older stationary sources that cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment, including fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs, states must determine BART on the basis of five statutory 

factors, such as costs and energy and non-air quality impacts.565

In 1980, the EPA promulgated a regulatory definition of BART: 

“an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction 

achievable through the best system of continuous emission 

 

565 CAA section 169A(g)(2). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 609 of 1546

reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing 

stationary facility.”566 Both the statutory factors and the 

regulatory definition resemble the definition of the BSER under 

CAA section 111(a)(1) (although, as noted, the statutory 

definition of BART is more technology focused than the 

definition of BSER). In its regional haze SIP, the State of New 

York determined that BART for the NOX emissions from two coalfired boilers that served as peaking units was caps on baseline 

emissions rates and annual capacity factors of 5 percent and 10 

percent, respectively.567 

There have been numerous other instances in which fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs have reduced their generation, or placed limits 

on their generation, in order to achieve, or obviate, emission 

standards. In fact, there are numerous examples of EGUs that 

take restrictions on hours of operation in their permits for the 

purpose of avoiding CAA obligations, including avoiding 

triggering the requirements of the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), or 

Title V programs (including Title V fees), and avoiding 

triggering HAPs requirements. Such restrictions may also be 

 

566 40 C.F.R. § 51.301. 567 77 Fed. Reg. 24,794, 24,810 (Apr. 25, 2012). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 610 of 1546

taken to limit emissions of pollutants, such as limiting 

emissions of criteria pollutants for attainment purposes. 

More specifically, EPA’s regulations for a number of air 

programs expressly recognize that certain sources may take 

enforceable limits on hours of operation in order to avoid 

triggering CAA obligations that would otherwise apply to the 

source. Stationary sources that emit or have the potential to 

emit a pollutant at a level that is equal to or greater than 

specified thresholds are subject to major source requirements.568

A source may voluntarily obtain a synthetic minor limitation –- 

that is, a legally and practicably enforceable restriction that 

has the effect of limiting emissions below the relevant level -- 

to avoid triggering a major stationary source requirement.569

Such synthetic minor limits may be based on restrictions on the 

hours of operation, as provided in EPA’s regulations defining 

 

568 See, e.g., CAA sections 112(a)(1), 112(d)(1), 165(a), 169(1), 

172(c)(5), 173(a) &(c), 501(2), 502(a), 302(j). 

569 See, e.g., Memorandum from Terrell Hunt, Assoc. Enforcement 

Counsel, U.S. EPA, & John Seitz, Director, Stationary Source 

Compliance Div., U.S. EPA, Guidance on Limiting Potential to 

Emit in New Source Permitting, at 1-2, 6 (June 13, 1989), 

available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/lmitpotl.pdf 

(“Restrictions on production or operation that will limit 

potential to emit include limitations on quantities of raw 

materials consumed, fuel combusted, hours of operation, or 

conditions which specify that the source must install and 

maintain controls that reduce emissions to a specified emission 

rate or to a specified efficiency level.”) (emphasis added). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 611 of 1546

“potential to emit,” as well as on air pollution control 

equipment. “Potential to emit” is defined, for instance, in the 

regulations for the PSD program for permits issued under federal 

authority as: “the maximum capacity of a stationary source to 

emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any 

physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source 

to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment 

and restrictions on hours of operation ... shall be treated as 

part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have 

on emissions is federally enforceable,”570 or “legally and 

practicably enforceable by a state or local air pollution 

control agency.”571 The regulations for other air programs 

similarly recognize that potential to emit may be limited 

through restrictions on hours of operations in their 

corresponding definitions of “potential to emit.”572 These 

regulatory provisions make clear that restrictions on potential 

 

570 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4)(emphasis added). 571 John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, and Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of 

Regulatory Enforcement, Release of Interim Policy on Federal 

Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit, at 3 (Jan. 

22, 1996), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pottoemi.pdf. 

572 See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(4) (addressing SIP approved PSD 

programs), 51.165(a)(1)(iii) (addressing SIP approved NNSR 

programs), 70.2 (addressing title V operating permit programs), 

and 63.2 (addressing hazardous air pollutants). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 612 of 1546

to emit include both “air pollution control equipment” and 

“restrictions on hours of operation,” and indicate that these 

are equally cognizable means of restricting emissions to comply 

with, or avoid, CAA requirements.573 

As one of many examples of a fossil-fuel fired EGU taking 

restrictions on hours of operation for the purpose of avoiding 

CAA obligations, Manitowoc Public Utilities in Wisconsin 

obtained a title V renewal permit that limited the operating 

hours of the single simple-cycle combustion turbine to not more 

than 194 hours per month, averaged over any consecutive 12 month 

period, as part of limiting its potential to emit for volatile 

organic compounds below the title V threshold of 100 tpy, and 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide below the 

PSD threshold of 250 tpy.574 As another example, Sunbury 

 

573 See, e.g., 52.21(b)(4). 574 See Final Operation Permit No. 436123380-P10 for Manitowoc 

Public Utilities -- Custer Street (Wis. Dept. Nat. Res., 

8/19/2013), Condition ZZZ.1.a(1) at p. 9 (Limiting potential to 

emit) and n. 11 (“These conditions are established so that the 

potential emissions for volatile organic compounds will not 

exceed 99 tons per year and potential emissions for carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions from the 

facility will not exceed 249 tons per year.”). See also Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination for the Renewal of Operation 

Permit 436123380-P01 (Wis. Dept. Nat. Res., 5/21/2013) at p. 5 

(noting that the “existing facility is a major source under Part 

70 because potential emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides and carbon monoxide exceed 100 tons per year. The 

existing facility is a minor source under PSD and an area source 

of federal HAP” and further noting that after renewal, “the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 613 of 1546

Generation LP in Pennsylvania obtained a minor new source 

preconstruction permit, called a plan approval, for a repowering 

project from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection in 2013 that limited the hours of operation of three 

combined cycle combustion turbines that were planned for 

construction in order to remain below the significance threshold 

for GHGs.575 The Legal Memorandum includes numerous other 

examples of power plants accepting permit limits that reduce 

generation to meet, or avoid the need to meet, emission limits. 

There are several ways that an affected EGU may implement 

reduced generation. For example, an EGU may accept a permit 

requirement that specifically limits its operating hours. In 

addition, an EGU may treat the cost of its generation as 

including an additional amount associated with environmental 

 

facility will continue to be a major source under Part 70 

because potential emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides 

and carbon monoxide exceed 100 tons per year. The facility will 

also continue to be a minor source under PSD and an area source 

of federal HAP.”). 

575 See Plan Approval No. 55-00001E for Sunbury Generation LP 

(Pa. Dept. Env. Protection, 4/1/2013), Conditions #016 on pp. 

24, 32 and 40 (limiting turbine units to operating no more than 

7955, 6920, or 8275 hours in any 12 consecutive month period 

depending on which of three turbine options was selected); 

Memorandum from J. Piktel to M. Zaman, Addendum to Application 

Review Memo for the Repowering Project (Pa. Dept. Env. 

Protection, 4/1/2013) at p. 2 of 10 (noting that source had 

“calculated a maximum hours per year (12 consecutive month 

period) of operation for the sources proposed for each of the 

turbine options in order to remain below the significance 

threshold for GHGs.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 614 of 1546

impacts, which requires it to raise its bid price, so that the 

EGU is dispatched less. 

c. Other aspects of reduced generation. 

The amounts of increased existing NGCC generation and new 

renewables, in the amounts reflected in building blocks 2 and 3, 

can be substituted for generation at affected EGUs at reasonable 

cost. The NGCC capacity necessary to accomplish the levels of 

generation reduction proposed for building block 2 is already in 

operation or under construction. Moreover, it is reasonable to 

expect that the incremental resources reflected in building 

block 3 will develop at the levels requisite to ensure an 

adequate and reliable supply of electricity at the same time 

that affected EGUs may choose to reduce their CO2 emissions by 

means of reducing their generation. 

Reduced generation by affected EGUs, in the amounts that 

affected EGUs may rely on to comply with this rule, will not 

have adverse effects on the utility power sector. In light of 

the emission limits of this rule, because of the availability of 

the measures in building blocks 2 and 3, and because the grid is 

interconnected and the electricity system is highly planned, 

reductions in generation by fossil fuel-fired EGUs in the amount 

contemplated under this rule, and occurring over the lengthy 

time frames provided under this rule, will result in replacement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 615 of 1546

generation that generally is lower- or zero-emitting. Mechanisms 

are in place in both regulated and deregulated electricity 

markets to assure that substitute generation will become 

available and/or steps to reduce demand will be taken to 

compensate for reduced generation by affected EGUs. As a result, 

reduced generation will not give rise to reliability concerns or 

have other adverse effects on the utility power sector and are 

of reasonable cost for the affected source category and the 

nationwide electricity system.576 All these results come about 

because the operation of the electrical grid through integrated 

generation, transmission, and distribution networks creates 

substitutability for electricity and electricity services, which 

allows decreases in generation at affected fossil fuel-fired 

steam EGUs to be replaced by increases in generation at affected 

 

576 Although, as discussed in the text in this section of the 

preamble, we are not treating reduced generation as itself the 

BSER (because it does not meet our historic and current approach 

of defining the BSER to include methods that allow the same 

amount of production but with a lower-emitting process) we note 

that reduced generation meets the criteria for the BSER to the 

extent that, as the examples in the text and in the Legal 

Memorandum make clear, reduced generation is “adequately 

demonstrated” as a method of reducing emissions (because 

Congress and the EPA have recognized it and on numerous 

occasions, power plants have relied on it); is of reasonable 

cost; does not have adverse effects on energy requirements at 

the level of the individual affected source (because it does not 

require additional energy usage by the source) or the source 

category or the U.S.; and does not create adverse environmental 

problems. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 616 of 1546

NGCC units (building block 2) and allows decreases in generation 

at all affected EGUs to be replaced by increased generation at 

new lower- and zero-emitting EGUs (building block 3). Further, 

this substitutability increases over longer timeframes with the 

opportunity to invest in infrastructure improvements, and as 

noted elsewhere, this rule provides an extended state plan and 

source compliance horizon.577 

e. Comments concerning limiting principles. A commenter stated 

that “an interpretation of [‘system of emission reduction’] that 

relies primarily on reduced utilization has no clear limiting 

principle.”578 We disagree with this concern, for the following 

reasons. 

As discussed, in this final rule, we are identifying the 

BSER as the combination of the three building blocks. Building 

blocks 2 and 3 entail substitution of lower- or zero-emitting 

generation for higher-emitting generation, and one component of 

that substitution is reduced generation. Accordingly, our 

identification of the BSER in this final rule does not “rel[y] 

 

577 Although, as noted, it is not necessary to demonstrate that 

reduced generation meets the requirements for the BSER, this 

discussion make clear that reduced generation meets the BSER 

criteria of reducing emissions, being of reasonable cost, not 

having adverse implications for energy or non-air quality 

pollutants, and not resulting in adverse impacts on the utility 

power sector. 

578 EEI comment, at 284. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 617 of 1546

primarily” on reduced utilization as the BSER. Rather, the BSER 

is, in addition to building block 1, the substitution of loweror zero-emitting generation for higher emitting generation, and 

reduced utilization may be a way to implement that substitution 

and is one of numerous methods that affected EGUs may employ to 

achieve or help achieve the emission limits established by these 

emission guidelines.579 The commenter’s concerns over a perceived 

 

579 Indeed, load shifting -- as substitute generation is 

sometimes called -- is an “easy and fairly inexpensive strategy” 

that “may be used in conjunction with other control measures” 

for “emission reduction.” Donald S. Shepard, “A Load Shifting 

Model for Air Pollution Control in the Electric Power Industry,” 

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 20, No. 

11, p. 760 (Nov. 1970). In fact, load shifting has been 

recognized as a pollution control technique as early as 1968, 

when it was included in the “Chicago Air Pollution System Model” 

for controlling incidents of extremely high pollution. E.J. 

Croke, et al., “Chicago Air Pollution System Model, Third 

Quarterly Progress Report,” Chicago Department of Air Pollution 

Control, p. 186 (1968) (discussing the feasibility of “Control 

by Load Reduction” in combination with load shifting as applied 

to the Commonwealth Edison Company), available at 

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4827809. The report 

also considered “combining fuel switching and load reduction” as 

a possible air pollution abatement technique. See id. at 188. 

The report recognized, as an initial matter, that the 

Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) was “constrained to meet the 

total load demand” but that “load reduction at one plant or even 

a number of plants is usually feasible by shifting the power 

demand to other plants in the system.” Id. As a result, the 

report noted, “load shifting within the physical limits of the 

CECO system ... may be a highly desirable control mechanism.” 

Id. The report also predicted that “[i]n the future, it may be 

possible to form reciprocal agreements to obtain ‘pollution 

abatement’ power from neighbor companies during a pollution 

incident and return this borrowed power at some later date.” Id.

at 187. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 618 of 1546

lack of a limiting principle cannot be taken to mean that 

reduced generation cannot be considered to be a method for 

affected EGUs to achieve their emission limits. 

Moreover, reduced generation, as applied to affected EGUs 

in this rule, is limited in a number of respects. The amount of 

reduced generation is the amount of replacement generation that 

is lower- or zero- emitting, that is of reasonable cost, that 

can be generated without jeopardizing reliability, and that 

meets the other requirements for the BSER. As discussed, that 

amount is the amount of generation in building blocks 2 and 3.580

Finally, as discussed, the integrated nature of the 

electricity system, coupled with the high substitutability of 

electricity, allows EGUs to reduce their generation without 

adversely affecting the availability of their product. Those 

characteristics facilitate replacement of generation that has 

been reduced, and for that reason, EGUs have a long history of 

reducing their generation and either replacing it directly or 

having it replaced through the operation of the interconnected 

electricity system through measures similar to those in building 

 

580 The EPA notes that affected EGUs are not actually required to 

collectively reduce generation by the amount represented in the 

BSER, and may collectively reduce generation by more or less 

than that amount. Individual affected EGUs are free to choose 

reduced generation or other means of reducing emissions, as 

permitted by their state plans, in order to achieve the 

standards of performance established for them by their states. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 619 of 1546

blocks 2 and 3. Thus, an EGU can either directly replace its 

generation, or simply reduce its generation, and in the latter 

case, the integrated grid, combined with the high degree of 

planning and various reliability safeguards, will result in 

entities providing replacement generation. This means that 

consumers receive exactly the same amount of the same product, 

electricity, after the reduced generation that they received 

before it. No other industry is both physically interconnected 

in this manner and manufactures such a highly substitutable 

product; as a result, the use of reduced generation is not 

easily transferrable to another industry. 

6. Reasons that this rule is within the EPA’s statutory 

authority and does not represent over-reaching. 

In this section, we respond to adverse comments that the 

EPA is overreaching in this rulemaking by attempting to direct 

the energy sector. These commenters construed the proposed 

rulemaking as the EPA proposing to mandate the implementation of 

the measures in the building blocks, including investment in 

renewable energy and implementation of a broad range of state 

and utility demand-side energy efficiency programs. Commenters 

added that in some instances, the affected EGUs and states would 

have no choice but to take the actions in the building blocks 

because they would not otherwise be able to achieve their 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 620 of 1546

emission standards. Commenters also emphasized that with the 

proposed portfolio approach, the rule would impose federally 

enforceable requirements on a wide range of entities that do not 

emit CO2 and have not previously been subject to CAA regulation. 

Commenters cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s statements in Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG)581 that caution an agency 

against interpreting its statutory authority in a way that 

“would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in 

[its] regulatory authority without clear congressional 

authorization,” and that add, “When an agency claims to discover 

in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a 

significant portion of the American economy,’ ... we typically 

greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.”582

Commenters assert that in this rule, the EPA is taking the 

actions that the UARG opinion cautioned against. For the reasons 

discussed below, these comments are incorrect and misunderstand 

fundamental aspects of this rule. In addition, to the extent 

these comments address either building block 4 or the portfolio 

approach they are moot, because the EPA is not finalizing those 

elements of the proposal. 

 

581 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). 582 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 

(2014) (citations omitted). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 621 of 1546

In this rule, the EPA is following the same approach that 

it uses in any rulemaking under CAA section 111(d), which is 

designed to regulate the air pollutants from the source category 

at issue. First, the EPA identifies the BSER to reduce harmful 

air pollution. Second, based on the BSER, the EPA promulgates 

emission guidelines, which generally take the form of emission 

rates applicable to the affected sources. In this case, the EPA 

is promulgating a uniform CO2 emission performance rate for 

steam-generating EGUs and a uniform CO2 emission performance rate 

for combustion turbines, and the EPA is translating those rates 

into a combined emission rate and mass limit for each state. 

These emission guidelines serve as the guideposts for state plan 

requirements. The states, in turn, promulgate standards of 

performance and, in doing so, retain significant flexibility 

either to promulgate rate-based emission standards that mirror 

the emission performance rates in the guidelines, promulgate 

rate-based emission standards that are equivalent to the 

emission performance rates in the guidelines, or promulgate 

equivalent mass-based emission standards. The sources, in turn, 

are required to comply with their emission standards, and may do 

so through any means they choose. Alternatively, the state may 

adopt the state-measures approach, which provides additional 

flexibility. 

Deleted: equivalent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 622 of 1546

Thus, the EPA is not requiring that the affected EGUs take 

any particular action, such as implementation of the building 

blocks. Rather, as just explained, the EPA is regulating the 

affected EGUs’ emissions by requiring that the state submit 

state plans that achieve specified emission performance levels. 

The states may choose from a wide range of emission limits to 

impose on their sources, and the sources may choose from a wide 

range of compliance options to achieve their emission limits. 

Those options include various means of implementing the building 

blocks as well as numerous other compliance options, ranging 

from -- depending in part on whether the state imposes a ratebased or mass-based emission limit -- implementation of demandside energy efficiency measures to natural gas co-firing.583 

As some indication of the diverse set of actions we expect 

to comply with the requirements of this rule, we note that 

demand-side energy efficiency programs, in particular, are 

 

583 In fact, the EPA is expressly precluded from mandating 

specific controls except in certain limited circumstances. See 

42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(5). For instance, the EPA is authorized to 

mandate a particular “design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination thereof,” when it is “not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance” for 

new sources. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(h)(1). CAA section 111(h) also 

highlights for us that while “design, equipment, work practice, 

or operational standards” may be directly mandated by the EPA, 

CAA section 111(a)(1) encompasses a broader suite of measures 

for consideration as the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 623 of 1546

expected to be a significant compliance method, in light of 

their low costs. In addition, the National Association of Clean 

Air Agencies (NACAA) has issued a report that provides a 

detailed discussion of 25 approaches to CO2 reduction in the 

electricity sector.584 In addition, we note that the nine RGGI 

states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont -– have 

indicated that they intend to maintain their current state 

programs, which this rule would allow, and there are reports 

that other states may seek to join RGGI.585 Similarly, California 

has indicated that it intends to maintain its current state 

program, which this rule would allow. Other states could employ 

the types of methods used in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, or 

Minnesota, described in the background section of this preamble. 

As a practical matter, we expect that for some affected 

EGUs, implementation of the building blocks will be the most 

attractive option for compliance. This does not mean, contrary 

 

584 NACAA, “Implementing EPA’s Clean Power Plan: A Menu of 

Options (May 2015) 

http://www.4cleanair.org/NACAA_Menu_of_Options. NACAA describes 

itself as “the national, non-partisan, non-profit association of 

air pollution control agencies in 41 states, the District of 

Columbia, four territories and 116 metropolitan areas.” Id. 585 Martinson, Erica, “Cap and trade lives on through the 

states,” Politico (May 27, 2014) 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/cap-and-trade-states107135.html 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 624 of 1546

to the adverse comments noted above, that this rule constitutes 

a redesign of the energy sector. As discussed above, the 

building blocks meet the criteria to be part of the best system 

of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated. The fact that 

some sources will implement the building blocks and that this 

may result in changes in the electricity sector does not mean 

that the building blocks cannot be considered the BSER under CA 

section 111(d). 

In this rule, as with all CAA section 111(d) rules, the EPA 

is not directly regulating any entities. Moreover, the EPA is 

not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach. Accordingly, the 

EPA is neither requiring nor authorizing the states to regulate 

non-affected EGUs in their CAA section 111(d) plans.586

Moreover, contrary to adverse comments, this rule does not 

require the States to adopt a particular type of energy policy 

or implement particular types of energy measures. Under this 

rule, a state may comply with its obligations by adopting the 

emission standards approach to its state plan and imposing ratebased or mass-based emission standards on its affected EGUs. In 

this manner, this rule is consistent with prior section 111(d) 

rulemaking actions, in which the states have complied by 

 

586 A state may regulate non-EGUs as part of a state measures 

approach, but those measures would not be federally enforceable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 625 of 1546

promulgating one or both of those types of standards of 

performance. In this rulemaking, as an alternative, the state 

may adopt the state measures approach, under which the State 

could, if it wishes, adopt particular types of energy measures 

that would lead to reductions in emissions from its EGUs. But 

again, this rule does not require the state to implement a 

particulate type of energy policy or adopt particular types of 

energy measures. 

It is certainly reasonable to expect that compliance with 

these air pollution controls will have costs, and those costs 

will affect the electricity sector by discouraging generation of 

fossil fuel-fired electricity and encouraging less costly 

alternative means of generating electricity or reducing demand. 

But for affected EGUs, air pollution controls necessarily entail 

costs that affect the electricity sector and, in fact, the 

entire nation, regardless of what BSER the EPA identifies as the 

basis for the controls. For example, had some type of add-on 

control such as CCS been identified as the BSER for coal-fired 

EGUs, sources that complied by installing that control would 

incur higher costs. As a result, generation from coal-fired EGUs 

would be expected to decrease and be replaced at least in part 

by generation from existing NGCC units and new renewables 

Deleted: available

Commented [A40]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 626 of 1546

because those forms of generation would see their competitive 

positions improved. 

This basic fact that the EPA regulations of air pollutants 

from affected EGUs invariably affect the utility sector is wellrecognized and in no way indicates that such regulations exceed 

the EPA’s authority. In revising CAA section 111 in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress explicitly acknowledged that the EPA’s 

rules under CAA section 111 for EGUs would significantly impact 

the energy sector.587 The Courts have recognized that, too. The 

U.S. Supreme Court, in its 2011 decision that the CAA and the 

EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right 

to seek abatement of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel fired power 

plants, emphasized that CAA section 111 authorizes the EPA –- 

which the Court identified as the “expert agency” -– to regulate 

CO2 emissions from these sources in a manner that balances “our 

 

587 The D.C. Circuit acknowledged this legislative history in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 657 F.2d 298, 331 (D.C. Cir. 1981). There, 

the Court stated: 

[T]he Reports from both Houses on the Senate and House 

bills illustrate very clearly that Congress itself was 

using a long-term lens with a broad focus on future 

costs, environmental and energy effects of different 

technological systems when it discussed section 111. 

[Citing S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 

(1977), 3 Leg. Hist. 1371; H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 188 (1977), 4 Leg. Hist. 2465.] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 627 of 1546

Nation’s energy needs and the possibility of economic 

disruption:” 

The appropriate amount of regulation in any particular 

greenhouse gas-producing sector cannot be prescribed 

in a vacuum: as with other questions of national or 

international policy, informed assessment of competing 

interests is required. Along with the environmental 

benefit potentially achievable, our Nation's energy 

needs and the possibility of economic disruption must 

weigh in the balance. 

The [CAA] entrusts such complex balancing to EPA 

in the first instance, in combination with state 

regulators. Each “standard of performance” EPA sets 

must “tak[e] into account the cost of achieving 

[emissions] reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy requirements.” § 

7411(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (d)(1); see also 40 C.F.R. § 

60.24(f) (EPA may permit state plans to deviate from 

generally applicable emissions standards upon 

demonstration that costs are “[u]n-reasonable”). EPA 

may “distinguish among classes, types, and sizes” of 

stationary sources in apportioning responsibility for 

emissions reductions. § 7411(b)(2), (d); see also 40 

C.F.R. § 60.22(b)(5). And the agency may waive 

compliance with emission limits to permit a facility 

to test drive an “innovative technological system” 

that has “not [yet] been adequately demonstrated.” § 

7411(j)(1)(A). The Act envisions extensive cooperation 

between federal and state authorities, see § 7401(a), 

(b), generally permitting each state to take the first 

cut at determining how best to achieve EPA emissions 

standards within its domain, see § 7411(c)(1), (d)(1)-

(2). 

It is altogether fitting that Congress designated 

an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve 

as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The 

expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job 

than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, caseby-case injunctions.588

 

588 American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 

2539-40 (2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 628 of 1546

Similarly, the D.C. Circuit, in its 1981 decision upholding the 

EPA’s rules to reduce SO2 emissions from new coal-fired EGUs 

under the version of CAA section 111(b) adopted in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, stated: 

[S]ection 111 most reasonably seems to require that 

EPA identify the emission levels that are “achievable” 

with “adequately demonstrated technology.” After EPA 

makes this determination, it must exercise its 

discretion to choose an achievable emission level 

which represents the best balance of economic, 

environmental, and energy considerations. It follows 

that to exercise this discretion EPA must examine the 

effects of technology on the grand scale in order to 

decide which level of control is best.... The standard 

is, after all, a national standard with long-term 

effects.589

The D.C. Circuit added: “Regulations such as those involved here 

demand a careful weighing of cost, environmental, and energy 

considerations. They also have broad implications for national 

economic policy.”590 This rule has “economic, environmental, and 

 

589 Sierra Club v. EPA, 657 F.2d 298, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 590 Sierra Club v. EPA, 657 F.2d 298, 406 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The 

Court supported this statement with a lengthy quotation from a 

scholarly article, which stated, in part: 

Consider for a moment the chain of collective 

decisions and their effects just in the case of 

electric utilities. Petroleum imports can be conserved 

by switching from oil-fired to coal-fired generation. 

But barring other measures, burning high-sulfur 

Eastern coal substantially increases pollution. Sulfur 

can be “scrubbed” from coal smoke in the stack, but at 

a heavy cost, with devices that turn out huge volumes 

of sulfur wastes that must be disposed of and about 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 629 of 1546

energy” impacts, as Congress and the Courts expect in a CAA 

section 111 rule, but those impacts do not mean that the EPA is 

precluded from promulgating the rule. 

 As noted above, in this rule, to control CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs, the EPA first considered more traditional air 

pollution control measures, including supply-side efficiency 

improvements, fuel-switching (for CO2 emissions, that entails cofiring with natural gas), and add-on controls (for CO2 emissions, 

that entails CCS). However, it became apparent that even if the 

 

whose reliability there is some question. Intermittent 

control techniques (installing high smokestacks and 

switching off burners when meteorological conditions 

are adverse) can, at lower cost, reduce local 

concentrations of sulfur oxides in the air, but cannot 

cope with the growing problem of sulfates and 

widespread acid rainfall. Use of low-sulfur Western 

coal would avoid many of these problems, but this coal 

is obtained by strip mining. Strip-mining reclamation 

is possible, but substantially hindered in large areas 

of the West by lack of rainfall. Moreover, in some 

coal-rich areas the coal beds form the underground 

aquifer and their removal could wreck adjacent farming 

or ranching economies. Large coal-burning plants might 

be located in remote areas far from highly populated 

urban centers in order to minimize the human effects 

of pollution. But such areas are among the few left 

that are unspoiled by pollution and both 

environmentalists and the residents (relatively few in 

number compared with those in metropolitan localities 

but large among the voting population in the 

particular states) strongly object to this policy. 

Id. at 406 n. 526. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 630 of 1546

EPA could have finalized those controls as the BSER591 and 

established the same uniform CO2 emission performance rates, the 

affected EGUs would rely on less expensive ways to achieve their 

emission limits. Specifically, instead of relying on co-firing 

and CCS, the affected EGUs generally would replace their 

generation with lower- or zero-emitting generation– the measures 

in building blocks 2 and 3 -- because those measures are 

significantly less expensive and already well-established as 

pollution control measures. Indeed, some affected EGUs have 

stated that while they oppose including in the BSER generation 

shifts to lower- or zero-emitting sources (or, as proposed, 

demand-side energy efficiency), they request that those measures 

be available for compliance, which indicates their interest in 

implementing those measures.592

We expect that many sources will choose to comply with 

their emission limits through the measures in building blocks 2 

and 3, but contrary to the assertions of some commenters, this 

 

591 For the reasons explained, we did not finalize those measures 

because significantly less expensive control measures -- 

building blocks 2 and 3 -- are available for these affected 

EGUs. 

592 See the proposal for this rule, 79 FR at 34888 (“during the 

public outreach sessions, stakeholders generally recommended 

that state plans be authorized to rely on, and that affected 

sources be authorized to implement, re-dispatch, renewable 

energy measures, and demand-side energy efficiency measures in 

order to meet states’ and sources’ emission reduction 

obligations.”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 631 of 1546

will not result in unprecedented and fundamental alterations to 

the energy sector. As discussed above, Congress relied on the 

same measures as those the EPA is including in building blocks 2 

and 3 as essential parts of the basis for the Title IV emission 

limits for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and the EPA did the same for 

the emission limits in various rules for those same sources. 

In addition, reliance on the measures in building blocks 2 

and 3 is fully consistent with the recent changes and current 

trends in electricity generation, and as a result, would by no 

means entail fundamental redirection of the energy sector. As 

indicated in the RIA for this rule, we expect that the main 

impact of this rule on the nation’s mix of generation will be to 

reduce coal-fired generation as the highest-polluting generation 

source, but in an amount and by a rate that is consistent with 

recent historical declines in coal-fired generation. 

Specifically, from approximately 2005 to 2014, coal-fired 

generation declined at a rate that was greater than the rate of 

reduced coal-fired generation that we expect to result from this 

rulemaking from 2015 to 2030. In addition, under this rule, the 

trends for all other types of generation, including natural gasfired generation, nuclear generation, and renewable generation, 

will remain generally consistent with what their trends would be 

Commented [A41]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 632 of 1546

in the absence of this rule. In addition, this rule is expected 

to result in increases in demand-side energy efficiency. 

In addition, contrary to claims of some commenters, in this 

rule, the EPA is not attempting to expand its authorities by 

attempting to expand the jurisdiction of the CAA to previously 

unregulated sectors of the economy, in contravention of the UARG

decision. In UARG, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s 

interpretation of the PSD provisions of the CAA that had the 

effect of applying the PSD requirements to large numbers of 

small sources that previously had not been subject to PSD and 

with respect to which, according to the Court, the EPA 

acknowledged that Congress did not intend that such sources be 

subject to the PSD requirements.593 Commenters appear to 

interpret this decision to preclude the EPA from including at 

least building block 3 in the BSER because it includes measures 

that involve entities (such as renewable energy developers) that 

do not emit CO2 and have not previously been subject to the CAA. 

However, in this rule, the EPA is not attempting to subject any 

entity other than the affected EGUs in the source categories to 

CAA section 111 requirements. As discussed below, the EPA is not 

finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, under which states 

were authorized to include, in their CAA section 111(d) state 

 

593 Util. Air Reg. Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2443 (2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 633 of 1546

plans, requirements on entities other than affected EGUs. Thus, 

as noted above, this final rule does not require or authorize 

the states to include entities other than affected EGUs in their 

CAA section 111(d) state plans, and as a result, those entities 

will not come under CAA jurisdiction594 and the parts of the 

economy that they represent will not be regulated by the EPA. 

7. Relative stringency of requirements for existing sources and 

new and modified sources. 

Commenters also objected that the proposed CAA section 

111(d) standards are more stringent than the standards for new, 

modified or reconstructed sources, and they assert that setting 

section 111(d) standards that are more stringent than 111(b) 

standards would be illogical, contrary to precedent, contrary to 

the intent of the remaining useful life exception, and arbitrary 

and capricious.595 We disagree with these comments. Comparing the 

control requirements of the two sets of rules, CAA section 

111(d) and 111(b), is an “apples-to-oranges” comparison and, as 

a result, it is not possible – and it is overly simplistic -- to 

conclude that the 111(d) requirements are more stringent that 

the 111(b) requirements. 

 

594 States may regulate non-affected EGUs through a state 

measures approach, but those regulations would not be federally 

enforceable. 

595 ACC et al. (Associations) comments at 40, Luminant comments 

at 89. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 634 of 1546

 Most importantly, the two sets of rules become applicable 

at different points in time and have significantly different 

compliance periods. The CAA section 111(b) rule becomes 

applicable for new, modified and reconstructed sources 

immediately upon construction, modification, or reconstruction 

and, in fact, by operation of section 111(e) and (a)(2), new, 

modified, or reconstructed sources that commenced construction 

prior to the effective date of the section 111(b) rule must also 

be in compliance upon the effective date of the rule. In 

contrast, the requirements under the CAA section 111(d) rule do 

not become applicable to existing affected EGUs until seven 

years after promulgation of the rule, when the interim 

compliance period begins in 2022, and the final compliance 

period does not begin until 2030. Moreover, the compliance 

period for the interim requirements is eight years. This later 

applicability date and longer compliance period for existing 

sources accommodates a requirement that, on average, those 

sources have a lower nominal emissions limit than the standards 

for new or modified sources, which those latter sources must 

comply with immediately. 

In addition, the timetables for compliance with the section 

111(b) and 111(d) rules should be considered in light of the 8-

year review schedule required for section 111(b) rules under CAA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 635 of 1546

section 111(b)(1)(B). Under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA is 

required to “review and, if appropriate, revise” the section 

111(b) standards “at least every 8 years.” This provision 

obligates the EPA to review the section 111(b) rule for CO2 

emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed power plants by 

the year 2023. That mandatory review will reassess the BSER to 

determine the appropriate stringency for emission standards for 

new, modified, and reconstructed sources into the future. 

Therefore, for present purposes of comparing the stringency of 

the section 111(b) and 111(d) rules, the year 2023 presents an 

important point of comparison. 

Specifically, as noted above, the section 111(b) standards 

apply to new, modified and reconstructed sources beginning in 

2015, while the section 111(d) rule does not take effect until 

2022, which happens to fall on the cusp of the 8-year review for 

the 111(b) standards. 

 Even after the section 111(d) rule takes effect in 2022, 

the flexibility that this rule offers the states has important 

implications for its stringency and for any comparison to the 

section 111(b) rule. Although the requirements for the 111(d) 

rule begin in 2022, they are phased in, in a flexible manner, 

over the 2022-2030 period. That is, states are required to meet 

interim goals for the 2022-2029 period by 2029, and the final 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 636 of 1546

goals by 2030, but states are not required to impose 

requirements on their sources that take effect in 2022. In 

fact, states may, if they prefer, apply the rate-based or massbased emission standards on their sources that take effect no 

earlier than 2023 (and, in the emission guidelines, have an 

annual compliance period), and thereby allow their sources to 

delay having to comply with these standards until the end of 

2023.596

Therefore, while the section 111(b) standards apply to new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources beginning in 2015, the 

section 111(d) standards may not apply to existing sources until 

2023.As a result, by 2023 – the year that the 111(b) standards 

are required to be reviewed for possible revision – affected 

EGUs subject to the 111(d) standards may remain uncontrolled. 

Under those circumstances, the 111(d) rule cannot be said to be 

more stringent than the 111(b) rule.597 

 

596 A state that chooses to allow its sources to remain 

uncontrolled through 2023 would still be able to meet its 

interim goal by 2029, although it would need to impose more 

stringent requirements on its sources over the 2024-2029 period 

than it would if it had imposed requirements beginning in 2022. 

597 In addition, because the section 111(d) requirements are 

phased in, states may choose to apply a gradual phase-in of the 

reductions. This means that the nominal emission rates for 

section 111(d) sources would be significantly less stringent for 

the first several years of the compliance period. We estimate 

that if states choose to impose the section 111(d) requirements 

in a proportional amount each year, beginning in 2022, the 

Commented [A42]: in this context, are sources still responsible 

for their emissions in 2022? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 637 of 1546

Another reason why the section 111(d) rule cannot be said 

to be more stringent than the section 111(b) rule is that for 

any individual source, the 111(d) rule is applied more flexibly 

and includes more flexible means of compliance. Whereas the 

section 111(b) rule entails an emission rate that each affected 

EGU must meet on a 12-month (rolling) basis, the section 111(d) 

is more flexible. For example, states may adopt the state 

measures approach and refrain from imposing any requirements on 

their affected EGUs. In addition, under the section 111(d) rule, 

sources have more flexible means of compliance. For an emission 

standards approach, depending on the form of the state 

requirements (mass-based or rate-based), the state may be 

expected to authorize trading of mass-based emission allowances 

or rate-based emission credits, and in addition, the purchase of 

ERCs. These flexibilities are not included in the section 111(b) 

rule, rather, as noted, each new, modified, and reconstructed 

EGU must individually meet its emission standard on a 12-month 

 

requirements for steam generators by 2022 would result in an 

average emissions performance rate of 1,764 lb. CO2/MWh net and 

by 2023, an average emission rate of 1,698 lb. CO2/MWh net (In 

2030, the rate falls to 1,305 lb. CO2/MWh net.) For existing 

NGCC units, if states choose to implement the 111(d) 

requirements proportionally, in 2022, the average rate would be 

910 lb. CO2/MWh net, and in 2023 it would be 899 lb. CO2/MWh 

net. (In 2030, this rate falls to 771 lb. CO2/MWh net.) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 638 of 1546

(rolling) basis. The EPA has frequently required that sources 

meet a more stringent nominal limit when they are allowed 

compliance flexibility, particularly, the opportunity to 

trade.598 In addition, states have the discretion to allow their 

sources to meet emission standards over a longer time period. 

This distinction between the two rules is another reason why the 

section 111(d) rule cannot be said to be more stringent in fact 

than the section 111(b) rule. 

 There are other reasons why the section 111(d) rule cannot 

be said to be more stringent. With respect to the 111(d) and 

111(b) rules for existing and new NGCC units, we note the 

following: As explained in the section 111(b) preamble, the 

standard for new NGCC units is designed to accommodate a wide 

range of unit types, including small units and rapid-start 

 

598 See, e.g., EPA, “Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001, at 82 (2001) (requiring 

that Economic Incentive Programs show an environmental benefit, 

such as “reducing emission reductions generated by program 

participants by at least 10 percent”), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/advance/pdfs/eipfin.pdf; “Economic 

Incentive Program Rules: Final Rule,” 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 

1994) (same); “Certification Programs for Banking and Trading of 

NOx and PM Credits for Heavy-Duty Engines: Final Rule,” 55 FR 

30584 (July 26, 1990) (requiring that for programs for banking 

and trading of NOx and PM credits for gasoline, diesel and 

methanol powered engines, all trading and banking of credits 

must be subject to a 20 percent discount “as an added assurance 

that the incentives created by the program will not only have no 

adverse environmental impact but also provide an environmental 

benefit.”) . 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 639 of 1546

units, which are a small part of the expected new NGCC 

generation capacity. As such, the 111(b) standard (1,000 lb 

CO2/MWh gross, which equates to 1,030 lb CO2/MWh net) will not 

constrain the emissions of the great majority of expected new 

NGCC generation capacity, which is expected to consist of larger 

base load units (with a capacity of 100 MW or greater) that are 

not designed to cycle frequently. Their initial emissions are 

expected to be below 800 lb. CO2/MWh gross, their emissions over 

time may be somewhat higher due to equipment deterioration, and 

as a result, their PSD permits are expected to include emission 

limits at approximately the 800 lb. CO2/MWh gross level. A very 

small amount of the new NGCC generation is expected to be small 

units (with a capacity of approximately 25 MW) or rapid-start 

units. Their initial emissions are expected to be approximately 

950 lb. CO2/MWh gross, their emissions over time are expected to 

be somewhat higher due to equipment deterioration, and it these 

units that the standard of 1,000 lb. CO2/MWh gross is designed to 

constrain.599 As a result, the 1,000 lb. CO2/MWh gross limit 

applies to all new NGCC units, including the great majority of 

the expected new capacity consisting of larger, non-rapid start 

units, even though, as just noted, the great majority of the 

 

599 As explained in the 111(b) preamble, any attempt to 

subcategorize and assign a lower emission limit to larger, nonrapid start NGCC units could cause market distortions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 640 of 1546

units are expected to emit at significantly lower emission 

rates. The section 111(d) standard for existing sources, in 

contrast, is generally expected to constrain existing NGCC units 

on average. Moreover, very little of the existing NGCC 

generation includes small units or, in particular, rapid-start 

units because the latter are a recently developed technology. To 

some extent, the same is true for the 111(b) standards for 

modified or reconstructed NGCC units. The average NGCC rate was 

approximately 850 lb CO2/MWh gross in 2014 and, as a result, 

most sources are emitting below the section 111(b) standards for 

modifications and reconstructions. For these reasons, too, the 

111(b) standards for new, modified, and reconstructed NGCC units 

cannot be compared to the 111(d) standards for existing NGCC 

units.600

 Moreover, even if commenters were correct that the section 

111(d) requirements for existing sources are more stringent than 

the section 111(b) requirements for new sources, that would not, 

by itself, call into question the reasonableness of either 

standard. The stringency of the requirements for each source 

subcategory is, of course, a direct function of the BSER 

 

600 The section 111(b) standards for modified and reconstructed 

steam generation units are generally lower than the emission 

rates of existing stream generation units, but for the reasons 

explained earlier, those standards cannot be compared to the 

section 111(d) standards for existing steam generation units. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 641 of 1546

identified for that source subcategory. In this rulemaking, we 

explain the basis for the BSER for existing sources, and why we 

do not include certain measures, such as CCS; and in the section 

111(b) rulemaking, we explain the basis for the BSER for new 

sources, and why we do not include certain measures, such as the 

building blocks. As long as the BSER determination is reasonable 

and the resulting emission limits meet other applicable 

requirements, those emission limits are valid, even if the one 

for new sources is less stringent than the one for existing 

sources. No provision in section 111, nor any statement in its 

legislative history, nor any of its case law, indicates that the 

standards for new sources must be more stringent than the 

standards for existing sources. 

C. Building Block 1—Efficiency Improvements at Affected CoalFired Steam EGUs 

The first category of approaches to reducing CO2 emissions 

at affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs consists of measures that 

reduce the carbon intensity of generation at individual coalfired steam EGUs by improving their heat rate. Heat rate 

improvements are changes implemented at an EGU that increase the 

efficiency with which the EGU converts fuel energy to electric 

energy, thereby reducing the amount of fuel needed to produce 

the same amount of electricity and consequently lowering the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 642 of 1546

amount of CO2 produced as a byproduct of fuel combustion. Heat 

rate improvements yield important economic benefits to affected 

EGUs by reducing their fuel costs. 

An EGU’s heat rate is the amount of fuel energy input 

needed (Btu, higher heating value basis) to produce 1 kWh of net 

electrical energy output.601 In 2012, the generation-weighted 

average annual heat rate of the 884 coal-fired EGUs included in 

EPA’s building block 1 analysis was approximately 9,732 Btu per 

gross kWh.602 Because an EGU’s CO2 emissions are driven primarily 

by the amount of fuel consumed, improving (i.e., decreasing) 

heat rate at a coal-fired EGU inherently reduces the carbonintensity of generation. 

As discussed above in section V.A and in the June 2014 

proposal,603 it is critical to recognize that affected coal-fired 

EGUs operate in the context of the integrated electricity 

system. Because of this reality, applying building block 1 in 

isolation can result in a “rebound effect” that undermines the 

 

601 Typically, the units of measure used for heat rate (e.g., 

Btu/kWh-net) indicate whether a given value is based on the 

gross output or net output. Net heat rate is always higher than 

gross heat rate; in coal-steam units, net heat rate can be 5–10% 

higher than gross heat rate. 

602 Similarly, within each interconnection, the generationweighted average annual heat rates for those coal-fired EGUs in 

our study population were 9,700 Btu per gross kWh (Eastern); 

9,888 Btu per gross kWh (Western); and 9,789 Btu per gross kWh 

(Texas). 

603 See, e.g., 79 FR 34830, 34859 (June 18, 2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 643 of 1546

emissions reductions otherwise achieved by heat rate 

improvements. As already noted, the building block 1 measures 

described below cannot by themselves constitute the BSER because 

the quantity of emission reductions achieved -- which is a 

factor that the courts have required EPA to consider in 

determining the BSER -- would be of insufficient magnitude in 

the context of this pollutant and this industry. The potential 

rebound effect, if it occurred, would exacerbate the 

insufficiency of the emission reductions. However, applying 

building block 1 in combination with other building blocks can 

address this concern for the reasons stated in section V.A.4. 

We conducted several analyses to assess the potential for 

heat rate improvements from the coal-fired EGU fleet. As in the 

proposal, we employed a unit-specific approach that compared 

each EGU’s performance against its own historical performance in 

lieu of directly comparing an EGU’s performance against other 

EGUs with similar characteristics. Accordingly, as described 

below, our method effectively controls for the characteristics 

and factors of an EGU that typically remain constant over time 

(e.g., a unit is unlikely to dramatically increase or decrease 

in size). Our methodology for determining the amount of heat 

rate improvement appropriately included in the BSER as building 

block 1 is discussed in the next section, below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 644 of 1546

1. Summary of measures comprising the BSER in building block 1 

a. Measures under building block 1 - heat rate improvements. In 

finalizing the building block 1 portion of this rule, we 

considered over a thousand individual comments from the public, 

including individual EGUs and state agencies, on heat rate 

improvement, which are discussed below and also in the responses 

to comments document and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the 

CPP Final Rule [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602]. Based on 

these public comments, we have refined the statistical analyses 

used in the proposal to identify the potential heat rate 

improvement that can be achieved on average by affected coalfired EGUs. 

In the proposal, we used two approaches to analyze the 

variability of an EGU’s gross heat rate using a robust dataset 

comprised of 11 years of hourly gross heat rate data for 884 

coal-fired EGUs -- over 11 million hours of data collected 

between 2002 and 2012. The foundation of our first approach was 

an analysis of the variability of each EGU’s gross heat rate, 

which was accomplished in large part by grouping each EGU’s 

hourly data by similar ambient temperature and capacity factor 

(i.e., hourly operating level as a percentage of nameplate 

capacity) conditions. The second approach analyzed the 

difference between an EGU’s average gross heat rate and its best 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 645 of 1546

historical gross heat rate performance. We proposed that, on a 

nationwide basis, affected coal-fired EGUs should be able to 

achieve 6-percent heat rate improvement: 4-percent improvement 

from best practices, and an additional 2-percent improvement 

from equipment upgrades. 

We received many comments asserting that the 11-year 

dataset we had used to determine the 4-percent best practices 

figure likely reflected some portion of the 2-percent equipment 

upgrades figure we had separately identified. Accordingly, these 

commenters claim that the EPA double-counted equipment upgrades 

in arriving at the full estimate of 6-percent heat rate 

improvement. Commenters also noted the difficulty, in some 

cases, of determining whether a heat rate improvement measure is 

an “equipment upgrade” or “best practice,” such as optimizing 

soot blowing with intelligent systems, using CO monitors for 

optimizing combustion, or applying air heater and duct leakage 

controls. 

As noted below in sections V.C.1.b and V.C.3, the EPA 

acknowledges that some equipment upgrades implemented by EGUs 

during the 11-year study period are reflected in the hourly heat 

rate data. Therefore, we made two refinements to our analyses of 

heat rate improvement potential. First, we refined our 

statistical approaches to use each EGU’s gross heat rate from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 646 of 1546

2012 -- the final year of the 11-year study period -- as the 

baseline for calculating heat rate improvement potential. By 

comparing each EGU’s best historical gross heat rate with its 

2012 gross heat rate, our analyses account for the enduring 

effects on heat rate of any equipment upgrades or best practices 

that an EGU implemented during the study period. Heat rate 

improvement measures that an EGU maintains in 2012 are reflected 

in that baseline, and thus are not treated as evidence that the 

EGU can further improve heat rate. Additionally, in part because 

of limitations on the information available to us regarding 

which equipment upgrades have been or could be implemented at 

individual EGUs, as well concerns about double-counting, we have 

conservatively decided not to add a separate equipment upgrade 

component to our estimate of heat rate improvement potential. 

Nonetheless, we remain confident that additional equipment 

upgrades (including measures that are unambiguously equipment 

upgrades, such as turbine overhauls) are possible at many coalfired EGUs, as supported by numerous commenters, the Sargent & 

Lundy study604 (S&L) and other industry reports and studies. Many 

of these reports and studies are referenced in the TSD developed 

 

604 Sargent and Lundy 2009, Coal-Fired Power Plant Heat Rate 

Reductions, SL-009597, Final Report, January 2009, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602-XXXX, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/ipm/coalfired.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 647 of 1546

for the proposed rule, as well as in the GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Several commenters criticized the fact that the proposal 

assessed potential heat rate improvement on a nationwide basis. 

These commenters suggested instead that we narrow the geographic 

scope of our analysis, generally identifying a state-by-state 

approach as a preferred alternative. In light of commenters’ 

concerns about using a single nationwide approach, as well as 

for reasons described in Section V.A and elsewhere in this 

preamble, the final rule assesses potential heat rate 

improvement regionally, within the Eastern, Western and Texas 

Interconnections.605

For the final rule, we performed several analyses to 

determine what heat rate improvement was achievable in each 

interconnection from best practices and equipment upgrades. As 

in the proposal, these analyses used the 11-year dataset of EGU 

hourly gross heat rate data from 2002 to 2012. As discussed 

further in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, our reliance on 

these gross heat rate data was reasonable given that (1) these 

 

605 The geographic area within the Texas Interconnection 

generally corresponds to the portion of the state of Texas 

covered by ERCOT (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas). 

Additional portions of the state of Texas are located within the 

Eastern and Western Interconnections. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 648 of 1546

data are the only comprehensive data available to the EPA, and 

(2) heat rate is proportional to CO2 emission rate. 

As in the proposal, we used more than one analytical method 

to evaluate the opportunity for EGUs to reduce their CO2

emissions through heat rate improvements. Our final methodology 

uses three different analytical approaches based on refinements 

of the two approaches described at the proposal stage. We call 

these final approaches: (1) the “efficiency and consistency 

improvements under similar conditions” approach; (2) the “best 

historical performance” approach; and (3) the “best historical 

performance under similar conditions” approach. As described 

below and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, each approach 

provides an independently reasonable way to estimate the 

potential for heat rate improvements by EGUs in each region. 

However, rather than select a potential heat rate improvement 

value supported by one or only some of these independently 

reasonable analytical approaches, we conservatively based our 

final determination for each region on the value for that region 

supported by all three approaches. 

The “efficiency and consistency improvements under similar 

conditions” approach is a slight refinement of an approach 

discussed at length in the proposal. As in the proposal, we 

distributed each hour of gross heat rate data for each EGU into 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 649 of 1546

a matrix comprised of 168 bins, based on the ambient temperature 

and hourly capacity factor of the EGU at the time that hour of 

gross heat rate data was generated. Each bin represented a 10-

degree Fahrenheit (oF) range in ambient temperature (from -20oF 

to greater than 110oF), and a 10-percent range in capacity factor 

(from 0 percent to greater than 110 percent606). Thus, for 

example, one bin would contain all of an EGU’s hourly gross heat 

rate data generated during the 11-year study period while that 

EGU was operating at 80- to 89-percent capacity while ambient 

temperatures were between 70oF and 79oF. 

As we explained at proposal and as discussed further in the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, ambient temperature and hourly 

capacity factor are important conditions that influence heat 

rate at individual EGUs. By separating the EGU-specific data 

into bins based on these variables, and only directly comparing 

data within a bin, we were largely able to control for the 

influence of those variables on an EGU’s heat rate. Accordingly, 

having controlled for these two external factors, and having 

already controlled for unit-specific factors affecting heat rate 

by analyzing the data for each EGU in isolation, we are 

 

606 Because an EGU’s rated nameplate capacity is based on a 

maximum continuous rating, EGUs may operate for periods of time 

“over” 100 percent of their capacity factor. The EPA’s dataset 

of hourly operating data reflected some such instances. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 650 of 1546

confident that the remaining variation in each bin’s data was 

primarily driven by factors under the EGU operator’s control. 

After allocating an individual EGU’s data across the bins, 

we next established a benchmark for each bin based on the best 

hourly gross heat rate accounting for outliers (i.e., we set the 

benchmark at the 10th percentile hourly gross heat rate value) 

during any consecutive two-year period.607 We compared the hourly 

gross heat rate data within each bin to the EGU’s benchmark 

value. Similar to the proposal, within each bin we assessed the 

effect on heat rate of improving the consistency of that EGU by 

reducing hourly gross heat rate values that were greater than 

the benchmark by a percentage of the distance between each of 

those higher hourly values and the benchmark.608 We refer to this 

percentage improvement value as the “consistency factor,” 

because applying it results in values for heat rate that are 

more consistent with the EGU’s benchmark for that bin. In our 

proposal we evaluated the heat rate improvement that would 

result from applying consistency factors of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 

 

607 As described below, we also conducted this regionalized 

approach using a benchmark based on the best hourly gross heat 

rate accounting for outliers during any one-year period. See the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for more 

details. 

608 In the proposal, we used heat input values rather than gross 

heat rate values. See the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting 

the final CPP for more details. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 651 of 1546

50 percent of the distance between those less-efficient hourly 

gross heat rate values and the benchmark; using engineering 

judgment, we selected a consistency factor of 30 percent, which 

produced results comparable to those obtained using other 

approaches for analyzing heat rate. For our final analysis under 

this approach, we refined the consistency factor based on a 

statistical assessment of the overall variability of heat rate 

in that EGU’s region, as described in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD.609 As in the proposal, we applied the consistency 

factor to each bin of each EGU’s hourly gross heat rate data, 

and averaged the result across all bins in that EGU’s matrix. 

The net result was an improved gross heat rate reflecting what 

that EGU would have achieved between 2002 and 2012 if, under 

certain ambient temperature and capacity factor conditions, the 

EGU had improved its gross heat rate during less-efficient hours 

to be slightly more consistent with the relevant benchmark 

value. We then compared the improved gross heat rate for each 

EGU to its actual 2012 historic average gross heat rate. We 

 

609 For the Eastern Interconnection, the consistency factor is 

38.1 percent. For the Western Interconnection, the consistency 

factor is 38.4 percent. For the Texas Interconnection, the 

consistency factor is 37.1 percent. Conducting this analysis on 

a nationwide basis would have resulted in application of a 

consistency factor of 38.2 percent. As described below, we also 

conducted this regionalized approach using consistency factors 

determined based on one-year figures. See the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for more details. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 652 of 1546

chose 2012 as the year of comparison because 2012 was the latest 

year for which the EPA had data at the time of the proposal, and 

because using the most recent data reflects the EGU’s current 

operating level and accounts for improvements the EGU may have 

undertaken over the 11-year study period. 

Applying this procedure to all units in our database and 

averaging the generation-weighted results, we determined that it 

would be reasonable to conclude that, through application of 

best practices and equipment upgrades, EGUs on average are at 

least capable of reducing their CO2 emissions by improving heat 

rate 4.3 percent in the Eastern Interconnection, 2.1 percent in 

the Western Interconnection, and 2.3 percent in the Texas 

Interconnection.610 

In addition to the statistical approach described above, we 

employed a “best historical performance” approach refined from 

the proposal, which compared each EGU’s best two-year rolling 

average gross heat rate to that EGU’s 2012 average annual gross 

heat rate.611 We then calculated the differences across all EGUs 

 

610 Conducting this analysis on a nationwide basis would have 

resulted in a finding that EGUs nationwide are capable on 

average of reducing their CO2 emissions by improving heat rate 

4.0 percent. See the table in this section and the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD for the results of this approach using 

benchmarks and consistency factors based on one-year averages. 

611 As described below, we also conducted this regionalized 

approach using each EGU’s best one-year rolling average. See the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 653 of 1546

in a region to determine the potential heat rate improvement 

that would result if, in 2012, each EGU had performed at the 

best two-year rolling average gross heat rate that the EGU 

achieved between 2002 and 2012. Under this analysis of 

historical gross heat rate, we determined that it would be 

reasonable to conclude that the average heat rate improvement 

potential from best practices and equipment upgrades is at least 

4.9 percent in the Eastern Interconnection, 2.6 percent in the 

Western Interconnection and 3.1 percent in the Texas 

Interconnection.612 

Finally, we employed the “best historical performance under 

similar conditions” approach, which combines aspects of the 

other two approaches. First, as with the “efficiency and 

consistency improvements under similar conditions approach,” we 

grouped hourly data for each EGU by ambient temperature 

conditions and hourly capacity factor. Next, we calculated each 

EGU’s best two-year gross heat rate for each of the 168 ambient 

 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for more 

details. 

612 Conducting this approach on a nationwide basis would have 

resulted in a finding that EGUs nationwide are capable on 

average of reducing their CO2 emissions by improving heat rate 

4.6 percent. As described below, we also conducted this 

regionalized approach using one-year averages. See the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for more 

details. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 654 of 1546

temperature-capacity factor bins.613 Similar to the “best 

historical performance” approach, to calculate the potential 

heat rate improvement, the EPA then compared each EGU’s 2012 

gross heat rate for each of the ambient temperature-capacity 

factor bins to the EGU’s best two-year gross heat rate for the 

corresponding bin. Accounting for differences in ambient 

temperature and capacity factor, we determined that under this 

analytical approach the average heat rate improvement potential 

from best practices and equipment upgrades was at least 5.3 

percent in the Eastern Interconnection, 3.1 percent in the 

Western Interconnection and 3.5 percent in the Texas 

Interconnection.614

As in the proposal, we additionally analyzed the data with 

our analytical approaches using one-year averaging periods in 

place of the two-year averaging periods described above.615

However, because our conservative overall methodology adopts the 

lowest value that is identified for a region by any of our 

 

613 As described below, we also conducted this approach using 

one-year averages for each EGU instead of two-year averages. See 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for 

more details. 

614 Conducting this approach on a nationwide basis would have 

resulted in a finding that EGUs nationwide are capable on 

average of reducing their CO2 emissions by improving heat rate 

5.0 percent. 

615 The GHG Mitigation Measures TSD describes in more detail our 

rationale for using one- and two-year averaging periods in our 

analytical approaches and methodology as a whole. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 655 of 1546

reasonable analytical approaches, the inherently less 

conservative results obtained with one-year averaging periods 

(reproduced below) could not influence the outcome of our 

methodology as a whole. Overall, applying these three analytical 

approaches resulted in six heat rate improvement values 

generated for each region, each of which represents a reasonable 

estimate of the potential for heat rate improvements by EGUs in 

that region. Those values ranged from 4.3 to 6.9 percent in the 

Eastern Interconnection, from 2.1 to 4.7 percent in the Western 

Interconnection, and from 2.3 to 4.9 percent in the Texas 

Interconnection. In all three regions, the most conservative 

values were generated using the “efficiency and consistency 

improvements under similar conditions” approach with two-year 

averaging periods and consistency factors. As shown in Table 5, 

the values produced by that approach were the minimum values for 

each region produced by any of the three approaches: 

Table 6. Heat Rate Improvement Potential by Region and Averaging 

Period. 

Analytical approach 

Heat rate improvement potential 

(percent) 

by region and averaging period 

Western Texas Eastern 

1 

year 

2

year 

1

year 

2

year 

1

year 

2

year

Efficiency and 

consistency improvements 

under similar conditions 

3.5% 2.1%* 3.7% 2.3%* 5.6% 4.3%*

Deleted: 6
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 656 of 1546

Best historical 

performance 4.1% 2.6% 4.2% 3.1% 6.3% 4.9%

Best historical 

performance under 

similar conditions 

4.7% 3.1% 4.9% 3.5% 6.9% 5.3%

Accordingly, we have concluded that a well-supported and 

conservative estimate of the potential heat rate improvements 

(and accompanying reductions in CO2 emission rates) that EGUs can 

achieve on average through best practices and equipment upgrades 

is a 4.3-percent improvement in the Eastern Interconnection, a 

2.1-percent improvement in the Western Interconnection and a 

2.3-percent improvement in the Texas Interconnection. The 

decision to use these values as the building block 1 potential 

in each region is based on the weight of evidence that these are 

conservative values; for each region, each of the three 

analytical approaches in our methodology supports our 

determination that the heat rate improvement value we selected 

is achievable. Taken individually, each approach provides an 

independently reasonable estimate of the potential for heat rate 

improvement. Furthermore, as described in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD, these approaches are conservative on even an 

individual basis because they do not account for the full extent 

of heat rate improvements available through additional equipment 

upgrades and best practices. Some EGUs may have faced 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 657 of 1546

difficulties achieving significant heat rate improvement in the 

past and EGU owners may feel they face challenges in the future. 

Nevertheless, our methodology as a whole indicates that, on 

average, coal-fired EGUs can at least achieve the percentage 

heat rate improvement selected for their region through 

application of best practices and some of the available 

equipment upgrades. A more detailed discussion of the EPA’s 

analysis in determining the heat rate improvement potential for 

existing coal-fired EGUs may be found in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

No affected coal-fired EGU is specifically required to 

improve heat rate by any amount as a result of this rule. 

Rather, as described in section VI, the potential for heat rate 

improvement is used to determine a CO2 emission performance rate. 

Those affected EGUs that have done the most to reduce their heat 

rate will tend to be closer to that CO2 emission rate. In this 

sense, our approach to determining potential CO2 reductions 

through heat rate improvements is similar to the way EPA 

ordinarily approaches standards of performance.616 

 

616 To give an illustrative example, imagine a population of 

sources that emit Pollutant X. Half of the sources emit 

Pollutant X at 2500 lbs/hour, while the other half of the 

sources have scrubbers installed that reduce their emission 

rates to 1500 lbs/hour. Because the sources are evenly divided 

between those with and without scrubbers, the average emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 658 of 1546

In this final analysis, we do not delineate what proportion 

of the potential heat rate improvement can be expected from 

equipment upgrades versus best practices;617 only that these heat 

 

rate for the population as a whole is 2000 lbs/hour. In this 

hypothetical, EPA decides to base requirements on the emission 

rate achievable through use of a scrubber, meaning that all 

sources will have to meet an emission rate of 1500 lbs/hour. 

Because the fleet as a whole has an average emission rate of 

2000 lbs/hour, it would be accurate for EPA to say that the 

fleet as a whole can reduce its emission rate by 25 percent -- 

from 2000 lbs/hour on average (only half the sources with 

scrubbers), to 1500 lbs/hour on average (all the sources with 

scrubbers). This description of what is possible for the fleet 

as a whole -- a 25-percent reduction in emission rate -- should 

not be misinterpreted as a statement that every individual

source is capable of further reducing its emissions by 25 

percent. The sources that have already installed scrubbers, and 

which are thus already operating at 1500 lbs/hour, would not be 

required to further improve their emission rate. 

617 Examples of the many types of best practices and equipment 

upgrades available to coal-fired EGUs include adopting sliding 

pressure operation to reduce turbine throttling losses; 

installing intelligent sootblowing system software; upgrading 

the combustion control/optimization system; installing heat rate 

optimization software; installing a production cost optimization 

program that benchmarks plant thermal performance using 

historical plant data; establishing centralized remote 

monitoring centers with thermal performance software for 

monitoring heat rates systemwide; repairing steam and water 

leaks; automating steam system drains; performing an on-site 

performance appraisal to identify potential areas for improved 

performance; developing heat rate improvement procedures and 

training O&M staff on their use; aligning the cycle to isolate 

or capture high-energy fluid leakage from the steam cycle; 

repairing utility boiler air in-leakage; performing utility 

boiler chemical cleaning; installing condenser tube cleaning 

system; retubing condenser; repairing/upgrading flue gas 

desulfurization systems; cleaning air preheater coils; 

adjusting/replacing worn air heater seals; replacing corroded 

air heater baskets; replacing feed pump turbine steam seals; 

overhauling high pressure feedwater pumps; installing fan and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 659 of 1546

rate improvements are achievable in the regions through a 

combination of these methods. As discussed in section V.C.3 

below, we believe that a single heat rate improvement goal for 

each region incorporating both best practices and upgrades, 

based on the 11 years of hourly heat rate data for 884 coalfired EGUs available to the EPA, is a reasonable approach that 

is supported by our analysis, and is particularly conservative 

given that it does not account for the full range of heat rate 

improvements achievable through additional equipment upgrades 

and best practices. 

The performance rates quantified in section VI, below, 

reflect the region-specific values for heat rate improvement. 

Although the performance rates are based on the least stringent 

overall performance rate determined to be reasonable for any 

region, and are thus based in part on the percentage heat rate 

improvement identified for the region, this rule does not itself 

require any specific EGU to implement measures resulting in a 

specific percentage heat rate improvement. Rather, the 

percentage heat rate improvement value is merely reflected in 

the CO2 emission performance rates and corresponding mass-based 

 

pump variable speed/frequency drives; upgrading turbine steam 

seals; upgrading all turbine internals; and installing coal 

drying systems. These and additional heat rate improvement 

measures are discussed further in the GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD for the CPP Final Rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 660 of 1546

and rate-based state goals. Each state has the flexibility to 

develop a plan that achieves those CO2 performance rates or 

emission goals by assigning the emission standards the state 

considers appropriate to its affected coal-fired EGUs. 

Similarly, depending on the content of the applicable plan, 

affected EGUs may achieve their emission standards through use 

of any of the building block measures described in this rule or 

any other measures permitted under the plan. 

b. Changes from the proposal. In the proposed rule, we 

determined that building block 1 measures could on average 

achieve a 6-percent heat rate improvement from coal-fired EGUs 

in the U.S. based on a 4-percent heat rate improvement from 

implementation of best practices and a 2-percent heat rate 

improvement from equipment upgrades. Based on comments received 

and refinements made to our methodology for determining 

potential heat rate improvement from the hourly gross heat rate 

dataset of 884 coal-fired EGUs, we have conducted our analysis 

on a regional basis and reduced the overall expected percent 

heat rate improvement for coal-fired EGUs to 4.3 percent in the 

Eastern Interconnection, 2.1 percent in the Western 

Interconnection, and 2.3 percent in the Texas Interconnection.618

 

618 Had the EPA maintained a nationwide approach to analyzing the 

potential reductions under building block 1, the result would 

have been 4.0 percent. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 661 of 1546

These values reflect improvements achievable through both best 

practices and equipment upgrades because, as described above, we 

also no longer include a separate estimation of the potential 

heat rate improvement achievable solely through equipment 

upgrades. 

We received comments on our proposed statistical 

methodology for determining the CO2 emission reductions 

opportunities achievable by coal-fired EGUs through heat rate 

improvements. We have closely reviewed those comments and, for 

the final rule, have made refinements to our methodology, as 

described above and explained in more detail in the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

In the final rule, the EPA extends the implementation 

deadline from 2020 to 2022. This additional time will be helpful 

to the states seeking to conduct more targeted analyses of the 

nature and extent of heat rate improvements that specific coalfired EGUs can make, considering specific recent improvements or 

upgrades, planned retirements of older coal-fired EGUs, and 

other relevant considerations. The extended deadline will also 

provide additional time to accommodate changes to heat rate 

monitoring methods at EGUs and for the installation of new 

pollution controls that comply with other rules, as discussed 

below in the summary of key comments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 662 of 1546

2. Costs of heat rate improvements 

By definition, any heat rate improvement made by EGUs for 

the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions will also reduce the amount 

of fuel that EGUs consume to produce the same electricity 

output. The cost attributable to CO2 emission reductions, 

therefore, is the net cost of achieving heat rate improvements 

after any savings from reduced fuel expenses. As summarized 

below, we estimate that, on average, the savings in fuel cost 

associated with the percentage heat rate improvements we 

identified for each region would be sufficient to cover much of 

the associated costs. Accordingly, the net costs of heat rate 

improvements associated with reducing CO2 emissions from affected 

EGUs are relatively low. We recognize that this cost analysis 

will represent the costs for some EGUs better than others 

because of differences in individual circumstances. We further 

recognize that reduced generation from coal-fired EGUs due to 

the implementation of other building block measures would tend 

to reduce the fuel savings associated with heat rate 

improvements, thereby raising the effective cost of achieving 

the CO2 emission reductions from the heat rate improvements. 

Nevertheless, we still expect that a significant fraction of the 

investment required to capture the technical potential for CO2

emission reductions from heat rate improvements would be offset 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 663 of 1546

by fuel savings, and that the net costs of implementing heat 

rate improvements as an approach to reducing CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs are reasonable. Even if we conservatively estimate 

that EGUs will largely rely on equipment upgrades rather than 

cheaper best practices to reduce heat rate, those reductions can 

generally be achieved at $100 or less per kW, or approximately 

$23 per ton of CO2 removed, as described in detail in the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP.619 Depending on 

the balance between equipment upgrades and best practices, 

improving heat rate would even result in a net savings for some 

EGUs. 

Based on the analyses of technical potential and cost 

summarized above and in Chapter 2 of the GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD, we find that heat rate improvements of 4.3, 2.1 and 2.3 

percent are reasonable and conservative estimates of what coalfired EGUs in the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections, 

respectively, can achieve at a reasonable cost. 

3. Response to key comments 

 

619 The $100/kW cost figure from the proposal is now particularly 

conservative because it included the cost of significant 

equipment upgrades that improve heat rate, whereas building 

block 1 is now largely quantified based on low- or no-cost best 

practices, with a smaller portion of the remainder comprised of 

equipment upgrades. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 664 of 1546

Many commenters said that the EPA should have 

subcategorized by EGU design or operating characteristics for 

purposes of evaluating potential heat rate improvements under 

building block 1. 

Several studies categorize EGUs broadly by capacity, 

thermodynamic cycle, fuel rank or other characteristics. We 

considered subcategorizing the EGUs by their design and fuel 

characteristics under building block 1. Although grouping by 

categories does not account for all of the factors that may 

affect heat rate, it can provide a useful way of understanding 

the operating profile of classes of coal-fired EGUs and the 

fleet as a whole. However, as discussed above, our assessment of 

heat rate improvement potential uses a unit-specific data 

methodology that compares each EGU’s performance against its own 

historical performance. By substantially basing our analysis on 

these unit-specific assessments, we inherently factor in the 

effect of numerous design conditions. We also conducted a 

regression analysis that evaluated the effect of numerous 

factors on heat rate, and found that subcategorizing would 

generally make little difference in our analysis. Additionally, 

subdividing the EGUs into subcategories would reduce the 

quantity of EGUs used to calculate each average, which would 

increase the influence of random and atypical variations in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 665 of 1546

data on the overall averages, and would thus decrease our 

confidence in the results. Furthermore, states are free to 

apportion reductions in a way that reflects any subcategories of 

their choosing when determining the emission standards for 

individual affected EGUs. For a more detailed explanation of our 

decision not to subcategorize for purposes of determining 

building block 1, see the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting 

the final CPP. 

Many commenters told the EPA that EGUs already have 

undertaken significant efforts to operate efficiently to provide 

reliable electric service at the lowest reasonable cost; that 

they believe they cannot significantly improve heat rate; that 

best practice maintenance activities are performed on a daily 

basis, including during maintenance outages that allow for the 

inspection, cleaning and repair of all equipment; that extensive 

capital investments have been made to install state-of-the art 

equipment and replace equipment that is beyond repair; and that 

their employees continuously monitor and control operating 

levels in the combustion process to maintain maximum combustion 

of fuel and to avoid wasting available heat energy. In summary, 

these commenters say they have expended considerable effort and 

resources to maintain peak boiler efficiency at all times and, 

therefore, the 6-percent heat rate improvement proposed for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 666 of 1546

building block 1 is unreasonable to apply to EGUs across the 

board; the EPA should develop a rule that allows treatment of 

affected EGUs on a case-by-case basis. 

We commend the efforts of those who strive to operate and 

maintain EGUs in the best possible manner to minimize heat loss 

and CO2 emissions. This rule does allow for treatment of EGUs on 

a case-by-case basis. States may believe that individual 

considerations are appropriate in some cases and, accordingly, 

we have purposely allowed states to make decisions about how to 

implement specific CO2 reductions. Our determinations of 4.3-, 

2.1- and 2.3-percent heat rate improvement for EGUs in the 

Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnection, respectively, are 

conservatively based on the lowest value identified by any of 

our reasonable statistical analyses. If states choose to set 

limits on individual affected EGUs based in part on the 

availability of heat rate improvements, the states are free to 

assess heat rate improvements on a more targeted, case-by-case 

basis that takes into account an EGU’s previous heat rate 

improvement efforts, or lack thereof. The fact that states (or 

EGUs complying with state requirements) can make case-by-case 

decisions about how to achieve goals does not contradict our 

conservative estimates -- which are based on millions of hours 

of operating data reported to the EPA by EGUs -- of how much 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 667 of 1546

EGUs are capable of improving their heat rate in each region 

overall. Opportunities to improve heat rate abound for affected 

EGUs as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that the approaches in 

our statistical methodology each included a comparison of an 

EGU’s historical heat rate to its 2012 heat rate. Our estimates 

of the potential heat rate improvement are additionally 

conservative because they are based purely on comparisons among 

historical gross heat rate data, and thus do not reflect 

available, cost-effective opportunities to improve heat rate 

that affected EGUs never implemented during the study period. 

Finally, to the extent that an affected EGU was in 2012 fully 

implementing every possible best practice for improving heat 

rate, it may still be capable of improving heat rate through 

equipment upgrades. 

Other commenters said that a 6-percent heat rate 

improvement overall is too high; that the heat rate improvement 

from upgrades are double-counted within the data used to 

determine heat rate improvements from best practices; and that 

the 2-percent heat rate improvement specifically for upgrades 

was inappropriately based on “conceptual” improvements from only 

one study. 

We have reduced the 6-percent heat rate improvement from 

the proposed rule to three regionalized figures of 4.3 percent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 668 of 1546

(Eastern), 2.1 percent (Western) and 2.3 percent (Texas), as 

discussed above and described in detail in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. We expect that, on 

average, affected coal-fired EGUs can at a minimum improve heat 

rate in these amounts by implementing best practices and 

equipment upgrades identified in the GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD. These overall heat rate improvement figures do not include 

an estimated percent heat rate improvement attributable 

specifically to upgrades. Although we are no longer including in 

our calculation of building block 1 a separate 2-percent heat 

rate improvement attributable solely to equipment upgrades, this 

decision is not because we believe that our initial 2-percent 

assessment of equipment upgrades was incorrect. To the contrary, 

the information presented in the S&L study was similar to that 

in other industry reports and studies -- many of which were 

referenced in the proposal TSD -- describing potential heat rate 

improvements at EGUs from all types of equipment upgrades. 

However, we recognized that the possibility existed that some 

limited portion of that 2 percent was also reflected in our 

statistical analyses of historical gross heat rate data. In 

order to ensure that our methodology did not double-count an 

indeterminate amount of heat rate improvement available through 

equipment upgrades, we conservatively set aside the entire 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 669 of 1546

additional 2 percent attributable solely to equipment upgrades. 

Accordingly, we determined the amount of potential heat rate 

improvement in the BSER solely from the heat rate analyses 

described above, which account for improvements through best 

practices and equipment upgrades that were at some point 

achieved by an EGU, but not for the full range of best practices 

and equipment upgrades that are actually available. 

Commenters also said that the EPA did not look at important 

factors that affect heat rate such as coal type, boiler type, 

cooling water temperature, age, nameplate capacity or the use of 

post-combustion pollution controls. 

Our statistical methodology compared each unit to its own 

historical performance and, therefore, largely accounts for the 

effects that a unit’s design or fuel characteristics would have 

on heat rate. As discussed above, our methodology used hourly 

data from 884 units over an 11-year period (2002-2012) and 

compared the variability in the heat rate of each individual 

unit to that unit’s own performance. By assessing potential heat 

rate improvement by first looking at unit-specific data, our 

methodology inherently factors in the possible effects of design 

and fuel characteristics (e.g., coal type, boiler type, 

nameplate capacity, age, cooling water system, air pollution 

controls) on heat rate and heat rate variability. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 670 of 1546

Although cooling water temperature likely plays an 

important role in a coal-fired EGU’s heat rate, as stated by 

commenters, there are no consistent quality-assured hourly 

cooling water temperature data available to the EPA. However, in 

an effort to determine the potential effect of cooling water 

temperature on heat rate, we looked at a sample of 45 coal-fired 

EGUs at 19 facilities for which we had hourly surface water 

temperature data (used as a surrogate for cooling water) from 

monitors located nearby and upstream of cooling water intake 

points. Our analysis found that surface water temperature did 

explain some of the variation in heat rate, but that surface 

water temperature is strongly correlated with ambient air 

temperature -- a variable we did control for in our methodology. 

Because of the strong correlation between ambient air 

temperature and surface water temperature, the availability of a 

comprehensive dataset of nationwide hourly ambient air 

temperature, and the similar explanatory power of surface water 

temperature and ambient air temperature, it is unlikely that 

separately addressing cooling water temperature would 

significantly change the results. Rather, we are confident that 

our use of hourly ambient air temperature in our analyses 

adequately addressed any significant impact of cooling water 

temperature. See the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 671 of 1546

final CPP for further details about this analysis. As described 

further in that TSD, the other potentially relevant variables 

for which we did not directly control are unlikely to 

significantly affect the average heat rate. 

Commenters said that the heat rate improvement attributable 

to upgrades will degrade over time or require repeated and 

costly further upgrades. 

We are aware that some heat rate improvement measures can 

degrade over time. Like most power plant components, some heat 

rate improvement technologies require maintenance in order to 

sustain their efficacy over time. Therefore, to avoid 

degradation, personnel at EGUs will need to diligently apply 

“best practices” on a regular basis, a practice that numerous 

commenters say is standard operating procedure. The S&L study 

includes estimates of associated O&M costs for each heat rate 

improvement method that is discussed. As we explained in the 

proposal, the related O&M costs of diligently applying best 

practices are relatively small compared to the associated 

capital costs and would, therefore, have little effect on the 

economics of heat rate improvements. 

Commenters stated that heat rate improvement should be set 

on a basis that is narrower than nationwide -- for example, 

state-by-state or unit-by-unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 672 of 1546

The EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a rule that 

sets heat rate improvement goals for individual states or for 

individual coal-fired EGUs. Instead, in the approved state plans 

developed under this rule, each state will set the emission 

standards for its various coal-fired EGUs. In doing so, the 

state may take into account its own view of the amount of heat 

rate improvement needed (if any) at specific EGUs, and may look 

to the EPA’s analysis of heat rate improvement potential in the 

applicable region as a guide, while keeping in mind the CO2

emission performance rate. This broad-based approach is 

consistent with the traditional rules evaluating the potential 

for emission reductions on a source-category basis, and is 

consistent with the broader goal-setting purpose of this rule. 

Furthermore, the final rule establishes a uniform national 

performance rate based on the least stringent regional 

performance rate calculated with the building blocks. 

Accordingly, affected EGUs in regions not setting the national 

level have emission reduction opportunities beyond those 

reflected in the applicable performance rate. 

The heat rate improvement measures comprising building 

block 1 would ordinarily be evaluated on a nationwide basis. 

However, in this instance there are two good reasons to 

calculate building block 1 on a regionalized basis. First, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 673 of 1546

regionalized approach is consistent with the EPA’s approach to 

determining the other building blocks. For building block 1, 

this means that the heat rate improvement should reflect only as 

much potential for emission reduction from building block 1 as 

our analyses indicate can be achieved on average by the affected 

coal-fired EGUs in that region. This ensures that the BSER for 

each region is representative of the characteristics and 

opportunities available within that region, rather than a less 

logical combination of opportunities in the region and 

opportunities nationwide. Second, a regionalized approach 

provides a more representative average of the potential heat 

rate improvement that EGUs in a given region are capable of 

achieving. The populations of affected coal-fired EGUs in each 

region differ in some respects, as discussed in the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD, and the more nuanced regionalized 

approach thus indirectly accounts for some of those systemic 

differences. For these and other reasons described in Section 

V.A. of the preamble with respect to the BSER as a whole, we 

have reasonably based building block 1 on a regionalized 

approach. Applying this regionalized approach to building block 

1 strikes an appropriate balance between the proposed nationwide 

analysis and commenters’ suggested state-specific analysis, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 674 of 1546

which does not fully reflect the interconnected nature of the 

system within which affected coal-fired EGUs operate. 

The practical consequence of calculating building block 1 

on a regionalized versus nationwide basis is minimal. This is 

because the CO2 emission performance rates are based on the 

overall performance rate determined to be reasonable for EGUs in 

the Eastern Interconnection. Our methodology identifies a 4.3 

percent potential improvement in the Eastern Interconnection, 

compared to a 4.0 percent figure across all three 

interconnections. 

We further note, along with some commenters, that sitespecific engineering studies or unit-by-unit analyses of heat 

rate improvement potential for coal-fired EGUs are not available 

to the EPA; only a small number of site-specific case studies 

are available in the public literature. We considered that for 

the EPA to develop a comprehensive, unit-by-unit heat rate 

improvement study of nearly 900 coal-fired EGUs from scratch, it 

would likely cost the Agency $50,000 to $100,000 to study each 

EGU (almost $50 to $100 million total) and require three to four 

years to complete. Such a granular analysis would not serve the 

broader goal-setting purpose of this rulemaking. We agree with 

commenters who have pointed out that a heat rate improvementestimating effort of that magnitude and duration would be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 675 of 1546

unnecessarily lengthy and expensive. Nor would such a granular 

analysis be a necessary predicate for states to develop emission 

standards, or for EGUs to comply with those emission standards. 

Rather, our methodology’s reliance on individualized, unit-byunit hourly performance data from 884 EGUs provides conservative 

and reasonable regional estimates of heat rate improvement 

potential. Indeed, given the conservative nature of our 

methodology, a unit-specific approach that evaluates the full 

range of best practices and equipment upgrades available at 

individual EGUs -- including upgrades not accounted for here -- 

would be more likely to result in higher overall heat rate 

improvement figures than we are finalizing for building block 1. 

Furthermore, site-specific information forms the foundation of 

the EPA’s estimated heat rate improvement potential, and similar 

data likely would be used in any site-specific heat rate 

improvement engineering study. Finally, EGU-specific detailed 

design and operation information is not consistently available 

for all the factors that influence heat rate. The EPA has used 

the comprehensive data that are available to reasonably and 

conservatively estimate potential heat rate improvement in each 

region. 

Commenters also said that shifting electricity generation 

from coal-fired EGUs to other EGUs because of measures 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 676 of 1546

implemented under other building blocks will lower the capacity 

factors of coal-fired EGUs, and thus increase, not decrease, 

their heat rates. 

We expect that most states will develop plans that optimize 

the operation of existing coal-fired EGUs while utilizing the 

other building blocks and other measures to reduce emissions 

from carbon-intensive generation. From our IPM projections, the 

average annual capacity factor of existing coal-fired EGUs that 

are expected to remain in operation in 2030 will actually 

increase compared to 2012. This projection -- which is further 

described in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD -- incorporates 

expected retirements of inefficient units and generation shifts 

away from using coal-fired EGUs as peaking units. 

Commenters also noted that the EPA used net heat rate in 

state goals, but used gross heat rate in its heat rate 

improvement analysis -- potentially ignoring the detrimental 

effect that parasitic load from air pollution control devices 

(APCD) and other equipment can have on net heat rate. 

The EPA’s variability analysis necessarily and reasonably 

used gross output data for each of the 884 EGUs in the EPA’s 

database because they are the only publicly available, unitspecific, hourly performance data. By definition, improvement in 

gross heat rate would be reflected in the net heat rate. Gross 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 677 of 1546

heat rate is the total heat output from the EGU, in units of 

Btu/gross kWh, and includes the power used by auxiliary 

equipment required to operate the EGU itself. By contrast, net 

heat rate is the remaining Btu/kWh after subtracting the power 

used by the EGU’s own auxiliary equipment from the gross heat 

rate value, i.e., what the EGU is able to provide to the grid. 

Improvements in net heat rate alone (e.g., reducing parasitic 

load of on-site equipment) may be possible on many units. 

Therefore, our use of gross heat rate to estimate potential heat 

rate improvement was conservative because of the additional 

opportunities to achieve the uniform performance rate through 

improvements in net heat rate alone. 

Commenters also raised concerns that the EPA was not taking 

into account net heat rate increases due to additional add-on 

pollution controls that may, for some units, be required by 

other rules.620

The results of our statistical analysis are based on gross 

heat rates and would not change with installation of emission 

controls for CSAPR, MATS, or other rules because these controls 

will add parasitic load requirements and thereby have an impact 

on the net heat rates only. Furthermore, we conservatively 

consider region-wide net heat rate improvement potential to be 

 

620 See above for an explanation of gross versus net heat rate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 678 of 1546

the same as that indicated for the region-wide gross heat rate, 

when in fact it is not. In order to check our assumptions 

concerning gross versus net heat rate, we used the IPM Power 

Sector Modeling Platform (version 5.14) and National Electric 

Energy Data System (NEEDS) (version 5.14) to analyze the 

anticipated incremental heat input required to operate 

additional add-on controls to comply with various EPA rules, 

including CSAPR, MATS, effluent guidelines for EGUs, and coal 

combustion residuals. From this analysis, we project that 

between 2012 and 2025, existing coal-fired EGUs are expected to 

install approximately 18.6 GW of wet flue gas desulphurization 

(FGD), 16.6 GW of dry FGD, 24.9 GW of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), and 3.9 GW of selective noncatalytic reduction 

(SNCR). The resulting impact from new pollution controls on 

existing coal-fired EGUs’ heat rate is expected to be very 

small, at conservatively less than 31 Btu/kWh, or less than 0.3 

percent in 2025.621 After 2025, this estimate is particularly 

conservative because the EPA’s cost performance models 

overestimate the parasitic load from individual add-on controls 

for future years. Furthermore, at some EGUs these newer 

 

621 When considered on a regional basis, we expect these controls 

to impact heat rate by approximately 0.3 percent in both the 

Eastern and Western Interconnections, and by less than 0.1 

percent in the Texas Interconnection. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 679 of 1546

pollution control devices will replace existing pollution 

control devices. Accordingly, for these EGUs, the minimal 

increase in net heat rate due to power required to operate new 

controls will be at least partially offset by the decrease in 

net heat rate caused by removal of the control devices currently 

in place. For more information about this analysis, see the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Commenters contended that the 11 years of data used to 

evaluate potential heat rate improvement is too broad, and that 

the population of domestic coal-fired EGUs has changed 

significantly over this time period. 

The 11-year span for the hourly gross heat rate data is 

appropriate because it represents a wide variety of economic 

conditions, market conditions and fleet composition, while also 

capturing the relatively recent historical performance of 

affected coal-fired EGUs. We also noted in the proposal TSD that 

the population of coal-fired EGUs used in the analytical 

approaches to determine potential heat rate improvement is made 

up of coal-fired EGUs that operated in 2012. The gross heat rate 

data of any coal-fired EGUs that retired prior to 2012 were not 

included in the dataset. 

Commenters stated that many of the changes in heat rate 

reflected in the 11-year hourly gross heat rate dataset are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 680 of 1546

attributable to changes in monitoring methodology, and thus do 

not represent heat rate improvements attributable to best 

practices or equipment upgrades. In addition, commenters are 

concerned that changes to the monitoring methodology in the 

future could artificially alter the measured heat rate. 

Different stack gas flow monitoring methods can yield more 

or less accurate measurements of heat input and CO2 emissions. 

These differences depend on the characteristics of the stack gas 

flow where the monitoring and reference method measurements are 

taken, and which options under the Part 75 emission measurement 

rules are chosen in the application of the various flow rate 

reference methods. In general, more accurate stack gas flow 

monitoring methodologies yield lower values that, when used to 

calculate emissions or heat input, may lower the heat rate 

values reported to the EPA. 

Some EGUs adopted monitoring methodologies that have the 

potential to affect the exactness of the data we used for 

assessing heat rate improvements. However, as discussed in 

detail in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP, our review of the data shows that a relatively small amount 

of the data are affected by these changes; we are confident that 

the values adopted for building block 1 are conservative and 

reasonable estimates of the potential for heat rate improvement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 681 of 1546

in each region. Some changes in monitoring methodology would 

have the result of tending to cause us to underestimate the 

potential for heat rate improvement. Furthermore, because our 

methodology analyzes percentage heat rate improvement based on 

2012 gross heat rate data, our results are unaffected by EGUs 

that used more accurate monitoring methodologies in 2012 or used 

the same monitoring methodologies consistently throughout the 

11-year study period. For these and other reasons discussed in 

detail in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, we remain confident 

in our results despite the marginal differences attributable to 

monitoring methodologies in some of the heat rate data for a 

subset of EGUs.622 

In terms of concerns with future methodological changes, 

the overwhelming majority of the 884 EGUs in the dataset we used 

to assess heat rate improvement have already changed their stack 

gas flow monitoring methodology in 2012 or earlier. Furthermore, 

extension of the compliance date to 2022 for this rule, as 

discussed above, more than adequately allows enough time for 

EGUs to determine how to actually improve their heat rates and 

 

622 Furthermore, on a fundamental level, our methodology accounts 

for a certain amount of any residual inexactness because we have 

conservatively adopted the lowest value identified by any of our 

reasonable approaches -- all three of which are themselves 

conservative because they do not account for the full extent of 

heat rate improvements achievable through equipment upgrades. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 682 of 1546

lower CO2 emissions while accommodating future changes to 

monitoring methodologies. For a more detailed explanation, see 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Commenters said that there is no proof that lowering the 

heat rate will reduce variability or that reduced variability 

will reduce heat rate, i.e., correlation does not prove 

causation. 

As an initial matter, it is important to note that for the 

final rule the EPA used three types of statistical analyses to 

evaluate and estimate potential heat rate improvements of coalfired EGUs, and only one of these analyses involved any 

consideration of heat rate variability. All three types of 

statistical analyses are described in the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

These commenters are correct that, in the abstract, 

reducing heat rate variability only means that heat rate will be 

more consistent -- not necessarily lower or higher. However, our 

analysis is not an abstract evaluation of the potential to 

reduce variability, as commenters suggest, but rather is an 

evaluation of the potential heat rate improvement achievable 

through reducing variability -- i.e., reducing variability to 

achieve a more consistently low heat rate. See the more detailed 

discussion of the statistical procedures used for the final 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 683 of 1546

rule, above. In particular, the application of a “consistency 

factor” in the analyses performed for both the proposed and 

final rule demonstrates the potential results if each individual 

EGU operated slightly more consistently with the lower heat 

rates that the EGU had itself previously achieved under similar 

conditions. 

The consequence of a reduced heat rate is, of course, a 

lower rate of CO2 emissions, which is the purpose of the BSER for 

building block 1. This way of thinking about reduced variability 

is consistent with the utility power sector’s own efforts to 

reduce variability, which are aimed at securing the economic 

benefits of a more consistently lower overall heat rate. 

Some commenters expressed concern that heat rate 

improvements could trigger applicability of new source review 

(NSR) provisions. The relationship of this final rule to other 

regulatory provisions, including NSR, is discussed in section X 

of the preamble. 

D. Building Block 2—Generation Shifts Among Affected EGUs 

The second element of the foundation for the EPA’s BSER 

determination for reducing CO2 emissions at affected fossil fuelfired EGUs entails an analysis of the extent to which fossil 

steam EGUs can shift generation to existing NGCC EGUs. In this 

section, we define building block 2 as the gradual shifting of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 684 of 1546

generation from existing fossil steam to existing NGCC within 

each region up to a maximum NGCC utilization of 75% on a net 

summer basis. In each year of the interim period, this 75% net 

summer maximum potential is subject to a regional limit informed 

by historical growth rates. This section summarizes the EPA’s 

analysis supporting that definition, including a discussion of: 

historical trends in the utility power sector, the gradual 

phase-in governed by historical growth rates, the technical 

feasibility of utilizing existing NGCC units at 75% net summer 

capacity, historical availability of and generation shifts to 

NGCC units, reliability, natural gas infrastructure, natural gas 

production, transmissions planning and construction, regulatory 

flexibility, and cost-effectiveness of CO2 reductions. 

1. Demonstration of ability to reduce CO2 emissions through 

shifting generation 

a. Background of utility power sector. The ability to shift 

generation from higher- to lower-emitting sources is compatible 

with the way EGUs are generally dispatched.623 The standard 

approach to dispatching generation is through Security 

Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED), a well-established 

 

623 See Preamble, II.C.1, History of the Power Sector, for 

background to this discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 685 of 1546

practice in the electric power industry.624 As the name 

indicates, SCED has two defining components: economic operation 

of generating facilities and assurance that the electric system 

remains reliable and secure.625 Economic dispatch generally 

refers to shorter-term planning and operations from a day ahead 

through real time. During this period, generating units are 

committed – a process known as “unit commitment,” in which units 

are committed to be ready to provide generation to the system 

when they will be needed – and then dispatched in real time to 

meet the electricity demand of the system. Overall changes in 

the level of generation from different facilities are also 

planned over time periods longer than this two-day dispatch 

period. Over a calendar year, for example, units are planned and 

scheduled seasonally or monthly to ensure that sufficient 

capacity and energy will be available to meet expected loads in 

an area. Over a period of a week, units are committed to be 

prepared to start up or shut down to meet forecast loads, and 

dispatch is coordinated within this planning and unit commitment 

framework. This process enables system operators to respond 

 

624 “Economic Dispatch: Concepts, Practices and Issues”, FERC 

Staff Presentation to the Joint Board for the Study of Economic 

Dispatch”, Palm Springs, California, November 13, 2005. A copy 

of this presentation is available in the docket for this rule. 

625 “Security Constrained Economic Dispatch: Definitions, 

Practices, Issues and Recommendations: A Report to Congress”, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, July 31, 2006. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 686 of 1546

quickly to short-term changes in demand, and also to shift 

generation among different generation types to match longer-term 

requirements and goals. 

 EGUs using technologies with relatively low variable 

costs, such as nuclear units, are for economic reasons generally 

operated at their maximum output whenever they are available. 

Renewable EGUs such as wind and solar units also have low 

variable costs, but the magnitude and timing of their output 

generally depend on wind and sun conditions rather than the 

operators' discretion. In contrast, fossil fuel-fired EGUs have 

higher variable costs and are also relatively flexible to 

operate. Fossil fuel-fired EGUs are therefore generally the 

units that operators use to respond to intra-day and intra-week 

changes in demand. Because of these typical characteristics of 

the various EGU types, the primary opportunities for switching 

generation among existing units available to EGU owners and grid 

operators generally consist of opportunities to shift generation 

among various fossil fuel-fired units, in particular between 

coal-fired EGUs (as well as oil- and gas-fired steam EGUs) and 

NGCC units. In the short term — that is, over time intervals 

shorter than the time required to build a new electric 

generation unit — fossil fuel-fired units consequently tend to 

compete more with one another than with nuclear and renewable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 687 of 1546

EGUs. The amount of generation shifting from coal-fired EGUs to 

NGCC units that takes place as a result of this competition is 

highly relevant to overall power sector GHG emissions, because a 

typical NGCC unit produces less than half as much CO2 per MWh of 

electricity generated as a typical coal-fired EGU. 

b. Trends in generation shifts from coal-fired to natural gasfired sources. Since at least 2000, fossil fuel-fired generation 

has been shifting from coal- and oil-fired EGUs to NGCC units, 

both as a result of construction of additional NGCC units, and 

also as a result of dispatch of pre-existing NGCC units at 

higher capacity factors. As a result, generation from NGCC EGUs 

in 2012 reached over four times the level of NGCC generation in 

2000, while generation from coal and oil/gas steam EGUs 

decreased by around one third.626 As we demonstrate in the GHG 

Abatement Measures TSD, NGCC units are capable of operating at 

higher annual capacity factors than they have historically, so 

there remains considerable opportunity for increased use of 

existing NGCC units to replace generation currently supplied by 

higher-emitting coal and oil/gas steam units. The electric 

utility industry is thus well-positioned to address the 

requirements of this building block by increasing use of 

existing NGCC units and correspondingly decreasing use of steam 

 

626 Ventyx Electric Power Database. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 688 of 1546

units. The electric industry has been shifting generation to 

NGCCs in recent years and is expected to continue to retire coal 

capacity and add new NGCC. In the reference case without 111d, 

EIA forecasts 40 GW of coal retirements and 53 GW of NGCC 

additions from 2014 to 2030.627 An EPA review of state Integrated 

Resource Plans (IRPs) shows a pattern of shifting away from coal 

steam capacity to NGCC. For example, Ameren plans to add 600 MW 

of NGCC and convert two coal units and Duke plans to add 680 MW 

of NGCC and convert one coal unit. For further examples, see the 

IRP TSD. 

c. Mechanisms for dispatch shifts from coal-fired to natural 

gas-fired generation. There are a variety of patterns of 

ownership and operational control of EGUs; these ownership and 

operational structures influence how EGUs will respond to this 

building block. However, all owners and operators have the 

ability to comply by using this building block. In terms of 

ownership, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) serve about 75 

percent of the US population, while consumer-owned utilities 

serve the remaining 25 percent.628 In states that have maintained 

traditional regulation, IOUs are generally vertically integrated 

 

627 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

reference case, ref2015.d021915a. 

628 Regulatory Assistance Project, Electricity Regulation in the 

US: A Guide, Page 9, March 2011. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 689 of 1546

(owning generating capacity as well as transmission and 

distribution infrastructure), and the wholesale sales of these 

EGUs are regulated by the state; in states that have deregulated 

their retail service, ownership of the EGU is separated from 

ownership of transmission, and wholesale sales of generation are 

regulated by FERC. Consumer-owned utilities comprise municipal 

utilities, public utility districts of various types owned by 

government agencies, nonprofit cooperative entities (co-ops), 

and a number of other entities such as Native American Tribes. 

Operational control of the dispatch of power over the 

electricity grid is superimposed on this pattern of ownership. 

Prior to electricity restructuring, this dispatch was typically 

operated by major vertically-integrated utilities or by public 

power entities. Over the last 15 years, large portions of the 

power grid are now independently operated by Independent System 

Operators (ISOs) or Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs). 

These entities are regulated by FERC and dispatch power from 

multiple owners to meet the loads on the bulk power grid. 

The combination of multiple ownership and types of 

operational control adds to the complexity of electricity 

dispatch, but all affected EGUs, regardless of ownership and 

type of control, can use this building block to comply with the 

final rule. The principal difference among the differing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 690 of 1546

entities lies in the types of methods that are available for the 

affected EGU owner to bring about the shift in generation that 

will make use of this building block for compliance. There are 

several alternatives to accomplish this result: the owner of the 

higher-emitting affected EGU may also own, or have affiliates 

that own, lower emitting generation and thus reduce its own 

generation and use its control over these other EGUs to increase 

their generation; an EGU may be able to reduce its generation 

and buy replacement power from the market that is lower 

emitting; or the EGU may be able to reduce its generation and 

procure generation from a separately-owned lower-emitting EGU. 

These alternatives will be available in states with either rate 

or mass-based state plans without any change in their general 

form. Under a rate-based state plan, an EGU owner may also be 

able to purchase ERCs and average the ERCs into its emission 

rate for purpose of demonstrating compliance with its standard 

of performance. Under standards of performance that incorporate 

emissions trading, an EGU owner may be able to purchase ratebased emission credits or mass-based emission allowances not 

needed by other EGUs and use those credits or allowances to help 

achieve its standard of performance. 

The potential to shift generation identified for this 

building block is entirely consistent with the existing economic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 691 of 1546

dispatch protocols described above. State environmental policies 

can shift generation in two ways. The first is operational 

restrictions, such as permit limits on the number of hours that 

an EGU can operate in order to limit emissions. The second is 

changes in the relative costs of generation among different 

types of EGUs related to pollution reduction measures. For 

example, a regulation that necessitates the use of a control 

technology that requires the application of a reagent in a 

certain kind of EGU will increase the variable cost of operating 

that plant, which in turn may reduce the amount of generation it 

is called upon to deliver to the grid through securityconstrained economic dispatch procedures. 

In an organized market, where the system operator 

dispatches units partly based upon costs, an electric power 

plant that experiences an increase in its variable costs will 

tend to operate less than it otherwise would have. For example, 

market-based pollution control programs require units to hold 

tradable allowances to authorize their emissions of a regulated 

pollutant. Such an allowance-holding requirement puts a price on 

the act of emitting the regulated pollutant, which increases the 

operating costs of units that emit that pollutant, and thus such 

units will be dispatched less than they otherwise would without 

such an allowance-holding requirement. The Regional Greenhouse 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 692 of 1546

Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an example of a state program that has 

this effect. In the present rule, although shifts in the mix of 

generation to address the costs of pollution control can lead to 

higher electricity generating costs overall, the EPA analysis 

shows these costs to be modest and well below their associated 

benefits.629

Many of the NGCC units are owned by the same companies or 

affiliates that also own steam units. In these cases, changes in 

EGU generation can be planned by the company or affiliate 

without the need to engage in separate market transactions with 

outside parties. Where the affected EGU owner is also the 

dispatch entity, as in most traditional market structures, the 

EGU owner will generally have operational control over the unit. 

Environmental conditions, such as compliance costs or limits on 

generation, can be factored in with fuel costs to determining 

when the unit is committed to be available, how the unit can be 

most efficiently cycled, and at what level the unit is 

dispatched. 

An analysis of generation data from steam and NGCC units in 

2012 shows that 77 percent of the steam generation occurred from 

an EGU that owned, or that had an affiliate that owned, NGCC 

generation. Eighty percent of the generation shift potential 

 

629 See the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 693 of 1546

identified in this building block (increasing NGCC generation up 

to a 75 percent capacity factor on a net basis to replace steam 

generation) could occur among these entities that own (either 

directly or through affiliates) both steam and NGCC 

generation.630 These data show that most EGU generation relevant 

for this building block is produced by entities that own both 

steam and NGCC generation. 

Another alternative available to an affected EGU owner that 

does not also own NGCC generation is for the higher-emitting 

affected EGU to reduce its generation and purchase replacement 

power from the market. In organized markets such as RTOs, it is 

available through standard practice, because the owner impacts 

how its EGUs are dispatched based upon how it bids into the RTO 

market. In this case, the owner can exercise control over the 

levels of generation across units by when it offers generation 

to the market operator (the RTO or ISO), and the prices it bids 

for this generation. As in traditional economic dispatch by a 

utility, environmental conditions, compliance costs, or limits 

on generation can be incorporated by the owner into the 

determination of the cost-effective generation pattern of its 

EGUs. 

 

630 SNL Energy. Data used with permission. Accessed May 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 694 of 1546

In regions with organized electricity markets (including, 

but not limited to, RTOs or ISOs), the various types of EGU 

owners of higher-emitting sources can reduce their generation, 

and any resulting deficit in generation on the system can be 

supplied from other EGUs in the region; for example, a coalfired unit can reduce generation that is then replaced through 

the operation of the market by generation from an NGCC unit, 

subject to dispatch by a regional operator to ensure the 

reliable delivery of the generation to loads within the region. 

To comply with this rule, higher-emitting steam units will need 

greater reductions relative to lower-emitting NGCC units which 

will, in turn, tend to raise steam unit costs compared to NGCC 

units. As a result, the bids that a steam unit provides a market 

operator will rise relative to NGCC units. This process of 

reducing generation from a higher-emitting unit will lead to 

substitution of lower-emitting generation. 

EGU owners that do not participate in an organized 

electricity market may nevertheless purchase power from the 

wholesale power market. Purchases in the wholesale power market 

can be spot purchases, which are typically general purchases of 

system power supplied by the EGUs across a region, or contract 

purchases, which may have more provider-specific characteristics 

(such as specifying the type of unit that is providing the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 695 of 1546

power). Purchases between EGUs through the wholesale power 

market will have similar emission-lowering properties as 

operation of the organized market discussed above, because 

dispatch in balancing areas outside RTOs and ISOs also follows a 

similar economic dispatch protocol that is informed by each 

unit’s production costs and environmental limitations. 

Under this alternative, the steam generators may, in 

effect, realize emission reductions from building block 2 simply 

by reducing their generation. Steam generators do not need to 

purchase replacement electricity as a prerequisite for realizing 

emission reductions from reducing their own generation because 

other generators already have an incentive to provide as much 

electricity as load-serving entities are willing to buy in order 

to satisfy electricity demand.631 As noted above, higher-emitting 

generation sources will have to incorporate correspondingly 

higher costs of pollution reduction into their supply bids 

compared to lower-emitting generation sources, and as a result, 

 

631 Some owners or operators of steam generators may have 

electricity supply obligations to which they may be applying 

power from those steam generators. However, such parties may 

fulfil those supply obligations using the wholesale power market 

in the exact same way described here that enables any other 

generator with economically attractive electricity to offer such 

supply. In other words, the ability of a steam generator to 

reduce its generation is not contingent on an associated 

purchase to replace that power, notwithstanding the possibility 

that the owner or operator of that steam unit may choose to make 

such a purchase to meet an electricity supply obligation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 696 of 1546

load-serving entities will seek to buy a greater share of 

electricity from the lower-emitting sources because their supply 

bids will be more economically attractive. Once the steam 

generators reduce their generation (and associated emissions), 

the other entities in the electricity system arrange for the 

replacement electricity. The outcome of this power market 

process will reduce both the mass and the rate of emissions 

across sources. 

An owner of a source can also reduce the generation of an 

EGU by substituting generation from a lower-emitting NGCC 

directly. For an EGU owner without existing NGCC generation, 

this substitution can take the form of a bilateral contract 

purchase. In RTOs and ISOs, this alternative often takes the 

form of a contract for differences, where the replacement source 

could be an NGCC and the contract specifies a delivery location 

and the price of the power. In bilateral markets, the contract 

vehicle could be a Power Purchase Agreement from a replacement 

source. It is also possible that the owner of a steam unit could 

directly invest in an existing EGU by purchasing the asset or 

taking a partial ownership position, thus acquiring the 

generation from the unit through that means. The acquired 

generation and its associated emissions could be used for 

compliance by the higher-emitting EGU, in accordance with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 697 of 1546

plan under which it is operating. The amount of generation that 

could be shifted using the approaches described in this 

paragraph will depend on the type and terms of the commercial 

arrangements, as well as the potential need for regulated 

entities to obtain approvals for contracts or for changes in 

asset positions. The wide range of approaches permitted by this 

rule provides flexibility, both within a year and across 

multiple years, for EGUs to fashion these arrangements to fit 

their circumstances. 

An EGU is also be able to meet its reduction obligations 

using emission rate credits or allowances. The particular nature 

of this alternative will depend on how a state elects to develop 

its plan. If a state chooses a mass-based approach, the EGU 

would simply need to hold allowances to cover its emissions. To 

realize an emission reduction from building block 2 under this 

approach, a steam generator would only need to reduce its 

emissions by reducing its generation, which would lead to that 

generator needing fewer allowances to cover its emissions under 

the program. In a rate-based state, the state may choose to 

provide for compliance by purchasing tradable emission rate 

credits. To realize an emission reduction from building block 2 

under this approach, a steam generator would be able to adjust 

its effective emission rate by purchasing emission rate credits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 698 of 1546

that are produced by other sources whose emission rates are 

lower than the applicable rate standard. In this fashion, a 

steam generator does not need to purchase lower-emitting 

replacement power per se in order to demonstrate an emission 

reduction from this building block; instead, the steam generator 

may purchase any emission rate credits that were produced from 

lower-emitting sources (see section VIII for more detail on how 

state plans can use an emission rate credit approach to 

facilitate a rate-based compliance demonstration of this type of 

emission reduction).632

The approaches shown here collectively demonstrate that all 

steam generators -- regardless of size, location, form of 

ownership, or type of market in which they operate -- can 

implement building block 2 through some or all of the mechanisms 

described. 

2. Timing of generation shift 

The EPA received significant public comments expressing 

concern regarding the proposal’s incorporation of the full 

 

632 Stakeholders have recognized that emission rate credits and 

allowances are an effective tool for EGUs to implement the 

building blocks and achieve their standards of performance 

required under this rule. See “Clean Power Plan Implementation: 

Single-State Compliance Approaches with Interstate Elements,” 

Georgetown Climate Center (May 2015), 

http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/www.georgetownclimate.org

/files/GCC_ComplianceApproacheswithInterstateElements_May2015.pd

f. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 699 of 1546

building block 2 shift in generation by the first year of the 

interim period. These commenters perceived this approach as 

requiring states to achieve such a significant portion of the 

required CO2 emission reductions early in the interim period that 

states would lack flexibility in when and how they may achieve 

the required emission reductions. Other commenters expressed 

concern that the full extent of building block 2 would be 

difficult for some states to achieve by the first year of the 

interim period as a result of technical, engineering, and 

infrastructure limitations or other considerations; that such 

timing may crowd out other cost-effective options for emission 

reductions; and that such timing might have negative 

implications for reliability. 

In the proposal, the EPA determined that emission 

reductions are feasible and achievable at fossil fuel-fired 

steam EGUs by shifting from more carbon-intensive EGUs to less 

carbon-intensive EGUs, as part of the BSER. More specifically, 

the EPA proposed that generation shifts from fossil fuel-fired 

steam units (which are primarily coal-fired) to NGCC units, up 

to a utilization of 70 percent on a nameplate capacity basis, 

could be achieved by 2020. In contrast, the EPA proposed that 

reductions in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired units 

associated with other measures, such as increased utilization of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 700 of 1546

RE generating capacity and increased demand-side energy 

efficiency, would be achievable on a phased-in basis between 

2020 and 2029, reflecting the time needed for deployment.633 In 

light of the concerns noted above, the EPA solicited comment in 

the NODA on potential rationales for phasing in the potential to 

shift generation under building block 2.634

As described in section III of this preamble, the EPA has 

revised the interim compliance period to start in 2022, which 

itself is a meaningful response regarding the concerns expressed 

by commenters about the timing of building block 2’s generation 

shift potential. In addition, the EPA has evaluated the 

feasibility over time of building block 2 within the framework 

of BSER, and is finalizing a change to building block 2 that 

gradually phases in the shift from existing fossil steam to 

existing NGCC over the interim period. This phase-in allows for 

additional time to complete potential infrastructure 

improvements (e.g., natural gas pipeline expansion or 

transmission improvements) that might be needed to support more 

use of existing natural gas-fired generation, and provides 

states with the increased ability to coordinate actions taken 

 

633 (79 FR 34866) 634 (79 FR 64543) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 701 of 1546

under building block 2 with actions taken under building block 3 

(deployment of new renewable capacity). 

The phase-in schedule applies a limit to the maximum 

building block 2 potential in each year of the interim period 

based on two parameters. The first parameter defines an amount 

of generation shift to existing NGCC capacity that is feasible 

by 2022, and the second parameter defines how quickly that 

amount could grow until the full amount of NGCC generation could 

be achieved as part of the BSER. Both of these parameters are 

determined by examining the extent to which gas-fired generation 

has increased over historical time periods. The first parameter 

is based on the single largest annual increase in power sector 

gas-fired generation since 1990, which occurred between 2011 and 

2012 and is equal to 22 percent.635 We believe that this amount 

is a conservative estimate of the ability of the sector to 

increase utilization of NGCC capacity by 2022, given that this 

increase has already occurred in a single year. The second 

parameter is based on the average annual growth in gas-fired 

generation in the power sector between 1990 and 2012, which is 

approximately 5 percent per year. 

 

635 US EIA Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.2b Electricity Net 

Generation: Electric Power Sector (2015), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/xls.cfm?tbl=T07.02B&

freq=m. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 702 of 1546

In the performance rate calculation methodology, these two 

parameters constrain the annual rate at which building block 2 

shifts generation from fossil steam units to NGCC units. The 

interim performance rate is an average of annual rates 

calculated over the 2022-2029 period. The two parameters above 

limit the extent to which NGCC generation is able to increase 

and replace fossil steam generation in each year of the interim 

period. In the first year, NGCC generation is limited to a 

maximum of a 22 percent increase from 2012 levels in each 

region. In each subsequent year, regional NGCC generation is 

limited to a maximum of a 5 percent increase from the previous 

year. This phase-in continues in the performance rate-setting 

methodology until the full building block 2 level of shifting 

from fossil steam generation to NGCC generation is reached. 

Under this approach, building block 2 is completely phased into 

the source category calculation of all regions by the end of the 

interim period. 

Table 7. BSER Maximum NGCC Generation by Region and Year (TWh). 

NGCC Generation (TWh) 

Regio

n 

Maximu

m 

Potent

ial at 

75% 

2012 

(adjus

ted) 

BSER Maximum 

202

2 

202

3 

202

4 

202

5 

202

6 

202

7 

202

8 

202

9 

203

0 

Limit -- -- 22% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

Easte

rn 

Inter 988 735 896 941 988 988 988 988 988 988 988
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 703 of 1546

conne

ction 

Weste

rn 

Inter

conne

ction 306 198 242 254 267 280 294 306 306 306 306

Texas 

Inter

conne

ction 204 137 167 176 185 194 203 204 204 204 204

This phase-in, in addition to the flexible nature of the goals, 

ensures that the overall framework of this final rule includes 

sufficient flexibility, particularly with respect to timing of 

and strategies for reducing emissions from the affected units, 

so that states can develop cost-effective strategies and allow 

for infrastructure improvements to occur should they prove 

necessary in some locations. 

3. Basis for magnitude of generation shift 

a. Technical feasibility of NGCC units to generate at 75% of 

their capacity. In order to estimate the potential magnitude of 

the opportunity to reduce power sector CO2 emissions through 

shifting generation among existing EGUs, the EPA first examined 

information on the design capabilities and availability of NGCC 

units. Availability is defined as the number of hours that 

generators are available to generate electricity, and it is 

typically expressed as a percentage of the total number of hours 

in a year. Since the value of NGCC capacity is related to how 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 704 of 1546

much electricity the owner of that capacity can generate and 

sell, units are typically designed with very high availability 

ratings. Baseload units have annual average availabilities of 

approximately 91%-92%, and peaking units are generally available 

96% to 98% of peak hours.636 The EPA also examined information on 

the historical availability of NGCC units in practice. This 

examination showed that, although most NGCC units have 

historically been operated in intermediate-duty roles for 

economic reasons, they are technically capable of operating in 

baseload roles at much higher annual utilization rates. Average 

annual availability (that is, the percentage of annual hours 

when an EGU is not in a forced or maintenance outage) for NGCC 

units in the U.S. generally exceeds 85 percent, and can exceed 

90 percent for some groups.637

We also researched historical data to determine the 

utilization rates that NGCC units have already demonstrated 

their capability to sustain. Over the last several years, the 

 

636 Negotiating Availability Guarantees for Gas Turbine Plants, 

available at: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume105/issue-3/features/negotiating-availability-guarantees-forgas-turbine-plants.html 

637 See, e.g., North American Electric Reliability Corp., 2008-

2012 Generating Unit Statistical Brochure—All Units Reporting, 

http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/gads/Pages/Reports.aspx; Higher 

Availability of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle, Power Engineering 

(Feb. 1, 2011), http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume115/issue-2/features/higher-availability-of-gas-turbinecombined-cycle.html. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 705 of 1546

utilization patterns of fossil fuel-fired units have shifted 

relative to historical dispatch patterns, with NGCC units 

increasing generation and many coal-fired EGUs reducing 

generation. In fact, in April 2012, for the first time ever the 

total quantity of electricity generated nationwide from natural 

gas was approximately equal to the total quantity of electricity 

generated nationwide from coal.638 These changes in generation 

patterns have been driven largely by changes over time in the 

relative prices of natural gas and coal. Although the relative 

fuel prices vary by location, as do the recent generation 

patterns, this trend holds across broad regions of the U.S. In 

the aggregate, the historical data provide ample evidence 

indicating that, on average, existing NGCC units can achieve and 

sustain utilization rates higher than their historical average 

utilization rates. 

Utilization of EGUs is often considered using the metric of 

a capacity factor, which is the percentage of total production 

potential that an electric generating unit achieves in a given 

time period. A capacity factor of 75 percent thus represents a 

unit producing three-quarters of the electricity it could have 

produced in that time had it utilized its entire capacity. The 

EPA received multiple comments regarding the proposed use of 

 

638 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6990. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 706 of 1546

nameplate capacity in calculating the potential utilization 

level of existing NGCCs under building block 2. These comments 

stated that net summer capacity is a more meaningful and 

reliable metric than nameplate capacity, because net capacity 

best reflects the electric output available to serve load. The 

EPA agrees with these comments. The quantification of building 

block 2 as well as performance rate and state goal calculations 

in the final rule are all based on net summer generating 

capacity. An annual utilization rate of 75 percent on a net 

summer basis is similar to the proposed rule’s consideration of 

70 percent utilization on a nameplate basis.639 

The experience of relatively heavily-used NGCC units 

provides an additional indication of the degree of increase in 

average NGCC unit utilization that is technically feasible. 

The EPA reexamined the historical NGCC plant utilization 

rate data reported to the EIA, and found that in 2012 roughly 15 

percent of existing NGCC plants operated at annual utilization 

rates of 75 percent or higher on a net summer basis.640 In 

 

639 For a given amount of net generation, a net summer capacity 

factor appears higher compared to a corresponding nameplate 

capacity factor because net summer capacity reflects a lower 

amount of total generation potential achievable by the unit in 

practice. 

640 Net summer capacity is defined as: “The maximum output, 

commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that generating equipment 

can supply to system load, as demonstrated by a multi-hour test, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 707 of 1546

effect, these plants were providing baseload power. In addition 

to the 15 percent of NGCC plants that operated approximately at 

a 75 percent utilization rate on an annual basis, some NGCC 

plants operated at even higher utilization rates for shorter, 

but still sustained, periods of time in response to high 

cyclical demand. For example, on a seasonal basis, a significant 

number of NGCC plants have achieved utilization rates greater 

than 90 percent on a net summer basis; during the summer of 2012 

(June through August), about 30 percent of NGCC plants operated 

at utilization rates of 75 percent or more across the entire 

season. During the spring and fall periods when electricity 

demand levels are typically lower, these plants were sometimes 

idled or operated at much lower capacity factors. Nonetheless, 

the data clearly demonstrate that a substantial number of 

existing NGCC plants have proven the ability to sustain 75 

percent utilization rates for extended periods of time. We view 

this as strong evidence that increasing the annual average 

utilization rates of existing NGCC units to 75 percent on a net 

summer basis would be technically feasible. 

 

at the time of summer peak demand (period of June 1 through 

September 30.) This output reflects a reduction in capacity due 

to electricity use for station service or auxiliaries.” (EIA, 

http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 708 of 1546

The EPA believes that an annual average utilization rate of 

75 percent on a net summer basis is a conservative assessment of 

what existing NGCC plants are capable of sustaining for extended 

periods of time. In 2012, roughly 10 percent of existing NGCC 

plants operated at annual utilization rates of 80 percent or 

higher on a net summer basis. While the EPA believes this level 

is also technically feasible on average for the existing NGCC 

fleet, the EPA is quantifying building block 2 assuming an NGCC 

utilization level of 75% on a net summer basis in order to offer 

sources additional compliance flexibility, given that the extent 

to which they realize a utilization level beyond 75 percent will 

reduce their need to rely on other emission reduction measures 

or building blocks. 

b. Historical generation shifts to NGCC generation. In 2012, 

total electric generation from existing NGCC units was 966 

TWh.641 After the application of the building block 2 potential 

(increasing NGCC utilization up to a 75 percent capacity factor 

on a net summer basis, including generation from NGCC units that 

were under construction in 2012), the total generation from 

these existing sources is assumed to be 1,070 TWh.642 

 

641 Appendix 1, CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation 

Technical Support Document for CPP Final Rule. 

642 Appendix 1, CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation 

Technical Support Document for CPP Final Rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 709 of 1546

The EPA believes that producing this quantity of generation 

from this set of NGCC units is feasible. To put this level of 

generation into context, NGCC generation increased by 

approximately 430 TWh (an 80 percent increase) between 2005 and 

2012. The EPA calculates that assumed NGCC generation in 2022 

through the quantification of building block 2 potential is 

approximately 16 percent higher than 2014 levels. This reflects 

a smaller growth rate in potential NGCC generation between 2015 

and 2022 than has been observed in practice from 2005 to 2012, a 

time period of the same duration. 

c. Reliability. We also expect that an increase in NGCC 

generation of this amount would not impair power system 

reliability. Sources can achieve increases in utilization of 

existing NGCCs that displace generation from steam sources 

without impacting reliability because this shift in average 

annual utilization across existing EGUs does not inhibit the 

power sector’s ability to maintain adequate dispatchable 

resources to continue to meet reserve margins and maintain 

reliability. Furthermore, sources are not required to achieve 

the exact or even the full extent of the building block 2 

generation shift itself, which means that sources will have 

ample flexibility to maintain reliability-relevant operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 710 of 1546

while achieving emission reductions through a variety of 

measures.643

d. Natural gas infrastructure. The EPA also examined the 

technical capability of the natural gas supply and delivery 

system to provide increased quantities of natural gas and the 

capability of the electricity transmission system to accommodate 

shifting generation patterns. For several reasons, we conclude 

that these systems would be capable of supporting the degree of 

increased NGCC utilization potential in building block 2. First, 

the natural gas pipeline system is already supporting national 

average NGCC utilization rates of 60 percent or higher during 

peak hours, which are the hours when constraints on pipelines or 

electricity transmission networks are most likely to arise. NGCC 

unit utilization rates during the range of peak daytime hours 

from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. are typically 15 to 20 percentage points 

above their average utilization rates (which have recently been 

in the range of 40 to 50 percent).644 Fleet-wide combined-cycle 

 

643 See section VIII for further discussion of electric 

reliability planning. 

644 EIA, Average utilization of the nation's natural gas 

combined-cycle power plant fleet is rising, Today in Energy, 

July 9,2011, 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1730#; EIA, Today 

in Energy, Jan. 15, 2014, 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 (for recent 

data). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 711 of 1546

average monthly utilization rates have reached 65 percent,645

showing that the pipeline system can currently support these 

rates for an extended period. If the current pipeline and 

transmission systems allow these utilization rates to be 

achieved in peak hours and for extended periods, it is 

reasonable to expect that similar utilization rates should also 

be possible in other hours when constraints are typically less 

severe, and be reliably sustained for other months of the year. 

Furthermore, the NGCC utilization increase assumed in building 

block 2 could occur without a significant impact on peak demand 

for natural gas, including winter demand (when the power 

sector’s demand for natural gas competes with other sectors’ 

demands for natural gas), since increasing annual utilization of 

NGCCs could focus on non-peak periods when NGCC capacity factors 

are currently low. 

The second consideration supporting a conclusion regarding 

the adequacy of the gas supply infrastructure is that pipeline 

and transmission planners have repeatedly demonstrated the 

ability to methodically relieve bottlenecks and expand 

capacity.646 Natural gas pipeline capacity has regularly been 

 

645 EIA, Electric Power Monthly, February, 2014. Table 6.7.A. 646 See, e.g., EIA, Natural Gas Pipeline Additions in 2011, Today 

in Energy; INGAA Foundation, Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure 

Requirements for a 30 Tcf Market (2004 update); INGAA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 712 of 1546

added in response to increased gas demand and supply, such as 

the addition of large amounts of new NGCC capacity from 2001 to 

2003, or the delivery to market of unconventional gas supplies 

since 2008. These pipeline capacity increases have added 

significant deliverability to the natural gas pipeline network 

to meet the potential demands from increased use of existing 

NGCC units. Over a longer time period, much more significant 

pipeline expansion is possible. In previous studies, when the 

pipeline system was expected to face very large demands for 

natural gas use by electric utilities, the pipeline industry 

projected that increases of up to 30 percent in total 

deliverability out of the pipeline system would be possible.647

There have been notable pipeline capacity expansions over the 

past five years, and substantial additional pipeline expansions 

are currently under construction.648 Further, the phasing in of 

building block 2’s potential in the determination of the BSER; 

 

Foundation, North American Midstream Infrastructure Through 

2035—A Secure Energy Future Report (2011). 

647 Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure Requirements for a 30 Tcf 

Market, INGAA Foundation, 1999 (Updated July, 2004); U.S. gas 

groups confident of 30-tcf market, Oil and Gas Journal, 1999. 

648 For example, between 2010 and April 2014, 118 pipeline 

projects with 44,107 MMcf/day of capacity (4,699 miles of pipe) 

were placed in service, and between April 2014 and 2016 an 

additional 47 pipeline projects with 20,505 MMcf/day of capacity 

(1,567 miles of pipe) are scheduled for completion. Energy 

Information Administration, 

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.cfm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 713 of 1546

the flexible nature of multi-year compliance with the ultimate 

emission reduction requirements of the rule; and the seven years 

between finalization of this rule and the first year of 

compliance provide time for infrastructure improvements to occur 

should they prove necessary in some locations. Combining these 

factors of currently observed average monthly NGCC utilization 

rates of up to 65 percent, the flexibility of the emission 

guidelines, the rates of historical growth, and the availability 

of time to address any existing pipeline infrastructure 

limitations, it is reasonable to conclude that the natural gas 

pipeline system can reliably deliver sufficient natural gas 

supplies to allow NGCC utilization to increase up to an average 

annual capacity factor of 75 percent on a net summer basis. 

e. Natural gas production. We recognize that an increase in NGCC 

utilization rates at existing units corresponds with an 

associated increase in natural gas production, consistent with 

the current trends in the natural gas industry. The EPA expects 

the growth in NGCC generation assumed for building block 2 to be 

feasible and consistent with the production potential of 

domestic natural gas supplies. Increases in the natural gas 

resource base have led to fundamental changes in the outlook for 

natural gas. There is general agreement that recoverable natural 

gas resources will be substantially higher for the foreseeable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 714 of 1546

future than previously anticipated, exerting downward pressure 

on natural gas prices. According to EIA, proven natural gas 

reserves have doubled between 2000 and 2012. Domestic dry gas 

production has increased by 25 percent over that same timeframe 

(from 19.2 TCF in 2000 to 24.0 TCF in 2012). EIA’s Annual Energy 

Outlook Reference Case for 2015 projects that production will 

further increase to 29.5 TCF by 2022 and 33 TCF by 2030, as a 

result of increased supplies and favorable market conditions. In 

the AEO 2015 high oil and gas resource case, production is 

projected to increase to 42.7 TCF in 2030. For comparison, 

building block 2 assumes NGCC generation growth of 235 TWh from 

2012 to reach the level assumed for 2022, and that NGCC 

generation growth would result in increased gas consumption of 

less than 2 TCF for the electricity sector, which is less than 

EIA’s projected increase in natural gas production of 5.5 TCF 

from 2012 to 2022. 

The EPA has also assessed the ability of the electricity 

and natural gas industries to achieve the potential quantified 

for building block 2 using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 

IPM is a multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear 

programming model of the U.S. electric power sector that the EPA 

has used for over two decades to evaluate the economic and 

emission impacts of prospective environmental policies. To 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 715 of 1546

inform its projections of least-cost capacity expansion and 

electricity dispatch, IPM incorporates representations of 

constraints related to fuel supply, bulk power transmission 

capacity, and unit availability. The model includes a detailed 

representation of the natural gas pipeline network and the 

capability to project economic expansion of that network based 

on pipeline load factors. At the EGU level, IPM includes 

detailed representations of key operational limitations such as 

turn-down constraints, which are designed to account for the 

cycling capabilities of EGUs to ensure that the model properly 

reflects the distinct operating characteristics of peaking, 

cycling, and base load units. 

As described in more detail below, the EPA used IPM to 

assess the costs of increasing generation from existing NGCC 

capacity. IPM was able to meet average NGCC utilization rates of 

75 percent on a net summer basis, while observing the market, 

technical, and regulatory constraints represented in the model. 

This modeling also demonstrates the ability of domestic natural 

gas supplies to increase their production levels, and deliver 

that supply through the pipeline network, to support the level 

of NGCC generation quantified in building block 2. Such a result 

is consistent with the EPA's determination that increasing the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 716 of 1546

average utilization rate of existing NGCC units to 75 percent 

would be technically feasible. 

f. Transmission planning and construction. Achieving the 

generation shift quantified in building block 2 would not impose 

significant additional burden on the transmission planning 

process and does not necessitate major construction projects. 

Two considerations are important for this conclusion: 

First, building block 2 applies only to increases in 

generation at existing NGCC facilities and does not contemplate 

any connection of new capacity to the bulk power grid. Second, 

regional grids are already supporting operation of the NGCC 

units for sustained periods of time at the capacity factors 

quantified in building block 2.649 Although some upgrades to the 

grid (including potential, but modest, expansions of 

transmission capacity) may be necessary to support the extension 

of the time that these capacity factors are sustained over the 

course of the annual time period on which building block 2 is 

based,, such upgrades are part of the normal planning process 

around the increased use of existing facilities. In fact, the 

electric transmission system is currently undergoing substantial 

 

649 See Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures TSD for a discussion of 

regional NGCC capacity factors. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 717 of 1546

expansion.650 Consequently, EPA does not believe that achieving 

the generation shift potential in building block 2 would 

necessitate any significant additional requirements for 

transmission planning and construction beyond those already 

being addressed at routine intervals by the power sector. 

Furthermore, the phasing in of building block 2’s potential in 

the determination of the BSER; the flexible nature of multi-year 

compliance with the ultimate emission reduction requirements of 

the rule; and the seven years between finalization of this rule 

and the first year of compliance all provide time for 

infrastructure improvements to occur should they prove necessary 

in some locations. 

g. Regulatory flexibility. The final consideration supporting 

our view that natural gas and electricity system infrastructure 

would be capable of supporting increased NGCC unit utilization 

rates at a maximum of 75% on a net summer basis is the 

substantial unit-level compliance flexibility of the emission 

 

650 According to the Edison Electric Institute, member companies 

are planning over 170 projects through 2024, with costs totaling 

approximately $60.6 billion (this is only a portion of the total 

transmission investment anticipated). Approximately 75 percent 

of the reported projects (over 13,000 line miles) are high 

voltage (345 kV and higher). Construction of transmission lines 

of 345KV and above are generally major projects that are 

particularly effective at carrying power of large distances. 

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/transmission/Documents/Trans_

Project_lowres_bookmarked.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 718 of 1546

guidelines. The final rule does not require any particular NGCC 

unit to achieve any particular utilization rate in any specific 

hour or year. Thus, even if isolated natural gas or electricity 

system constraints were to limit NGCC unit utilization rates in 

certain locations in certain hours, this would not prevent an 

increase in NGCC generation overall across a state or broader 

region and across all hours on the order assumed in the 

generation shift potential quantified for building block 2. 

4. Cost 

Having established the technical feasibility and 

quantification of the potential to replace incremental 

generation at higher-emitting EGUs with generation at NGCC 

facilities as a CO2 emissions reduction strategy, we next turn to 

the question of cost. The cost of the power sector CO2 emission 

reductions that can be achieved through shifting generation 

among existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs depends on the relative 

variable costs of electricity production at EGUs with different 

degrees of carbon intensity. These variable costs are driven by 

the EGUs' respective fuel costs and by the efficiencies with 

which they can convert fuel to electricity (i.e., their heat 

rates). Historically, natural gas has had a higher cost per unit 

of energy content (e.g., MMBtu) than coal in most locations, but 

for NGCC units this disadvantage in fuel cost per MMBtu relative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 719 of 1546

to coal-fired EGUs is typically offset in significant part, and 

sometimes completely, by a technological heat rate advantage. 

To consider the cost implications of building block 2, the 

EPA expanded upon the proposal’s extensive analysis of the 

magnitude and cost of CO2 emission reductions through generation 

shifting within defined areas (consistent with the application 

of building blocks for performance rate- and state goalsetting), without consideration of the availability of other 

emission reduction ultimately available to units for compliance. 

To evaluate how EGU owners and grid operators could respond 

to a state plan's possible requirements, signals, or incentives 

to shift generation from more carbon-intensive to less carbonintensive EGUs, the EPA analyzed a series of scenarios in which 

the fleet of NGCC units within each of the regions considered 

for quantifying BSER (i.e., the three interconnections) was 

directed to achieve a specified average annual utilization rate 

across that region on a net basis while maintaining a fixed 

level of aggregate generation in that region across all existing 

fossil fuel-fired sources. The EPA conducted such scenarios to 

address average utilization rates of 70 percent, 75 percent and 

80 percent on a net basis, allowing for shifting of fossil 

generation between existing units within the regions described 

above. This scenario identifies a generation pattern that would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 720 of 1546

meet electricity demand at the lowest total cost, subject to all 

other specified operating and bulk power transfer constraints 

for the scenario, including the specified average NGCC unit 

utilization rate. 

The costs of the various scenarios were evaluated by 

comparing the total costs and emissions from each scenario to 

the costs and emissions from a base case scenario. For the 

scenario reflecting a 75 percent NGCC utilization rate on a net 

basis with regional fossil generation shifting, comparison to 

the base case indicates that the average cost of the CO2

reductions achieved over the 2022-2030 period was $24 per short 

ton of CO2. We view these estimated costs as reasonable and 

therefore as supporting the use of a 75 percent net utilization 

rate target for purposes of quantifying the emission reductions 

achievable at a reasonable cost through the application of 

building block 2 in the BSER. 

We also conclude from these analyses that potential impacts 

to fuel prices and electricity prices from achieving the extent 

of fossil generation shifting quantified for this building block 

are reasonably within the bounds of power sector experience. For 

example, in the 75 percent NGCC unit utilization rate scenario 

where generation shifting is limited to regional boundaries, the 

delivered natural gas price was projected to increase by an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 721 of 1546

average of 7 percent over the 2022-2030 period, which is well 

within the range of historical natural gas price variability.651

Projected wholesale electricity price increases over the same 

period were less than 4 percent, which similarly is well within 

the range of historical electric price variability. These 

projected impacts on prices were captured in the emission 

reduction costs of these scenarios already described above, 

which are reasonable and support use of a 75 percent NGCC 

utilization rate target for purposes of quantifying the emission 

reductions achievable through application of the BSER. 

However, we also note that the costs (and their 

incorporated price impacts) just described are higher than we 

would expect to actually occur in real-world compliance with the 

final rule’s compliance requirements for the following reasons. 

First, this analysis does not capture the building block 2 

phase-in, which assumes an average utilization rate over the 

interim period of less than 75 percent in all three 

interconnections. Second, the analysis overstates the extent to 

which building block 2 is ultimately reflected in the source 

category performance rates. While the performance rate 

computation procedure assumes a maximum NGCC utilization rate of 

 

651 According to EIA data, year-to-year changes in natural gas 

prices at Henry Hub averaged 29.9 percent over the period from 

2000 to 2013. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdA.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 722 of 1546

75 percent on a net summer basis, the Eastern Interconnection’s 

realization of this level of NGCC utilization yields higher 

source category performance rates for steam than what would have 

been calculated for units in the Western Interconnection and 

Texas Interconnection if they realized that maximum NGCC 

utilization rate in conjunction with the other building blocks. 

In other words, there is substantial building block 2 potential 

in the Western Interconnection and Texas Interconnection that is 

not actually captured in the source category performance rates 

that are ultimately assigned to steam through this rate- and 

goal-setting approach (where the performance rates are 

ultimately determined by the BSER region with the highest rate 

outcome in the calculation). Therefore, the building block 2 

analysis overstates the cost of this component of BSER to the 

extent that it assumes achievement of this generation shift 

potential that is not reflected in the source category 

performance rates ultimately determined. Third, as a practical 

matter, sources will be able to achieve additional emission 

reductions through other measures that may prove to be less 

costly than generation shifting and could substitute for the 

reductions and costs considered here. These building block 2 

analyses were focused on evaluating the potential impacts of 

fossil generation shifting in isolation, and as a result, they 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 723 of 1546

do not consider states’ and sources’ flexibility to choose among 

alternative CO2 reduction strategies that could offer lower-cost 

reductions, instead of relying on fossil generation shifting to 

the extent analyzed here. 

Based on the analyses summarized above, the EPA concludes 

that an average annual utilization rate for each region’s NGCC 

units of up to 75 percent is a technically feasible, costeffective, and adequately demonstrated building block for BSER. 

For further information on the analysis discussed in this 

section, see Chapter 3 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for 

the CPP Final Rule. 

5. Major comments and responses 

The EPA received numerous comments regarding building block 

2. Many of these comments provided helpful information and 

insights and have resulted in improvements to the rule. This 

section summarizes some of these comments, and the remainder of 

the comments are responded to in the Response to Comment 

document, available in the docket. 

The EPA received comment regarding the potential for an 

increase in upstream methane emissions from increased 

utilization of natural gas. Our analysis found that the net 

upstream methane emissions from natural gas systems and coal 

mines and CO2 emissions from flaring of methane will likely 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 724 of 1546

decrease under the Clean Power Plan. Furthermore, the changes in 

upstream methane emissions are small relative to the changes in 

direct emissions from power plants. The technical details 

supporting this analysis can be found in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. 

Commenters also expressed concern that neither a utility 

nor any state agency controls dispatch in most states. The EPA 

believes these comments fail to adequately appreciate that the 

utilities do control the dispatch of units that they own and/or 

operate, either by being the actual dispatch agent in many cases 

where there is no RTO or ISO that schedules the dispatch, or by 

the choice of units and bids they offer into an organized 

electricity market operated by an RTO or ISO. These entities 

currently control the dispatch of their units while respecting 

all existing requirements from environmental rules. This final 

rule does not change these current circumstances and makes clear 

that it is the EGU that is responsible for meeting the 

requirements in the state plan; the state is responsible for the 

development of that plan, but the state does not need to control 

the dispatch. 

Other comments object to the use of a single capacity 

factor for all existing NGCCs to quantify building block 2 

potential on the grounds that not all units may be able to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 725 of 1546

achieve this utilization level, and that some units may be 

designed for cycling and so may need upgrades to sustain such 

utilization. The EPA disagrees with these comments. The 75 

percent capacity factor establishes a regional potential for 

generation from existing NGCC capacity, and it does not 

establish any individual unit requirements. 

Some comments argue that generation limits in permits for 

some existing NGCC units will limit the amount by which these 

units can increase their generation and thereby limit the 

feasibility of building block 2. The EPA disagrees with these 

comments. Although permit limits can constrain the ability of 

individual units to operate above certain levels, building block 

2 was developed conservatively, with units operating on average 

at a level below the maximum levels at which some units have 

demonstrated the capability to operate. No individual unit is 

required to achieve the average generation levels used to 

quantify building block 2. Further, permit limits at individual 

units can be considered when state plans are developed. There 

are many flexibilities in the final rule, including the 

opportunity to establish standards of performance that 

incorporate emissions trading, that allow the development of 

plans that will not be constrained by existing permit limits at 

individual units. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 726 of 1546

The EPA also received comments asserting that increasing 

generation from new renewables would require increased use of 

natural gas capacity for back-up and ramping, and therefore it 

is not possible for NGCC units to run at BSER utilization rates 

and also be available to support the additional variable 

renewable generation resulting from building block 3. The EPA 

disagrees with this comment. The 75% net summer utilization 

rates defined by building block 2 is a conservative assessment 

and applied on an annual average basis. It is therefore possible 

for these existing units to both operate at higher annual 

utilization rates, and also to operate at higher rates during 

limited periods and still maintain a 75% net summer average 

annual utilization rate. While variable renewable generation 

does require additional load following and ramping resources and 

unit cycling, these requirements are generally a small part of 

the overall ramping costs of the system (see NREL, Relevant 

Studies for NERC’s Analysis of EPA’s Clean Power Plan 111(d) 

Compliance). Additionally, while existing NGCC units are an 

efficient source of ramping to support variable renewables, 

other units running in an intermediate mode can also provide 

load following and ramping. 

E. Building Block 3 — New Zero-emitting Renewable Generating 

Capacity 

Commented [A43]: It would be helpful to know what type of 

units are envisioned here 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 727 of 1546

 The third element of the foundation for the EPA’s BSER 

determination for reducing CO2 emissions at affected fossil fuelfired EGUs entails an analysis of the extent to which generation 

at the affected EGUs can be replaced by using an expanded amount 

of zero-emitting renewable electricity generating capacity (RE) 

to produce replacement generation. In this section we address: 

the history and trends in RE development, the importance of 

expanding the use of RE, the methods by which affected EGUs of 

all types can increase the deployment of RE, the adequate 

demonstration of this building block as a component of the BSER, 

changes made from the proposal, key comments, the method by 

which RE target generation levels are quantified, the magnitude 

and timing of increases in RE generation associated with this 

building block, the feasibility of deploying incremental amounts 

of RE and the reasonableness of costs associated with those 

increases. 

1. History of RE Development 

RE generating technologies are a well-established part of 

the U.S. power sector. These technologies generate electricity 

from renewable resources, such as wind, sun and water. While RE 

has been used to generate electricity for over a century, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 728 of 1546

push to commercialize RE more broadly began in the 1970s.652

Following a series of energy crises, new federal organizations 

and initiatives were established to coordinate energy policy and 

promote energy self-sufficiency and security, including solar 

energy legislation, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 

of 1978 (PURPA) and the 1980 Energy Security Act.653 

 PURPA was a key step in stimulating RE development. By 

requiring utilities to purchase generation from qualifying 

facilities (i.e., certain CHP and RE generators) at avoided 

costs, PURPA opened electricity markets to more RE generation 

and gave rise to non-utility generators that were willing to try 

new RE technologies.654 In addition, since 1992, federal tax 

policy has provided important financial support via tax credits 

for the production of RE and investments in RE. 

 States have also taken a significant lead in requiring the 

development of RE resources. In particular, a number of states 

have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which are 

 

652 Nearly all U.S. hydroelectric capacity was built before the 

mid-1970s. U.S. DOE. History of Hydropower. Accessed March 2015. 

Available at: http://energy.gov/eere/water/history-hydropower. 

653 U.S. DOE Office of Management, Timeline of Events: 1971-1980. 

Accessed March 2015. Available at: 

http://energy.gov/management/office-management/operationalmanagement/history/doe-history-timeline/timeline-events-1. 

654 “Restructuring or Deregulation?" Smithsonian Museum of 

American History. Accessed March 2015. Available at: 

http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/dereg/dereg1.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 729 of 1546

regulatory mandates to increase production of RE. As of 2013, 29 

states and the District of Columbia had enforceable RPS or 

similar laws.655 These RPS requirements continue to drive robust 

near-term growth of non-hydropower RE. 

2. Trends in RE Development 

Today, RE is tightly integrated with the utility power 

sector in multiple ways: states have set RE targets for 

electrical load serving entities; utilities themselves are 

diversifying their portfolios by contracting with RE generators; 

and new RE generators are being developed to provide more 

electrical power grid support services beyond just energy (e.g., 

modern electronics allow wind turbines to provide voltage and 

reactive power control at all times).656,657 

 Use of RE continues to grow rapidly in the U.S. In 2013, 

electricity generated from RE technologies, including 

conventional hydropower, represented 13 percent of total U.S. 

 

655 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 

with Projections to 2040, at LR-5 (2014). 

656 IPCC, Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, 

2012. Accessed March 2015. Available at: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/specialreports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf. 

657 American Wind Energy Association. AWEA Comments on EPA’s 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources and Supplemental Proposed Rule. p. 107. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 730 of 1546

electricity, up from 9 percent in 2005.658 In 2013, U.S. nonhydro RE capacity for the total electric power industry exceeded 

80,000 megawatts, reflecting a fivefold increase in just 15 

years.659 In particular, there has been substantial growth in the 

wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) markets in the past decade. 

Since 2009, U.S. wind generation has tripled and solar 

generation has grown twentyfold.660 

 The global market for RE is projected to grow to $460 

billion per year by 2030.661 RE growth is further spurred by the 

significant amount of existing natural resources that can 

support RE production in the United States.662 In the Energy 

Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2015, RE 

generation grows substantially from 2013 to 2040 in the 

 

658 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at LR-5 (2014), P. ES-6 and Energy 

Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, May 2015, 

Table 7.2b, Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf. 

659 Non-hydro RE capacity for the total electric power industry 

was more than 16,000 megawatts in 1998. Energy Information 

Administration, 1990-2013 Existing Nameplate and Net Summer 

Capacity by Energy Source Producer Type and State (EIA-860), 

Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. 

660 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, May 

2015, Table 7.2b. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf 

661 “Global Renewable Energy Market Outlook.” Bloomberg New 

Energy Finance, November 16, 2011, Available at: 

http://bnef.com/WhitePapers/download/53. 

662 Lopez et al., NREL, ‘‘U.S. Renewable Energy 

Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis,’’ (July 2012). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 731 of 1546

reference case and all alternative cases.663 In the reference 

case, RE generation increases by more than 70 percent from 2013 

to 2040 and accounts for over one-third of new generation 

capacity.664 

 The recent and projected growth of RE is in part a 

reflection of its increasing economic competitiveness. Numerous 

studies have tracked capital cost reductions and performance 

improvements for RE, particularly for solar and wind. For 

instance, Lazard’s analysis of wind and utility-scale solar PV 

levelized costs of energy (LCOE), on an unsubsidized basis, over 

the last five years found the average percentage decrease of 

high and low of LCOE ranges were 58 percent and 78 percent, 

respectively.665 Analyses of wind’s competitiveness found falling 

wind turbine LCOE while the wind industry developed projects at 

lower wind speed sites using new turbine designs (e.g., 

increased turbine hub heights and rotor diameters). Performance 

improvements have come from novel deployments of new turbines 

designed for lower quality wind sites that are deployed at 

 

663 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at LR-5 (2014), P. 25. 

664 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 

with Projections to 2040, at LR-5 (2014), P. ES-6-7. 

665 Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis-Version 8.0, 

September 2014, p. 9, Available at: 

http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-

_version_80.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 732 of 1546

higher quality wind sites, which have resulted in capacity 

factor increases for these locations.666,667 For utility-scale 

solar, cost and performance have also improved significantly. 

Analysis has shown that the installed price of solar 

photovoltaics (PV) systems, prior to any incentives, has 

declined substantially since 1998. Capacity-weighted average 

prices of solar PV in utility-scale deployments were 40 percent 

lower in 2013 than five years earlier.668669 Initially, price 

declines were partially driven by oversupply and manufacturers’ 

thin margins, but, in 2014, prices have remained low due to 

reductions in manufacturing costs.670 The capacity factors of new 

utility-scale installations have increased as systems are 

optimized to maximize energy production. For example, a growing 

number of utility-scale PV systems are increasing the direct 

current capacity of the solar array relative to the alternating 

 

666 “2013 Wind Technologies Market Report,” LBNL, August 2014. 

Available at: http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/2013-windtechnologies-market-report. 

667 “2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review,” NREL, Feb 2015. Available 

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

668 “Tracking the Sun VII” LBNL, Sept 2014. Available at: 

http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-vii-historicalsummary-installed-price-photovoltaics-united-states-1998-20. 

669 “Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends,” NREL, 22 Sept 2014. 

Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62558.pdf. 

670 “Revolution Now – The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy 

Technologies – 2014 Update,” DOE, Oct 2014. Available at: 

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

updated_charts_and_text_october_2014_1.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 733 of 1546

current rating of the array’s inverter to increase energy 

production and improve project economics.671 The cost and 

performance improvements for wind and solar are driven by 

increased scale of production, improved technologies, and 

advancements in system deployments. 

3. Importance of Increasing Use of RE 

Currently, the utility power sector accounts for 40 percent 

of total annual energy consumption in the U.S.672 Introducing 

more zero-emitting RE generation over the long term could 

significantly reduce CO2 emissions, as production of RE 

predominantly replaces fossil fuel-fired generation and thereby 

avoids the emissions from that replaced generation. 

 A number of studies and recent policy developments have 

acknowledged RE as an important means of achieving CO2

reductions. California cited the reduction of CO2 emissions from 

electrical generations as one of the reasons for increasing its 

RE target from 20 percent to 33 percent by 2020 (and potentially 

 

671 “Utility-Scale Solar 2013,” LBNL, Sept 2014. Available at: 

http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2013-

empirical-analysis-project-cost-performance-and-pricing-trends 

672 U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review, 

2011. Accessed March 2015. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/primary_ene

rgy.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 734 of 1546

50 percent by 2030).673 A recent IPCC report also concluded that 

RE has large potential to mitigate CO2 emissions.674

 Increased use of RE provides numerous benefits in addition 

to lower CO2 emissions. RE typically consumes less water than 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Wind power and solar PV systems do not 

require the use of any water to generate electricity; water is 

only needed for cleaning to ensure efficient operation. In 

contrast, utility boilers, in particular, require large 

quantities of water for steam generation and cooling.675

Increasing RE use will also continue to lower other air 

pollutants (e.g., fine particles, ground-level ozone, etc.), 

diversify energy supply, hedge against fossil fuel price 

increases and create economic development and jobs in 

manufacturing, installation, and other sectors of the economy. 

4. Access to RE by Owners of Affected EGUs 

The ability of affected EGUs to obtain incremental RE to 

reduce CO2 emissions is well-demonstrated, whether it is through 

 

673 California S.B. 2 (1X), 2011. Accessed March 2015. Available 

at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-

0050/sbx1_2_bill_20110412_chaptered.pdf.

674 IPCC, Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, 

2012. Accessed March 2015. Available at: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/specialreports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf. 

675 EPA, Water Resource Use. Accessed on March 2015. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/waterresource.html. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 735 of 1546

direct ownership, bilateral contracts, or procurement of the 

environmental attributes associated with RE generation.676

Consequently, the EPA believes that an increase in RE is a 

proven way to reduce CO2 emissions at affected EGUs of all types 

at a reasonable cost. 

Owners and operators of affected EGUs across the U.S. 

already have substantial opportunities to procure RE regardless 

of their organizational structure and/or business model. In many 

parts of the country, EGUs are owned and operated by vertically 

integrated utilities. These utilities can be investor-owned 

utilities that operate under traditional electricity regulation, 

municipal utilities (munis), or electric cooperatives (co-ops). 

These utilities have significant control over the types of 

generating capacity they develop or acquire, and over the 

electricity mix used to meet demand within their service 

territories. 

Even when EGU owners participating in organized markets do 

not directly determine dispatch among energy sources, such EGU 

owners make decisions about what types of capacity they choose 

to develop and thus what generation mix they can ultimately 

supply into that market’s dispatch choices. Because zero-

 

676 Refer to GHG Abatement Measures TSD for additional ownership 

statistics. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 736 of 1546

emitting RE technologies have relatively low variable costs, an 

EGU owner’s decision to install (or to finance the installation 

of) RE capacity will yield lower-cost electricity generation 

that, when available, a system dispatcher will prefer over 

higher-variable-cost generation from fossil fuel-fired capacity. 

Therefore, all owners of affected EGUs have a direct path for 

replacing higher-emitting generation with RE regardless of their 

organizational type and regardless of whether they operate in a 

cost-of-service framework or in a competitive, organized market. 

Many affected EGUs have already directly invested in RE. Of 

the 404 entities that owned part of at least one affected EGU 

under this rule, 178 also owned RE (biomass, geothermal, solar, 

water or wind). These 178 owners owned 82 percent of affected 

EGU capacity. As a whole, these entities’ share of RE capacity 

was equal to 25 percent of the total of their affected EGU 

capacity.677

Some of the largest owners of affected EGUs also owned RE 

(see Table 7). For example, NRG Energy, Inc. owns more than 

3,000 megawatts of RE capacity, over 20 percent of which (nearly 

800 megawatts) is solar, and almost 80 percent of which (over 

2,500 megawatts) is wind. Duke Energy Corporation owns 175 

 

677 SNL Energy. Data used with permission. Accessed on June 9, 

2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 737 of 1546

megawatts of solar and over 1,500 megawatts of wind. NextEra 

Energy, Inc.’s share of RE capacity approaches 40 percent of 

their total affected EGU capacity.678 Table [7] lists a sampling 

of affected EGUs that have large amounts of fossil fuel-fired 

capacity and RE capacity: 

 

TABLE 8. Sample of Owners of Affected EGUs and RE Capacity.679,680 

Ultimate Parent Affected EGU 

Capacity (MW)

Renewable 

Capacity (MW)

NRG Energy, Inc. 48,787 3,149

Duke Energy Corporation 39,028 5,526

Southern Company 37,168 3,245

American Electric Power 

Company, Inc. 

34,940 1,142

NextEra Energy, Inc. 29,471 11,626

Calpine Corporation 23,878 1,509

Tennessee Valley Authority 21,717 5,427

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 18,899 6,650

FirstEnergy Corp. 16,175 1,371

Exelon Corporation 10,283 3,361

Nebraska Public Power 

District 

2,003 90

Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative 

1,526 275

American Municipal Power, 

Inc. 

1,112 53

Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District 

925 834

Golden Spread Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. 

521 78

 

678 Ibid. 679 SNL Energy. Data used with permission. Accessed on June 9, 

2015. 

680 eGRID, EPA. 2012 Unit-Level Data Using the eGRID Methodology. 

June 7, 2015 version. 

Deleted: 8
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 738 of 1546

 Large vertically integrated utilities generally have 

multiple options for investing in RE, including building their 

own RE capacity or procuring RE under a long-term power purchase 

agreement. Municipal utilities and rural cooperatives that own 

generating asset portfolios, particularly generation and 

transmission cooperatives and larger municipal utilities, have 

also used RE to reduce carbon emissions. Large generation and 

transmission cooperatives also purchase significant quantities 

of RE for their members. Federal power authorities own or 

contract for significant amounts of RE.681,682

The list of ten electric utilities with the largest amounts 

of wind power capacity on the system (owned or under contract) 

includes a variety of affected EGU organizational structures, 

including vertically integrated investor-owned utilities, 

municipal utilities, and federal power authorities. Xcel Energy 

and Berkshire Hathaway Energy rank first and second with 5,736 

megawatts and 4,992 megawatts of wind capacity, respectively. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal power authority, had 1,572 

 

681 American Wind Energy Association. AWEA Comments on EPA’s 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources and Supplemental Proposed Rule. pp. 88-91. 

682 Solar Energy Industries Association. Comments to the EPA and 

States on the Proposed Clean Power Plan Regulating Existing 

Power Plants Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. pp. 98-

147. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 739 of 1546

megawatts and CPS Energy, a public utility, had 1,059 megawatts 

of wind power capacity.683 Basin Electric Power Cooperative had 

716 megawatts and was the top ranked cooperative utility, but is 

not on the top ten utilities with wind power capacity list. 

Many affected EGUs are already planning on deploying 

significant amounts of RE according to their integrated resource 

plans (IRPs). Electric utilities use IRPs to plan operations and 

investments over long time horizons. These plans typically cover 

10 to 20 years and are mandated by public utility commissions 

(PUCs). A recent study of IRPs, included in the docket for this 

rulemaking, shows this trend. For instance, Dominion plans for 

over 800 megawatts of wind and solar in their 2015 to 2029 

planning period.684 Duke Energy Carolinas’ IRP has no plans for 

new coal, but describes plans for roughly 1,250 megawatts of 

 

683 American Wind Energy Association. U.S. Wind Industry Annual 

Market Report (2014 data). Accessed July 2015. Available at 

http://www.awea.org/AnnualMarketReport.aspx?ItemNumber=7422&RDto

ken=64560&userID=. The ten largest electric utilities with wind 

power capacity on the system (owner or under contract) includes: 

Xcel Energy; Berkshire Hathaway Energy; Southern California 

Edison; American Electric Power; Pacific Gas & Electric; 

Tennessee Valley Authority; San Diego Gas & Electric; CPS 

Energy; Los Angeles Department of Water & Power; and Alliant 

Energy. 

684 Dominion North Carolina Power's and Dominion Virginia Power's 

Report of Its Integrated Resource Plan, August 2014, Available 

at: 

https://www.dom.com/library/domcom/pdfs/corporate/integratedresource-planning/nc-irp-2014.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 740 of 1546

additional RE by 2021, and approximately 2,150 megawatts by 

2029. A significant portion (1,670 megawatts) of the planned RE 

is solar.685 Ameren is planning to retire one-third of the coal 

generating capacity, as well as installing an additional 400 

megawatts of wind, 445 megawatts of solar, and 28 megawatts of 

hydroelectric generating capacity.686 

Independent power producers (IPPs) also can and do own both 

RE and fossil generation. For example, NRG is a diversified IPP 

that operates substantial coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and 

nuclear capacity. NRG demonstrates the ability of IPPs to reduce 

utilization of fossil fuel-fired EGUs and replace that 

generation with RE. NRG announced a goal to cut CO2 emissions 

from its fleet by 50 percent by 2030 (from a 2014 baseline).687

NRG has already reduced CO2 emissions from its fleet by 40 

percent since 2005. This achievement demonstrates that when an 

IPP commits to shifting its generation portfolio, it can do so 

 

685 Duke Energy Carolinas’ 2014 Integrated Resource Plan, 

September 2014, Available at: 

http://starw1.ncuc.net/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=c3c5cbb5-51f2-423a9dfc-a43ec559d307. 

686 Integrated Resource Plan Update, October 2014, Available at: 

https://www.ameren.com/missouri/environment/renewables/amerenmissouri-irp. 

687 NRG, “NRG Energy Sets Long-Term Sustainability Goals at 

Groundbreaking of “Ultra-Green” New Headquarters” (Nov. 20, 

2014), available at 

http://investors.nrg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irolnewsArticl

e&ID=1991552. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 741 of 1546

at reasonable cost and without reliability impacts. The NRG 

example shows that reduced utilization of fossil fuel-fired EGUs 

that is replaced by RE also owned by the EGU owner is adequately 

demonstrated. 

EGU owners can also replace fossil fuel-fired generation 

with RE through bilateral contracts and renewable energy 

certificate (REC) purchases, as described below. Both the 

bilateral market for RE contracts and REC markets are wellf 

developed. There are no legal or technical obstacles to a fossil 

fuel-fired EGU owner acting as the counterparty of a bilateral 

contract for purchase of energy from a RE facility. Any type of 

EGU owner (utility or otherwise) can purchase and retire RECs. 

The fact that RECs are purchased by a diverse set of market 

participants — including residential consumers, commercial 

businesses, and industrial facilities — demonstrates that such a 

purchase for all EGU owners is adequately demonstrated. 

5. Renewable Energy Certificate Markets 

 Affected EGU owners do not need to directly invest in, or 

own, renewable generating capacity in order to replace fossil 

fuel-fired generation with RE as an emission reduction measure. 

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are used to demonstrate 

compliance with state RE targets, such as state RPS, and also to 

substantiate claims stemming from RE use. RECs are tradable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 742 of 1546

instruments that are associated with the generation of one 

megawatt-hour of RE and represent certain information or 

characteristics of the generation, called attributes.688 RECs may 

be traded and transferred regardless of the actual energy flow. 

 The legal basis for RECs is established by state statutes 

and administrative rules. Nearly all states with a mandatory RPS 

have established RECs as a means of compliance. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has observed that states 

created RECs to facilitate programs designed to promote 

increased use of RE, and that “attributes associated with the 

[RE] facilities are separate from, and may be sold separately 

from, the capacity and energy.”689 

 In complying with states’ RPS requirements, utilities have 

contracted for RECs from in-state and out-of-state resources in 

accordance with RPS requirements. Utilities may have sourced 

RECs from out-of-state to reduce the cost of compliance, to 

 

688 EPA Green Power Partnership, Renewable Energy Certificates 

July 2008). Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/documents/gpp_basics-recs.pdf. 

689 FERC Docket No. EL03-133-000, Petition for Declaratory Order 

and Request for Expedited Consideration, American Ref-Fuel 

Company, Covanta Energy Group, Montenay Power Corporation, and 

Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. June 16, 2003, Order Granting 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling, October 1, 2003. American RefFuel Co. et al., 105 FERC ¶ 61,004 (2003); and Order Denying 

Rehearing. April 15, 2004. 107 FERC ¶ 61,016 (2004). Available 

online at: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/041404/E28.pdf (accessed 11/7/2014). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 743 of 1546

source RECs from specific generation types, or for other 

reasons.690

The development of REC markets to facilitate RPS compliance 

provides evidence that markets can develop to facilitate 

compliance with rate-base state plans. Such markets will afford 

affected EGU owners an alternative to directly invest in, or 

own, renewable generating capacity in order to replace fossil 

fuel-fired generation with RE as an emission reduction measure. 

6. Quantification of Renewable Energy Generation Potential for 

BSER and Major Comments 

The methodology for quantifying RE generation levels under 

building block 3 is a modified version of the alternative RE 

approach from proposal, with adjustments that reflect the data 

and information the EPA collected through stakeholder comments 

and the EPA’s additional analysis and information collection. In 

evaluating the proposed and alternative RE approaches commenters 

observed that RPS, as the basis for quantifying RE generation 

levels under the proposed approach, are policy instruments that 

states may choose to implement for a variety of reasons not 

related to CO2 emission reductions. Additionally, differences 

across RPS policies in eligible resources, crediting mechanisms, 

 

690 Heeter, J. Quantifying the Level of Cross-State Renewable 

Energy Transactions. NREL 2015. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63458.pdf. 

Deleted: These

Commented [A44]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 744 of 1546

deliverability requirements, alternative compliance payments, 

and other policy elements made the regional averaging of statelevel RPS requirements challenging. Finally, commenters provided 

data demonstrating that RE resource potential can vary 

significantly within the regions identified under the proposed 

approach, producing state-level RE generation levels that may 

not be aligned with the opportunity to deploy incremental RE 

resources at reasonable cost. In contrast, commenters argued 

that a methodology similar to the alternative RE approach, which 

is based on economic potential, represents a more technically 

sound basis for quantifying building block 3 target generation 

levels that accounts for regional differences in RE resources 

and power market conditions, such as projected fuel prices, load 

growth and wholesale power prices. The EPA agrees with these 

comments. 

 Within the framework of the alternative RE approach, the 

EPA received significant comments on a number of issues, 

including the use of historical deployment rates, the interstate 

nature of RE and the power system, merits of total versus 

incremental RE generation as the metric by which building block 

3 generation levels are quantified, , types of RE technologies 

that contribute to those generation levels, cost and performance 

estimates associated with those RE technologies, magnitude of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 745 of 1546

the reduced cost applied to new RE capacity as an incentive to 

deploy, and application of a nationally uniform benchmark 

development rate to modeled projections of economic deployment. 

Based on commenter data and information, as well as further 

analysis and information collection, the primary adjustments the 

EPA made to the alternative RE approach are: 

 The basis for quantifying building block 3 generation has 

been modified to incorporate historical deployment patterns 

for RE technologies as well as the economic potential 

identified through modeling projections. The introduction 

of historical capacity additions to the final methodology 

further grounds building block 3 generation in demonstrated 

levels of RE deployment that have been successfully 

incorporated into the power system. This adjustment also 

serves to harmonize the approach across all three building 

blocks in which historical data is the primary basis for 

identifying emission reduction opportunities under the 

BSER. 

 The RE technologies used to quantify building block 3 

generation levels are onshore wind, utility-scale solar PV, 

concentrating solar power (CSP), geothermal and hydropower. 

Each of these technologies is a utility-scale, zeroemitting resource that was included under the alternative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 746 of 1546

RE approach at proposal. Additionally, the EPA received 

significant comments on the opportunities and challenges 

associated with distributed RE technologies. Distributed 

technologies, as a demand-side resource, present unique 

data and technical challenges (such as the role of 

evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) procedures 

in verifying their production, the diverse economic 

incentives of different parties involved in their 

deployment, and the variety of grid integration policies 

and conditions across potential deployment sites) that 

complicate identifying a technically feasible and costeffective level of generation. Consequently, the EPA is, at 

this time, choosing not to include distributed technologies 

as part of the BSER (although, as explained in section 

VIII.K of this preamble, distributed RE technologies that 

meets eligibility criteria may be used for compliance). 

Finally, any RE technology that has not been deployed in 

the United States, including demonstrated RE technologies 

for which there is clear evidence of technical feasibility 

and cost-effectiveness (e.g., offshore wind), contributes 

no generation to building block 3 under this historicallybased methodology. These RE technologies are consequently 

reserved for compliance, which offers affected EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 747 of 1546

additional flexibility and will reduce their need to rely 

on other emission reduction measures or building blocks. 

 Building block 3 generation levels are expressed in terms 

of incremental, rather than total, RE generation. As a 

metric, incremental generation is better aligned with 

quantifying an amount of expanded RE to replace generation 

at affected EGUs.691 Specifically, the generation levels 

under building block 3 include generation from capacity 

that commenced operation subsequent to 2012 (the data year 

on which the BSER is evaluated). Commenters remarked that 

it is unnecessary to include generation from RE capacity 

that was already in operation by 2012 in building block 3 

because the impact of that generation on fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs is already reflected in the observed 2012 emissions 

and generation data of those EGUs. 

 Due to the interstate nature of RE and the power system, 

and consistent with the rationale provided in the October 

2014 Notice of Data Availability (NODA), building block 3 

generation levels are quantified for each of the three BSER 

 

691 Consistent with the November 2014 Notice of Data 

Availability, the final goal setting methodology assumes 

replacement of affected EGU generation by incremental building 

block 3 generation in calculating source-specific CO2 emission 

performance rates. For additional information on the goal 

setting methodology refer to Section VI. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 748 of 1546

regions – the Eastern Interconnection, Western 

Interconnection, and Texas Interconnection – rather than at 

the state-level. This regionalized approach, as described 

in the NODA, takes into account the opportunity to develop 

regional RE resources and thus better aligns building block 

3 generation levels with the rule’s approach to allowing 

the use of qualifying out-of-state renewable generation for 

compliance. 

 Commenters observed that the cost and performance estimates 

the EPA relied on at proposal from the Energy Information 

Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 do not reflect 

the decline in cost and increase in performance that have 

been demonstrated by current projects, particularly in 

regards to wind and solar technologies. Commenters provided 

data from a variety of sources to support these claims, 

including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and Lazard. Each of these 

sources supported the contention that RE technologies, 

particularly wind and solar, have realized gains in cost 

and efficiency at a scale that has altered the competitive 

dynamic between RE and conventional resources. As a result, 

it has become increasingly necessary for any long-term 

outlook of the utility power sector to continually assess 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 749 of 1546

the development of RE technology cost and performance 

trends. In performing this task, the EPA revised its data 

for onshore wind and solar technologies to reflect the midcase estimates from the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory’s (NREL’s) 2015 Annual Technology Baseline. The 

EPA selected the NREL 2015 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) 

estimates based on the quality of its data as well as 

NREL’s demonstrated success in both reflecting and 

anticipating RE cost and performance trends. In addition to 

wind and solar technologies, the EPA evaluated hydropower 

deployment potential based on the latest cost and 

performance data from NREL’s Renewable Economic Potential 

study.692

 The benchmark development rate that constrained costeffective RE deployment under the alternative RE approach 

in the proposal has been removed from the final 

methodology.693 Commenters detailed several issues with 

applying the benchmark development rate, including that it 

limits future performance to historical levels of 

 

692 For additional information on the updated RE cost and 

performance assumptions used to quantify building block 3 

generation, refer to the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

693 The technical potential limiter was a nationally uniform, 

technology-specific limit on cost-effective RE deployment based 

on the amount of 2012 generation in a state as a share of that 

state’s total technical potential. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 750 of 1546

development, does not factor in the total size of the RE 

resource in a given state, and is inconsistent with a 

regional approach to quantifying target generation levels. 

EPA agrees with these comments and the benchmark 

development rate has been eliminated. 

In addition to the comments described above, the EPA 

received significant comments on a wide variety of topics 

related to building block 3. Many of these comments provided 

helpful information and insights, and have resulted in 

improvements to the final rule. These comments, as well as the 

EPA responses, are available in the Response to Comment 

document. 

The final methodology for quantifying incremental RE target 

generation levels contains seven steps. Each step is described 

below.694

First, the EPA collected data for each RE technology 

(onshore wind, utility-scale solar PV, CSP, geothermal and 

hydropower) to determine the annual change in capacity over the 

most recent five-year period. From these data, the EPA 

calculated the five-year annual average change in capacity and 

 

694 For supporting data, documentation, and examples for each 

step of the quantification methodology, refer to the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 751 of 1546

the five-year maximum annual change in capacity for each 

technology. 

Second, the EPA determined an appropriate capacity factor 

to apply to each RE technology that would be representative of 

expected future performance from 2022 through 2030. For this 

purpose the EPA relied on NREL’s ATB. 

Third, the EPA calculated two generation levels for each RE 

technology. The first generation level is the product of each 

technology’s five-year average capacity change and the assumed 

future capacity factor. The second generation level is the 

product of each technology’s five-year maximum annual capacity 

deployment and the assumed future capacity factor. Table 9 below 

shows the data and assumptions used for these calculations. 

TABLE 9. Historical Capacity Changes and Associated Generation 

Levels. 

 Assumed 

Future 

Capacity 

Factor 

Five-Year 

Average 

Capacity 

Change 

(MW) 

Generation 

Associated 

with Five 

Year-Average 

Capacity 

Change (MWh)

Maximum 

Annual 

Capacity 

Change 

(MW) 

Generation 

Associated 

with Maximum 

Annual 

Capacity 

Change (MWh) 

UtilityScale Solar 

PV695

20.7% 1,927 

3,494,268 

3,934 

7,133,601 

CSP 34.3% 251 

754,175 767 

2,304,590 

Onshore 

Wind 41.8% 6,200 

22,702,416 13,131 

48,081,520 

 

695 Capacity values for utility-scale solar PV are expressed in 

terms of MWDC. The assumed future capacity factor for this 

utility-scale solar PV includes a DC-to-AC conversion, enabling 

the generation totals to be combined across all RE technologies. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 752 of 1546

Geothermal 85.0% 142 

1,057,332 407 

3,030,522 

Hydropower 63.8% 141 

788,032 294 

1,643,131 

Total 

Generation N/A N/A 

28,796,222 N/A 

62,193,363 

Fourth, the EPA quantified the RE generation from capacity 

commencing operation after 2012 that can be expected in 2021 

(the year before this rule’s first compliance period)without the 

imposition of this rule. Because building block 3 is focused on 

the ability of fossil fuel-fired EGUs to reduce their emissions 

by deploying incremental RE, it is reasonable to take into 

account the considerable amount of RE deployment that is already 

taking place and is projected to continue doing so before 

considering the additional deployment that would be motivated by 

this rule’s mandate to reduce emissions from affected EGUs. The 

EPA considered its base case power sector modeling projections 

using IPM to quantify this component of future-year RE 

generation, which the EPA assumes to be 213,084,125 megawatthours in 2021. 

 Fifth, the EPA applied the generation associated with the 

five-year average capacity change to the first two years of the 

interim period. Combining the projected 2021 RE generation from 

capacity starting operation after 2012 with the generation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 753 of 1546

increment associated with the five-year average change in 

capacity produces 241,880,347 megawatt-hours in 2022 and 

270,676,570 megawatt-hours in 2023. The EPA believes it is 

appropriate to apply the generation associated with the fiveyear average capacity change for the first two years of the 

interim period to ensure adequate opportunity to plan for and 

implement any necessary RE integration strategies and 

investments in advance of the higher RE deployment levels 

assumed for later years. 

Sixth, for all years subsequent to 2023 the EPA applied the 

generation associated with the maximum annual capacity change 

from the historical data analysis. In 2024, this produces a 

building block 3 generation level of 332,869,933 megawatt-hours 

(aggregated across all three BSER regions); by 2030, that 

generation level is 706,030,112 megawatt-hours. 

Seventh, to further evaluate the technical feasibility and 

cost-effectiveness of the building block 3 generation levels 

(aggregated across all three BSER regions), as well as to 

produce interconnection-specific levels of building block 3 

generation from the national totals described in steps 5 and 6, 

the EPA conducted analysis using IPM of a scenario directing the 

power sector to achieve those RE generation levels. IPM modeling 

projections assess opportunities for RE deployment in an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 754 of 1546

integrated framework across power, fuel, and emission markets. 

The modeling framework incorporates a host of constraints on the 

deployment of RE resources, including resource constraints such 

as resource quality, land use exclusions, terrain variability, 

distance to existing transmission, and population density; 

system constraints such as interregional transmission limits, 

partial reserve margin credit for intermittent RE installations, 

minimum turndown constraints for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, and 

short-term capital cost adders to reflect the potential added 

cost due to competition for scarce labor and materials; and 

technology constraints such as construction lead times and 

hourly generation profiles for non-dispatchable resources by 

season.696 Additionally, the EPA assumes in this analysis that 

deployment of variable, non-dispatchable RE resources is limited 

to 20 percent of net energy for load by technology type and 30 

percent of net energy for load in total at each of IPM’s 64 U.S. 

sub-regions.697 The 30 percent constraint applied to variable, 

non-dispatchable RE resources reflects levels commonly modeled 

in grid integration studies at the level of the interconnection. 

These studies have demonstrated that impacts to the grid in 

 

696 Refer to GHG Abatement Measures TSD for more detail on 

modeling methodology. 

697 Regions that have already exceeded these limits are held at 

historical percent of net energy for load. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 755 of 1546

reaching levels as high as 30 percent of net energy for load are 

relatively minor.698 For example, the Western Wind and Solar 

Study Phase 2 found cycling costs ranged from $0.14 to $0.67 per 

megawatt-hour of added wind and solar generation. These 

integration cost levels are not impactful in determining costeffectiveness. As such, applying the 30 percent constraints at 

the IPM sub-region level provides a high degree of assurance 

that the RE capacity deployment pattern projected by the model 

would not incur significant grid integration costs.699 

In addition to facilitating the EPA’s assessment of the 

feasibility and cost of reaching the aggregate building block 3 

generation levels across all three BSER regions, the IPM 

projections also provide the EPA with a basis for apportioning 

those generation levels to each interconnection. The EPA 

considered the projected regional location of the evaluated RE 

deployment in this analysis, which shows the majority of such 

deployment occurring in the Eastern Interconnection. The GHG 

Abatement Measures TSD describes in greater detail the process 

 

698 Wind Technologies Market Report 2013. LBNL. Cochran, et al. 

2014; Grid Integration and the Carrying Capacity of the U.S. 

Grid to Incorporate Variable Renewable Energy. NREL. Cochran, et 

al. 2015; The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study Phase 2. 

NREL. Lew, et al. 2013. Refer to GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for 

further analysis. 

699 Refer to the GHG Abatement Measures TSD for additional 

information on constraints related to deployment of nondispatchable RE. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 756 of 1546

by which the EPA calculated the apportionment of building block 

3 generation levels to each of the BSER regions, taking these 

modeling projections into account. Table 10 describes the annual 

building block 3 generation levels for each interconnection from 

2022 through 2030. 

TABLE 10. Building Block 3 Generation Levels (MWh). 

Year Eastern 

Interconnection 

Western 

Interconnection 

Texas 

Interconnection 

2022 166,253,134 56,663,541 18,963,672 

2023 181,542,775 60,956,363 28,177,431 

2024 218,243,050 75,244,721 39,382,162 

2025 254,943,325 89,533,078 50,586,893 

2026 291,643,600 103,821,436 61,791,623 

2027 328,343,875 118,109,793 72,996,354 

2028 365,044,150 132,398,151 84,201,085 

2029 401,744,425 146,686,508 95,405,816 

2030 438,444,700 160,974,866 106,610,547 

Through the quantification methodology detailed above, the 

EPA has identified amounts of incremental RE generation that are 

reasonable, rather than the maximum amounts that could be 

achieved while preserving the cost-effectiveness of the building 

block. For example, assuming gradual improvement in RE 

technology capacity factors consistent with historical trends, 

expanding the portfolio of RE technologies that contribute to 

the building block 3 generation level, and applying the fiveyear maximum capacity change values to all years of the interim 

period are adjustments that would produce higher building block 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 757 of 1546

3 generation levels and maintain the primacy of historical data 

in quantifying RE generation potential. External analysis and 

studies of RE penetration levels strongly support the technical 

feasibility and cost-reasonableness of RE deployment well in 

excess of the levels established by building block 3, as 

detailed in section V.E.7. By identifying reasonable rather than 

maximum achievable amounts, we are increasing the assurance that 

that the identified amounts are achievable by the source 

category and providing greater flexibility to individual 

affected EGUs to choose among alternative measures for achieving 

compliance with the standards of performance established for 

them in their states’ section 111(d) plans. 

7. Feasibility of Renewable Energy Deployment 

 The 2030 level of RE deployment and the rate of progress 

during the interim period in getting to that level are well 

supported by comments received, DOE and NREL analysis, and 

external studies evaluating the costs of and potential for RE 

penetration. The EPA has assessed the feasibility of RE in terms 

of deployment potential, system integration, reliability, backup 

capacity, transmission investments, and RE supply chains. 

Historical RE deployment rates are a strong indication of 

the feasibility of the 2030 level of deployment and interim 

period pathway. The use of RE continues to grow rapidly in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 758 of 1546

U.S. In 2013, electricity generated from RE, including 

conventional hydropower, represented 13 percent of total U.S. 

electricity, up from 9 percent in 2005. In particular, there has 

been substantial growth in the wind and solar markets in the 

past decade. Since 2009, wind energy has tripled and solar has 

grown ten-fold. 

The expected future capacity installations in 2022-2030 

needed to reach the 2030 level of incremental RE generation are 

consistent with historical deployment patterns. Forecasts by 

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) of 17 gigawatts in 

2015 and historical deployment of 16 gigawatts in 2012 are 

significant. The average deployment of wind over the past five 

years was 6,200 megawatts per year; 2014 deployment of solar PV, 

both distributed and utility-scale, was 6,201 megawatts. This 

contribution from solar PV is consistent with the rapid 

reduction in costs that is currently being observed and is 

expected to continue. 

Grid operators are reliably integrating large amounts of 

RE, including variable, non-dispatchable RE today. For example, 

Iowa and South Dakota produced more than 25 percent of their 

electricity from wind in 2013, with a total of nine states above 

12 percent and 17 states at more than 5 percent. California 

served nearly 19 percent of total load in 2013 with RE 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 759 of 1546

resources, not including behind-the-meter distributed solar 

resources, and approximately 25 percent of total load with RE in 

2014. On an instantaneous basis, California is regularly serving 

above 25percent of load with RE resources, recently began seeing 

over 5,000 megawatt-hours of solar energy, and is on track for 

33 percent of load with no serious reliability or grid 

integration issues. Germany exceeded 28percent non-hydro RE as a 

percentage of total energy in first half of 2014. Other recent 

examples include: ERCOT met 40 percent of demand on 3/31/14 with 

wind power; SPP met 33 percent of demand on 4/6/13 with wind 

power; and, Xcel Energy Colorado met 60 percent of demand on 

5/2/13 with wind power. Operational and technical upgrades to 

the power system may be required to accommodate high levels of 

variable, non-dispatchable RE like wind and solar over longer 

time periods; however, the penetration levels cited above have 

been achieved without negative impacts to reliability due in 

large part to low-cost measures such as expanded operational 

flexibility and effective coordination with other regional 

markets. 

RE can contribute to reliable system operation. The 

abundance and diversity of RE resources in the U.S. can support 

multiple combinations of RE in much higher penetrations. When 

California, the Midwest, PJM, New York, and New England 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 760 of 1546

experienced record winter demand and prices during the polar 

vortex, wind generation played a key role in maintaining system 

reliability. 

Wind and solar PV are increasingly productive and capable 

of being accurately forecast, which improves grid reliability. 

Increasing capacity factors mean less variability and more 

generation. While the wind industry develops more projects at 

lower wind speed sites, wind turbine design changes are driving 

capacity factors higher among projects located in a given wind 

resource regime.700 Average capacity factors have risen from the 

low 30 percent range to high 30 percent range and continue to 

improve. One key recent advancement is the increasing use of 

turbines designed for low to medium wind speed sites (with 

higher hub-heights and larger rotors, relative to nameplate 

capacity) at higher wind-speed sites with low turbulence. 

New variable RE generators can provide more electrical 

power grid support services beyond just energy. Modern wind 

turbine power electronics allow turbines to provide voltage and 

reactive power control at all times. Wind plants meet a higher 

standard and far exceed the ability of conventional power plants 

 

700 LBNL, Wind Technologies Market Report 2013, August 2014, p. 

43, Available at: 

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/2013_Wind_Technologies_Market

_Report_Final3.pdf 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 761 of 1546

to “ride-through” power system disturbances, which is essential 

for maintaining reliability when large conventional power plants 

break down. Xcel Energy sometimes uses its wind plants’ 

exceedingly fast response to meet system need for frequency 

response and dispatchable resources. Utility-scale PV can 

incorporate control systems that enable solar PV to contribute 

to grid reliability and stability, such as voltage regulation, 

active power controls, ramp-rate controls, fault ride through, 

and frequency control. Solar generation is capable of providing 

many ancillary services that the grid needs but, like other 

generators, needs the proper market signals to trade energy 

generation for ancillary service provision. 

The transmission network can connect distant high-quality 

RE to load centers and improve reliability by increasing system 

flexibility. Investments in transmission and distribution 

upgrades also enable improvements in system-wide environmental 

performance at lower cost. 

The potential range of new transmission construction is 

within historic investment magnitudes. Under nearly all 

scenarios analyzed for the DOE’s Quadrennial Energy Review, 

circuit-miles of transmission added through 2030 are roughly 

equal to those needed under the base case, and while those base 

case transmission needs are significant, they do not appear to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 762 of 1546

exceed historical annual build rates. DOE’s Wind Vision findings 

project 11.5 gigawatts of wind per year from 2021-2030. This 

deployment level would require 890 circuit miles/year of new 

transmission; 870 miles/year have been added on average between 

1991 and 2013. 11.5 gigawatts per year is consistent with 

building block 3 deployment levels for wind capacity over the 

compliance period. DOE’s SunShot scenario, which increases 

utility-scale PV to 180 gigawatts by 2030, required spending of 

$60 billion on transmission through 2050. On an average annual 

basis, this expenditure is within the historical range of annual 

transmission investments made by IOUs in recent decades. 

Incremental grid infrastructure needs can be minimized by 

repurposing existing transmission resources. Transmission 

formerly used to deliver fossil-fired power to distant loads can 

– and is – being used to deliver renewable energy without new 

infrastructure. First Solar’s Moapa project uses transmission 

built to deliver coal-fired power from Navajo to Los Angeles. NV 

Energy’s retirement of Reid-Gardner will free up additional 

transmission capacity. The Milford wind projects in Utah already 

utilize transmission that was built to deliver coal power to Los 

Angeles. 

Storage can be helpful but is not essential for the 

feasibility of RE deployment because there are many sources of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 763 of 1546

flexibility on the grid. DOE’s Wind Vision and many other 

studies have found an array of integration options (e.g., large 

balancing areas, geographically dispersed RE, weather 

forecasting used in system operations, sub-hourly energy 

markets, access to neighboring markets) for RE beyond storage. 

Storage is a system resource, as its value for renewables is a 

small share of its total value. 

Increasing regional coordination between balancing areas 

will increase operational flexibility. The Energy Imbalance 

Market (EIM) recently implemented by the California ISO and 

Pacificorp is a good example of the increased coordination that 

will be helpful in ensuring that resources across the West are 

being utilized in an efficient way. 

Significant wind and solar supply chains have developed in 

the past decade to serve the fast-growing US RE market. For 

wind, domestic production capability would likely have to 

increase to accommodate projected builds under the CPP in the 

2022-2030 time period; however, the global supply chain has 

expanded significantly to serve multiple markets and can augment 

production from the domestic supply chain, if necessary. At the 

start of 2014, the U.S. domestic supply chain could produce 

10,000 blades (6.2 gigawatts) and 4300 towers (8 gigawatts) 

annually. It is not anticipated that expanded domestic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 764 of 1546

manufacturing will be constrained by raw materials availability 

or manufacturing capability. For solar technologies, the global 

supply chain has a capacity that has significantly expanded over 

the past few years from 1.4 gigawatts per year in 2004 to 22.5 

gigawatts per year in 2011. Current capacity exceeds these 

levels and is expected to grow. For PV systems, raw materials 

like tellurium and indium are at highest risk of supply 

shortage, but these materials are not used in the PV 

technologies currently being deployed at large-scale. 

8. Cost of CO2 Emission Reductions from Renewable Energy 

Generation 

The EPA believes that RE generation at the levels represented in 

building block 3 can be achieved at reasonable costs. In the 

EPA’s modeling of the building block 3 generation level, the 

projected cost of achieving CO2 reductions through this expansion 

of RE generation is $37 per ton on average from 2022 through 

2030.701 There are a number of reasons why the EPA believes that 

the cost of CO2 emission reductions from RE generation will be 

lower than this analysis suggests. First, modeling constraints 

that restrict variable, non-dispatchable RE technologies to 30 

percent of net energy for load at each of the 64 U.S. IPM 

 

701 Refer to the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for further analysis 

and IPM run results. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 765 of 1546

regions is a conservative limit intended to eliminate 

significant grid integration costs at increased levels of RE 

penetration. In fact, many regions have already demonstrated 

levels of RE penetration that exceed the constraints, and in 

practice intermittency can be managed across larger regions than 

the 64. Consequently, the extent to which these regions could, 

in practice, achieve higher levels of RE deployment without 

facing substantial grid integration costs would lead to a lowercost RE outcome than is estimated by this analysis. Second, 

there are multiple RE technologies not quantified under building 

block 3 that affected EGUs may use to demonstrate compliance 

(distributed generation technologies, offshore wind, etc.). 

Based on preliminary analysis from DOE and NREL, cost-effective 

opportunities for distributed generation alone could satisfy 

one-third to over one-half of the stringency associated with 

building block 3. 702Third, as discussed in section V and VI of 

the preamble, the BSER reflects the degree of emission 

limitation achieved through the application of the building 

blocks in the least stringent region. By definition, in the 

other two regions the BSER is less stringent than the simple 

combination of the three building blocks, rendering a portion of 

 

702 See Section VIII.K. for a description of qualifying RE 

technologies for compliance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 766 of 1546

the emission reduction potential quantified by the building 

blocks unnecessary to achieving the interim and final CO2

emission performance rates. For example, the EPA has calculated 

that in excess of 160,000,000 megawatt-hours of building block 3 

potential is not required to achieve the final CO2 emission 

performance rates in 2030 – and would be accessible to affected 

EGUs for compliance.703 Therefore, it is reasonable to expect 

that it would cost less to achieve the component of building 

block 3 potential that is reflected in the calculation of the 

final CO2 emission performance rates, as compared to the results 

of this analysis which assumed achievement of the entire 

quantified building block 3 potential. The EPA believes that 

these factors provide significant opportunities for achievement 

of the building block 3 generation levels at lower costs than 

estimated in this analysis. 

VI. Subcategory-Specific CO2 Emission Performance Rates 

A. Overview 

In this section, the EPA sets out subcategory-specific CO2

emission performance rates to guide states in development of 

their state plans. The emission performance rates reflect the 

 

703 For additional discussion on how this concept impacts 

building block 3 generation levels, refer to the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for Final CPP. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 767 of 1546

emission rates for two generating subcategories affected by the 

rule (fossil steam generation and gas-fired combustion 

turbines).704 These final emission performance rates reflect the 

EPA’s quantification of the BSER based on the three building 

blocks described in section V above. This procedure follows a 

similar logic to BSER quantification at proposal, but it keeps 

the emission performance rates separate for fossil steam and 

NGCC subcategories instead of immediately blending them together 

into a single value for all affected EGUs. Commenters noted that 

the proposed rule established guidelines that were based on the 

aggregation of units, and their reduction potential, in a state 

rather than providing technology-specific guidelines. While many 

commenters appreciated the flexibility this state-focused 

structure provided, some noted two concerns with this approach: 

1) it would potentially create different incentives for the same 

generating technology class depending on the state in which that 

generator was located, and 2) it deviated from the EPA’s 

previous interpretation of the 111(d) regulatory guidelines by 

 

704 The only natural gas fired EGUs currently considered likely 

affected units under the 111(d) applicability criteria are NGCC 

units capable of supplying more than 25 MW of electrical output 

to the grid. The data and rates for these units represents all 

emissions and MWh output associated with both the combustion 

turbines as well as all associated heat recovery steam 

generating units.

The remainder of the section will use the term “NGCC” to 

collectively refer to these natural gas fired EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 768 of 1546

not providing technology-specific standards of performance. In 

response to these comments and our further consideration, the 

final rule establishes subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates that are identical across units within a subcategory 

regardless of where a unit is located within the contiguous U.S. 

These subcategory-specific emission performance rates are then 

translated into state-specific goals which, as in the proposal, 

reflect the particular energy mix present in each state. That 

translation is presented in section VII. 

These performance rates reflect the average emission rate 

requirement for each subcategory. Similar to the proposal, they 

are presented as adjusted average emission rates that reflect 

other generation components of BSER (e.g., renewable) in 

addition to the fossil component. These performance rates must 

be achieved by 2030 and sustained thereafter. The interim 

performance rates apply over a 2022-2029 interim period and 

would be achieved on average through reasonable implementation 

of the best system of emission reduction (based on all three 

building blocks) described above. In other words, the interim 

performance rates are consistent with a reasonable deployment 

schedule of BSER technologies as they scale up to their full 

BSER potential by 2030. The performance rates are meant to 

reflect emission performance required across all affected EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 769 of 1546

when averaged together and inclusive of lower-emitting BSER 

components. 

 The performance rates are expressed in the form of 

adjusted705 output-weighted-average CO2 emission rates for 

affected EGUs. However, states are authorized to use a converted 

statewide rate-based or mass-based goal as discussed in the next 

section. The EPA has determined that the statewide rate-based 

and mass-based CO2 goals are expressions of the emission 

performance rates equivalent to application of the emission 

performance rates to affected EGUs within a state. 

The EPA is finalizing the performance rates in a manner 

consistent with the proposal, with appropriate adjustments based 

on comments. Stakeholders had the opportunity to demonstrate 

during the comment period that application of one or more of the 

building blocks would not be expected to produce the level of 

emission reduction quantified by the EPA because implementation 

of the building block at the levels envisioned by the EPA was 

technically infeasible, or because the costs of doing so were 

 

705 As described below, the emission performance rates include 

adjustments to incorporate the potential effects of emission 

reduction measures that address power sector CO2 emissions 

primarily by reducing the amount of electricity produced at a 

state’s affected EGUs (associated with, for example, increasing 

the amount of new low- or zero-carbon generation rather than by 

reducing their CO2 emission rates per unit of energy output 

produced). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 770 of 1546

significantly higher than projected by the EPA. The EPA has 

considered all of this input in setting final performance rates. 

The remainder of this section addresses two sets of topics. 

First, we discuss several issues related to the form of the 

performance rates. Second, we describe the performance rates, 

computation procedure, and adjustments made between proposal and 

final based on stakeholder feedback in the comment period. 

 Some of the topics addressed in this section are addressed 

in greater detail in supplemental documents available in the 

docket for this rulemaking, including the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule and 

the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures TSD. Specific topics 

addressed in the various TSDs are noted throughout the 

discussion below. 

B. Performance Rate Requirements 

The EPA has developed a single performance rate requirement 

for existing fossil steam units in the contiguous U.S., and a 

single rate for existing gas turbines in the contiguous U.S., 

reflecting application of the BSER, based on all three building 

blocks described earlier, to pertinent data. The rates are 

intended to represent CO2 emission rates achievable by 2030 after 

a 2022-2029 interim period on an output-weighted-average basis 

collectively by all affected EGUs, with certain computation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 771 of 1546

adjustments described below to reflect the potential to achieve 

mass emission reductions by avoiding fossil fuel-fired 

generation. 

1. Final emission performance rate requirements 

The emission performance rates are set forth in Table 9 

below, followed by a description of the computation methodology. 

Table 9. Emission Performance Rates (Adjusted Output-WeightedAverage Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh From All Affected Fossil FuelFired EGUs). 

Subcategory Interim Rate Final Rate 

Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Steam Generating Units 

1,534 1,305 

Stationary Combustion 

Turbines 

832 771 

 

 The emission performance rates are expressed as adjusted 

output-weighted-average emission rates for each subcategory. As 

discussed later in this section, the emission rate computation 

includes an adjustment designed to reflect mass emission 

reductions associated with lower-emitting BSER components. The 

adjustment is made by estimating the annual net generation 

associated with an achievable amount of qualifying incremental 

lower-carbon and zero-carbon generation and substituting those 

MWhs (along with corresponding emissions) for the baseline 

electricity generation and CO2 emissions from the higher-emitting 

affected EGUs. Under the final rule approach, regionally 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 772 of 1546

identified building block three potential generation replaces 

fossil steam and NGCC generation on a pro-rata basis 

corresponding to the historical baseline mix of fossil 

generation in each region. However, as discussed in Section 

VIII, if the state decides to implement these adjustments in its 

state plan, the state must still demonstrate compliance with the 

CO2 emission performance rates for affected EGUs or the 

equivalent state-based goals provided in section VII. 

2. Interim Emission Performance Rates 

Some commenters suggested that the interim period starting 

in 2020 provided too little time for implementation of measures 

required to demonstrate compliance during the interim period. As 

discussed in section V.A.3.g of this preamble, the EPA has 

determined that an interim period beginning in 2022 provides 

sufficient time for states to undertake necessary planning 

exercises and for the implementation of measures towards 

achieving the performance rates. The EPA determined the interim 

rates in a manner similar to proposal, with an adaptation to 

address the revised timing of the interim compliance period 

(beginning in 2022 rather than in 2020 as proposed). They 

reflect the averaging of estimated emission performance rates 

for each year in the interim period (i.e., 2022-2029). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 773 of 1546

The interim performance rates are less stringent than the 

final 2030 emission performance rates because the amount of 

emission reduction potential identified for the BSER increases 

over time, as explained in section V above. 

C. Form of the Performance Rates 

1. Rate-based guidelines 

 The interim and final emission performance rates for fossil 

steam and NGCC units are presented in the form of adjusted 

output-weighted-average CO2 emission rates that the affected 

fossil fuel-fired units could achieve, on average, through 

application of the measures comprising the BSER (or alternative 

control methods). Several aspects of this form of emission rate 

are worth noting at the outset: the use of emission rates 

expressed in terms of net rather than gross energy output; the 

use of output-weighted-average emission rates for all affected 

EGUs; the use of adjustments to accommodate incremental NGCC 

generation and renewable energy measures that reduce CO2

emissions by reducing the quantity of fossil fuel-fired 

generation and associated emissions; and the adjustability of 

the goals based on the severability of the underlying building 

blocks. 

a. Rationale for rate-based guidelines. First, the EPA sets an 

emission rate requirement for each subcategory by identifying 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 774 of 1546

the technology-specific reductions available under the building 

blocks. It then gives each state the choice to apply the 

emission performance rates directly to the affected EGUs within 

the state or provides the opportunity to use the statewide ratebased goal or the equivalent mass-based form translated from the 

emission performance rates for state plan purposes. The emission 

performance rates reflect the BSER, and the statewide rate-based 

goal and statewide mass-based goal are alternative metrics for 

realizing the emission performance rates at the aggregate 

affected fleet level for a state. 

Stakeholders have expressed support for having the 

flexibility to choose from among the multiple options for 

crafting an implementation plan to realize the BSER. The EPA is 

providing emission performance rate-based guidelines that apply 

uniformly to technology subcategories nationwide, and the EPA is 

providing corresponding state emission rate goals and state mass 

goals to further enhance compliance flexibility for each state. 

This approach allows each state to adopt a plan that it 

considers optimal and is consistent with the state flexibility 

principle that is central to the EPA’s development of this 

program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 775 of 1546

b. Net vs. gross MWh. The second aspect noted above concerns 

the expression of the goals in terms of net energy output706 – 

that is, energy output encompassing net MWh of generation 

measured at the point of delivery to the transmission grid 

rather than gross MWh of generation measured at the EGU’s 

generator. The difference between net and gross generation is 

the electricity used at a plant to operate auxiliary equipment 

such as fans, pumps, motors, and pollution control devices. 

Because improvements in the efficiency of these devices 

represent opportunities to reduce carbon intensity at existing 

affected EGUs that would not be captured in measurements of 

emissions per gross MWh, goals are expressed in terms of net 

generation. As noted by commenters, EGUs have familiarity and in 

some places already have in place equipment necessary to collect 

and report hourly net generation.707

c. Output-weighted performance rates for all affected EGUs. 

This final rule provides an expression of the BSER as 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates rather than the 

 

706 As discussed below in Section VIII on state plans, we are 

similarly determining that states choosing a rate-based form of 

emission performance level for their plans should establish a 

requirement for affected EGUs to report hourly net energy 

output. 

707 Specifically, commenters noted that while net generation is 

not reported to the EPA under 40 CFR Part 75, affected EGUs are 

generally required to report gross and net generation on a 

monthly basis to EIA through form 923 submittal.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 776 of 1546

state goals provided at proposal. Whereas the proposal also 

estimated the BSER impact on fossil steam and NGCC emissions and 

generation, it went one step further by averaging these two 

technology rates into a single rate for each state. Under this 

final rule, the EPA is identifying the fossil steam rate and the 

NGCC rate separately instead of only presenting them in a 

blended fashion at the state level.708 These two emission 

performance rates are the expression of the BSER for the final 

rule for affected EGUs located within the contiguous U.S. 

The modification from a blended emission rate in the 

proposed rule to a subcategory-specific emission performance 

rate for affected EGU categories in the final rule was made in 

response to comments that technology subcategory-specific 

emission rates were more analogous to prior 111(d) efforts and 

more consistent with the statute. The EPA received significant 

comment suggesting a technology subcategory-specific rate is 

consistent with past section 111(d) regulations. However, many 

commenters also supported the flexibility provided to states 

 

708 However, as discussed here and in the next section, in order 

to provide maximum flexibility to states, the EPA averages these 

two emission rates together for each state using their baseline 

generation share to arrive at a single statewide emission 

performance goal. The state has the option to comply with this 

statewide goal through a compliance pathway of its choice. This 

compliance pathway may or may not involve requiring its affected 

units to meet the emission performance rates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 777 of 1546

through a state goal metric provided at proposal. Therefore, the 

EPA does provide alternative statewide rate-based and mass-based 

goals in the next section. 

The EPA’s main consideration has been to ensure that the 

expression of the BSER reflects opportunities to manage CO2

emissions by shifting generation among different types of 

affected EGUs. Both the performance rates in this final rule and 

the state goals at proposal rely on the adjusted emission rate 

metric to reflect that potential shifting. Specifically, because 

CO2 emission rates differ widely across the fleet of affected 

EGUs, and because transmission interconnections typically 

provide system operators with choices as to which EGU should be 

called upon to produce the next MWh of generation needed to meet 

demand, opportunities exist to manage utilization of high 

carbon-intensity EGUs based on the availability of less carbonintensive generating capacity. For states and generators, this 

means that CO2 emission reductions can be achieved by shifting 

generation from EGUs with higher CO2 emission rates, such as 

coal-fired EGUs, to EGUs with lower CO2 emission rates, such as 

NGCC units. Our analysis indicates that shifting generation 

among EGUs offers opportunities to achieve large amounts of CO2

emission reductions at reasonable costs. The realization of 

these opportunities can be reflected in an emission rate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 778 of 1546

established in the form of an output-weighted-average emission 

rate where the weighting reflects the varying levels of 

replacement generation technologies. 

d. Severability of building blocks. Section V above discusses 

the severability of the three building blocks upon which the CO2

emission performance rates are based. Because the building 

blocks can be implemented independently of one another and the 

emission performance rates reflect the sum of the emission 

reductions from all of the building blocks, if any of the 

building blocks is found to be an invalid basis for the “best 

system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated,” the 

rates would be adjusted to reflect the emissions reductions from 

the remaining building blocks. The sole exception, as described 

above, is the application of building block 1 in isolation, 

which would not be implemented independently. The performance 

rates and statewide goals that would result from any combination 

of the building blocks could be computed using the formulas and 

data included in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule and its appendices using the 

methodology described below and elaborated on in that TSD. 

D. Performance Rate-Setting Equation and Computation Procedure

 The methodology used to compute the performance rates is 

summarized on a step-by-step basis below in section 3. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 779 of 1546

methodology is described in more detail in the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for Final Rule, which 

includes a numerical example illustrating the full procedure. 

The quantification of the building blocks used in the 

computation procedure is discussed in Section V above and in the 

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures TSD. 

1. Inventory of likely affected EGUs 

In order to calculate the subcategory-specific emission 

rates reflecting the BSER, the EPA first needed to develop a 

baseline inventory of likely affected EGUs in order to estimate 

the impact of BSER. The EPA developed an inventory of likely 

covered units that were operating in 2012 or that began 

construction prior to January 8, 2014 and that appeared to meet 

the final rule’s applicability criteria.709 This inventory does 

not constitute a final applicability determination, but best 

reflects the EPA’s estimate of units subject to the 111(d) 

applicability criteria as laid out in Section IV. The EPA 

identified a list of likely covered units at proposal comprised 

of approximately 3,000 EGUs. The agency took comment on this 

list and has made a number of updates to the inventory in 

response to those comments and in regards to applicability 

 

709 Some of these under construction units may not enter 

operation until 2015 or later, but they are likely affected 

sources and therefore the EPA included them in its baseline. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 780 of 1546

criteria changes resulting from comments. However, the inventory 

does not reflect a final applicability determination, and where 

a unit’s status was unclear, the EPA generally treated the 

unit’s status in a manner consistent with the proposal and 

publically available reported data.710

Since the final rule’s applicability includes under 

construction units, the EPA also identified units that had not 

yet commenced operation by the 2012 baseline period, but that 

commenced construction before January 8, 2014. The EPA received 

significant comment on the proposal’s sole use of the National 

Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) to identify these under 

construction units. In some cases, NEEDS did not reflect units 

that had commenced construction. Therefore, the EPA updated its 

approach to identifying units that had commenced construction 

prior to January 8, 2014, but that had not commenced operation 

in 2012. In the final rule, the EPA uses EIA data, comments, as 

 

710 The EPA notes that in some cases, it may not yet be possible 

to determine the status of an EGU as affected or not affected 

without additional data. There are potentially some units 

excluded or included in the baseline that will ultimately have a 

different status following an applicability determination. 

However, these cases are limited, and the effect of any 

collective changes to the affected fleet inventory will not 

yield a bias in the BSER computation at the regional level. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 781 of 1546

well as NEEDS data to identify these “under construction” 

units.711,712 

These units that were operating by 2012 along with those 

that had not commenced operation by 2012 but had commenced 

construction by January 8, 2014, reflect the EPA baseline 

inventory of likely affected EGUs. The CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule explains the 

prime mover, capacity, and fuel criteria used to identify the 

likely affected EGUs.713 

The EPA received significant comment that units that came 

online during the baseline year (e.g., 2012) should be treated 

as under construction rather than operating units in 2012 for 

purposes of estimating baseline values, because their 2012 

operation may be misrepresentative of anticipated future-year 

operation due to partial year operation in 2012. The EPA has 

 

711 The NEEDS database was also updated to reflect the latest 

data and commenter input on under construction units. 

712 For purposes of determining emission performance rates, the 

EPA classifies any unit that had begun construction prior to 

Jan. 8, 2014, but had not commenced operation by Dec. 31, 2011 

as “under construction”. Some of these “under construction” 

units have commenced operation prior to signature of this final 

rule. 

713 The baseline inventory relies on historical data and does not 

incorporate anticipated future retirements. Most commenters 

supported this treatment as they viewed those scheduled 

retirements (and corresponding emission reductions) as an 

alternative compliance flexibility based on already scheduled 

reductions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 782 of 1546

made an adjustment to flag these units as having commenced 

operation during 2012 and treat them as under construction 

units, consistent with commenters’ suggestion; for BSER 

computational purposes, generation and emissions for these units 

are estimated based on a typical first full year operation for 

that technology class. 

2. Data year 

In the proposed rule, the EPA considered using a 

historical-year data set or a projected-year data set as a 

starting point for applying the technology assumptions 

identified under BSER. The EPA proposed using 2012 data as it 

was the most recent data year for which complete data were 

available when the EPA undertook analysis for the proposed rule 

and it reflected actual performance at the state level. The EPA 

took comment on alternative data sets. In particular, the EPA 

issued a NODA on October 30, 2014 (79 FR 64543) in which it 

provided 2010 and 2011 historic data for consideration. 

The EPA received a significant number of comments 

supporting the use of historical data as the basis from which to 

quantify performance rates reflecting BSER. Some commenters 

supported the 2012 data year as the best reflection of the power 

fleet, and some suggested that the EPA use a different year or a 

historical average to control for data anomalies in 2012. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 783 of 1546

Moreover, some commenters pointed out that using 2010, 2011, 

2012 data, or an average of the three would not address their 

concerns about recent year anomalies in hydro generation due to 

high snow pack. Some commenters also suggested the EPA use a 

baseline including years prior to 2012, not to increase 

representativeness of the power sector, but as a means of 

recognizing early action. 

In this final rule, the EPA is taking a hybrid approach to 

its baseline year where it still largely relies on reported 2012 

data as the best and most recent available data representing the 

power sector from which to apply the BSER, but also including 

targeted baseline adjustments to address commenter concerns with 

2012 data.714 Below, we explain why – at the nationwide level - 

2012 data are preferable, more objective, and more accurate than 

a prior year, or an average of years, for informing the 

baseline. Then, we explain the adjustments that we are making to 

the 2012 data along with our rationale for such adjustments, in 

response to comments we received. 

Some commenters supported the EPA’s use of 2012 data to 

inform performance rates, and the EPA agrees that 2012 data with 

 

714 The EPA recognizes that more recent emissions and generation 

data have become available since 2012, but 2012 data constituted 

the most recent year for which full data was available at the 

time the EPA began its analysis for proposal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 784 of 1546

targeted adjustments, relative to other historical years, best 

reflects the power sector and best informs the performance rates 

that pertain to the BSER. The EPA believes that starting with 

2012 data is more accurate and better informs the BSER than an 

earlier historical year or historical multi-year average for the 

following reasons: 

1) Of the historical data fully available at the time the 

proposal analysis began, 2012 was the most recent and 

best reflects the power fleet. Approximately 43 GW of new 

capacity came online in 2010 and 2011. In other words, 

there was 43 GW of capacity online as of 2012 that had 

not been in service at some point during the 2010-2011 

period. Likewise, approximately 17 GW of capacity that 

were operable in 2010 and/or 2011 were retired prior to 

2012.715 Using state-level, prior year data, either on its 

own, or as part of a multi-year baseline, is not as 

representative of the current power fleet as the 2012 

data, which better reflects significant changes in power 

sector infrastructure. 

2) A three-year baseline would not address some of the 

substantive concerns raised by commenters. Many 

commenters pointed out that using a three-year baseline 

 

715 EIA Form 860, 2012.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 785 of 1546

would not address their critical concern about variation 

in the hydrological cycle due to snow pack (particularly 

in the Northwest), because the snow pack was 

significantly above average in both 2011 and 2012. The 

EPA agrees with commenters that we can better address 

their baseline data concerns regarding an average hydro 

year by identifying those states with a significant share 

of hydro generation and variation in that hydro 

generation, and making targeted adjustments to those 

states’ affected fossil generation levels in order to 

reflect a more typical snow-pack year. This procedure is 

described in more detail below and in the Technical 

Support Documents. 

3) In addition to being, in the EPA’s view, a less 

representative baseline of the existing power fleet, a 

multi-year baseline would also likely entail complexity 

when determining how to average together yearly fleet 

data while appropriately accounting for fleet changes 

occurring during those years. The 2012 baseline starting 

point maximizes the EPA’s reliance on latest reported 

operating data and minimizes the need for fleet capacity 

adjustments. For instance, because of year-to-year fleet 

turnover, the averaging of a multiple baseline years 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 786 of 1546

would require additional assumptions in regards to which 

generation to consider from a fleet that is changing in a 

given state or region (or even where units are switching 

fuel sources such as a coal-to-gas conversion). 

4) Due to the region-based approach to quantify building 

blocks and the BSER as subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates, variations in unit-level data do not 

significantly impact the calculation of emission 

performance rates. For instance, if one fossil unit is 

operating less in a given year due to an outage, another 

fossil unit in the same region is generally operating 

more. Therefore, at the regional level, fossil generation 

and emissions do not vary to the same degree that unitlevel data varies. Moreover, the variation at the 

regional-level that does exist in 2012 relative to 

previous years is not necessarily unrepresentative 

variation, but illustrates trends in the power sector 

infrastructure that are desirable to capture for purposes 

of determining a representative year from which further 

improvements in CO2 emissions performance can be made. 

Because the EPA is moving from a state approach at 

proposal to a regional approach for calculating the 

expression of the BSER in this final rule, unit-level 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 787 of 1546

operational variation from year to year becomes even less 

relevant to the calculation of regional emission 

performance rates (i.e., an outage in a fossil unit in 

one region is likely to be offset by increased generation 

from another fossil unit in that same region). 

5) Some commenters suggested the EPA use an earlier baseline 

year as a means of recognizing early action. They noted 

that an earlier baseline would reflect a higher-emitting 

fleet and therefore when the same level of building block 

MWhs are applied, they would result in a higher (i.e., 

less stringent) state goal. The EPA disagrees with this 

view for several reasons. First, the objective of 

selecting a baseline to inform BSER is to have one that 

best reflects the power sector and consequently the best 

system of emission reductions of which the power fleet is 

capable. Using an earlier baseline that “inflates” the 

starting point would undermine this objective, not serve 

it. Second, the EPA disagrees with the premise of this 

comment – that the baseline would change and building 

block potentials would stay the same. For instance, 

building block two functions based on incremental 

generation potential (incremental generation = potential 

generation – baseline generation). This incremental value 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 788 of 1546

would increase if an earlier baseline period was used 

that had less existing NGCC generation. 

6) Some commenters pointed out that the EPA relied on multiyear historical data in allowance allocation in previous 

rulemakings (e.g., CAIR and/or CSAPR allocations). 

However, that comparison is not relevant to the 

quantification of emission reduction potential under 

111(d). In those previous instances, the EPA was 

considering typical unit-level behavior for allowance 

allocation purposes – not for determining the emission 

reduction requirements of the program. Those allowance 

allocation determinations were independent of and 

subsequent to the determination of emission reduction 

requirements in those rulemakings. 

7) The EPA received significant comment that 2012 was not a 

representative year for natural gas prices, and thus the 

EPA should use another year. The EPA disagrees with this 

comment, and does not view it as grounds for a change to 

the baseline period. While the EPA does recognize that 

Henry Hub natural gas prices were lower in 2012 relative 

to previous years, this does not invalidate the 

suitability of the data year selection. The EPA’s 

objective in selecting a baseline is to identify 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 789 of 1546

potential reductions when BSER technologies are applied; 

year-to-year variation in market prices for natural gas 

does not frustrate this effort. For instance, a region 

may have generated only 5 MWh of NGCC generation in 2011 

when gas prices were higher, and 10 MWh of NGCC 

generation in 2012 when gas prices dropped. However, this 

does not change the outcome of the EPA quantification of 

the BSER, because the BSER is based on the emission 

reduction potential of the fleet. That potential (e.g., a 

fuller realization of the existing NGCC generation 

potential equivalent to 15 MWh) does not change 

regardless of the year used for baseline NGCC generation. 

Therefore, a different data year may change a baseline 

data point, but it would not change the total potential 

NGCC generation for quantifying the emission performance 

rates in these circumstances. As a consequence the lower 

amount of NGCC generation in the baseline would be offset 

by a larger NGCC incremental potential in the building 

block to get back to the same total potential NGCC 

generation level.

In summary, the EPA believes that continuing to rely on 

2012 data while incorporating select data adjustments as 

detailed below is not only a reasonable choice and adequately 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 790 of 1546

supported, but a more reliable and preferable starting point for 

determining the BSER requirements. 

3. Adjustments that the EPA made to the 2012 data 

The EPA made corrections to unit-level 2012 data based on 

commenter feedback. In addition, we also made some adjustments 

to 2012 data, not to address a correction, but to address a 

concern about the representativeness of the data. Although the 

EPA determined that the 2012 data year better informed its BSER 

determination than a preceding year or a multi-year average, 

commenters did identify some limitations that we are addressing 

through targeted adjustments. These are discussed below: 

1) Adjustments to state-level data to account for annual 

variation in the hydrologic cycle as it relates to fossil 

generation. 

Hydropower plays a unique role in a handful of states in 

that it is 1) a significant portion of their generation 

portfolio, 2) varies on an annual basis, and 3) 2012 was an 

outlier year for snow-pack (meaning hydropower was above 

and fossil generation was below its historical average). 

The EPA notes that these three conditions are not present 

in other weather-based RE technologies like solar or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 791 of 1546

wind.716 Therefore, no similar adjustment was needed to 

account for weather patterns with these technologies. 

Unlike market conditions (e.g., changes in natural gas 

prices) that may produce different generation profiles 

year-to-year but that do not change the overall generating 

potential of the state’s power fleet, variation in the 

hydrologic cycle does fundamentally change the generating 

potential of the state’s power fleet in hydro-intensive 

states as they no longer have the same generating potential 

in an average year as they had in a “high hydro” year. The 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule provides analysis and explains the 

adjustment that the EPA made to the state-level 2012 data 

for Idaho, Maine, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, and 

Washington to better reflect fossil generation in an 

average year over a 1990-2012 baseline. The EPA agrees with 

commenters that using a 2010-2012 baseline would not 

address the concern as 2011 was also an outlier year 

relative to historical snow-pack and hydro generation. 

2) Extended unit outages due to maintenance. 

 

716 While solar and wind generation may vary on an hourly or daily 

basis, their annual generation profiles are subject to notably 

less variation compared to hydropower. The EPA’s calculation of 

the BSER relies on annual generation data, not on hourly or 

daily generation data.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 792 of 1546

Generally, because of the regional-level approach to 

calculate performance rates, the EPA does not believe that 

unit-level variations in operation influence the 

subcategory-specific performance rates reflecting BSER. For 

instance, as some units ramp down, and others ramp up to 

replace their load at the regional level, total fossil 

generation changes little due to these fossil-for-fossil 

substitutions. Unit-level variation does not inherently 

entail region-wide variation. 

However, the EPA did receive comment that in limited cases, 

this could have a substantial impact on an individual state 

if it chooses to use a rate-based or mass-based statewide 

goal. Even though the EPA is calculating subcategoryspecific performance rates that it believes are not 

affected by this type of unit-level variation, it still 

evaluated the possible impacts it may have when converting 

to state goals in the next section. The EPA examined units 

nationwide with 2012 outages to determine where an 

individual unit-level outage might yield a significant 

difference in state goal computation. When applying this 

test to all of the units informing the computation of the 

BSER, emission performance rates, and statewide goals, the 

EPA determined that the only unit with a 2012 outage that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 793 of 1546

1) decreased its output relative to preceding and 

subsequent years by 75 percent or more (signifying an 

outage), and 2) could potentially impact the state’s goal 

as it constituted more than 10 percent of the state’s 

generation was the Sherco unit 3 in Minnesota. The EPA 

therefore adjusted this unit’s 2012 fossil steam generation 

upwards to reflect a more representative year for the 

state in which this 900 MW unit operates. 

3) Many commenters also noted that because the EPA uses annual 

data, 2012 was not representative for units coming online 

part way through the year. The EPA relies on annual data, 

so if a unit is underrepresented in a certain part of the 

year because it is not yet online, then another unit is 

likely over-represented as it is operating more than it 

otherwise would when the second unit commences operation. 

Therefore, the resulting state-level and regional-level 

aggregate annual generation level used in determining the 

BSER may be considered to be representative and there is 

not necessarily a need for any adjustment. 

However, the EPA recognizes that the over-represented and 

under-represented units do not necessarily fall within the 

same state, and therefore this potential difference in the 

state location of the affected units could have an impact 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 794 of 1546

when estimating appropriate statewide goals. To address 

this comment, the EPA adjusted the 2012 generation data for 

fossil units coming online during 2012 to represent an 

average annual operating level for that type of unit, which 

resulted in increased baseline emissions and generation 

assumed for those units beyond their reported partial-year 

operations in 2012. Conceptually, the assumption of fullyear operation at units that came online partway through 

2012 could pair with an assumed reduction in the operation 

of other units somewhere in the same region. However, the 

EPA made no corresponding deduction to represent this 

likely decreased utilization at other affected units 

because it was impossible to project the state location of 

such units with certainty. As a result, this data 

adjustment marginally increases the total generation and 

emissions for units reporting in the 2012 baseline beyond 

the 2012 reported levels. 

Additionally, as done in proposal, the EPA continued to 

identify under construction units that did not begin 

operation in 2012, but had begun construction prior to 

January 8, 2014 and would commence operation sometime after 

2012. As described in the next section, the EPA estimated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 795 of 1546

baseline generation and emissions for these units as they 

had no 2012 reported data. 

In summary, this final rule continues to rely on the latest 

reported 2012 data as the foundation for quantifying the BSER. 

However, the EPA has made limited adjustments, in addition to 

corrections identified by commenters, to the 2012 data to 

address some of the relevant concerns raised by commenters. 

Therefore, the baseline is informed by 2012 data, but not 

limited to 2012 data.717

In this section we describe how we develop the equations 

used to determine the emission performance rates for fossil 

steam and NGCC units that express and implement BSER. More 

detailed information regarding rate computation, including 

example calculations, can be found in the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this action. Here we first 

present the general principles we follow when developing 

equations to express BSER; then, we summarize the steps taken to 

assemble baseline data to reflect 2012 baseline emissions and 

generation, and apply the building blocks that constitute BSER 

 

717 Updated unit-level data reflecting corrections identified by 

commenters to the underlying 2012 file is provided in Appendix 1 

of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule. The adjustments made to the aggregate data to 

address representativeness concerns are provided in Appendix 3.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 796 of 1546

to derive performance rates that will be used by States to 

implement BSER. Section VII then explains how these nationwide 

performance rates are reconstituted into a statewide goal metric 

similar to the proposal in order to allow a state (at its 

discretion) to use a statewide goal as a mechanism for 

demonstrating compliance at the aggregate state level in a state 

plan, as an alternative to applying the emission performance 

rates to its affected EGUs directly. 

When developing equations to implement BSER, we adhere to a 

number of basic principles. First, we ensure that the equations 

are consistent with the BSER itself, and in particular, reflect 

the redistribution of generation among fossil steam, NGCC and 

renewables embodied in building blocks two and three. In doing 

this, we account for the interactions between building blocks in 

a way that avoids double-counting. In particular, we must ensure 

that each increment of building block three emission reduction 

potential is applied to either fossil steam or NGCC units but 

not both. The equations we develop must also take account of the 

dual status of existing NGCC units, which are simultaneously 

affected units and provide generation that is an element of the 

BSER itself. 

In addition, we are applying the BSER, as we have done in 

calculating other section 111(d) standards, to a defined 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 797 of 1546

population of existing affected sources, represented in this 

case by the generation of the source category in 2012 (“the 2012 

baseline”). This provides an empirical historical baseline 

against which we define the performance rates and their state 

goal equivalents. In doing so, we must account for any 

offsetting increases in emissions that result from applying the 

BSER control measures, as we have done in setting other 

standards. For example, when determining BSER for particulate 

matter control, a number of pollution control devices (such as 

sorbent injection technologies) themselves create particulate 

matter. If the particulate matter created by these control 

devices were not appropriately accounted for when developing the 

standard intended to address the primary emissions of 

particulate, this could create an unreasonably stringent PM 

standard. In the current context, this means recognizing that 

increasing NGCC capacity utilization in accordance with building 

block two both offsets higher emitting steam generation and 

increases emissions at the NGCC units themselves, which are also 

affected entities that must demonstrate compliance with BSER. 

Thus, it is essential that we apply the building blocks in a way 

that avoids creating a level of stringency in the performance 

standards for affected EGUs that goes beyond what we have 

determined to be BSER – while at the same time ensuring that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 798 of 1546

equations apply the building blocks to generate performance 

standards that represent the full application of BSER to the 

affected sources. 

Under section 111, EPA adopts emission performance 

standards for purposes of implementing the BSER. The emission 

performance standards reflect our recognition of the value of 

giving sources the flexibility to adopt equivalent emissions 

reduction strategies and measures that for them may be 

preferable (in a specific circumstance) to the technologies and 

measures that we define as BSER. An important function of the 

emissions performance rates representing BSER is to provide the 

flexibility needed to allow alternative compliance options, 

including the development of new technologies or the deployment 

of effective technologies outside of the BSER technologies. In 

the guidelines we issued under section 111(d) for landfill gas, 

for example, we adopted the primary standard based on flaring of 

any captured landfill gas, but we also developed equations that 

led to an expression of BSER that allowed for the alternative of 

capturing the gas and combusting it in an electrical generating 

unit. 

 Finally, in deriving the compliance emission rates, there 

are a number of considerations we took into account. First, it 

is important that the baseline from which the rates are derived 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 799 of 1546

be transparent and based on observable, historic data. Second, 

the compliance emission rates must reflect and enable the 

emission reductions achievable through the best system of 

emission reduction. Because BSER includes shifting of emissions 

from higher-emitting to lower-emitting sources, State compliance 

frameworks will likely involve a combination of physical 

measures at the plant (where either rate or generation may be 

reduced) and some form of credit for lower-emitting generation 

(or demand side measures) outside of the plant. In this 

context, the emissions performance rates must provide 

appropriate incentives for affected entities to achieve the 

emission reductions encompassed in BSER, including through state 

plans that provide crediting for lower-emitting generation. 

Third, and as set forth below, we must account for EPA’s 

determination that pro rata implementation of building block 3 

is the best reflection of the potential for renewable energy to 

displace both fossil steam and NGCC, and the dual role of NGCC 

units as both affected sources and a BSER compliance technology. 

This set of considerations was central to the development 

of the BSER equations that EPA describes next. They were 

particularly important for steps 5-7 below which address 

building blocks two and three, building blocks that have both 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 800 of 1546

significant overlap with each other and which impact steam and 

NGCC units in an integrated way. 

Step-by-Step Discussion of Equations 

Step one (compilation of baseline data). On a unit-level 

basis, the EPA obtained total annual quantities of CO2 emissions, 

net generation (MWh), and capacity (MW) from reported 2012 data 

for likely affected EGUs that had commenced operation prior to 

2012.718 The EPA made changes to the historical unit-level data 

based on comments received at proposal. For each state and 

region, the agency aggregated the 2012 operating data for all 

coal-fired steam EGUs as one group, all oil- and gas-fired steam 

EGUs as a second group, and all NGCC units as a third group. The 

EPA adjusted these state values upwards in a limited number of 

 

718 EGUs whose capacity or fossil fuel combustion were 

insufficient to qualify them as “likely affected” EGUs were not 

included in the category-specific rate and goal computations. 

Most simple cycle combustion turbines (CTs) were excluded on 

this basis at proposal, and all simple cycle CTs were excluded 

at final reflecting changes to the applicability language. 

IGCC’s were designated as “other” generation at proposal, but 

they are grouped with coal units for purposes the final rule 

category-specific rates. Useful thermal output (UTO) was also 

translated to a MWh equivalent and included in state goals at 

proposal, resulting in more stringent rates for states with more 

cogeneration sources, but UTO is not included in this final rule 

emission performance rate or state goal calculations as a result 

of comments regarding potentially adverse impacts on 

cogeneration units and uncertainty of thermal load outputs. As 

described in the state plan section of the preamble, units may 

still quantify and convert UTO (i.e., taking credit for waste 

heat capture) when demonstrating compliance. See the 

applicability criteria described in Section IV.C above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 801 of 1546

instances to reflect the hydropower and unit outage concerns 

raised in comments and described above. As discussed above, the 

EPA first only aggregated the reported data for units that 

commenced operation prior to 2012. For those “likely” affected 

units that commenced operation during 2012, the EPA treated that 

capacity consistent with its framework for “under construction” 

affected units, which were added in next. This was done in 

response to comments recognizing the fact that the first full or 

partial year of operation of a new unit may not have been 

representative of its potential generation and emissions. 

For the “under construction” units (i.e., those under 

construction prior to January 8, 2014 but which had not 

commenced operation by December 31, 2011), the EPA estimated 

their baseline generation and emissions using their capacity. 

The EPA assumed a 55 percent capacity factor for under 

construction NGCC units and a 60 percent capacity factor for 

under construction fossil steam units, which are consistent with 

the values and methodology the EPA proposed for under 

construction units. These values are based on the average 

capacity factors for units in these technology classes coming 

online in the 2007-2011 time frame. Using these capacity factors 

along with the capacity for the units, the EPA estimated an 

annual baseline generation value for these units. The agency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 802 of 1546

then estimated annual baseline CO2 emissions for these under 

construction units using the average emission rate of generating 

units of the same technology in the state where the under 

construction unit is located. Where no generators of the same 

technology existed in a given state, the EPA used the national 

baseline average for that technology. This is similar to the 

adjustment made at proposal, with the main difference being 

units that commenced operation in 2012 are now also treated as 

“under construction” for baseline data purposes in the final 

rule. 

The estimated emissions and generation for under 

construction units were added to the 2012 reported emissions and 

generation data for the affected units that had already 

commenced operation to derive an adjusted historical baseline 

total for each state. 

Step two (aggregation to the regional level). The EPA took 

comment on applying building blocks at the regional level, and 

received significant comment supporting such an approach. 

Therefore, whereas the proposal aggregated the 2012 data to the 

state level, the final rule further aggregated it to the 

regional level prior to building block application. The regions 

reflect the Eastern, Western, and Texas Interconnections. The 

shift to a regional framework was based on comments suggesting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 803 of 1546

that the EPA would better capture the interstate impacts of the 

building blocks and reflect the interconnected nature of the 

electric grid under a regional structure. The basis for the 

regions is defined and discussed in Section V.A.3. 

Step three (identification of source category baseline 

emission rates). As discussed in the beginning of this section, 

the EPA took a technology-specific approach to quantifying 

guidelines. Therefore, whereas the proposal first averaged the 

fossil steam rate and NGCC rate together before applying the 

building blocks and defining state goals, the final rule applied 

the building blocks at the regional level to give a separate 

fossil steam rate and NGCC rate for each region. The starting 

point for calculating the technology-specific emission 

performance rates was the baseline regional emission rates for 

both fossil steam and NGCC in the year 2012 with the 

modifications discussed above. 

Step four (application of building block one). The baseline 

CO2 emissions amount for the coal-fired steam EGU fleet in each 

region was reduced by 2.1, 2.3, and 4.3 percent in the Western, 

Texas, and Eastern Interconnections respectively, while the coal 

generation level was held constant, reflecting the EPA’s 

assessment of the average opportunities in each region to reduce 

CO2 emission rates across the existing fleet of coal-fired steam 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 804 of 1546

EGUs through heat rate improvements that are technically 

achievable at a reasonable cost. The EPA then averaged together 

the region’s baseline oil- and natural gas-fired steam rate with 

its building block 1 adjusted coal steam rate to get a fossil 

steam rate post building block 1.719,720 

 Step five (application of building block three). At 

proposal, the EPA incorporated incremental RE MWhs (where 

incremental means the amount above the 2012 baseline) by adding 

them to the denominator of the emission rate goal. In response 

to comments on this approach, the EPA issued a NODA discussing 

an alternative methodology of incorporating building block three 

in a manner more analogous to building block two treatment, 

where the MWhs identified for the building block replace 

baseline fossil MWhs (and corresponding emissions) on a one-toone basis. The EPA is adopting this replacement methodology for 

building block three in the final rule consistent with comments 

noting that such a computational procedure better reflects the 

reduction potential of that building block. 

 

719 Building block 1 analysis acknowledges some variation in heat 

rate improvement potential at different units. The 

implementation of this building block reflects a heat rate 

improvement on average across a region’s coal fleet, not 

necessarily a heat rate improvement at every unit. 

720 Baseline OG steam emissions are added to adjusted coal 

emissions and divided by baseline OG steam generation and 

baseline coal generation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 805 of 1546

Under this methodology, all of building block two 

incremental NGCC potential and part of building block three 

incremental RE potential were ultimately applied to replace 

higher-emitting fossil steam generation and emissions, while the 

remaining building block three potential was applied to replace 

NGCC generation and emissions. Commenters noted that under this 

approach building block three should be applied first, or the 

EPA would understate the potential of building block two by 

subtracting out some NGCC generation after the 75 percent 

utilization level of NGCC had been applied to replace fossil 

steam. The EPA agrees and calculated the building block three 

impacts first in developing the performance rates. 

To implement this, first, building block three replacement 

potential was identified for each region to arrive at a total 

amount of incremental zero-emitting generation hours available 

to replace fossil generation in the region. Because renewable 

generation can replace both fossil steam and NGCC on the grid, 

EPA determined that it was appropriate to apply these 

incremental zero-emitting generation hours to replace generation 

and associated emissions from each of the fossil steam and NGCC 

fleets in the region on a pro-rata basis in the following 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 806 of 1546

manner.721 The EPA determined the percent of fossil steam 

generation and the percent of NGCC generation of total affected 

fossil generation in each region’s baseline. We then assigned 

those percentages of the incremental zero-emitting MWhs to each 

of those technology source categories.722 The incremental zeroemitting generation assigned to each technology replaced the 

same amount of fossil generation from that technology’s baseline 

value. 

Step six (application of building block two). If the 

remaining generation level for the NGCC fleet in a region, 

taking into account the previous step’s replacement of NGCC 

generation, was less than 75 percent of the fleet’s potential 

summertime generating capacity (the potential capacity factor 

EPA determined to represent BSER), then the NGCC generation in 

the region was assumed to increase to levels equal to the lesser 

 

721 The EPA took comment on a pro-rata or an intensity-based 

replacement approach. In this final rule, the EPA agrees with 

commenters that a pro-rata approach is a better reflection of 

BSER. Incremental RE generation has, and is likely to continue, 

to replace both steam and gas turbine generation and the BSER 

captures this through a pro-rata distribution of identified 

building block three potential. 

722 For example, if 100 MWh of incremental zero emitting 

generation is available in a given region and that region had 70 

percent of its affected fossil generation coming from fossil 

steam units in the baseline and 30 percent from NGCC units – 

then 70 MWhs of the incremental zero-emitting generation are 

applied to baseline fossil steam generation and 30 MWhs are 

applied to baseline NGCC generation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 807 of 1546

of 1) its potential at a 75 percent capacity factor723 or 2) a 

generation level above which there is no longer fossil steam 

generation remaining within the same region to replace. In other 

words, the regional NGCC capacity factor was only assumed to 

reach 75 percent if there was higher-emitting fossil steam 

generation that it could replace after step five. The increase 

in NGCC generation in the NGCC denominator at this step was 

matched by an equal decrease in fossil steam generation in the 

fossil steam denominator reflecting the 1 for 1 MWh hour 

replacement. In parallel, the NGCC numerator was increased by 

emissions corresponding to the baseline NGCC emissions rate 

times the additional generation, and the steam numerator was 

decreased by the fossil steam emissions rate times the displaced 

generation. At this point, the equations for both steam and 

NGCC reflect the final distribution of generation between them 

that comprises BSER. But the compliance emission rates must 

account for CO2 emissions and generation from substituted 

renewable and gas generation that comprise building blocks 2 and 

3, to reflect and enable the emission reductions achievable 

under the best system of emission reduction, and ensure that the 

shared implementation of BSER by steam and NGCC generation is 

 

723 In early years, will be less than 75 percent due to building block two gradual deployment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 808 of 1546

reflected in the compliance rates. This is addressed in step 

seven. 

 

Step seven (accounting for and facilitating the emission 

reductions achievable through the implementation of the best 

system of emission reduction). 

This step quantifies the aggregate emission changes 

associated with the emission rate improvement and generation 

replacement patterns described in steps four, five, and six to 

arrive at an adjusted fossil steam emission rate and an adjusted 

NGCC emission rate for each region that will—as discussed above—

(1) enable the implementation of all three building blocks, (2) 

be based on observable, concrete baselines, and (3) reflect the 

BSER,. 

First, in developing the emissions performance rates, EPA 

had to answer the question of how to reflect the building blocks 

in the equations defining the rates in a manner that would 

enable the generation shifts that are essential components of 

BSER. In the case of building block three, EPA accomplished this 

by incorporating the pro rata share of incremental (above 2012) 

zero emissions generation into the emissions rates for each 

group of affected sources, thus ensuring that these sources 

would have to include a corresponding amount of zero-emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 809 of 1546

generation in their compliance calculations, either through the 

acquisition of credits or through some other mechanism as 

determined by their state in its implementation plan. 

For building block two, a similar mechanism is needed. 

Accordingly, a portion of the NGCC generation and emissions used 

to displace fossil steam must be averaged into the steam rate, 

analogous to what was done with building block three. EPA 

considered two approaches to define the quantity of NGCC 

generation and emissions to be averaged into the steam rate: (1) 

incremental NGCC generation after the implementation of building 

block three and (2) incremental NGCC generation from baseline 

(2012) levels. For the reasons below, EPA has determined that 

the second approach better reflects the considerations discussed 

above. 

As discussed above, it is beneficial that the baseline from 

which compliance emission rates are derived be transparent and 

based on observable historic data. The first approach, however, 

depends on the level of incremental NGCC generation relative to 

what is available after the implementation of building block 

three. This level of NGCC generation (obtained after displacing 

2012 levels of generation with NGCC’s pro rata share of 

incremental RE generation) only exists as an intermediate step 

Deleted: Second, as
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 810 of 1546

in the BSER calculation. It is not based on an observable or 

concrete level of generation. 

In Section VIII we discuss methods for implementing 

shifting of generation from steam to NGCC, and this discussion 

illustrates the value of relying on an observable and concrete 

baseline. In that section we suggest that incentivizing and 

facilitating the purchase of ERCs as a compliance option for 

steam units could be implemented through the use of a factor 

that creates an increment of allowable credit for each hour that 

an NGCC operates. This factor is derived from the actual 

incremental generation of NGCC, relative to the 2012 baseline. 

While a different factor could be derived from the hypothetical 

intermediate baseline resulting from the pro rata application of 

zero emissions generation to NGCC in building block three ( by 

transferring the full amount of NGCC emissions and generation 

replacing steam generation in building block 2), EPA believes 

that grounding baselines in concrete data (such as those used to 

derive the 2012 baseline) is both more transparent and easier to 

understand in a way that is more useful to states and utilities, 

in contrast to the practical challenges of relying on a 

calculated baseline that corresponds to an interim step within 

the performance rate calculation. As long as the crediting 

framework is consistent with the amount of gas emissions and 

Commented [A45]: Is this still applicable to preamble Section 

VIII or is it now referencing the methodology in the FIP? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 811 of 1546

generation that is transferred to the coal rate, either this 

option or the option of transferring the entire quantity of gas 

emissions and generation that occurred in block 2 to the coal 

rate would provide an incentive for the power market to 

implement the shift in generation from coal to gas from building 

block 2.724

Third, also as discussed above, it is important that the 

compliance equations reflect the BSER pro rata allocation of 

renewable energy to fossil steam and NGCC generation. The first 

approach would require the steam rate to take into account the 

total additional NGCC capacity that results from the application 

of building block 3 before building block 2 has been 

applied. This approach would reflect in the compliance rate for 

steam units a greater share of the implementation of building 

block 3 than is consistent with the pro rata methodology for 

building block 3 that comprises the BSER. Ensuring that 

compliance emission rates for both steam and gas units reflect 

the emission reduction potential of building block 3 is integral 

 

724 EPA recognizes that real world market dynamics will 

necessarily differ from the BSER assumptions, and has designed 

the emission guidelines to provide flexibility beyond the 

emission reduction opportunities identified in the BSER. The 

essential criteria, however, are that the emission rates and 

crediting framework are consistent with BSER and provide the 

incentives needed to facilitate the emission reduction measures 

reflected in the BSER and together produce an achievable 

compliance framework for sources. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 812 of 1546

to the building block 3 methodology and also recognizes that 

application of building block three on a pro-rata basis was 

intended to achieve emission reductions from both NGCC and 

fossil steam commensurate with their emissions reduction 

opportunities. 

If the EPA were to use the increment of NGCC emissions and 

generation derived at the intermediary step after the 

application of building block three, rather than the increment 

relative to the 2012 baseline, the effect would be to largely 

re-assign to fossil steam the building block three generation 

shift. That, in turn, would have been inconsistent with the fact 

that building block three was determined to be a BSER measure 

applicable to the entire source category, comprising NGCC as 

well as fossil steam, and would have conflicted with the 

preceding steps we are taking to develop the equations. Instead, 

by using only the incremental NGCC generation relative to the 

2012 baseline, the EPA has ensured that the logic behind the pro 

rata displacement of fossil generation by RE generation is 

reflected in the emission rates. Having established the 

appropriate way to measure the amount of incremental gas 

generation placed in the fossil steam rate, the EPA is able to 

calculate the source category rates. For the numerator of the 

fossil steam rate, the EPA multiplied the remaining fossil steam 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 813 of 1546

generation (post step six) by the fossil steam rate reflecting 

the heat rate improvement from building block one (step four). 

We then added in the emissions associated with the incremental 

NGCC generation from step 6 by multiplying the incremental NGCC 

generation as discussed above (difference between the baseline 

NGCC generation level and post step six NGCC generation) by the 

baseline NGCC rate for that region.725 This constitutes the 

numerator of the fossil steam emission rate. 

For the fossil steam denominator, the EPA added the 

remaining fossil steam generation (post step six), the 

incremental NGCC generation defined above, and the amount of 

zero emitting building block three MWhs assigned to replace 

fossil steam generation in the region (step five). Dividing the 

fossil steam numerator described above by this fossil steam 

denominator resulted in a regional adjusted fossil steam rate 

reflecting the three building blocks. 

For the NGCC performance rate, the EPA calculated a 

numerator in a similar manner. First, we took the remaining NGCC 

generation (post step six) and multiplied it by the regional 

baseline NGCC rate to calculate the total emissions in the 

 

725 See CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule for an illustration of this step. The EPA defined 

the “incremental NGCC generation” in this step in a manner 

consistent with its measurement and use described in section 

VIII of this preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 814 of 1546

numerator. For the denominator, the EPA added the remaining NGCC 

generation (post step six) to the amount of zero-emitting 

building block three generation assigned to that technology in 

step five. Dividing the emissions by this total generation value 

(inclusive of the RE generation apportioned to NGCC) provided a 

regional adjusted NGCC rate.726 

Step eight (determining the nationwide subcategory-specific 

emission performance rate). 

Following step seven, we evaluated the resulting adjusted 

fossil steam rates and NGCC rates for each region and identified 

the highest (least stringent) emission rate among the three 

regions for each technology category. This becomes the 

nationwide emission performance rate for that technology class. 

This ensures that the same rates are applied to facilities in 

each region and that these rates are achievable by facilities in 

all three regions. 

 

726 See CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule for an illustration of this step. We note that 

the entire NGCC generation level (inclusive of the amount 

assigned to the fossil steam rate) expected post building block 

application is included in the NGCC rate calculation. Including 

the entire NGCC generation in the NGCC rate recognizes the 

simultaneous compliance responsibility of affected NGCC units 

while the fossil steam rate recognizes its mitigation potential 

through incorporation of the incremental NGCC generation 

component. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 815 of 1546

Finally, the EPA repeated steps four through eight for each 

year 2022-2030.727 The resulting annual rates vary because the 

amount of building block two and three potential in each year 

varies. The rates for years 2022-2029 were averaged together to 

calculate an interim rate, and the 2030 value becomes the final 

emission performance rate for that year forward. 

 It bears emphasis that the procedure described above was 

used only to determine emission performance rates, and the 

particular data inputs used in the procedure are not intended to 

represent specific requirements that would apply to any 

individual EGU or to the collection of EGUs in any state. The 

specific requirements applicable to individual EGUs, to the EGUs 

in a given state collectively, or to other affected entities in 

the state, would be based on the emission standards established 

through that state’s plan. The details of how states could 

demonstrate compliance with the emission performance rates or 

statewide goals through different state plan approaches that 

 

727 At proposal, the EPA repeated this step over a 10 year period. 

The building blocks and corresponding BSER emission rates 

increased for ten consecutive years (2020-2029) in the EPA’s 

rate calculation. In this final rule, the EPA has maintained the 

same 2030 compliance period for final rates but adjusted the 

start date to 2022 based on comments. Therefore, the deployment 

of building blocks is spread over a nine year period (2022-2030) 

instead of the proposed 10 year period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 816 of 1546

recognize emission reductions achieved through all the building 

blocks are discussed further in section VIII on state plans. 

 Finally, the procedures and assumptions in the equation to 

calculate emission performance rates are not intended to reflect 

a compliance scenario in a future year, but rather reflect a 

representative year in which the building blocks are applied. 

The power sector fleet will continue to turn over, and in some 

cases has already experienced turnover beyond the baseline 

period. However, while the system’s fleet may change, the EPA 

believes this turnover will only further promote the feasibility 

of the emission performance rates. Fleet turnover has trended 

towards, and is expected to continue to trend towards, loweremitting generation sources that will make reductions more 

readily available. 

VII. Statewide CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

A. Overview 

In section VI of this preamble, the EPA provides the 

methodology for computing subcategory-specific CO2 emission 

performance rates, based on the BSER. In the June 2014 proposal, 

the EPA proposed a set of state-specific emission rate-based CO2

goals (in lbs of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated). In 

addition, the EPA proposed emission rate-based CO2 goals for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 817 of 1546

areas of Indian country and U.S. territories with affected EGUs 

in a supplemental proposal on November 4, 2014. To provide 

flexibility to states, territories, tribes and implementing 

authorities, the proposals authorized each implementing 

authority to translate the form of the goal to a mass-based form 

(i.e., goals expressed in terms of total tons of CO2 per year 

from affected EGUs), as long as the translated goal is 

equivalent . Upon issuance of the proposed rule, the EPA 

continued the extensive outreach effort to stakeholders and 

members of the public that the EPA had engaged in for many 

months preceding the proposal. We also issued a notice of data 

availability (79 FR 67406, November 13, 2014) and technical 

support document (Docket ID no.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-22187) to 

further clarify potential methods for the translation to a massbased equivalent. The outreach provided additional opportunities 

for all jurisdictions with affected EGUs – both individually and 

in regional groups – as well as numerous industry groups and 

non-governmental organizations, to meet with the EPA and ask 

clarifying questions about, and give initial reactions to, the 

proposed components, requirements and timing of the rulemaking. 

As a result of the outreach and notice of data availability, the 

EPA received informed substantive comments for the EPA to 

consider for the final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 818 of 1546

Numerous commenters encouraged the EPA to allow states the 

maximum possible degree of flexibility in developing plans for 

their affected EGUs, whether a mass-based or rate-based CO2 goal 

is chosen. States and other stakeholders supported the option to 

translate rate-based goals to mass-based goals in state plans 

and requested a simple and transparent method for determining 

mass-based statewide CO2 goals that are equivalent to statewide 

rate-based CO2 goals. We received substantial comments on the 

potential methodologies for the translation of rate-based goals 

to mass-based goals. Several commenters requested that the EPA 

provide the translation to a statewide mass-based goals directly 

while others requested flexibility to translate to mass using a 

variety of methodologies and tools. 

In the context of these comments, the EPA has considered 

the appropriateness of rate-based and mass-based goals as an 

expression of BSER and their equivalence to the quantitative 

expression of BSER through the two CO2 emission performance 

rates. CAA section 111(d) requires states to submit, in part, a 

plan that establishes standards of performance for affected 

EGUs. States meet the statutory requirements of 111(d) and the 

requirements of the final emissions guidelines by submitting 

emission standards for affected EGUs that meet the performance 

rates, which reflect the application of BSER as determined by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 819 of 1546

the EPA. Below we discuss how, in the alternative, rate-based 

and mass-based statewide emission goals are equivalent to an 

expression of the BSER. In Section VIII we explain the various 

ways in which states can implement plans establishing emission 

standards to achieve the performance rates reflective of the 

BSER, or in the alternative, rate-based and mass-based statewide 

emission goals equivalent to the two CO2 emission performance 

rates and thus also reflective of the BSER. 

The EPA is providing mass-based statewide goals in this 

final rule in place of having states determine the mass values 

themselves, in order to assure that the mass goals used by 

states are all mutually consistent and translated from the rate 

goals in a uniform manner. Using the comments received, the EPA 

is providing a straightforward translation methodology from the 

CO2 emission performance rates to yield statewide rate-based and 

mass-based CO2 emission performance goals; section VIII below 

discusses mechanisms for states to plan for and demonstrate 

achievement of the statewide CO2 emission performance goals. In 

Section VII.D below, we discuss how the finalized form of massbased goals, when achieved through emission standards that are 

implemented in conjunction with strategies that address leakage, 

are expressions of the BSER and equivalent with the two CO2

performance rates and to the rate-based state goals. 

Deleted: are an equivalent expression of the 

BSER
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 820 of 1546

The EPA is reconstituting the performance rates discussed 

in section VI into statewide CO2 emission performance goals for 

each state to facilitate states’ efforts to formulate state 

plans encompassing maximum flexibilities in a way that meets the 

requirements of CAA section 111(d) and the emission guidelines. 

This statewide goal is not a compliance requirement, but rather 

an alternative that the state may choose to use to demonstrate 

that its affected fleet is complying with the technologyspecific emission performance rates on average if a state 

chooses not to apply the performance rates to its affected EGUs 

directly as emission standards. As discussed further in section 

VIII on state plans, the states, in turn, are charged with 

setting specific emission standards for the affected EGUs in 

their respective jurisdictions such that the affected EGUs 

operating under those standards together satisfy the 

requirements of the final emission guidelines as expressed by 

the emission performance rates or statewide emission performance 

goals. 

B. Reconstituting Statewide Rate-based CO2 Emission Performance 

Goals from the Subcategory-Specific Emission Performance 

Rates 

In order to provide states flexibility for planning 

purposes, the EPA is providing a state-specific averaging of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 821 of 1546

subcategory-specific emission performance rates to determine a 

statewide goal. While the emission performance rates reflect the 

quantification of performance based on the BSER and embody the 

reductions estimated under building blocks one, two, and three, 

the statewide goals reflect one alternative approach through 

which states may choose to adopt and implement those 

subcategory-specific performance rates. 

The EPA quantified the potential reductions of the BSER in 

the subcategory-specific emission performance rates established 

in section VI. These rates themselves reflect the reduction 

potential expected under BSER. To establish state goals, the EPA 

applied these rates to the baseline levels to estimate the 

change in baseline that would occur if all sources in the fleet 

met the subcategory-specific rates. This step respects the 

flexibility of sources to meet the rates in any manner that they 

see fit (i.e., on site abatement technology, fuel switching, cofiring, credit purchase, etc), and does not limit them to their 

building block assumptions. The EPA derived the statewide ratebased CO2 emission performance goals by multiplying the fossil 

steam emission performance rate by the baseline fossil steam 

generation in a state and multiplying the NGCC emission 

performance rate by the baseline NGCC generation in a state. The 

resulting emissions for fossil steam and NGCC are then added 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 822 of 1546

together for each state. This emission total is divided by that 

state’s baseline generation values from the likely affected EGUs 

in order to develop a state’s rate-based CO2 emission performance 

goal for 2030. This blended rate reflects the collective 

emission rate a state may expect to achieve when its baseline 

fleet of likely affected EGUs continues to operate at baseline 

levels while meeting its subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates reflecting the BSER. The EPA believes that 

using the 2012 baseline is the most appropriate way to combine 

the rates. First, as explained in Section VI, the EPA believes 

there are significant advantages to using real world data to set 

a baseline rather than using projected data. The 2012 data is 

the logical starting point because it is the data that all of 

the emission performance rates (discussed in Section VI) are 

based upon. Furthermore, it is clear that generation shifts as 

projected under the BSER are not the appropriate baseline. The 

emission performance rates already factor in the BSER 

assumptions about changes in generation (e.g. implementation of 

building block 2 significantly lowers the emission performance 

rate for fossil-steam units). If, on top of that, changes in 

generation were factored into the calculation of a combined 

rate, those changes in generation would be factored into the 

combined rate twice (once when calculating the individual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 823 of 1546

emission performance rates and a second time, when incorporating 

those rates into a combined state rate). 

This step is repeated for years 2022-2029 using the 

emission performance rates calculated for each of those years in 

the previous section. The resulting state emission rates for 

each year 2022-2029 are then averaged together to determine the 

state’s interim rate-based emission performance goal. This 

results in interim and final statewide goal values unique to 

each state’s historical blend of fossil steam and NGCC 

generation. 

The EPA also averages together the annual amounts in 

increments of 3 years, 3 years, and 2 years for 2022-2024, 2025-

2027, and 2028-2029 to estimate emission rate averages for those 

periods that can provide one illustrative pathway for states to 

consider in meeting their interim goals. These three and two 

year increments are not regulatory guidelines or equivalents for 

interim goals, but rather benchmarks for demonstrating plan 

performance as discussed in Section VIII.F illustrative of a 

potential gradual reduction compliance strategy that states may 

use to reach their interim and final statewide goals. 

As described in the steps above, the statewide goals 

represent an arithmetic combination of the subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates, weighted by the historical 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 824 of 1546

generation levels upon which the BSER is premised. 

Consequently, similarly to the sub-category specific emission 

rate rates, the statewide goals presented translate BSER into a 

emission rate that States can implement. The rate-based 

statewide goals are provided below in Table 10. 

C. Quantifying Mass-based CO2 Emission Performance Goals from the 

Statewide Rate-based CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

The EPA is also establishing mass-based statewide CO2

emission performance goals for each state, which are provided 

below in Table 11. The mass goals must be equivalent to the rate 

goals in order to reflect the application of BSER, as required 

by the statute and the final emissions guidelines. In the 

following discussion we describe the mathematical calculations 

that provide an equivalent expression of the BSER. In evaluating 

the form of mass goals, the EPA must also recognize the impact 

that the form of the standard has on the relative incentives 

that the implementation of these goals provides to affected and 

unaffected EGUs, which has implications for their ultimate 

emission performance. This section specifies how we have 

established mass goals by including implementation requirements 

that address the potential difference in incentives provided to 

affected and unaffected EGUs under a mass-based implementation 

compared to a rate-based implementation. 

Deleted: are equivalent to the CO2 emission 

performance rates and are thus an equivalent 

expression

Deleted: of the BSER

Deleted: the equivalence of 

Commented [A48]: edit 

Deleted: an equivalent form for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 825 of 1546

The starting place for quantifying mass-based statewide CO2

emission performance goals are the emissions directly 

represented in the statewide rate-based CO2 emission performance 

goals. These state-specific emission amounts are the product of 

the fossil steam emission performance rate and historical fossil 

steam generation, added to the product of the NGCC emission 

performance rate and historical NGCC generation. The resulting 

emission amounts for each state represents the emissions 

associated with rate-based compliance at historical generation 

levels. 

However, under a rate-based implementation, all affected 

EGUs have the opportunity to increase utilization, provided that 

sufficient emission reduction measures are available to maintain 

the necessary ratio of emissions to generation as quantified by 

the subcategory-specific emission performance rates. Due to the 

nature of the emission performance rate methodology, which 

selects the highest regional value for each source category as 

the CO2 emission performance rate, there are cost-effective 

lower-emitting generation opportunities quantified under the 

building blocks that are not necessary for affected EGUs to 

demonstrate compliance at historical generation levels. The EPA 

recognizes that these lower-emitting generation opportunities 

are available to affected EGUs as a means to increase their own 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 826 of 1546

output (and, as a result, their own emissions) while maintaining 

the relevant emission performance rate. To afford affected EGUs 

subject to a mass-based goal similar compliance flexibility as 

EGUs subject to a rate-based goal, the EPA has quantified the 

emissions associated with the potential realization of these 

lower-emitting generation opportunities and incorporated those 

additional tons into each state’s mass-based goal.728 Because the 

derivation of these mass-based goals respects the arithmetic of 

the subcategory-specific emission performance rates and the 

flexibility of affected EGUs to achieve those rates while 

utilizing up to the full potential quantified in the building 

blocks, the derivation of these mass-based state goals offers an 

expression of BSER in mass form. 

The mass goals for existing sources are presented in Table 

11. It is important to note that, since these goals take into 

account an increase in total generation over 2012 levels, they 

incorporate a commensurate level of load growth. Although their 

derivation is an expression of BSER, these goals must be 

implemented in combination with requirements that align the 

incentives provided to affected and unaffected EGUs, 

specifically in order to prevent leakage. 

 

728 For more detail on this methodology, please refer to the CO2

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final 

Rule, which is available in the docket. 

Commented [A50]: Rama/Aaron, looking for your suggestion 

around here of how to discuss the demand growth encompassed in 

the mass targets 

Deleted: equivalent 

Commented [A51]: edits 

Deleted: equivalent to the subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates

Deleted: in order to maintain this equivalence 

in implementation mass
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 827 of 1546

D. Addressing Potential Leakage in Determining the Equivalence 

of Statewide CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

As described in section VI, the subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates reflect the BSER as determined by the 

EPA. This final rule allows states to alternatively establish 

emission standards that meet rate-based or mass-based state 

goals. As stated above, state goals were published in the 

proposed rule and commenters supported having the flexibility to 

use rate-based goals or mass-based goals as part of state plans. 

Due to the integrated nature of the power sector, the form 

of the emission performance requirements for existing sources 

may ultimately impact the relative incentives to generate and 

emit at affected EGUs versus new sources, with potential 

implications for overall emissions from the sector. In this 

context, we define “leakage” to be the potential of an 

alternative form of implementation (e.g., the rate-based and 

mass-based state goals) to spur increased emissions from new 

sources, beyond the emissions expected from new sources if 

existing EGUs were given standards of performance in the form of 

the subcategory-specific emission performance rates. This 

section specifically discusses how the implementation of both 

rate- and mass-based state goals can minimize the difference in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 828 of 1546

incentives provided to affected EGUs and new sources, impacting 

the risk of leakage, and (in doing so) maintain equivalent 

emission performance with the CO2 performance rates. 

Because of the integrated nature of the power sector, 

shifts in generation across affected sources will likely occur 

as part of the implementation of this rule. However, we do not 

consider this shifting to be leakage as defined in this context, 

or indeed to be contradictory to the intent of the rule. In 

fact, our definition of the BSER not only allows for shifts in 

generation and emissions among regulated sources but is in fact 

premised upon such shifts. Movement of generation between 

sources is needed to produce overall reductions, particularly 

movement from higher-emitting affected EGUs to lower-emitting 

affected EGUs, and from all affected EGUs to zero-emitting RE. 

In all of these cases, the fossil sources involved in this 

generation shifting are subject to obligations under this final 

rule.729 

 

729 The final rule includes implementation preconditions to prevent 

perverse incentives that could otherwise result in greater 

overall emissions when generation shifts across affected EGUs. 

For example, states that wish to engage in rate-based trading 

through an emission standards plan type must implement plans 

designed to achieve either a common rate-based goal or the 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates (see Sec. 

VIII.L). Such an implementation precondition avoids encouraging 

generation to shift from a state with a relatively lower state 

goal to a state with a relatively higher state goal solely as a 

response to the form of CPP implementation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 829 of 1546

On the other hand, the EPA has considered whether different 

forms of expressing BSER might promote different levels of 

generation shifting between affected and unaffected fossil EGUs, 

which can result in increased CO2 emissions overall. Increased 

utilization of and emissions from unaffected fossil EGUs 

stemming solely from an alternative form of expressing BSER 

would frustrate the realization of the environmental benefits 

from this final rule’s emission performance requirements on 

existing sources—and would fail to satisfy the statutory 

requirement that standards of performance reflect the emission 

limitation achievable under the best system of emission 

reduction. The best system of emission reduction identified here 

does not contemplate reducing emissions from regulated sources 

by shifting those emissions to uncovered sources. Commenters

agreed that shifting generation and emissions from existing 

sources to new sources undermined the intent of the CPP and the 

Act’s overall emission reduction goals, and that requiring 

states to address this leakage is consistent with the structure 

of the BSER for an interconnected system such as the electricity 

sector. 

Rate-based goals minimize leakage because under a ratebased state goal, similar to the subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates, existing lower-emitting affected EGUs, 

Deleted: . Commenters

Commented [A52]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 830 of 1546

primarily NGCC, are incentivized to increase their utilization 

in order to improve the average emission rates of affected EGUs 

overall. New units that are not subject to the rate-based state 

goal, and that are not an allowable measure for adjusting an 

EGU’s CO2 emission rate, will not experience this incentive to 

increase utilization, and as a result, the imposition of a ratebased goal on affected EGUs is unlikely to encourage increased 

generation and emissions from unaffected new EGUs. 

Mass-based goals for existing sources, however, incur a 

leakage risk due to the potential incentive effects of their 

implementation. Unlike as described above for various forms of 

rate-based implementation, mass-based implementation can 

unintentionally incentivize increased generation from unaffected 

new EGUs as a substitute action for reducing emissions at units 

subject to the existing source mass goal, and this could result 

in increased emissions. This potential exists because under 

mass-based implementation, even though existing lower-emitting 

EGUs are incentivized to increase their utilization vis-à-vis 

existing higher-emitting EGUs, those existing lower-emitting 

EGUs are themselves subject to a limitation on their ultimate 

emissions (they are also subject to the mass goal). Meanwhile, 

new lower-emitting sources are also incentivized to increase 

their utilization, but their emissions are not addressed by the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 831 of 1546

mass goal; the extent to which electricity providers opt to rely 

on this increase in unaffected new source utilization as a 

substitute for improving the emissions performance across 

existing sources could frustrate the realization of the emission 

reduction potential represented in BSER as originally expressed 

in the subcategory-specific emission performance rates. 

As a result, notwithstanding the fact that mass goals for 

existing sources are themselves quantified in a way that is an 

equivalent expression of the BSER, the form of mass goals is 

only equivalent if leakage is addressed. The EPA is therefore 

requiring that states adopting a mass-based implementation 

include a strategy that addresses leakage, or the state may 

otherwise provide justification that leakage would not occur 

under the state’s implementation. The required demonstration and 

options to minimize leakage are discussed in detail in section 

VIII.J of this preamble. Further supporting the need for this 

requirement, the EPA has evaluated the mass goals in concert 

with some of the options to minimize leakage described in that 

section; that analysis found that the mass goals coupled with 

measures to address leakage produce utility power sector 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 832 of 1546

emissions performance that is similar to emissions performance 

under the rate goals.730

E. State Plan Adjustments of State Goals 

The EPA notes that it is the emission performance rates in 

section VI that constitute the application of the BSER to the 

affected EGUs and serve as the chief regulatory requirement of 

this rulemaking. The statewide CO2 rate-based and mass-based 

emission performance goals provided here are metrics that states 

may choose to adopt when demonstrating compliance at the state 

level, and states may consider these goals when determining how 

to set unit-level compliance requirements. The EPA believes that 

the regional nature of determining the emission performance 

rates encompasses a large population size and makes it robust 

against unit-level variation and unit-level inventory 

discrepancies. The EPA does acknowledge that state-level ratebased goals or mass-based goals may be sensitive to inventory 

changes within a state’s fleet. That is, the EPA used a 

representative baseline that aggregated data for “likely 

affected” units. However, if subsequent applicability review or 

formal applicability determinations change the status of these 

units as of 2012 in regards to their inclusion or exclusion in 

 

730 See Chapter 3 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for more 

information on this analysis, which is available in the docket. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 833 of 1546

the state’s inventory of affected EGUs, the EPA will consider 

allowing states, via State Plan submittal or revision, to adjust 

their statewide rate or mass goal if such a change is necessary. 

This adjustment flexibility provision is based on comments 

received at proposal. For example, some stakeholders noted that 

the affected status of particular units was unclear. The EPA 

recognizes that all the necessary data to determine the affected 

status of some units may not be available at this time. As 

stated in the previous section, the EPA does not believe unitlevel variation or inclusion/exclusion disparities between 

baseline inventory and affected units will impact the regionally 

determined emission performance rates discussed in the previous 

section. However, variations in baseline data or inventory may 

have an impact on the state-level rate-based or mass-based goals 

provided in this section. Therefore, the EPA is allowing the 

flexibility for states to demonstrate the need for this type of 

adjustment under the justifications above and utilize an 

adjusted value for compliance purposes when submitting or 

revising its state plan. The EPA will evaluate the 

appropriateness of such an adjusted value based on the state’s 

demonstration and evaluate the approvability of a plan or plan 

revision accordingly. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 834 of 1546

Rate-based statewide CO2 emission performance goals are 

listed below in Table 10. Mass-based statewide CO2 emission 

performance goals are found in Table 11. 

Table 10. Statewide731 Rate-Based CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

(Adjusted Output-Weighted-Average Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh From 

All Affected Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs) 

State Name 

Interim 

Goal - 

Step 1 

Interim 

Goal - 

Step 2 

Interim 

Goal - 

Step 3 

Interim 

Goal 

Final 

Goal 

Alabama 1,244 1,133 1,060 1,157 1,018 

Arizona* 1,263 1,149 1,074 1,173 1,031 

Arkansas 1,411 1,276 1,185 1,304 1,130 

California 961 890 848 907 828 

Colorado 1,476 1,332 1,233 1,362 1,174 

Connecticut 899 836 801 852 786 

Delaware 1,093 1,003 946 1,023 916 

Florida 1,097 1,006 949 1,026 919 

Georgia 1,290 1,173 1,094 1,198 1,049 

Idaho 877 817 784 832 771 

Illinois 1,582 1,423 1,313 1,456 1,245 

Indiana 1,578 1,419 1,309 1,451 1,242 

Iowa 1,638 1,472 1,355 1,505 1,283 

Kansas 1,654 1,485 1,366 1,519 1,293 

Kentucky 1,643 1,476 1,358 1,509 1,286 

Lands of the Fort 

Mojave Tribe 877 817 784 832 771 

Lands of the 

Navajo Nation 1,671 1,500 1,380 1,534 1,305 

Lands of the 

Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation 1,671 1,500 1,380 1,534 1,305 

Louisiana 1,398 1,265 1,175 1,293 1,121 

Maine 888 827 793 842 779 

Maryland 1,644 1,476 1,359 1,510 1,287 

Massachusetts 956 885 844 902 824 

 

731 The EPA has not developed statewide rate-based or mass-based 

CO2 emission performance goals for Vermont and the District of 

Columbia because current information indicates those 

jurisdictions have no affected EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 835 of 1546

Michigan 1,468 1,325 1,228 1,355 1,169 

Minnesota 1,535 1,383 1,277 1,414 1,213 

Mississippi 1,136 1,040 978 1,061 945 

Missouri 1,621 1,457 1,342 1,490 1,272 

Montana 1,671 1,500 1,380 1,534 1,305 

Nebraska 1,658 1,488 1,369 1,522 1,296 

Nevada 1,001 924 877 942 855 

New Hampshire 1,006 929 881 947 858 

New Jersey 937 869 829 885 812 

New Mexico* 1,435 1,297 1,203 1,325 1,146 

New York 1,095 1,005 948 1,025 918 

North Carolina 1,419 1,283 1,191 1,311 1,136 

North Dakota 1,671 1,500 1,380 1,534 1,305 

Ohio 1,501 1,353 1,252 1,383 1,190 

Oklahoma 1,319 1,197 1,116 1,223 1,068 

Oregon 1,026 945 896 964 871 

Pennsylvania 1,359 1,232 1,146 1,258 1,095 

Rhode Island 877 817 784 832 771 

South Carolina 1,449 1,309 1,213 1,338 1,156 

South Dakota 1,465 1,323 1,225 1,352 1,167 

Tennessee 1,531 1,380 1,275 1,411 1,211 

Texas 1,279 1,163 1,086 1,188 1,042 

Utah* 1,483 1,339 1,239 1,368 1,179 

Virginia 1,120 1,026 966 1,047 934 

Washington 1,192 1,088 1,021 1,111 983 

West Virginia 1,671 1,500 1,380 1,534 1,305 

Wisconsin 1,479 1,335 1,236 1,364 1,176 

Wyoming 1,662 1,492 1,373 1,526 1,299 

* Excludes EGUs located in Indian country within the state. 

Table 11. Statewide Mass-Based CO2 Emission Performance Goals 

(Adjusted Output-Weighted-Average Tons of CO2 From All Affected 

Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs) 

State 

Interim 

Goal - Step 

1 

Interim 

Goal - Step 

2 

Interim 

Goal - Step 

3 

Interim 

Goal Final Goal 

Alabama 66,164,470 60,918,973 58,215,989 62,210,288 56,880,474 

Arizona* 35,189,232 32,371,942 30,906,226 33,061,997 30,170,750 

Arkansas 36,032,671 32,953,521 31,253,744 33,683,258 30,322,632 

California 53,500,107 50,080,840 48,736,877 51,027,075 48,410,120 

Colorado 35,785,322 32,654,483 30,891,824 33,387,883 29,900,397 

Connecticut 7,555,787 7,108,466 6,955,080 7,237,865 6,941,523 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 836 of 1546

Delaware 5,348,363 4,963,102 4,784,280 5,062,869 4,711,825 

Florida 119,380,477 110,754,683 106,736,177 112,984,729 105,094,704 

Georgia 54,257,931 49,855,082 47,534,817 50,926,084 46,346,846 

Idaho 1,615,518 1,522,826 1,493,052 1,550,142 1,492,856 

Illinois 80,396,108 73,124,936 68,921,937 74,800,876 66,477,157 

Indiana 92,010,787 83,700,336 78,901,574 85,617,065 76,113,835 

Iowa 30,408,352 27,615,429 25,981,975 28,254,411 25,018,136 

Kansas 26,763,719 24,295,773 22,848,095 24,859,333 21,990,826 

Kentucky 76,757,356 69,698,851 65,566,898 71,312,802 63,126,121 

Lands of the 

Fort Mojave 

Tribe 636,876 600,334 588,596 611,103 588,519 

Lands of the 

Navajo Nation 26,449,393 23,999,556 22,557,749 24,557,793 21,700,587 

Lands of the 

Ute Tribe of 

the Uintah 

and Ouray 

Reservation 2,758,744 2,503,220 2,352,835 2,561,445 2,263,431 

Louisiana 42,035,202 38,461,163 36,496,707 39,310,314 35,427,023 

Maine 2,251,173 2,119,865 2,076,179 2,158,184 2,073,942 

Maryland 17,447,354 15,842,485 14,902,826 16,209,396 14,347,628 

Massachusetts 13,360,735 12,511,985 12,181,628 12,747,677 12,104,747 

Michigan 56,854,256 51,893,556 49,106,884 53,057,150 47,544,064 

Minnesota 27,303,150 24,868,570 23,476,788 25,433,592 22,678,368 

Mississippi 28,940,675 26,790,683 25,756,215 27,338,313 25,304,337 

Missouri 67,312,915 61,158,279 57,570,942 62,569,433 55,462,884 

Montana 13,776,601 12,500,563 11,749,574 12,791,330 11,303,107 

Nebraska 22,246,365 20,192,820 18,987,285 20,661,516 18,272,739 

Nevada 15,076,534 14,072,636 13,652,612 14,344,092 13,523,584 

New Hampshire 4,461,569 4,162,981 4,037,142 4,243,492 3,997,579 

New Jersey 18,241,502 17,107,548 16,681,949 17,426,381 16,599,745 

New Mexico* 14,789,981 13,514,670 12,805,266 13,815,561 12,412,602 

New York 35,493,488 32,932,763 31,741,940 33,595,329 31,257,429 

North 

Carolina 60,975,831 55,749,239 52,856,495 56,986,025 51,266,234 

North Dakota 25,453,173 23,095,610 21,708,108 23,632,821 20,883,232 

Ohio 88,512,313 80,704,944 76,280,168 82,526,513 73,769,806 

Oklahoma 47,577,611 43,665,021 41,577,379 44,610,332 40,488,199 

Oregon 9,097,720 8,477,658 8,209,589 8,643,164 8,118,654 

Pennsylvania 106,082,757 97,204,723 92,392,088 99,330,827 89,822,308 

Rhode Island 3,811,632 3,592,937 3,522,686 3,657,385 3,522,225 

South 

Carolina 31,025,518 28,336,836 26,834,962 28,969,623 25,998,968 

South Dakota 4,231,184 3,862,401 3,655,422 3,948,950 3,539,481 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 837 of 1546

Tennessee 34,118,301 31,079,178 29,343,221 31,784,860 28,348,396 

Texas 221,613,296 203,728,060 194,351,330 208,090,841 189,588,842 

Utah* 28,479,805 25,981,970 24,572,858 26,566,380 23,778,193 

Virginia 31,290,209 28,990,999 27,898,475 29,580,072 27,433,111 

Washington 12,395,697 11,441,137 10,963,576 11,679,707 10,739,172 

West Virginia 62,557,024 56,762,771 53,352,666 58,083,089 51,325,342 

Wisconsin 33,505,657 30,571,326 28,917,949 31,258,356 27,986,988 

Wyoming 38,528,498 34,967,826 32,875,725 35,780,052 31,634,412 

* Excludes EGUs located in Indian country within the state. 

F. Geographically Isolated States and Territories with Affected 

EGUs 

Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico constitute a small 

set of states and U.S. territories with affected EGUs that, for 

purposes of this final rule, are distinct from the 48 contiguous 

U.S. states in the nature of their energy systems and the 

available data regarding costs and performance of the three 

building blocks of BSER. First, the EGUs in these four 

jurisdictions are not connected to a regional electricity grid, 

nor do they have an option to join one in the future as a result 

of their respective locations. As islands, Hawaii and the 

territories are self-contained and self-reliant when it comes to 

their power system. Likewise, Alaska is self-reliant for energy, 

and faces harsh conditions, a dispersed population, and physical 

remoteness. The basis the EPA used to define the BSER does not 

apply to these isolated, or insular, states and territories, 

since the interconnected and regional nature of the electricity 

system in the contiguous states does not describe the situation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 838 of 1546

in these states and territories. Additionally, these states and 

territories do not have the same opportunity to apply the 

building blocks that make up the BSER, nor do they face the same 

costs for emission reduction measures that the grid-connected 

contiguous states face as part of a larger regional system. 

The EPA received comments explaining the unique 

circumstances and challenges that these geographically isolated 

states and territories face that warrant special consideration. 

For example, commenters observed that in the case of Alaska, 

unlike most of the U.S., many of the state’s EGUs are not 

connected to a grid. Those EGUs that are connected may lack 

adequate transmission capacity and infrastructure to re-dispatch 

among affected EGUs. Further, utilities are not interconnected 

with other states or regions. Similar comments were received 

that noted the insular nature of Puerto Rico and Guam and the 

lack of an interconnected, regional grid in those areas. For 

these reasons, the EPA recognizes that these jurisdictions have 

energy systems that are distinctive and that it is appropriate 

to address them separately from the rest of the country. 

Further, these energy systems are significantly smaller than 

ERCOT, the smallest of the three contiguous U.S. regional 

interconnects used to develop the uniform rates. In 2012, 

electricity generation in ERCOT totaled around 325,000 GWh -- 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 839 of 1546

over 16 times more than generation in Puerto Rico, the largest 

of the four geographically isolated electricity markets with 

affected EGUs, which generated around 20,000 GWh.732,733

Therefore, at this time, the EPA does not believe that the 

uniform rates are appropriate for EGUs in these areas because 

the rates express a BSER that is based on measures available to 

EGUs that are part of a large interconnected grid. 

While the EPA believes that a more location-specific 

analysis of the application of the three building blocks in the 

specific jurisdictions is appropriate, the EPA does not possess 

the information needed to quantify the application of the BSER 

to these states and territories, particularly data regarding 

renewable energy costs and performance characteristics needed 

for building block 3 of the BSER. The NREL data for RE that the 

EPA is relying upon for building block 3 goals does not cover 

the non-contiguous states and territories. While the EPA 

recognizes that there are studies and there is data for some 

renewable resources in some of these isolated locations, taken 

as a whole, the data we currently possess does not allow us to 

 

732 2012 Demand and Energy Report. ERCOT, 2013. 

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2013/ERCOT2012D&

E-full.xls

733 U.S. Energy Information Administration International Energy 

Statistics. U.S. Energy Information Administration Detailed 

State Data. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 840 of 1546

quantify the emissions reductions available from building block 

3 using the same methodology used for the contiguous states 

encompassed by the three interconnected states. 

As a result of the distinct electric grid characteristics of 

these geographically isolated states and territories and the 

lack of comprehensive, appropriate data needed to apply the BSER 

as defined in section V., the EPA is not setting CO2 emission 

performance goals for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, or Puerto Rico in 

this final rule at this time. The EPA believes it is within its 

authority to address performance goals for the contiguous U.S. 

states only in this final rule. Under section 111(d), the EPA is 

not required, at the time that the EPA promulgates CAA section 

111(b) requirements for new sources, to promulgate emission 

guidelines for all of the sources that, if they were new 

sources, would be subject to the CAA section 111(b) 

requirements. In addition, the Courts have recognized the 

authority of agencies to develop regulatory programs in step-bystep fashion. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Massachusetts 

v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007): “Agencies, like legislatures, 

do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory 

swoop;” and instead they may permissibly implement such 

regulatory programs over time, “refining their preferred 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 841 of 1546

approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more 

nuanced understanding of how best to proceed.”734 

The agency intends to continue to consider these issues and 

determine what the appropriate BSER is for these areas. As part 

of that effort, the agency will investigate sources of 

information to consider the appropriate BB3 level and to 

consider the unique circumstances in each of the isolated grids. 

This may include working with the relevant state and territory 

governments and other experts within the federal government, 

such as DOE, as well as considering other published literature. 

VIII. State Plans 

A. Overview 

After the EPA establishes the emission guidelines that set 

forth the BSER, each state735 shall then develop, adopt and 

submit a state plan under CAA section 111(d) that establishes 

standards of performance for the affected EGUs in its 

 

734 See, e.g., Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. F.A.A., 154 

F.3d 455, 471 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (ordinarily, agencies have wide 

latitude to attack a regulatory problem in phases and that a 

phased attack often has substantial benefits”); National 

Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 121-11 (D.C. 

Cir. 1984) (“We have therefore recognized the reasonableness of 

[an agency’s] decision to engage in incremental rulemaking and 

to defer resolution of issues raised in a rulemaking....”). 

735 In this section, the term “state” encompasses the 48 

contiguous states and the District of Columbia, and any Indian 

tribe that has been approved by the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9 

as eligible to develop and implement a CAA section 111(d) plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 842 of 1546

jurisdiction in order to implement the BSER. Starting from the 

foundation of CAA section 111(d) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations (40 CFR part 60 subpart B), the EPA’s proposal laid 

out a number of options, variations and flexibilities that were 

intended to provide states and affected EGUs the ability to 

design state plans that accorded with states’ specific 

situations and policies (now and in the future), and to ensure 

reliability and affordability of electricity across the system 

and for all ratepayers. The proposal has prompted numerous 

discussions between and among stakeholders, especially states 

and groups of states, including state environmental and energy 

regulators and policy officials. The EPA has received many 

comments from a wide range of stakeholders seeking a final rule 

that afforded freedom and flexibility to consider a wide range 

of standards of performance to implement the BSER, but also 

providing significant feedback on the elements and options in 

the proposal and constructive suggestions for alternative 

approaches. The EPA has carefully considered all of this input, 

and is finalizing emission guidelines that continue to provide a 

variety of options for states to fashion their plans in ways 

legally supportable by the CAA, while also making certain 

adjustments to address key comments. 

The next few paragraphs present an overview of the main 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 843 of 1546

features of the final emission guidelines, highlighting key 

changes from proposal. In the rest of this section, we describe 

in detail the various elements of the final emission guidelines’ 

requirements for state plans. 

The proposal contained rate-based goals for each state, 

reflecting a blended reduction target for that state’s fossil 

fired EGUs, and provided that states could either meet that 

rate-based goal or convert it to a mass-based equivalent goal. 

Reflecting the final BSER described in section V above and in 

response to many comments desirous that the EPA establish massbased goals in the final rule, these final guidelines include 

three approaches that states may adopt for purposes of 

implementing the BSER, any one of which a state may use in its 

plan. These are: 1) establishing standards of performance that 

apply the subcategory specific CO2 emission performance rates to 

their affected EGUs, 2) adopting a combination of standards 

and/or other measures that achieve state-specific rate-based 

goals that represent the weighted aggregate of the CO2 emission 

performance rates applied to the affected EGUs in each state, 

and 3) adopting a program to meet mass-based CO2 emission goals 

that represent the equivalent of the rate-based goal for each 

state. These alternatives, as well as the other options we are 

finalizing, ensure that both states and affected EGUs enjoy the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 844 of 1546

maximum flexibility and latitude in meeting the requirements of 

the emission guidelines and that the BSER is fully implemented 

by each state. 

In the proposal, we provided two optional designs for state 

plans: one where all the reduction obligations are placed 

directly on the affected EGUs and one, which we called the 

“portfolio approach,” that could include measures to be 

implemented, in whole or in part, by parties other than the 

affected EGUs. In the final guidelines, we retain that basic 

choice, but with some modifications to respond to comments we 

received, especially on the portfolio approach. In their plans, 

states will be able to choose either to impose federally 

enforceable emission standards that fully meet the emission 

guidelines directly on affected EGUs (the “emission standards” 

approach) or to use a “state measures" approach, which would be 

composed, at least in part, of measures implemented by the state 

that are not included as federally enforceable components of the 

plan but result in the affected EGUs meeting the requirements of 

the emission guidelines. A state measures type plan must include 

a backstop of federally enforceable standards on affected EGUs 

that fully meet the emission guidelines and that would be 

triggered if the state measures fail to result in the affected 

EGUs achieving on schedule the required emission reductions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 845 of 1546

States that choose an emission standards plan may establish 

as standards of performance for their affected EGUs the 

subcategory specific CO2 emission performance rates, which 

express the BSER. This would satisfy the requirement described 

in section VIII.D.2.a.3 that a state demonstrate its plan would 

achieve the CO2 emission performance rates; in this case, no 

further demonstration would be necessary. Alternatively, a state 

may establish emission standards for affected EGUs at different 

levels from the uniform subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates, provided that when implemented, the emission 

standards achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or state 

rate or mass-based CO2 emission goal set forth by the EPA for the 

state. States that adopt differential standards of performance 

among their affected EGUs must demonstrate that, in the 

aggregate, the differential standards of performance will result 

in their affected EGUs meeting the CO2 emission performance 

rates, the state’s rate-based CO2 emission goal or its mass-based 

CO2 emission goal. 

In the proposal, we proposed that states could use the 

portfolio approach to meet either a rate- or mass-based goal. In 

these final emission guidelines, the state measures approach is 

available only for a state choosing a mass-based CO2 emission 

goal, to provide certainty that the state measures are achieving 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 846 of 1546

the required emission reductions. Similar to emission standards 

plans with differential standards of performance, states that 

adopt state measures plans must demonstrate that the state 

measures, alone or in conjunction with any federally enforceable 

emission standards also included in the state plan, will result 

in the affected EGUs in the state meeting the state’s mass-based 

CO2 emission goal. In response, we are finalizing a “state 

measures” type plan that must include a backstop provision – 

triggered if, during the interim period, the state plan fails to 

achieve the emission reduction trajectory identified in the plan 

or if, during the final phase, the state plan fails to meet the 

final CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal – 

that would impose enforceable obligations on the affected EGUs 

adequate to meet the state’s goal when fully implemented. 

The final guidelines reflect the changes to the timing of 

the reductions within the interim period, which is laid out in 

section V as part of the determination of the BSER. States may 

adopt in their plans emission reduction trajectories different 

from the illustrative three-step trajectory included in these 

guidelines for purposes of creating a “glide path” between 2022 

and 2029, provided that the interim and final CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals are met. 

We recognize that while we are establishing 2022 as the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 847 of 1546

date by which mandatory reductions must start as part of our 

BSER determination, utilities and other parties are moving 

forward with projects that reduce emissions of CO2 from affected 

EGUs. We received numerous comments urging us to allow credit 

for these early actions. The final guidelines encourage those 

early reductions, by making clear that states may, in their 

plans, allow EGUs to use allowances or ERCs generated through 

the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The final guidelines also 

require that states include in their final plans a schedule of 

the actions they will be taking to ensure that mandatory 

reductions will begin as required starting in 2022, and submit a 

progress report on those actions. 

For all types of plans, the final guidelines make clear 

that states may adopt programs that allow trading among affected 

EGUs. The final guidelines retain the flexibility for states to 

do individual plans, or to join with other states in a multistate plan. In addition, and in response to comments from many 

states and other stakeholders, the guidelines provide that 

states may design their programs so that they are “interstate 

trading ready,” that is, that they contain features necessary 

and suitable for their affected EGUs to engage in trading with 

affected EGUs in other “trading ready” states without the need 

for formal arrangements between individual states. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 848 of 1546

We have been mindful of the concerns raised by stakeholders 

about reliability. The final BSER, especially the changes in the 

timing of the interim period, substantially address these 

concerns. The flexibilities provided for the design of state 

plans, including the ability to use trading programs, further 

enhance system reliability. We have included, as an additional 

assurance, a reliability safety valve for use where the built-in 

flexibilities are not sufficient to address an immediate, 

unexpected reliability situation. 

The EPA believes that all the flexibilities provided in the 

final rule are not only appropriate, but will enhance the 

success of the program. CO2 is a global pollutant, and where and 

when the reductions occur is not as significant to the 

environmental outcome as compared to many other conventional 

pollutants. The flexibilities provided in the final guidelines 

will better reflect the unique interconnectedness of the 

electricity system, and will allow states and EGUs to reduce CO2

emissions while maintaining reliability and affordability for 

all consumers. 

In developing the plan, the state rulemaking process must 

meet the minimum public participation requirements of the 

implementing regulations as applicable to these guidelines, 

including a public hearing and meaningful engagement with all 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 849 of 1546

members of the public, including overburdened communities. In 

the community and environmental justice considerations section, 

section IX of this preamble, the EPA addresses the actions that 

the agency is taking to help ensure that overburdened 

communities are not disproportionately impacted by this rule. 

These actions include conducting a proximity analysis, setting 

expectations for states to engage meaningfully with overburdened 

communities and requiring that they describe their plans for 

doing so as they develop their state plans, providing 

communities with access to additional resources, providing 

communities with information on federal programs and resources 

available to them, recommending that states take a multipollutant planning approach that examines the potential impacts 

of co-pollutants on overburdened communities, and conducting an 

assessment to determine if any localized air quality impacts 

need to be further addressed. Additionally, the EPA outlines the 

continued engagement that it will be conducting with states and 

communities throughout the state plan development process. 

As discussed in more detail in section VIII.E, commenters, 

particularly states, provided compelling information 

establishing that it will take longer than the agency initially 

anticipated for the states to develop and submit their required 

plans. In response to those comments, we are finalizing a plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 850 of 1546

submittal process that provides additional time for states that 

need it to submit a final plan submittal to the EPA after 

September 6, 2016. Within the time period specified in the 

emission guidelines (from as early as September 6, 2016, to as 

late as September 6, 2018, depending on whether the state 

receives an extension), the state must submit its final state 

plan to the EPA. The EPA then must determine whether to approve 

or disapprove the plan. If a state does not submit a plan, or if 

the EPA disapproves a state’s plan, then the EPA has the express 

authority under CAA section 111(d) to establish a federal plan 

for the state.736 During and following implementation of its 

approved state plan, each state must demonstrate to the EPA that 

its affected EGUs are meeting the interim and final performance 

requirements included in this final rule through monitoring and 

reporting requirements. 

This section is organized as follows. First, we discuss the 

timeline for state plan performance and provisions to encourage 

early action. Second, we describe the types of plans that states 

can submit. Third, we summarize the components of an approvable 

state plan submittal. Fourth, we address the process and timing 

 

736 A federal play may be withdrawn by the state submitting, and 

the EPA approving, a state plan that meets the requirements of 

this final rule and section 111(d) of the CAA. More details 

regarding the federal plan will be addressed in the EPA’s 

upcoming federal plan rulemaking. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 851 of 1546

for submittal of state plans and plan revisions. Fifth, we 

address plan implementation and achievement of CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals for affected EGUs, 

and the consequences if they are not met. Sixth, we discuss 

general considerations for states in developing and implementing 

plans, including consideration of a facility’s “remaining useful 

life” and “other factors” and electric reliability. Seventh, we 

note certain resources that are available to facilitate state 

plan development and implementation. Finally, we discuss 

additional considerations for inclusion of CO2 emission reduction 

measures in state plans, including: accounting for emission 

reduction measures in state plans; requirements for mass-based 

and rate-based emission trading approaches; evaluation, 

measurement, and verification (EM&V) requirements for RE and 

demand-side EE resources and other measures used to adjust a CO2

rate; and treatment of interstate effects and leakage. 

B. Timeline for State Plan Performance and Provisions to 

Encourage Early Action 

 This section describes state plan requirements related to 

the timing of achieving the emission reductions required in the 

guidelines and the state plan performance periods. This section 

also describes the Clean Energy Incentive Program the EPA is 

establishing as part of these emission guidelines. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 852 of 1546

1. Timeline for state plan performance 

The final guidelines establish three types of performance 

periods: 1) a final deadline by which and after which affected 

EGUs must be in compliance with the final reduction 

requirements, 2) an interim period, and, 3) within that interim 

period, three multi-year interim step periods. As discussed 

below and in section V, these performance periods are consistent 

with our determination of the BSER and are also responsive to 

the key comments we received on this aspect of the state plans. 

A performance period is a period for which the final plan 

submittal must demonstrate that the required CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goal will be met. The 

final guidelines establish 2030 as the deadline for compliance 

by affected EGUs with the final CO2 emission performance rates or 

CO2 rate or mass emission goal; 2030 is the beginning of the 

final performance period. The interim performance period is 2022 

to 2029, and there are three interim step periods - 2022-2024, 

2025-2027, and 2028-2029 — where increasingly stringent 

performance rates or mass goals must be met unless the state 

submits a plan that incorporates alternative interim step 

emission performance rates or state emission goals that “on 

average” result in the equivalent of the interim emission 

performance rates or state emission goals. These timelines are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 853 of 1546

based on careful consideration of the substantial comments we 

received on both the timing of the interim period and the 

trajectory of compliance by affected EGUs over the interim 

period and our determination of the BSER, discussed in section V 

above. The modifications we have made to the timelines included 

in the proposal respond to these comments and to concerns about, 

among other things, reliability, feasibility, and cost. 

As previously discussed, the EPA has determined that the 

BSER includes implementation of reduction measures over the 

period of 2022 through 2029, with final compliance by affected 

EGUs in 2030. Therefore the final rule requires that interim CO2

emission performance rates or rate or mass CO2 emission goals be 

met for the interim period of 2022-2029. Many commenters 

expressed a desire that the EPA designate steps during the 

interim period to create an interim goal that offered states and 

utilities greater flexibility and choice in determining their 

own emission reduction trajectories over the course of the 

interim period. Since our intent at proposal was to provide such 

flexibility and choice, and since it remains our intent to do so 

in this final rule, we are addressing these comments by 

including in the 2022-2029 interim period three interim step 

periods (2022-2024, 2025-2027, 2028-2029), which correspond 

roughly to the phasing in of the BSER. We note, however, that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 854 of 1546

the final rule also allows states the flexibility to define an 

alternate trajectory of emission performance between 2022 and 

2029, provided that 1) the state plan specifies its own interim 

step CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals 

and 2) meeting the alternative interim step CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals will result in the 

interim emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal 

being met on an 8-year average or cumulative basis, and, 3) the 

2030 CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal is 

achieved. To be approvable, a state plan submittal must 

demonstrate that the emission performance of affected EGUs will 

meet the interim step CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2

emission interim step goals on average over the 2022-2024, 2025-

2027, and 2028-2029 periods and the final CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goal no later than 2030. 

This relatively long period – first for planning, then for 

implementation and achievement of the interim and final CO2

emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals – provides 

states and utilities with substantial flexibility regarding 

methods and timing of achieving emission reductions from 

affected EGUs. The EPA believes that timing flexibility in 

implementing measures provides significant benefits that allow 

states to develop plans that will help achieve a number of 

Commented [A53]: Should this clarify that the state can 

substitute their own goals for the steps, as long as the average over 

the interim period is maintained?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 855 of 1546

goals, including, but not limited to: reducing cost, addressing 

reliability concerns, addressing concerns about stranded assets, 

and facilitating the integration of meeting the emission 

guidelines and compliance by affected EGUs with other air 

quality and pollution control obligations on the part of both 

states and affected EGUs. Moreover, we note that over the course 

of time between submittal of final plans and 2030, circumstances 

may change such that states may need or wish to modify their 

plans. The relatively lengthy performance periods provided in 

the final rule should help keep those situations to a minimum 

but will also accommodate them if necessary.737 The EPA envisions 

that the agency, states and affected EGUs will have an ongoing 

relationship in the course of implementing this program. Since 

the record also indicates a high degree of interest on the part 

of states and stakeholders in pursuing banking and trading 

programs, the timing and level of stringency of the final 

interim target should provide states and affected EGUs with 

ample capacity to accommodate such changes without necessitating 

changes in state plans in many instances. 

 The timelines established in the final rule respond to the 

issues raised in numerous comments regarding the concept of the 

 

737 Modifications to state plans are addressed more specifically 

in section VIII.E.7 below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 856 of 1546

interim period, including comments supporting the flexibility 

afforded states in developing their plans and the timing 

necessary to meet the 2030 emission requirements. Some 

commenters supported beginning the interim goal plan period at 

2020. Others stated that the investments necessary to meet the 

proposed interim emission performance goals beginning in 2020 

are unachievable in that timeframe or would place too great a 

burden on affected EGUs, states, and ratepayers. Some suggested 

that the 2020 interim goal step should be eliminated in favor of 

later start dates, including 2022, 2025, or other years. Some 

commenters urged the EPA to establish phased interim steps 

creating a steady downward trajectory that allowed several years 

for each step, compatible with the “chunkiness” of utility 

planning processes. Yet other commenters provided input 

suggesting that states be allowed to establish their own set of 

emission performance steps during the interim plan performance 

period and thereby control their own emission reduction 

trajectory or “glide path” for achievement of the interim goal 

and the 2030 goal, or that the EPA not establish any interim 

standards at all. Commenters also noted that for some states, 

there was not a significant difference between the interim and 

final goal, and, therefore, no glide path for those states. As 

discussed in previous sections, based on this input and our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 857 of 1546

final determination of the BSER, the EPA has adjusted the 

interim period to include 2022-2029, is establishing three 

interim performance periods creating a reasonable trajectory 

from 2022 to 2030, and is also retaining the flexibility for 

states to establish their own emission reduction trajectory 

during the interim period. 

 As noted, the EPA has determined that mandated reductions 

should begin in 2022 instead of 2020, as we proposed, because of 

the substantial amount of comment and data we received 

indicating that states and utilities reasonably needed that 

additional time to take the steps necessary to start achieving 

reductions. In order to assure the EPA and the public that 

states are making progress in implementing the plan between the 

time of the state plan submittal and the beginning of the 

interim period, and as discussed in further detail in section 

VIII.D, the final rule requires that the state plan submittal 

include a timeline with all the programmatic milestone steps the 

state will take between the time of the state plan submittal and 

2022 to ensure the plan is effective as of 2022. 

2. Provisions to encourage early action 

 Many commenters supported providing incentives for states 

and utilities to deploy CO2-reducing investments, such as RE and 

demand-side EE measures, as early as possible. In the proposal, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 858 of 1546

the EPA requested comment on an approach that would recognize 

emission reductions that existing programs provide prior to the 

initial plan performance period starting from a specified date. 

We also requested comment on options for that specified date and 

on conditions that should apply to counting those pre-compliance 

emission reductions toward a state goal. The EPA received many 

comments requesting that the agency recognize early actions for 

the emission reductions they provide prior to the performance 

period, that the EPA allow those pre-compliance impacts to be 

counted toward meeting requirements under the rule, and that 

certain conditions should be applied to recognition of early 

reductions so as to ensure the emission reductions required in 

the rule. We also received comments from stakeholders regarding 

the disproportionate burdens that some communities already bear, 

the concern that increases in electric bills would impact lowincome ratepayers, and that all communities should have equal 

access to the benefits of clean and affordable energy. The EPA 

recognizes the validity and importance of these perspectives, 

and as a result has determined to provide a program – called the 

Clean Energy Incentive Program – in which states may choose to 

participate. This section describes this program. 

 The Clean Energy Incentive Program is designed to reward 

investment in certain RE and demand-side EE projects that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 859 of 1546

commence construction after the effective date of this rule and 

that generate MWh or reduce end-use energy demand during 2020 

and 2021. State participation in the program is optional; the 

EPA is establishing this program as an additional flexibility to 

facilitate achievement of the CO2 emission reductions required by 

this final rule. 

Under the Clean Energy Incentive Program, states may set 

aside allowances from their interim targets or generate early 

action emission rate credits (ERCs, as defined in section 

VIII.K.2), and allocate to eligible projects allowances or ERCs 

equivalent to each MWh generated or avoided. A state 

implementing a mass-based plan approach, as described in section 

VIII.C, may issue early action allowances, a state implementing 

a rate-based plan approach, also described in section VIII.C, 

may issue early action ERCs. For each allowance or ERC allocated 

to such projects, the EPA will provide the state with an 

appropriate number of matching allowances or ERCs that the state 

may allocate to those projects or to additional eligible 

projects up to an amount that represents the equivalent of 300 

million short tons of CO2 emissions. 

 For a state to be eligible for a matching award of 

allowances or ERCs from the EPA it must demonstrate that it will 

award allowances or ERCs only to “eligible” projects. These are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 860 of 1546

projects that: 

 Generate metered MWh from wind or solar resources; or 

 Result in quantified and verified avoided generation 

through demand-side EE. 

 In addition, in order to drive investments in RE and 

demand-side EE that directly benefit low-income ratepayers and 

communities, the EPA will offer an additional incentive to 

states that encourage these types of investments. Upon 

demonstration by a state that a project benefitting an lowincome community has generated quantified and verified MWh 

achieved in 2020 or 2021, the state will not be required to 

award to that project ERCs or allowances from its own interim 

target. Rather, the EPA will provide the entirety of the award, 

equal to double the number or ERCs or allowances it would have 

awarded to an eligible project not focused on low-income 

ratepayers. 

 The EPA will address design and implementation details of 

the Clean Energy Incentive Program in a future action. Before 

doing so, the EPA will engage states and stakeholders to gather 

additional information concerning implementation topics, 

including the provisions outlined below, and to solicit 

information about the concerns, interests and priorities of 

states, stakeholders and the public. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 861 of 1546

 In order for a state that chooses to participate in the 

Clean Energy Incentive Program to be eligible for an allocation 

of allowances or ERCs from the EPA, a state would indicate in 

its 2016 submittal its intent to participate in the program. In 

the case of a full plan submittal, the state plan would either 

include requirements establishing the necessary infrastructure 

to implement such a program and authorizing its affected EGUs to 

use early action allowances or ERCs as appropriate or would 

amend its plan to include those requirements at a later date. 

States submitting initial plans and extension requests would 

simply be required to include a non-binding statement of intent 

to participate in the program. 

 Following these state submittals in 2016, the agency will 

create an allowance or ERC account for each participating state 

that reflects the pro rata share – based on the amount of the 

reductions from 2012 levels the state must achieve relative to 

that of the other participating states – of the 300 million 

short ton CO2 emissions-equivalent pool that the state is 

eligible to receive. Thus, states with the greater reduction 

obligations will be eligible to secure a larger proportion of 

the federal allocation upon demonstration of quantified and 

verified MWh of RE generation or demand side-EE savings realized 

in 2020 and 2021. Allowances or ERCs remaining in a state’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 862 of 1546

account as of June 30, 2022 will be made available to other 

states that have drawn fully from their respective accounts as 

of that date and have additional reductions from eligible 

projects for which the match can be provided. Allowances or ERCs 

awarded by the EPA pursuant to this program may be used for 

compliance by an affected EGU with its emission standards and 

are fully transferrable prior to such use. 

 For purposes of establishing a state program eligible for 

an award of matching allowances or ERCs from the EPA, such a 

program must include a mechanism for awarding early action 

emission allowances or ERCs for actions that reduce or avoid CO2 

emissions in 2020 and 2021 that meets the requirements set out 

in section VIII.K of this final rule, and that is implemented in 

a way such that the early action allowances or ERCs allocated by 

the state would maintain the stringency of the state’s goal for 

emission performance from affected EGUs in the performance 

periods established in this rule. Specifically, the state must 

demonstrate in its plan that it has a mechanism in place that 

enables issuance of ERCs or allowances from the state to parties 

effectuating reductions in 2020 and 2021 in a manner that would 

have no impact on the emission performance of affected EGUs 

required to meet rate-based or mass-based emission standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 863 of 1546

during the compliance periods.738 This demonstration is not 

required to account for matching ERCs or allowances that may be 

issued to the state by the EPA. Nothing in these provisions 

would have the effect of requiring any particular affected EGU 

to achieve reductions prior to 2022, or requiring states to 

offer incentives for reductions achieved prior to 2022.739 These 

and other details will be developed in the subsequent action. 

 The EPA is providing the Clean Energy Incentive Program as 

an option for states implementing plans – and is including a 

similar program for the Federal Plan proposal being issued 

concurrently – for several reasons. Chief among them are those 

offered by commenters to the effect that the overall cost of 

achievement of the emission performance rates or state goals 

could be reduced by an approach that granted some form of 

beneficial recognition to emissions reduction investments that 

both occur and yield reductions prior to the first date on which 

 

738 For example, under a mass-based implementation, the state plan 

could include a set-aside of allowances from an emissions budget 

that itself reflects the state goals. Allocation of those 

allowances to parties effectuating reductions in 2020 and 2021 

would have no impact on the total emissions budget, which sets 

the total allowable emissions in the compliance periods.

739 In addition to the Clean Energy Incentive Program, states may 

also offer credit for early investments in RE and demand-side EE 

according to the provisions of section VIII.K.1 of this final 

rule: a state may award ERCs to qualified providers that 

implement projects from 2013 onward that realize quantified and 

verified MWh results in 2022 and subsequent years.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 864 of 1546

the program mandates reductions or imposes emissions standards. 

Other commenters pointed out that to the extent that states and 

utilities would benefit from the availability of low-cost RE and 

other zero-emitting generation options during the interim and 

final periods, the EPA should include in the final guidelines 

provisions that accelerate deployment of RE resources, since in 

so doing the program would speed achievement of expected 

reductions in the cost of those technologies commensurate with 

their accelerated deployment. 

 The specific criteria the EPA is establishing for eligible 

projects reflect a variety of considerations. First, solar and 

wind generation result in no direct emissions of either CO2 or 

other air pollutants. Second, the EPA acknowledges that the 

total number of ERCs or allowances available to projects under 

this program is small. In our view, allocations by states even 

as supplemented by the matching allocations to the states from 

the EPA would provide little in the way of meaningful leverage 

for larger scale projects. At least some wind and solar projects 

and demand-side EE initiatives tend to be of a scale for which 

relatively small incremental allocations of ERCs or allowances 

would provide an efficacious or higher leverage incentive. In 

addition, in contrast to other CO2-reducing or -avoiding 

technologies, including other zero-emitting or RE technologies, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 865 of 1546

solar, wind, and many demand-side EE initiatives often require 

lead times of shorter duration, which would allow them to 

generate or avoid MWh beginning in 2020. More broadly, this 

early action program responds to the urgency of meeting the 

challenge of climate change in two key ways. First, of course, 

it fosters reductions before 2022. Second, in targeting 

investments in demand-side EE and wind and solar technologies it 

focuses on the kinds of measures and technologies that are the 

essential foundation of longer term climate strategies, 

strategies that inevitably depend on the further development and 

widespread deployment of highly adaptable zero-emitting 

technologies. 

 Finally, consistent with the technology-forcing and 

development purposes of section 111, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate to offer an additional incentive to remove current 

barriers to implementing RE and demand-side EE programs in lowincome communities. While the EPA acknowledges that a number of 

states have implemented RE and demand-side EE programs focused 

on these communities,740 the agency also recognizes that there 

 

740 Several of these programs are discussed in section IX of this 

preamble, including, for example, Maryland’s EmPOWER Low Income 

Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP) and New York’s EmPower New 

York program. In addition, on July 7, 2015, the White House 

announced an initiative targeted at increasing access to solar 

power for all Americans, including low-income Americans. This 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 866 of 1546

have been historic economic, logistical, and information 

barriers to implementing projects in these communities. As a 

result, the costs of implementing RE and demand-side EE projects 

in these communities are typically higher than in other 

communities and stand as barrier to harvesting potentially cost 

effective reductions, and advancing these technologies. By 

focusing this program on reductions in these communities, the 

Clean Energy Incentive Program can help incentivize projects 

that will deliver RE and demand-side EE projects to these 

communities. These lower costs will help new technologies 

penetrate in the future, thus improving the cost of 

implementation for the program overall. 

 We are not requiring that projects demonstrate that they 

are “additional” or surplus relative to a business-as-usual or 

state goal-related baseline in order to be eligible. At the same 

time, we believe that including an incentive to develop projects 

that benefit low-income communities will increase the likelihood 

of investments being made that would not have been made 

otherwise. 

 In order to be awarded matching ERCs or allowances by the 

EPA for projects that meet the eligibility criteria, a final 

 

initiative includes a National Community Solar Partnership to 

expand access to community and shared solar for low- and 

moderate- income communities and others.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 867 of 1546

state plan must have requirements establishing the appropriate 

infrastructure to issue early action ERCs and allowances to 

eligible project providers by 2020, and those requirements must 

be consistent with the provisions included in section VIII.K of 

this final rule. The state must require that the state or its 

agent will (1) evaluate project proposals from RE and demandside EE providers, including the EM&V plans that must accompany 

such proposals and that must adhere to the EM&V requirements 

included in these guidelines; (2) evaluate monitoring and 

verification reports submitted by providers following project 

implementation, which contain the quantified and verified MWh of 

RE generation or energy savings achieved by the project in 2020 

and 2021 assessed according to the EM&V requirements included in 

these guidelines; and (3) issue ERCs or allowances to eligible 

providers for these MWh results. 

 A state may award early action ERCs or allowances to RE and 

demand-side EE project providers that demonstrate quantified and 

verified MWh reduced or avoided in 2020 and 2021, as a result of 

projects implemented following the effective date of these 

guidelines and until December 31, 2021. These reduced or avoided 

MWh may result from projects implemented in or benefitting the 

state issuing the ERCs or allowances. 

 The Clean Energy Incentive Program will provide a number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 868 of 1546

benefits. First, the program will provide incentives designed to 

reduce energy bills early in the program through earlier and 

broader application of energy saving technologies, and help 

ensure that these benefits are shared with low-income 

communities. Second, the EPA believes that stimulating or 

supporting early investment in RE generation technologies could 

accelerate the rate at which the costs of these technologies 

fall over the course of the interim performance period. In 

addition, the Clean Energy Incentive Program will provide 

affected EGUs and states with additional resources to help them 

achieve their state plan obligations. Finally, the program will 

improve the liquidity, in the early years of the program, of the 

ERC and allowance markets we expect to emerge for compliance 

with the requirements of these guidelines.741 

 The Clean Energy Incentive Program does not modify the CO2

emission performance rates or the final goals. The EPA is 

establishing this program as an option for states that wish to 

drive investments in RE and demand-side EE that will result in 

 

741 The Clean Energy Incentive Program is expected to provide 

states and affected EGUs additional flexibility in complying 

with the guidelines, and bears similarity in both design and 

purpose to the Compliance Supplement Pool, which the agency 

established as a part of the NOx SiP Call. See 63 FR 57356, 

57428-30 (Oct. 27, 1998). Certain aspects of the Compliance 

Supplement Pool were challenged in litigation and upheld by the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. See Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 

663, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 869 of 1546

actual, early reductions in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. 

States are also authorized to set their own glide path, or 

interim step performance rates or goals, so long as the interim 

and final performance rates or goals are met, and could do so in 

a way that takes into account the availability of the Clean 

Energy Incentive Program to assist affected EGUs in meeting the 

applicable glide path and performance rates or goals. While the 

EPA is not requiring states to take advantage of this program, 

its availability simply enhances these already-existing 

implementation and compliance flexibilities while at the same 

time delivering meaningful benefits, particularly for low-income 

communities. The EPA looks forward to an upcoming public 

dialogue about the implementation details of the Clean Energy 

Incentive Program. 

C. State Plan Approaches 

1. Overview

 Under the final emission guidelines, states may adopt and 

submit either of two different types of state plans. The first 

would apply all requirements for meeting the emission guidelines 

to affected EGUs in the form of federally enforceable emission 

standards.742 We refer to this as an “emission standards” state 

 

742 40 CFR 60.21(f) defines “emission standard” as “a legally 

enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 870 of 1546

plan type. The second, which we refer to as a “state measures” 

plan type, would allow the state mass CO2 emission goals to be 

achieved by affected EGUs in part, or entirely, through state 

measures743 that apply to affected EGUs, other entities, or some 

 

emissions into the atmosphere, establishing an allowance system, 

or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air 

pollution emissions.” This definition is promulgated and 

effective, and we note that it authorizes the use of allowance 

systems as a form of emission standard. To resolve any doubt 

that allowance systems are an acceptable form of emission 

standard in the final rule, we are including regulatory text in 

the final subpart UUUU regulations authorizing the use of 

allowance systems as a form of emission standard under section 

111(d). Section 60.21(f) was originally amended in 2005 to 

include recognition of allowance systems as a form of emission 

standard in the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (70 FR 28606, 

28649; May 18, 2005). CAMR was vacated in its entirety in New 

Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). However, the 

reason for vacatur was wholly unrelated to the question of 

whether an allowance system could be a form of emission 

standard. In response to the New Jersey decision, the agency 

removed CAMR provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The agency chose to retain the language of 60.21(f) and 

60.24(b)(1) generally recognizing allowance systems. This 

language is broader than CAMR and unrelated to the reasons for 

its vacatur. The EPA re-promulgated these provisions in February 

of 2012 (77 FR 9304, 9447; Feb. 16, 2012). Even if this were not 

the case, the agency would not concede that simply because 

“allowance systems” were not provided for in the framework 

regulations of subpart B, they could not be relied upon in 

specific emission guidelines, such as these for carbon dioxide. 

The framework regulations generally serve a gap-filling role 

where there are not more specific provisions laid out in the 

relevant emission guidelines. In order to resolve any question 

whether allowance systems are authorized under the final rule, 

we are including regulatory text in subpart UUUU to make this 

authorization explicitly clear. 

743 “State measures” refer to measures that the state adopts and 

implements as a matter of state law. Such measures are 

enforceable only per state law, and are not included in and 

codified as part of the federally enforceable state plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 871 of 1546

combination thereof. The state measures plan type also includes 

a mandatory contingent backstop of federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs that would apply in the 

event the plan does not achieve its anticipated level of 

emission performance as specified in the state plan during the 

period that the state is relying on state measures. The 

inclusion of a backstop of federally enforceable emission 

standards in a state measures plan type is legally necessary for 

a state plan to meet the requirements of 111(d), which 

specifically require a state to submit standards of performance. 

 These two types of state plans and their respective 

approaches, either of which could be implemented on a singlestate or multi-state basis, allow states to meet the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 111(d) while accommodating the wide 

range of regulatory requirements and other programs that states 

have deployed or will deploy in the electricity sector that 

reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. Further, as described in 

detail below, both types of plans are responsive to comments we 

received from states and other stakeholders. 

In addition to providing states the option of developing an 

emission standards or state measures type plan, the final rule 

makes clear that states that choose an emission standards plan 

can adopt either a rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission goal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 872 of 1546

 Under these two basic plan types, the final emission 

guidelines provide states with a number of potential plan 

pathways for meeting the emission guidelines. A plan pathway 

represents a specific plan design approach used to meet the 

emission guidelines. These plan pathways are discussed in 

section VIII.C.2 through C.5 below, and further elaborated in 

sections VIII.J. (for mass-based emission standards) and VIII.K 

(for rate-based emission standards). 

 The final emission guidelines provide three streamlined 

plan pathways. These streamlined plan pathways represent 

straightforward plan approaches for meeting the emission 

guidelines, and avoid the need to meet additional plan 

requirements and include additional elements in a plan 

submittal. The streamlined plan pathways include the following: 

 Establishing federally enforceable, mass-based emission 

standards for affected EGUs, complemented by stateenforceable mass-based emission standards for new fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs. This approach could involve an emission 

budget trading program that includes affected EGUs as well 

as new fossil fuel-fired EGUs. This approach facilitates 

interstate emission trading, through either a “tradingready” single-state plan approach or through a multi-state 

plan. Under a “trading-ready” plan, interstate emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 873 of 1546

trading may occur without the need for a multi-state 

plan.744 

 Establishing federally enforceable, mass-based emission 

standards for affected EGUs, based on the EPA’s 

finalizedmodel rule for a mass-based emission budget 

trading program. This approach provides for interstate 

emission trading, and can be considered a “trading-ready” 

approach. It could also be used in the context of a multistate plan.745

 Establishing federally enforceable, subcategory-specific 

rate-based CO2 emission standards for affected EGUs, 

consistent with the CO2 emission performance rates in the 

emission guidelines. This approach provides for interstate 

emission trading, and can be considered a “trading-ready” 

approach.746

 Establishing federally enforceable rate-based CO2 emission 

standards at a single level that applies for all affected 

 

744 Mass-based trading-ready plans are addressed in section 

VIII.J.3. Multi-state plans, where a group of states are meeting 

a joint CO2 goal for affected EGUs, are addressed in section 

VIII.C.5. 

745 Submission of a state plan based on the EPA’s finalized model 

rule for a mass-based emission trading program could be 

considered presumptively approvable.The EPA would evaluate the 

approvability of such submission through an independent comment 

and notice rulemaking. 

746 Rate-based trading-ready plans are addressed in section 

VIII.K.4.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 874 of 1546

EGUs, consistent with the state rate-based CO2 goal for 

affected EGUs in the emission guidelines. This approach 

provides for interstate emission trading, through a multistate plan. 

 The final emission guidelines also provide for a range of 

additional custom plan approaches that a state may pursue, if it 

chooses, to address specific circumstances or policy objectives 

in a state. The custom plan pathways, while viable options for 

meeting the emission guidelines, come with additional plan 

requirements and plan submittal elements. These additional plan 

requirements and plan submittal elements are necessary to ensure 

that the emission guidelines are met and that the necessary 

level of CO2 emission performance is achieved by affected EGUs. 

 Based on this overall approach, the final emission 

guidelines provide for a range of state options – both 

easily implementable approaches that can be used to meet 

the emission guidelines, and more customizable approaches 

that can be used, if a state chooses, to address special 

circumstances or state policy objectives.2. “Emission 

standards” state plan type

The emission standards type of state plan imposes 

requirements solely on affected EGUs in the form of federally 

enforceable emission standards. This type of state plan, as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 875 of 1546

described below, may consist of rate-based emission standards 

for affected EGUs or mass-based emission standards for affected 

EGUs. 

The state plan submittal for an emission standards type 

plan must demonstrate that these federally enforceable emission 

standards for affected EGUs will achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or the applicable rate-based or mass-based 

state CO2 emission goal for affected EGUs. 

Both rate-based and mass-based emission standards included 

in a state plan must be quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, 

non-duplicative and permanent. These requirements are described 

in more detail at section VIII.D.2. 

Rate-based and mass-based emission standards may 

incorporate the use of emission trading, as described below. The 

EPA anticipates the use of emission trading in state plans, 

given the advantages of this approach and comments suggesting a 

high degree of interest on the part of states, utilities, and 

independent power producers in the inclusion of emission trading 

in state plans.747

 The EPA notes it is proposing model rules for both massbased and rate-based emission trading programs. States could 

 

747 The legal basis for authorizing trading in emission standards 

is discussed in section VIII.C.6. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 876 of 1546

adopt and submit the finalized model rules for either emission 

trading program to meet the requirements of CAA section 111(d) 

and these emission guidelines. The EPA will evaluate the 

approvability of such submission, as with any state plan 

submission, through independent notice and comment rulemaking. 

a. Rate-based approach. The first type of “emission standards” 

plan approach a state may choose is one that uses rate-based 

emission standards. Under this plan approach, the plan would 

include federally enforceable emission standards for affected 

EGUs, in the form of lb CO2/MWh emission standards. 

A rate-based “emission standards” plan may be designed to 

either meet the CO2 emission performance rates for affected EGUs 

or achieve the state’s rate-based CO2 emission goal for affected 

EGUs. A plan could be designed such that compliance by affected 

EGUs would assure achievement of either the CO2 emission 

performance rates for affected EGUs or the state rate-based CO2

emission goal. To meet the CO2 emission performance rates for 

affected EGUs, a plan would establish separate rate-based 

emission standards for affected fossil fuel-fired electric 

utility steam generating units and stationary combustion 

turbines (in lb CO2/MWh) that are equal to or lower than the CO2

emission performance rates in the emission guidelines. To meet a 

state rate-based CO2 goal, a plan would establish a uniform rate-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 877 of 1546

based emission standard (in lb CO2/MWh) that applies to all 

affected EGUs in the state. This uniform emission rate would be 

equal to or lower than the applicable state rate-based CO2 goal 

specified in the final emission guidelines. 

 Under these two approaches, compliance by affected EGUs 

with the rate-based emission standards in a plan would ensure 

that affected EGUs meet the CO2 emission performance rates in the 

emission guidelines or the state rate-based CO2 goal for affected 

EGUs. No further demonstration would be necessary by the state 

to demonstrate that its plan would achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or the state’s rate-based CO2 goal. 

Alternatively, if a state choses, it could apply rate-based 

emission standards to individual affected EGUs, or to categories 

of affected EGUs, at a lb CO2/MWh rate that differs from the CO2

emission performance rates or the state’s rate-based CO2 goal. In 

this case, compliance by affected EGUs with their emission 

standards would not necessarily ensure that the collective, 

weighted average CO2 emission rate for these affected EGUs meets 

the CO2 emission performance rates or the state’s rate-based CO2

goal.748 

 

748 The weighted average CO2 emission rate that will be achieved 

by the fleet of affected EGUs in a state that applies different 

rate-based emission standards to individual affected EGUs or 

groups of affected EGUs will depend upon the mix of electric 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 878 of 1546

Under this type of approach, therefore, the state would be 

required to include a demonstration,749 in the state plan 

submittal, that its plan would achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or applicable state rate-based CO2 goal. This 

demonstration would include a projection of the collective, 

weighted average CO2 emission rate the fleet of affected EGUs 

would achieve as a result of compliance with the emission 

standards in the plan. Once the plan is implemented, if the CO2

emission performance rates or applicable state rate-based CO2

goal are not achieved, corrective measures would need to be 

implemented, as described in section VIII.F.3. 

Under a rate-based approach, a state may include in its 

plan a number of provisions to facilitate affected EGU 

compliance with the emission standards. First, a state may 

encourage (or require) EGUs to undertake actions to reduce CO2

emissions at the affected EGU level, such as heat rate 

improvements or fuel switching. These measures are discussed in 

 

generation from affected EGUs subject to different emission 

standards. For example, if a state applies higher emission 

standards for affected steam generating units and lower emission 

standards for affected NGCC units, the greater the projected 

amount of electric generation from steam generating units, the 

higher the projected weighted average emission rate that will be 

achieved for all affected EGUs. 

749 A demonstration of how a plan will achieve a state’s ratebased or mass-based CO2 emission goal is one of the required plan 

components, as described in section VIII.D.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 879 of 1546

section VIII.I. Second, a state may implement a market-based 

emission trading program, which enables EGUs to generate and 

procure Emission Rate Credits (ERCs), a tradable compliance unit 

representing one MWh of electric generation (or reduced 

electricity use) with zero associated CO2 emissions. 

Considerations and requirements for rate-based trading programs 

are discussed in section VIII.K. 

ERCs would be issued by the administering state regulatory 

body. The state may issue ERCs to affected EGUs that emit below 

a specified CO2 emission rate, as well as for measures that 

provide substitute generation for affected EGUs or avoid the 

need for generation from affected EGUs. These ERCs may then be 

used to adjust the reported CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU 

when demonstrating compliance with a rate-based emission 

standard. For each submitted ERC, one MWh is added to the 

denominator of the reported CO2 emission rate, resulting in a 

lower adjusted CO2 emission rate. 

Eligible measures that may generate ERCs, as well as the 

accounting method for adjusting a CO2 emission rate, are 

discussed in section VIII.G.1. Requirements for rate-based 

emission trading approaches are discussed in section VIII.G.3. 

Quantification and verification requirements for measures 

eligible to generate ERCs are discussed in section VIII.G.4. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 880 of 1546

 

(1) Rate-based emission standards based on operational or other 

standards. As discussed in further detail in section 

VIII.D.2.d.3, regarding the legal considerations and statutory 

language of CAA section 111(h), the EPA is finalizing that 

design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards 

cannot be considered to be “standards of performance” for this 

final rule. However, a state may elect to use emission standards 

for affected EGUs that result in a reduced CO2 lb/MWh emission 

rate for affected EGUs because of operational or other 

standards. The state would include in its state plan an emission 

standard that is the rate standard that results from the 

applicable operational or other standard. For example, a state 

might choose to recognize that an individual affected EGU has 

plans to retire, and those plans could be codified in the state 

plan by adopting an emission standard of 0 CO2 lb/MWh as of a 

certain date. The state would thus include in the state plan an 

emission standard of 0 CO2 lb/MWh for that affected EGU that 

applies after a specified date. 

 An approvable plan could apply such emission standards to a 

subset of affected EGUs or all affected EGUs. As with any ratebased plan, the state would need to demonstrate that the plan 

would achieve the required level of emission performance for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 881 of 1546

affected EGUs, in CO2 lb/MWh. A plan could also apply such 

emission standards to a subset of affected EGUs in the state 

while applying other rate-based emission standards to the 

remainder of affected EGUs in the state. For example, a plan 

might include an emission standard of 0 CO2 lb/MWh reflecting a 

retirement mandate for one or more affected EGUs in a state and 

apply a rate-based emission standard equal to the CO2 emission 

performance rates or a state’s rate-based CO2 emission goal to 

the remainder of affected EGUs. 

As with all emission standards, emission standards based on 

design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards must 

be quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and 

permanent. These requirements are described in more detail at 

section VIII.D.2. 

(2) Additional considerations for rate-based approach. 

Additional considerations and requirements for rate-based 

emission standards state plans are addressed in section VIII.K. 

This includes the basic accounting method for adjusting the 

reported CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU, as well as 

requirements for the use of measures to adjust a CO2 emission 

rate, both of which are discussed in sections VIII.K.1 through 

3. Such requirements include eligibility, accounting, and 

quantification and verification requirements (EM&V) for the use 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 882 of 1546

of CO2 emission reduction measures that provide substitute 

generation for affected EGUs or avoid the need for generation 

from affected EGUs in rate-based state plans. Section VIII.K.4 

addresses multi-state coordination among rate-based emission 

trading programs. 

b. Mass-based approach. The second “emission standards” approach 

a state may elect to use is mass-based emission standards 

applied to affected EGUs. Under this approach, the plan would 

include federally enforceable emission standards for mass CO2

emissions from affected EGUs. The plan would be designed to 

achieve the mass-based CO2 goal for a state’s affected EGUs (see 

section VII) or a level of CO2 emissions equal to or less than 

the mass-based CO2 goal plus the new source complement CO2

emissions (see section VIII.J.2.b, Table [X]).750 

 Under a mass-based approach, a state could require that 

individual affected EGUs meet a specified mass emission 

standard. Alternatively, a state could choose to implement a 

market-based emission budget trading program. The EPA envisions 

 

750 For example, a state plan designed to meet a state mass-based 

CO2 goal for affected EGUs plus a new source complement could 

include a mass-based emission budget trading program that 

applies to both affected EGUs, as well as new fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs. The program requirements for affected EGUs would be 

federally enforceable, while the program requirements for other 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs would be state-enforceable. This approach 

is described further in section VIII.J.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 883 of 1546

that the latter option is most likely to be exercised by states 

seeking to implement a mass-based emission standard approach, as 

it would maximize compliance flexibility for affected EGUs and 

enable the state to meet its mass goal in the most economically 

efficient manner possible. 

(1) Mass-based emission standard applied to individual affected 

EGUs. One pathway a state could take to achieve its mass-based 

CO2 goal would be to apply mass-based emission standards to 

individual affected EGUs, in the form of a limit on total 

allowable CO2 emissions. These emission standards would be 

designed such that total allowable CO2 emissions from all 

affected EGUs in a state are equal to or less than the state’s 

mass-based CO2 goal, or a state’s mass-based CO2 goal plus the 

new source complement CO2 emissions specified in section 

VIII.J.2.b, Table [X]. The individual affected EGUs would be 

required to emit at or below their mass-based standard to 

demonstrate compliance. Under this approach, individual affected 

EGUs would be required to undertake source-specific measures to 

assure their CO2 emissions do not exceed their assigned emission 

limit. Affected EGU compliance with the emission standards 

prescribed under this type of mass-based approach would ensure 

that the affected EGUs in a state achieve the state’s mass-based 

CO2 goal, or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source complement. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 884 of 1546

 

 

(2) Mass-based emission standard with a market-based emission 

budget trading program. A second pathway a state could take to 

achieve its mass-based CO2 goal would be to implement a marketbased emission budget trading program. This type of program 

provides maximum compliance flexibility to affected EGUs, and as 

a result, may be attractive to states that choose to implement a 

mass-based approach in their state plan. 

An emission budget trading program establishes a combined 

emission standard for a group of emission sources in the form of 

an emission budget. Emission allowances are issued in an amount 

up to the established emission budget.751 Allowances may be 

distributed to affected emission sources (as well as to other 

parties) through a number of different methods, including direct 

allocation to affected sources or auction. These allowances can 

be traded among affected sources and other parties. The emission 

standard applied to individual emission sources is a requirement 

to surrender emission allowances equal to reported emissions, 

with each allowance representing one ton of CO2. 

The EPA views an emission budget trading program as a 

 

751 An emission allowance represents a limited authorization to 

emit, typically denominated in one short ton or metric ton of 

emissions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 885 of 1546

highly efficient, market-based approach for reducing CO2

emissions from affected EGUs. Such programs include a limit on 

mass CO2 emissions while providing both short-term and long-term 

price signals that encourage the owners or operators of affected 

EGUs, as well as other entities, to determine the most efficient 

means of achieving the mass emission limit. Notably, such an 

approach incents actions taken at affected EGUs to reduce CO2

emissions, as well as the use of strategies such as RE and 

demand-side EE as complementary measures that reduce CO2

emissions. However, unlike under a rate-based approach, for this 

latter set of measures there is no need to address and describe 

these state measures in a state plan submission or quantify and 

verify the RE and EE MWh of generation and savings. As a result, 

a mass-based emission budget trading program incents and 

recognizes a wide range of emission reduction actions while 

being relatively simple for a state to implement and administer. 

Furthermore, the EPA notes that such an approach still allows 

for a state to address electricity load growth, as load growth 

can be met through low- and non-emitting generating resources, 

as well as avoided through demand-side energy efficiency and 

demand-side management measures. 

Additional considerations and requirements for mass-based 

emission standards state plans are addressed in section VIII.J. 

Commented [A54]: this implies that there would not be a cap 

adjustment for states opting in new plants 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 886 of 1546

This includes use of emission budget trading programs in a state 

plan, including provisions required for such programs (section 

VIII.J.2.a) and the design of such programs in the context of a 

state plan. This section addresses program design approaches 

that ensure achievement of a state mass-based CO2 emission goal 

(section VIII.J.2.b), as well as how states can use emission 

budget trading programs with broader source coverage and other 

flexibility features in a state plan, such as the programs 

currently implemented by California and the RGGI participating 

states (section VIII.J.2.c). Section VIII.J.2.d addresses other 

considerations for the design of emission budget trading 

programs that states may want to consider, such as allowance 

allocation approaches. Section VIII.J.3 addresses multi-state 

coordination among emission budget trading programs used in 

states that retain their individual state mass-based CO2 goals. 

(3) Mass-based emission standards based on operational or other 

standards. As discussed in section VIII.C.2.a.(1) above, a state 

may elect to use mass-based emission standards for affected EGUs 

that result in a reduced total tonnage of CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs because of operational or other standards. The 

state would include in its state plan an emission standard that 

is the mass standard that results from the applicable 

operational or other standard. For example, a state might choose 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 887 of 1546

to recognize that an individual affected EGU has plans to 

retire, and those plans could be codified in the state plan by 

adopting an emission standard of 0 total tons of CO2, as of a 

certain date. The state would thus include in the state plan an 

emission standard of 0 total tons of CO2 for that affected EGU 

that applies after a specified date. Under a mass-based 

approach, the state could also include an emission standard 

(e.g., a mass limit) that reflects the result of a limit on an 

affected EGU’s total operating hours over a specified period. 

Such an emission standard would be based on an affected EGU’s 

potential to emit given a specified number of operating hours. 

 An approvable plan could apply such emission standards to a 

subset of affected EGUs or all affected EGUs. As with any massbased plan, the state would need to demonstrate that the plan 

would achieve the required level of emission performance for 

affected EGUs, in total tons of CO2. A plan could also apply such 

emission standards to a subset of affected EGUs in the state 

while applying other emission standards to the remainder of 

affected EGUs in the state. For example, a plan might include an 

emission standard of 0 tons of CO2 for one or more affected EGUs, 

reflecting a retirement mandate for one or more affected EGUs in 

a state, and include the remainder of affected EGUs in an 

emission budget trading program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 888 of 1546

3. “State measures” state plan type 

 The second type of state plan is what we refer to as a 

“state measures” plan. As previously discussed, the EPA believes 

states will be able to submit state plans under the emission 

standards plan type, and its respective approaches, and achieve 

the CO2 emission performance rates or rate-based or mass-based 

state CO2 goals by imposing federally enforceable requirements on 

affected EGUs. Upon further consideration of the requirements of 

CAA section 111(d), in consideration of the comments we received 

on the proposed portfolio approach and the state commitments 

approach, and in order to provide flexibility and choice to 

states that may wish to adopt a plan that does not place all the 

obligations on affected EGUs, the EPA is finalizing the state 

measures plan type in addition to the emission standards plan 

type. The EPA believes the state measures plan type will provide 

states with additional latitude in accommodating existing or 

planned programs that involve measures implemented by the state, 

or by entities other than affected EGUs, that result in avoided 

generation and CO2 emission reductions at affected EGUs. This 

includes market-based emission budget trading programs that 

apply, in part, to affected EGUs, such as the programs 

implemented by California and the RGGI participating states in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, as well as RE and demand-side EE 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 889 of 1546

requirements and programs, such as renewable portfolio standards 

(RPS), energy efficiency resource standards (EERS), and utilityand state-administered incentive programs for the deployment of 

RE and demand-side EE technologies and practices. The EPA 

believes this second state plan type will afford states with 

appropriate flexibility while meeting the statutory requirements 

of CAA section 111(d). 

Measures implemented under the state measures plan type 

could include RE and demand-side EE requirements and deployment 

programs. This type of plan could align with existing state 

resource planning in the electricity sector, including RE and 

demand-side EE investments by state-regulated electric 

utilities. The state measures plan type also can accommodate 

emission budget trading programs that address a broader set of 

emission sources than just affected EGUs subject to CAA section 

111(d), such as the programs currently implemented by California 

and the RGGI participating states. The EPA also notes that the 

state measures plan type could accommodate imposition by a state 

of a fee for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, an approach 

suggested by a number of commenters. 

 This plan type would allow the state to implement a suite 

of state measures that are adopted, implemented, and enforceable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 890 of 1546

only under state law, and rely upon such measures752 in achieving 

the required level of CO2 emission performance from affected 

EGUs. The state measures under this plan type could be measures 

involving entities other than affected EGUs, or a combination of 

such measures with emission standards for affected EGUs, so long 

as the state demonstrates that such measures will result in 

achievement of a state’s mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2

goal plus new source complement), as discussed below. The EPA 

notes that under this plan type, a state could also choose to 

include any emission standards for affected EGUs, which are 

required to be included in the plan asfederally enforceable 

measures , to be implemented alongside or in conjunction with 

state measures the state would implement and enforce. 

 For a state measures plan to be approvable, it must include 

a demonstration of how the measures, whether state measures 

alone or state measures in conjunction with any federally 

enforceable emission standards, will achieve the state massbased CO2 emission goal for affected EGUs(or mass-based CO2 goal 

plus new source complement). However, because the state measures 

would not be federally enforceable emission standards, the plan 

 

752 “State measures” refer to measures that the state adopts and 

implements as a matter of state law. Such measures are 

enforceable only per applicable state law, and are not included 

in the federally enforceable state plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 891 of 1546

must also include a “backstop” of federally enforceable emission 

standards for all affected EGUs, in order for the state measures 

plan type to satisfy the requirement of CAA section 111(d) that 

a state establish standards of performance for affected EGUs. 

This backstop would impose federally enforceable emission 

standards on the state’s affected EGUs in the case that the 

state measures fail to achieve the state mass-based CO2 goal. 

The backstop, discussed further below, would assure that the 

state mass-based CO2 goal is fully achieved by affected EGUs in 

the form of federally enforceable emission standards. 

a. Requirements for state measures under a state measures type 

plan. Under the state measures plan type, state measures must be 

satisfactorily described in the supporting material for a state 

plan submittal. The supporting material would need to 

demonstrate that the state measures meet the same integrity 

elements that would apply to federally enforceable emission 

standards. Specifically, the state plan submittal must 

demonstrate that the state measures are quantifiable, 

verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent. These 

requirements are described in more detail at section VIII.D.2. 

Under the state measures plan, if a state chooses to impose 

emission standards on affected EGUs, such emission standards 

must be included in the federally enforceable plan as they would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 892 of 1546

be under an emission standards plan. 

 The EPA would assess the overall approvability of a state 

measures plan based, in part, on the state’s satisfactory 

demonstration that the state measures, in conjunction with any 

federally enforceable emission standards on the affected EGUs 

that might be included in the plan, would result in the state 

plan’s achievement of the mass-based CO2 goal for the state’s 

affected EGUs (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source 

complement). This includes a demonstration of adequate legal 

authority and funding to implement the state plan and any 

associated measures. The EPA’s determination that such a plan is 

satisfactory would be based in part on whether the state 

measures are adequately described in the supporting 

documentation and the plan submittal demonstrates that the state 

measures are quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, nonduplicative and permanent as described above. This is necessary 

for the EPA to ensure that the results achieved through the plan 

are quantifiable and verifiable, and to assess whether the state 

measures are anticipated to achieve the state mass-based CO2 goal 

for affected EGUs (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source 

complement). 

 The EPA’s evaluation of the approvability of a state 

measures plan would also include an assessment of whether the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 893 of 1546

backstop composed of federally enforceable emission standards 

for the state’s affected EGUs would assure that the state massbased CO2 goal is fully achieved by affected EGUs, in the case 

that the state measures fail to achieve the state mass-based CO2

goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source complement). The 

trigger for the backstop must also satisfactorily provide for 

the implementation of the backstop emission standards. 

b. Considerations for the backstop included in a state measures 

type plan. As further discussed in section VIII.C.4.c, the EPA 

believes a backstop, composed of federally enforceable emission 

standards for the affected EGUs that are sufficient to achieve 

the state mass-based CO2 goal in the event that state measures do 

not result in the anticipated CO2 emission performance, is 

necessary for the state measures plan type to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 111(d). The state plan must specify 

the backstop that would apply federally enforceable emission 

standards to the affected EGUs if the state measures plan does 

not achieve the anticipated level of CO2 emission performance by 

affected EGUs. The state plan must include promulgated 

regulations (or other requirements) that fully specify these 

emission standard requirements, which must be quantifiable, 

verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent. These 

requirements are described in more detail at section VIII.D.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 894 of 1546

 These federally enforceable emission standards must be 

designed such that compliance by affected EGUs with the emission 

standards would achieve the state’s mass-based interim and final 

goals for affected EGUs. The emission standards must specify CO2

emission performance levels (in mass) that would apply for the 

interim plan performance period (including specifying levels for 

each of the interim step 1 through step 3 periods) and the final 

two-year plan performance periods.753 If a state chose, these 

backstop emission standards could be based on a model rule or 

federal plan promulgated by the EPA.754

 The state measures plan must specify the trigger and 

conditions under which the backstop federally enforceable 

emission standards would apply. The trigger and attendant 

conditions for deployment of the backstop would address the CAA 

section 111(d) requirement that states submit a program that 

provides for the implementation of standards of performance. The 

state measures plan must specify the level of emission 

performance that will be achieved by affected EGUs as a result 

of implementation of the state measures plan during the interim 

 

753 This includes the level of emission performance during the 

interim plan periods 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, as well 

as the performance level that would be achieved during every 

subsequent 2-year final plan performance period (2030-2031, and 

subsequent two-year periods). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 895 of 1546

and final plan performance periods. This includes the level of 

emission performance during the interim plan periods 2022-2024, 

2025-2027 and 2028-2029, as well as the performance level that 

would be achieved during every subsequent two-year final plan 

performance period (2030-2031, and subsequent two-year periods). 

If actual CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs fails to meet 

the level of emission performance specified in the plan over the 

8-year interim performance period (2022-2029)or for any 2-year 

final goal performance period, the state measures plan must 

require that the backstop federally enforceable emission 

standards would take effect and be applied to affected EGUs. 

Similarly, the plan must require that the backstop standards 

take effect if actual emission performance is deficient by 10 

percent or more relative to the performance levels that the 

state has chosen to specify in the plan for the interim step 1 

period (2022-2024) or the interim step 2 period (2025-2027). The 

state measures plan must provide that, in the event the backstop 

is triggered, such emission standards would be effective within 

18 months of the deadline for the state’s submission of its 

periodic report to the EPA on state plan implementation and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 896 of 1546

performance, as described in section VIII.D.2.c.755756 While the 

state is taking any necessary administrative and technical 

actions to implement the backstop emission standards regulations 

that were promulgated as part of the state plan, state measures 

must remain in effect and continue to be implemented by the 

state to the extent possible until such time as the backstop 

emission standards are effective. 

 The backstop emission standards must make up for the 

shortfall in CO2 emission performance. The shortfall must be made 

up as expeditiously as practicable. The state may address the 

requirement to make up for the shortfall in CO2 emission 

performance by submitting, as part of the final plan, backstop 

emission standards that assure affected EGUs would achieve the 

state’s mass-based interim and final CO2 goals for affected EGUs, 

and then later submit appropriate revisions to the backstop 

emission standards adjusting for the shortfall through the state 

plan revision process. The state may alternately effectuate this 

by submitting, along with the backstop emission standards, 

 

755 States may choose to establish an effective date for backstop 

emission standards that is sooner than 18 months. 

756 In the event a state does not implement the backstop as 

required if actual emission performance triggers the backstop, 

the EPA will take appropriate action. The EPA notes that as part 

of the proposed federal plan rulemaking, it is proposing a 

regulatory mechanism to call plans in the instances of 

substantial inadequacy to meet applicable requirements or 

failure to implement an approved plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 897 of 1546

provisions to adjust the emission standards to account for any 

prior emission performance shortfall, such that no modification 

of the emission standards is necessary in order to address the 

emission performance shortfall. 

For example, assume a state measures plan identified a 

mass-based CO2 standard for affected EGUs of 100 million tons 

during the interim step 1 performance period (2022-2024), 90 

million tons during the interim step 2 performance period (2025-

2027), and 80 million tons during the interim step 3 performance 

period (2028-2029. Over the entire interim plan performance 

period (2022-2029), the interim mass-based CO2 goal is cumulative 

emissions of 270 million tons. Assume that CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs in the interim step 1 period were actually 115 

million tons, triggering implementation of the backstop. In this 

instance, the mass-based standard for affected EGUs implemented 

as part of the backstop during subsequent plan performance 

periods would need to ensure that cumulative CO2 emissions during 

the 2022-2029 interim period do not exceed 270 million tons. 

This could be achieved, for example, by implementing a mass 

standard of 75 million tons during the interim step 2 

performance period (rather than the 90 million tons originally 

specified in the plan), or some other combination during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 898 of 1546

remaining interim step 2 and 3 performance periods.757 The 

emission standards included as the backstop in the plan must 

specify calculations for how such adjustments will be made. 

 

4. Summary of comments on state plan approaches 

The EPA received a wide range of comments on the basic plan 

approaches in the proposal. Numerous commenters supported 

providing states with the option of implementing a rate-based or 

mass-based approach. Some commenters expressed concern that a 

rate-based approach would not reduce overall emissions, and 

could actually lead to increased emissions. The EPA does not 

agree with this latter comment, because both approaches would 

result in adequate and appropriate constraints on CO2 emissions. 

As documented in the RIA, a rate-based approach would result in 

a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions relative to emissions 

under a business-as-usual case. 

 Numerous commenters supported allowing states to implement 

a rate-based emission standard approach applied to affected 

EGUs. There was also broad support in comments for allowing 

states to pursue a mass-based approach in the form of mass 

 

757 In this example, states could elect to implement different 

combinations of mass-based standards during the remaining 

interim step 2 and 3 plan performance periods, provided that 

cumulative CO2 emissions during the full interim plan performance 

period (2022-2029) do not exceed 270 million tons. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 899 of 1546

emission standards on affected EGUs. The EPA is finalizing both 

of these approaches. 

 The EPA received a mix of comments for and against the 

proposed portfolio approach, in which state requirements and 

other measures that apply to non-EGU entities would be part of a 

state’s federally enforceable state plan. Multiple commenters 

supported the portfolio approach because it would align with 

existing state and utility planning processes in the electric 

power sector, and would maximize state discretion and 

flexibility in developing plans. Commenters mentioned the range 

of state requirements and utility programs overseen by states 

that could be used under a portfolio approach and result in 

achieving the CO2 emission goal for affected EGUs, including 

state RPS, EERS and utility-administered EE programs. Commenters 

noted that the portfolio approach would provide states maximum 

flexibility to take local circumstances, economics and state 

policy into account when developing their plans. 

 By contrast, multiple commenters opposed the portfolio 

approach. Some commenters questioned how a portfolio approach 

would work, and whether the EPA had provided sufficient detail 

explaining how such a plan approach could be implemented by a 

state. In particular, multiple commenters questioned how 

different state programs, such as utility-administered EE 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 900 of 1546

programs, could be made federally enforceable in practice under 

CAA section 111(d).758 Multiple commenters expressed concern 

about making state requirements and utility programs for RE and 

demand-side EE enforceable under the CAA. Some of these 

commenters supported the state commitments plan approach that 

the EPA took comment on in the proposal, which was a variant of 

the portfolio approach. Under the state commitment variant, 

measures that applied to entities other than affected EGUs would 

not be federally enforceable under the CAA, but state 

commitments to implement those measures would be federally 

enforceable elements of a state plan under the CAA. 

 After considering these comments, the EPA is not finalizing 

the portfolio approach or the state commitment variant. However, 

the EPA is finalizing the state measures plan type, as described 

above, which would accommodate state choices and allow states to 

rely upon a variety of measures, as was envisioned under the 

portfolio approach, in a way that meets the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 111(d). 

5. Multi-state plans 

 The EPA views the ability of a state to implement an 

individual plan or a multi-state plan as a significant 

 

758 Legal concerns with the proposed portfolio approach are 

explored in section VIII.C.6.d. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 901 of 1546

flexibility that allows a state to tailor implementation of its 

plan to state policy objectives and circumstances. The EPA sees 

particular value in multi-state plans, which allow states to 

implement a plan in a coordinated fashion with other states. 

Such approaches can lead to more efficient implementation, lower 

compliance costs for affected EGUs and lower impacts on 

electricity ratepayers. Coordinated approaches also will help 

states identify and address any potential electric reliability 

impacts when developing plans. 

 The EPA received broad support in comments for allowing 

states to implement multi-state plan approaches, and has made 

multiple changes in the final rule to address many suggestions 

outlining different approaches states may want to take. These 

changes are intended to provide streamlined approaches for 

multi-state coordination while maintaining transparency and 

assuring that the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2

emission goals are achieved. 

 The EPA is finalizing two approaches that allow states to 

coordinate implementation in order to meet the emission 

guidelines.759

 

759 The EPA notes that in addition to these approved approaches, 

other types of multi-state approaches may be acceptable in an 

approvable plan, provided the obligations of each state under 

the multi-state plan are clear and the submitted plan(s) meets 

applicable emission guideline requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 902 of 1546

 First, states may meet the requirements of the emission 

guidelines and CAA section 111(d) by submitting multi-state 

plans that address the affected EGUs in a group of states. The 

EPA is finalizing the proposed approach by which multiple states 

aggregate their rate or mass CO2 goals and submit a plan that 

will achieve a joint CO2 emission goal for the fleet of affected 

EGUs located within those states (or a joint mass-based CO2 goal 

plus a joint new source CO2 emission complement).760 

 Second, the EPA is also finalizing another approach, in 

response to comments received on the proposed rule. This 

approach enables states to retain their individual state goals 

for affected EGUs and submit individual plans, but to coordinate 

plan implementation with other states through the interstate 

transfer of ERCs or emission allowances.761 This approach 

facilitates interstate emission trading without requiring states 

to submit joint plans.762 

 

760 The concept of a new source CO2 emission complement is 

addressed in section VIII.J.2.b. Table [X] provides individual 

state new source CO2 emission complements. For a multi-state 

plan, a joint new source CO2 emission complement would be the sum 

of the individual new source CO2 emission complments in Table [X] 

for the states participating in the multi-state plan. 

761 This approach also applies where a state plan is designed to 

meet a state mass-based CO2 goal plus a state’s new source CO2

emission complement. 

762 States may submit individual plans with such linkages, or if 

they choose, provide a joint submittal. Forms of joint 

submittals are described at section VIII.E. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 903 of 1546

 States have the option to implement this second approach in 

different ways, as discussed in section VIII.C.5.c. These 

different implementation options allow states to tailor their 

implementation of linked emission trading programs, based on 

state policy preferences, as well as economic and other 

considerations. These different options provide varying levels 

of state control over emission trading system partners and 

require varying levels of coordination in the course of state 

plan development. 

 In response to comments, the EPA is also further clarifying 

how multi-state plans with a joint goal for affected EGUs may be 

implemented. The EPA is clarifying that states may participate 

in more than one multi-state plan, if necessary, for example, to 

address affected EGUs in states that are served by more than one 

ISO or RTO. The EPA is further clarifying that a subset of 

affected EGUs in a state may participate in a multi-state plan. 

These clarifications are discussed in section VIII.C.5.d. 

a. Summary of comments on multi-state plans. Multiple commenters 

supported the EPA’s proposed approach that would allow states to 

implement a multi-state plan to meet a joint CO2 emission goal. 

However, a number of states commented that states should also be 

allowed to coordinate without aggregating multiple individual 

state goals into a single joint goal. Many states questioned the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 904 of 1546

incentives that a state would have to aggregate its goal with 

other states that have different goals, and also noted the 

administrative complexities presented by states seeking to 

formally coordinate state plans with one another. 

 The EPA notes that there are multiple incentives for states 

to collaborate by implementing a multi-state plan to meet an 

aggregated joint goal, regardless of the specific level of their 

individual goals, because states share grid regions and impacts 

from plan implementation will be regional in nature. Further, 

multiple analyses, including those by ISOs and RTOs, indicate 

that regional approaches could achieve state goals at lesser 

cost than individual state plan approaches. However, the EPA 

also recognizes the value in allowing for collaboration where 

states retain individual goals. These approaches could provide 

some of the benefits of a joint goal while reducing the 

negotiations among states necessary to develop a multi-state 

plan with a joint goal. As a result, the EPA has finalized the 

additional approaches described above in section VIII.C.5 to 

provide for coordination while maintaining individual goals. 

These approaches would allow for interstate transfer of ERCs or 

emission allowances while retaining individual state goals. 

 Many commenters suggested that states should be encouraged 

to join or form regional market-based programs. Many commenters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 905 of 1546

touted the economic efficiency benefits of such approaches, and 

noted that such programs have features that support electric 

reliability. 

 The EPA agrees with these comments, and notes that it 

encouraged such approaches in the proposal. While the EPA is not 

requiring states to join and/or form regional market-based 

programs, we note that such programs can be helpful for many 

reasons, including features that support reliability. Marketbased programs allow greater flexibility for affected EGUs both 

in the short-term and long-term. Under a market-based program, 

affected EGUs have the ability to obtain sufficient allowances 

or credits to cover their emissions in order to comply with 

their emission standards. Additionally, we continue to encourage 

states to cooperate regionally. Regional cooperation in planning 

and reliability assessments is an important tool to meeting 

system needs in the most cost-effective, efficient, and reliable 

way. 

b. Multistate coordination through a joint emission goal. 

Multiple states may submit a multi-state plan that achieves an 

aggregated joint CO2 emission goal for the affected EGUs in the 

participating states (or a joint mass-based CO2 goal plus a joint 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 906 of 1546

new source CO2 emission complement).763 The joint emission goal 

approach is acceptable for both types of state plans, the 

“emission standards” plan type and the “state measures” plan 

type. However, the EPA is requiring that a joint goal may apply 

only to states implementing the same type of plan, either an 

“emission standards” plan or a “state measures” plan.764 

 Under this approach, a rate-based multi-state plan would 

include a weighted average rate-based emission goal, derived by 

 

763 As a conceptual and legal matter, the relationship between 

states coordinating to meet a joint CO2 emission goal under this 

rule is similar to the relationship between states coordinating 

SIP submissions to attain the NAAQS in an interstate 

nonattainment area. In both cases, the states coordinate their 

actions in a way that, cumulatively, the measures applicable in 

each state will lead to achievement of a common interstate goal 

(with the EPA evaluating the sufficiency and success of the 

plans on a holistic, interstate basis). Despite the shared goal, 

in both cases, the mere fact of coordination has no effect on 

each state’s sovereign legal authority. For example, the legally 

applicable rules in a given state are adopted by that state 

individually, not by a joint entity or other interstate 

mechanism. Similarly, the fact that the states coordinate their 

rules does not grant them the authority to directly enforce each 

other’s rules, or to take direct legal action against a state 

that is failing to implement its own rules. Although some states 

may jointly submit their coordinated rules to the EPA as a 

matter of administrative convenience, the state rules within 

such a plan are nothing more than reciprocal laws of the sort 

that states routinely enact in voluntary coordination with each 

other. 

764 This is necessary because if the joint goal is not achieved 

during a plan performance period, different remedies would apply 

under an emission standards plan and a state measures plan. 

Under an emission standards plan, corrective measures would 

apply. Under a state measures plan, the federally enforceable 

backstop emission standards would be triggered. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 907 of 1546

calculating a weighted average CO2 emission rate based on the 

individual rate-based goals for each of the participating states 

and 2012 generation from affected EGUs. A mass-based multi-state 

plan would include an aggregated mass-based CO2 emission goal for 

the participating states, in cumulative tons of CO2, derived by 

summing the individual mass-based CO2 emission goals of the 

participating states.765 

 Such plans could include emission standards in the form of 

a multi-state rate-based or mass-based emission trading 

program.766 Alternatively, states could submit a multi-state plan 

using a state measures approach.767 Both approaches could provide 

for implementation of a multi-state rate-based or mass-based 

 

765 Where a multi-state plan is designed to meet a joint massbased CO2 goal plus a joint new source CO2 emission complement, 

the joint new source CO2 emission complement would be the sum of 

the individual new source CO2 emission complements in section 

VIII.J.2.b, Table [X], for the states participating in the 

multi-state plan. 

766 A potential example of this approach is the method by which 

the states participating in RGGI have implemented individual CO2

Budget Trading Program regulations in a linked manner using a 

shared emission and allowance tracking system. Each state’s 

regulations implementing RGGI stand alone on a legal basis, but 

provide for the use of CO2 allowances issued in other 

participating states for compliance under the state regulations. 

These states are not listed by name in state regulations, which 

instead refer to participating states that have established a 

corresponding CO2 Budget Trading Program regulation. More 

information is available at http://www.rggi.org. 

767 Under this approach, a state measure could include, if a 

state chose, a multi-state emission trading program that is 

enforceable at the state level. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 908 of 1546

emission trading program. 

c. Multi-state coordination among states retaining individual 

state goals. States that do not wish to pursue a joint CO2

emission goal with other states may pursue a second pathway to 

multi-state collaboration. States may submit individual plans 

that will meet the CO2 emission performance rates or a state mass 

CO2 goal for affected EGUs (or mass-based CO2 goal plus the new 

source CO2 emission complement), but include implementation in 

coordination with other state plans by providing for the 

interstate transfer of ERCs or CO2 allowances, depending on 

whether the state is implementing a rate-based or mass-based 

emission trading program. This form of coordinated 

implementation may occur under both an “emission standards” type 

of plan and a “state measures” type of plan, where states are 

implementing rate-based or mass-based emission trading 

programs.768 For rate-based plans, this type of coordinated 

approach is limited to state plans with rate-based emission 

standards that are equal to the CO2 emission performance rates in 

the emission guidelines. 

 Under this approach, a state plan could indicate that ERCs 

 

768 ERCs may only be transferred among states implementing ratebased emission limits. Likewise, emission allowances may only be 

transferred among states implementing mass-based emission 

limits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 909 of 1546

or CO2 allowances issued by other states with an EPA-approved 

state plan could be used by affected EGUs for compliance with 

the state’s rate-based or mass-based emission standard, 

respectively. Such plans must indicate how ERCs or emission 

allowances will be tracked from issuance through use by affected 

EGUs for compliance,769 through either a joint tracking system, 

interoperable tracking systems, or an EPA-administered tracking 

system.770 

 The EPA would assess the approvability of each state’s plan 

individually — the use of ERCs or emission allowances issued in 

another state would not impact the approvability of the 

components of the individual state plan.771 However, the EPA 

would also assess linkages with other state plans, to ensure 

 

769 Referred to in different programs as “surrender,” 

“retirement,” or “cancellation.” 

770 The EPA received a number of comments from states and 

stakeholders about the value of the EPA’s support in developing 

and/or administering tracking systems to support state 

administration of rate-based emission trading programs. The EPA 

is exploring options for providing such support and is 

conducting an initial scoping assessment of tracking system 

support needs and functionality.

771 Note that for mass-based plans, the approvability 

requirements for a state plan would differ, depending on the 

structure of the emission budget trading program included in the 

state plan. For example, approvability requirements and basic 

accounting with regard to whether a plan achieves a state’s mass 

CO2 goal would differ for emission budget trading programs that 

cover only affected EGUs subject to CAA section 111(d) vs. 

programs that apply to a broader set of emission sources. These 

considerations are addressed in section VIII.C.5.c.(2)(c). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 910 of 1546

that the joint tracking system or interoperable tracking systems 

used to implement rate-based or mass-based emission trading 

programs across states are properly designed with necessary 

components, systems, and procedures to maintain the integrity of 

the linked emission trading programs. 

 Coordinated state plan implementation among states that 

retain individual state mass-based CO2 goals (or that implement 

individual state plans with rate-based emission standards 

consistent with the CO2 emission performance rates in the 

emission guidelines) is discussed in more detail in sections 

VIII.J and K. Section VIII.J discusses coordinated 

implementation among states implementing individual mass-based 

emission budget trading programs and section VIII.K discusses 

coordinated implementation among states implementing individual 

rate-based emission trading programs. 

d. Multi-state plans that address a subset of EGUs in a state. 

The EPA is clarifying in the final emission guidelines that a 

state may participate in more than one multi-state plan. Under 

this approach, the state would identify in its submittal the 

subset of affected EGUs in the state that are subject to the 

multi-state plan or plans. This could involve a subset of 

affected EGUs that are subject to a multi-state plan, with the 

remainder of affected EGUs subject to a state’s individual plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 911 of 1546

Alternatively, different affected EGUs in a state may be subject 

to different multi-state plans. In all cases, the state would 

need to identify in each specific plan which affected EGUs are 

subject to such plan, with each affected EGU subject to only one 

multi-state plan or subject only to the state’s individual plan 

(if relevant). 

 These scenarios may occur where a state chooses to cover 

affected EGUs in different ISOs or RTOs in different multi-state 

plans. This will provide states with flexibility to participate 

in multi-state plans that address the affected EGUs in a 

respective grid region, in the case where state borders cross 

grid regions. 

 These scenarios may also occur where a state is served by 

multiple vertically integrated electric utilities with service 

territories that cross state lines. This will provide states 

with flexibility to participate in multi-state plans that 

address the affected EGUs owned and operated by a utility with a 

multi-state service territory. 

6. Legal bases and considerations for state plan types and 

approaches 

a. Legal basis for emission standards approach. The emission 

standards approach is consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 111(d). If a state simply adopts the CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 912 of 1546

performance rates, then the corresponding rate-based emission 

standards in the state plan establish standards of performance 

for affected EGUs as required under section 111(d)(1)(A). 

Similarly, if a state chooses to achieve the rate-based CO2

emission goal through rate-based emission standards applicable 

only to affected EGUs, or to achieve the mass-based CO2 emission 

goal through mass-based emission standards applicable only to 

affected EGUs (or, alternatively, to achieve the mass CO2 goal 

and a new source CO2 emission complement through federally 

enforceable mass-based emission standards in conjunction with 

state enforceable emission standards on new sources), then the 

set of rate-based emission standards or the set of mass-based 

emission standards in the state plan establishes standards of 

performance for affected EGUs as required under section 

111(d)(1)(A). The EPA has the authority to approve emission 

standards for affected EGUs as part of a state plan under all 

three cases (as long as such emission standards meet the 

requirements of CAA section 111(d) and the final emission 

guidelines), thereby making such emission standards federally 

enforceable upon approval by the EPA. In all three cases, the 

emission standards must be quantifiable, verifiable, 

enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent; this ensures that 

the plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 913 of 1546

standards of performance (i.e. the emission standards) as 

required by section 111(d)(1)(B). Finally, as described in 

section VIII.B.7.b below, standards of performance may include 

emission trading. Thus, the credit and allowance trading that is 

allowed under the emission standards approach is consistent with 

the statutory requirement that the plan establish standards of 

performance. 

 We note that the standard the statute provides for EPA’s 

review of a state plan is whether it is “satisfactory.” We 

interpret a “satisfactory” plan as one that meets all applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act, including applicable 

requirements of these guidelines. Some commenters suggested that 

“satisfactory” should be taken to mean something less (such as 

mostly or substantially meeting requirements) but the structure 

of 111(d) shows otherwise. When a state plan is unsatisfactory, 

section 111(d)(2) gives the EPA the “same” authority to 

promulgate a federal plan as the EPA has under section 110(c). 

Under section 110(c), the EPA has authority to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan if a state implementation plan does 

not comply with all Clean Air Act requirements (see sections 

110(k)(3) and 110(l)). 

 For example, if an emission standards type plan includes an 

emission standard that is unenforceable due to defective rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 914 of 1546

language, then the plan is not satisfactory because it does not 

comply with the guideline requirement that emission standards 

must be enforceable. On the other hand, if a state plan complies 

with all applicable requirements of the Act (including these 

guidelines), then the EPA must approve it as satisfactory. This 

is true even if the emission standards in the state plan are 

more stringent than the minimum requirements of these 

guidelines, or the state plan achieves more emission reductions 

than required by these guidelines. This follows from section 116 

of the Act as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Union 

Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 263-64 (1976). 

b. Legal basis for emissions trading in state plans. There are 

three legal considerations with respect to emissions trading in 

state plans. First, we explain how the definition of “standard 

of performance” in section 111(a)(1) allows section 111(d) plans 

to include standards of performance that authorize emissions 

trading. Second, we explain how the EPA interprets the phrase 

“provides for implementation and enforcement of [the] standards 

of performance” in the context of a rate-based ERC trading 

program. Third, we give a similar explanation of the EPA’s 

interpretation of the same phrase in the context of a mass-based 

allowance trading program. 

(1) In the proposal, the EPA proposed that CAA section 111(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 915 of 1546

plans may include standards of performance that authorize 

emissions averaging and trading. 79 FR 34830, 34927/1 (June 18, 

2014). We are finalizing that states may include the use of 

emission trading in approvable state plans. 

For purposes of this legal discussion, in the case of an 

emission limitation expressed as an emission rate, trading takes 

the form of buying or selling ERCs that an affected EGU may 

generate if its actual emission rate is lower than its allowed 

emission rate or that an eligible resource may generate. In the 

case of an emission limitation expressed as a mass-based limit, 

trading takes the form of buying or selling allowances. 

To reiterate for convenience, the definition of “standard 

of performance” under CAA section 111(a)(1) is: 

The term ‘standard of performance’ means a standard 

for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the 

degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction 

which (taking into account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. 

Both an emission rate that may be met through tradable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 916 of 1546

ERCs, and a mass limit requirement that emissions not exceed the 

number of tradable allowances surrendered by an affected source, 

qualify as a “standard for emissions.” The term “standard” is 

not defined, but its everyday meaning is a rule or 

requirement,772 which, under the only (or at least a permissible) 

reading of the provision, would include an emission rate that 

may be met through tradable ERCs and a requirement to retire 

tradable allowances. 

Treating a tradable emission rate or mass limit requirement 

as a “standard of performance” is consistent with past EPA 

practice. In the Clean Air Mercury Rule, promulgated in 2005, 

the EPA established tradable mass limits as the emission 

guidelines for certain air pollutants from fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs, and explained that a tradable mass limit qualifies as a 

“standard for emissions.”773 In addition, in the 1995 Municipal 

Solid Waste (MSW) Combustor rule the EPA authorized emission 

trading by sources.774

It should be noted that CAA section 302(l) includes another 

definition of “standard of performance,” which is “a requirement 

 

772 E.g., “Something that is set up and established by authority 

as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, value, or 

quality.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2223 

(1993). 

773 70 FR 28606, 28616-17 (May 18, 2005). 774 60 FR 65387, 6540/2 (Dec. 19, 1995).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 917 of 1546

of continuous emission reduction, including any requirement 

relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure 

continuous emission reduction.” As described above, section 

111(d) contains its own, more specific definition of “standard 

of performance,” which a tradable emission rate or mass limit 

satisfies. Whether or not section 302(l) applies in light of 

section 111(d)’s more specific definition, a tradable emission 

rate or mass limit also meets section 302(l)’s requirements. A 

tradable emission rate applies continuously in that the source 

is under a continuous obligation to meet its emission rate, and 

that is so regardless of the averaging time, e.g., a rate that 

must be met on an annual basis. Similarly, a mass limit 

requirement implemented through the use of allowances applies 

continuously in that the source is continuously under an 

obligation to assure that at the appropriate time, its emissions 

will not exceed the allowances it will surrender. In this 

respect, a tradable emission rate or mass limit requirement is 

similar to a non-tradable emission rate that must be met over a 

specified period, such as one year. In all of these cases, a 

source is continuously subject to its requirement although it 

may be able to emit at different levels at different points in 

time. It should also be noted that a tradable emission rate or 

mass limit requirement is appropriate for CO2 emissions, the air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 918 of 1546

pollutant covered by this rule, because the environmental 

effects of CO2 emissions are not dependent on the location of the 

emissions. 

(2) In our final rule, we are prescribing certain specific 

requirements for trading systems for ERCs in a rate-based 

approach. These specific requirements are in addition to the 

generic requirements for any state plan (see section VIII.D.2.d 

below for the legal basis for the generic components for state 

plans) and are intended to ensure the integrity of the ERC 

trading system. The integrity of the trading system is key to 

ensuring that a state plan provides for implementation and 

enforcement of the standards of performance, as required by 

section 111(d)(1)(B). Requirements relating to ERCs must also be 

submitted as federally enforceable components of the state plan, 

as such requirements provide for the implementation and 

enforcement of a rate based emission standard for an affected 

EGU. 

However, as described in section VIII.C.6.d., the EPA has 

legal concerns regarding whether federally enforceable 

requirements under a CAA section 111(d) state plan can be 

imposed on entities other than affected EGUs. It is important to 

note that the use of ERCs and inclusion of state plan 

requirements regarding a rate based trading system does not run 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 919 of 1546

afoul of these legal concerns, as neither the requirements of 

section 111(d) nor of the federally enforceable state plan 

extend to non-EGU generators or third-party verifiers of such 

compliance units. 

(3) In our final rule, we are prescribing certain specific 

requirements for trading systems for allowances in a mass-based 

approach. These specific requirements are in addition to the 

generic requirements for any state plan (see section VIII.D.2.d 

below for the legal basis for the generic requirements for state 

plans) and are intended to ensure the integrity of the allowance 

trading system. The integrity of the trading system is key to 

ensuring that a state plan provides for implementation and 

enforcement of the standards of performance. 

Our interpretation of the phrase “provides for 

implementation and enforcement of [the] standards of 

performance” in the context of the integrity of a trading system 

for allowances under a mass-based approach is further explained 

in the Legal Memorandum. 

c. Legal basis for state measures plan type. The EPA believes 

the state measures plan type is consistent with CAA section 

111(d). Section 111(d)(1) requires a state to submit a plan that 

“(A) establishes standards of performance for any existing 

source for [certain] air pollutant[s] ... and (B) provides for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 920 of 1546

the implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance.” Section 111(d)(2)(A) indicates that the EPA must 

approve the state plan if it is “satisfactory.” 

For states that choose to adopt and submit a state measures 

plan, such state must submit a state plan that includes 

standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in 

the form of a federally enforceable backstop in order to meet 

the requirements of section 111(d). Section 111(d) unambiguously 

requires a state to submit a plan that establishes standards of 

performance for certain sources, but does not mandate when such 

standards of performance must be in effect or implemented in 

order to meet applicable compliance deadlines. Instead, Congress 

has delegated to the EPA the determination of the appropriate 

effective date of standards of performance submitted under state 

plans to meet the requirements of section 111(d). In other 

words, where the statute is silent, the EPA has authority to 

provide a reasonable interpretation. The EPA’s interpretation 

is that for states that submit state plans establishing 

standards of performance under section 111(d), the effective 

date of such standards of performance may be later in time, 

perhaps indefinitely, for a number of reasons and under certain 

conditions. A key condition is that the state plan provides for 

the achievement of the required reduction by means other than 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 921 of 1546

the standards of performance on the timetable required by the 

BSER, with provision for federally enforceable standards of 

performance to be implemented if those other means fall short. 

The EPA believes it is reasonable to defer the effective date 

for standards of performance for affected EGUs as long as 

affected EGU CO2 emissions are projected to achieve, and do 

achieve, the requisite state goal or performance rates. 

Additionally, under the state measures plan type, if a 

state chooses to impose emission standards for the affected EGUs 

in conjunction with state measures that apply to other entities 

for any period prior to the triggering of the backstop, this 

final rule requires such emission standards to be submitted as 

federally enforceable measures included in the state plan. The 

EPA believes this is appropriate to help ensure the performance 

of a state measures plan will meet the requirements of this 

final rule. Section 111(d) clearly authorizes states to impose, 

and the EPA to approve, federally enforceable emission standards 

for affected EGUs. Though federally enforceable emission 

standards for affected EGUs in a state measures plan themselves 

would not necessarily achieve the requisite performance rates or 

state goals, the EPA is authorized to approve state plans when 

they satisfactorily meet applicable requirements. The EPA can 

evaluate whether a state measures plan is satisfactory by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 922 of 1546

determining whether any federally enforceable emission standards 

for affected EGUs in conjunction with state measures on other 

entities will result in the achievement of the requisite 

emissions performance level. As previously explained in this 

final rule, the performance rates and the state goals are the 

arithmetic expression of BSER as applied across affected EGUs in 

a state as a source category. In a state measures plan, the 

evaluation of whether a state measures plan is satisfactory goes 

to evaluating both the state measures and any federally 

enforceable emission standards on the affected EGUs to determine 

whether the plan as a whole will result in the affected EGUs 

achieving the applicable performance rates or goals that reflect 

BSER. 

Section 111(d)(1)(B) also requires a state to submit a 

program that provides for the implementation and enforcement of 

the applicable standards of performance. Under the state 

measures approach, this requirement regarding implementation is 

satisfied in part by the submission of an approvable trigger 

mechanism for the backstop and appropriate monitoring, reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. The trigger mechanism provides 

for the “implementation” of the backstop, i.e. the standards of 

performance, by putting the backstop into effect once the 

associated trigger is deployed. In other words, when the CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 923 of 1546

performance level under a state plan exceeds the trigger as 

described in section VIII.C.4.b, the emission standards that 

were submitted as the federally enforceable backstop and any 

attendant requirements must be implemented and in effect. The 

statutory requirement under CAA section 111(d)(2) regarding 

enforcement is also satisfied under the state measures plan type 

by the state submitting standards of performance sufficient to 

meet the requisite emission performance rates or state goal, in 

the form of the backstop, for inclusion as part of the federally 

enforceable state plan. 

Additionally, by requiring states that choose to impose 

emission standards on affected EGUs under the state measures 

approach to submit such emission standards for inclusion in the 

federally enforceable plan, this requirement further provides 

for implementation and enforcement as required by the statute. 

Regulating the affected EGUs through federally enforceable 

emission standards themselves in conjunction with any state 

measures the sources chooses to rely upon further assures the 

likelihood of the affected EGUs achieving the requisite 

performance rates or state goals as required under this rule and 

section 111(d). 

The state measures plan is a variation of the proposed 

portfolio approach in that both plan types allow the state to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 924 of 1546

rely upon measures that impose requirements on sources other 

than affected EGUs in meeting the CO2 emission performance rates 

or requisite state CO2 emission performance goal. The state 

measures plan type is also a variation of the proposed state 

commitment approach in that the measures involving entities 

other than affected EGUs are not included as part of the 

federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, but the state may rely 

upon such measures that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions 

from affected EGUs as a matter of state law. The EPA took 

comment on the proposed portfolio approach and state commitment 

approach, and on the utilization of measures on entities other 

than affected EGUs in meeting the requirements of the emission 

guidelines and CAA section 111(d). With respect to the proposed 

state commitment approach, the EPA received comments 

recommending that the EPA require a federally enforceable 

backstop with emission standards sufficient to achieve the 

requisite CO2 emission performance. The backstop component the 

EPA is finalizing as part of the state measures plan type is 

consistent with the EPA’s statements in the proposal regarding 

states’ obligations under section 111(d) to establish emission 

standards for affected EGUs, as the backstop contains federally 

enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs that will 

achieve the requisite CO2 emission performance, and is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 925 of 1546

consistent with comments received regarding the proposed state 

commitment approach. 

The state measures plan type the EPA is finalizing is also 

a logical outgrowth of the comments received on the proposed 

portfolio approach. As further explained below, legal questions 

remain as to whether state plans under section 111(d) can 

include federally enforceable measures that impose requirements 

on sources other than affected EGUs. However, a number of 

commenters and stakeholders expressed robust support for the 

ability to rely on measures and programs that do not impose 

requirements on affected EGUs themselves through plan types such 

as the proposed portfolio and state commitment approaches. The 

EPA is reasonably interpreting 111(d) as authorizing the state 

measures plan type, and believes this plan type is also 

responsive to, and accommodating of, states and stakeholders who 

have expressed the importance of being able to rely upon various 

measures that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs. The EPA is finalizing the state measures plan 

type upon careful consideration of statutory requirements and 

comments received based on the proposed portfolio approach and 

state commitment approach. 

The EPA additionally notes that the state measures plan 

type is not precluded by the recent Ninth Circuit Court of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 926 of 1546

Appeals’ decision in Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. US 

EPA et al., Nos. 11-73924 and 12-71332 (May 20, 2015). The 

court held that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by approving 

a California state implementation plan (SIP) which relied on 

emission reductions from state-only mobile source standards 

(“waiver measures”) without including those standards in the 

SIP. The court first looked at the plain language of section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which states that SIPs “shall include” 

the emission limitations and other control measures on which a 

state relies to comply with the Act. The court then stated that 

the EPA’s action was also inconsistent with the structure of the 

Act. The EPA has the primary responsibility to protect the 

nation’s air quality, but in the court’s view, the EPA itself 

would be unable to enforce the state-only standards. In 

addition, the court stated that the EPA’s action was 

inconsistent with citizens’ right to enforce SIP provisions 

under section 304. 

There are a number of reasons why this decision does not 

preclude the state measures plan type. The Ninth Circuit’s 

textual analysis does not apply here, as the language of section 

110(a)(2)(A) does not control for 111(d) state plans. Section 

111(d)(1) requires state plans to “establish standards of 

performance” and to “provide for implementation and enforcement” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 927 of 1546

of the standards of performance, but, unlike section 

110(a)(2)(A), section 111(d) does not specifically say that 

every emission reduction measure must be “included” in the state 

plan and be made federally enforceable. Even if section 111(d) 

did impose such requirements, the state measures approach 

satisfies them because the trigger is included in the plan as a 

federally enforceable implementation measure, and the backstop 

included in the plan also contains standards of performance that 

reflect the BSER and are federally enforceable once they are 

triggered. 

The Ninth Circuit’s structural analysis also does not 

apply. The availability of the trigger and backstop gives the 

EPA and citizens a federally enforceable route to ensure that 

all necessary emission reductions take place in order to achieve 

the standards of performance. This is markedly different than 

the state-only standards, where according to the Ninth Circuit, 

the EPA and citizens had no route to ensure that all necessary 

emission reductions took place in order to attain the NAAQS. In 

addition, case law suggests that federal enforceability for 

every requirement may not be necessary when there are sufficient 

federally enforceable requirements to satisfy the statute, see 

National Mining Ass'n v. United States EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. 

Cir. 1995); in this case federal enforceability for the state-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 928 of 1546

only measures is not necessary to meet the statutory 

requirements of section 111(d)(1) as the federally enforceable 

trigger and backstop are sufficient. 

d. Legal considerations with proposed portfolio approach. The 

EPA is not finalizing the portfolio approach that was included 

in the proposed rulemaking, 79 FR 34830, 34902 (June 18, 2014). 

In the proposal, the EPA noted that the portfolio approach 

raised legal questions. 79 FR 34830, 34902-03. After reviewing 

comments, the EPA agrees with commenters that legal questions 

remain as to whether measures that are mandatory for entities 

other than affected EGUs either constitute “standards of 

performance” or “provide[] for the implementation and 

enforcement of . . . standards of performance” under CAA section 

111(d)(1). In addition, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. 

EPA,775 the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned that there are limits to 

the extension of CAA jurisdiction, which raises additional 

questions as to whether the EPA may make federally enforceable 

in a section 111(d) plan state measures that are mandates on 

entities other than affected EGUs . Commenters stated that these 

provisions by their terms limit federally enforceable state 

plans to standards of performance for affected sources, along 

with implementation and enforcement measures for those standards 

 

775 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (“UARG v. EPA”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 929 of 1546

of performance, and preclude state plans from including 

obligations on entities other than affected EGUs. Although in 

the proposal we identified possible interpretations of section 

111(d)(1) that could justify the portfolio approach, after 

reviewing the comments we agree that section 111(d)(1) is clear 

by its terms that the EPA may not approve state plans that

potentially impose federally enforceable obligations upon a 

broad array of entities that have not been involved in the 

design or operation of the facility. We note that this 

interpretation does not imply that the BSER includes the same 

types of limits. As discussed in section V, the BSER may be 

based on the ability of owners/operators of affected sources to 

engage in commercial relationships with a wide range of other 

entities, from the vendors, installers, and operators of air 

pollution control equipment to, in this rulemaking, 

owners/operators of renewable energy. But for the reasons noted 

above, the federally enforceable state plan may not impose 

obligations on those non-affected source entities. Finally, the 

EPA notes that in the event that states did submit such measures 

to the EPA for inclusion in the state plan, the EPA would not 

take action to approve them into the state plan and would not 

thereby make them federally enforceable. 

 The EPA notes it is also not finalizing the proposed state 

Deleted: that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 930 of 1546

commitment approach or state crediting approach. The EPA 

believes the finalized state measures plan type provides states 

with the same flexibilities as would have been allowed under 

these two proposed approaches, and does so in a way that is 

legally supportable by the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the EPA 

does not believe it necessary to finalize the state commitment 

approach or state crediting approach. 

e. Legal basis for multi-state plans. While nothing in section 

111(d)(1) explicitly authorizes either states to adopt and 

submit multi-state plans, or the EPA to approve them as 

satisfactory, nothing in section 111(d)(1) explicitly prohibits 

it, either. In addition, nothing in section 111(d)(2)(A)’s 

standard of “satisfactory” prohibits the EPA from considering 

multi-state plans as satisfactory. There is thus a gap that the 

EPA may reasonably fill. 

In light of the purpose of these emission guidelines, to 

reduce emissions of a pollutant that globally mixes in the 

stratosphere, and the mechanisms to reduce those emissions, 

which may have beneficial effects across state lines, it is 

reasonable to allow for multi-state plans. Thus, our gap-filling 

interpretation of section 111(d) in this context is reasonable. 

D. State Plan Components and Approvability Criteria 

1. Approvability Criteria 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 931 of 1546

In the “Criteria for Approving State Plans” section of the 

preamble to the June 2014 proposal (section VIII.C), the EPA 

proposed the following as necessary components of an approvable 

state plan: 

1. The plan must contain enforceable measures that reduce 

EGU CO2 emissions; 

2. The enforceable measures must be projected to achieve 

emission performance equivalent to or better than the applicable 

CO2 emission performance rates or state-specific CO2 goal on a 

timeline equivalent to that in the emissions guidelines; 

3. The EGU CO2 emission performance must be quantifiable and 

verifiable; 

4. The plan must include a process for state reporting of 

plan implementation, CO2 emission performance outcomes, and 

implementation of corrective measures, if necessary. 

After reviewing the comments we received concerning the 

approvability criteria, the EPA has decided against maintaining 

the four proposed approvability criteria separately from the 

list of components required for an approvable plan, which may be 

confusing and potentially redundant. The EPA has determined that 

a satisfactory state plan that meets the required plan 

components discussed below will inevitably meet the proposed 

approvability criteria. The EPA, therefore, has incorporated the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 932 of 1546

proposed approvability criteria into the section titled 

“Components of a state plan submittal” (section VIII.D.2 below). 

There is no functional change in the approvability criteria or 

the components of a state plan addressed in the proposal, they 

are simply combined and this change does not have a substantive 

effect on state plan development or approval. 

Under the proposed “Enforceable Measures” criterion 

(section VIII.C.1 of the proposal preamble), the EPA 

specifically requested comment on the appropriateness of 

applying existing EPA guidance on enforceability to state plans 

under CAA section 111(d), considering the types of entities that 

might be included in a state plan.776 

The EPA also requested comment on whether the agency should 

provide guidance on enforceability considerations related to 

requirements in a state plan for entities other than affected 

EGUs, and if so, what types of entities. Comments received 

strongly suggested that the EPA provide guidance on 

enforceability considerations for non-EGU affected entities, 

 

776 The existing guidance documents referenced were: (1) September 

23, 1987 memorandum and accompanying implementing guidance, 

“Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for 

Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency;” (2) August 5, 2004 

“Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from ElectricSector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures;” and (3) 

July 2012 “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable 

Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal 

Implementation Plans, Appendix F.”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 933 of 1546

particularly for RE and EE. Comments also requested additional 

guidance specific to this rulemaking, including examples of 

enforceable measures for specific activities, such as solar 

thermal programs, waste heat recovery, net-metering energy 

savings and state RPSs. 

These enforcement considerations arose primarily under the 

proposed portfolio approach for state plans, which would have 

allowed state plan submittals to include federally enforceable 

measures that apply to entities that are not affected EGUs. In 

this action, the EPA is finalizing the state measures approach 

instead of the portfolio approach, under which a state can rely 

upon measures that are not federally enforceable as long as the 

plan also includes a federally enforceable backstop. As 

explained in depth in section VIII.C, if the state is adopting 

the state measures approach, the state plan submittal will need 

to specify, in the supporting materials, the state enforceable 

measures that the state is relying upon in conjunction with any 

federally enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs to 

meet the emission guidelines. As part of the state measures 

approach, the EPA is finalizing a requirement for a federally 

enforceable backstop, which requires the affected EGUs to meet 

emission standards that fully achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or the state’s CO2 emission goal if the state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 934 of 1546

measures do not meet the intended emission performance levels. 

Because the EPA is not finalizing the portfolio approach, which 

would have allowed states to include enforceable measures in a 

state plan that apply to entities that are not affected EGUs, 

the agency is not providing additional guidance on federal 

enforceability of measures that might apply to such entities. As 

proposed, we are requiring that state plans include a 

demonstration that plan measures are enforceable, which for 

emission standard plans is discussed in section VIII.D.2.b.4 

below and for state measures plans is discussed in section 

VIII.D.2.c.6 below. 

Commenters also requested that the EPA allow states to rely 

on provisions with flexible compliance mechanisms in state plans 

and clarify how to address flexible compliance mechanisms when 

demonstrating achievement of the state CO2 emission goal. 

Additionally, a commenter requested that the enforceability 

mechanisms that the EPA requires in state plans should support 

existing programs, as well as new programs in other states, by 

minimizing program changes required purely to conform with 

federal requirements, while still providing enough additional 

program review and accounting to ensure that CO2 emission 

reductions are achieved. These and related comments contributed 

to the EPA’s decision to finalize the option for states to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 935 of 1546

submit a state measures plan, which would be comprised, at least 

in part, of measures implemented by the state that are not 

included as federally enforceable components of the plan, with a 

backstop of federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs that fully meet the emission guidelines and that 

would be triggered if the plan failed to achieve the CO2 emission 

performance levels specified in the plan on schedule. For more 

information on the state measures plan approach, see section 

VIII.C.4 of this preamble above. 

2. Components of a state plan submittal 

In this action, the EPA is finalizing that a state plan 

submittal must include the components described below. As a 

result of constructive comments received from many commenters 

and additional considerations, the EPA is finalizing state plan 

components that are responsive to that input and are appropriate 

for the types of state plans allowed in the final guidelines. 

The state plan submittal must also be consistent with additional 

specific requirements elsewhere in this final rule and with the 

EPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.23-60.29, except as 

otherwise specified by this final rule. These requirements apply 

to both individual state plan submittals and multi-state plan 

submittals. When a state plan submittal is approved by the EPA, 

the EPA will codify the approved CAA section 111(d) state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 936 of 1546

in 40 CFR part 62. Section VIII.D.3 discusses the components of 

the state plan submittal that would be codified as the state CAA 

section 111(d) plan when the state plan submittal is approved by 

the EPA. 

The EPA is finalizing that states can choose to meet the 

emission guidelines through one of two types of state plans: an 

emission standards plan type or a state measures plan type. A 

state pursuing the emission standards plan type may also opt to 

submit a plan that meets the CO2 emission performance rates for 

affected EGUs or meets the state rate-based or mass-based CO2

emission goal. A state implementing a state measures approach 

plan type must submit a plan that meets the state mass-based CO2

goal. The content of the state plan submittal will vary 

depending on which approach the state decides to adopt. States 

that choose to participate in multi-state plans must adequately 

address plan components that apply to all participating states 

in the multi-state plan. 

The rest of this section covers components that are 

required for all types of plans, as well as components specific 

to specific types of plans. Section VIII.D.2.a addresses the 

components required for all plan submittals. Section VIII.D.2.b 

addresses the additional components required for submittals 

under the emission standards plan type. Section VIII.D.2.c 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 937 of 1546

addresses additional components required for submittals under 

the state measures plan type. 

a. Components required for all state plan submittals. The EPA is 

finalizing requirements that a final plan submittal must contain 

the following components, in addition to those in either section 

VIII.D.2.b (for the emission standards plan approach) or 

VIII.D.2.c (for the state measures plan approach) of this 

section. 

(1) Description of the plan approach and geographic scope. The 

description of the plan approach must indicate whether the state 

will meet the emission guidelines on an individual state basis 

or jointly through a multi-state approach, and whether the state 

is adopting an emission standards approach plan or a state 

measures approach plan. For multi-state plans this component 

must identify all participating states and geographic boundaries 

applicable to each component in the plan submittal. 

(2) Applicability of state plans to affected EGUs. The state 

plan submittal must list the individual affected EGUs that meet 

the applicability criteria of § 60.5805 and provide an inventory 

of CO2 emissions from those affected EGUs for the most recent 

calendar year prior to plan submission for which data are 

available. 

(3) Demonstration that a state plan will achieve the CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 938 of 1546

performance rates or state CO2 emission goal. A state plan 

submittal must demonstrate that the federally enforceable 

emission standards on affected EGUs and/or state measures are 

sufficient to meet either the CO2 emission performance rates or 

the state’s CO2 emission goal in the emission guidelines for the 

interim and final plan performance periods. This includes during 

the interim period of 2022-2029, including the interim step 1 

period (2022-2024); interim step 2 period (2025-2027); and 

interim step 3 period (2028-2029) period, as well as during the 

final period of 2030-2031 and subsequent 2-year periods.777 CO2

emission performance projections are required through 2031. For 

the post-2031 period, the demonstration requirement may be 

satisfied by showing that emissions standards or state measures 

on which the projection is based are permanent and will remain 

in place. As discussed in more detail in section VIII.J, states 

adopting a plan based upon a mass-based statewide CO2 emission 

goal must demonstrate that they have addressed the risk of 

 

777 State plans may meet the CO2 emission performance rates in the 

emission guidelines during the interim plan performance step 

periods, or assign different interim step CO2 emission 

performance rates, provided the CO2 emission performance rates in 

the emission guidelines are achieved during the full interim 

period. Likewise, a state plan may meet the interim step state 

CO2 emission goals in the emission guidelines or establish 

different interim step CO2 emission levels, provided the state 

interim CO2 goal is achieved during the full interim period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 939 of 1546

leakage in their mass-based state plan. 

The type of demonstration and documentation required for a 

state plan will vary depending on how the CO2 emission standards 

for affected EGUs and/or state measures in a state plan are 

applied across the fleet of affected EGUs in a state, as 

discussed below.778 

(a) State plan type designs that require a projection. Whether a 

projection of affected EGU CO2 emission performance must be 

included in a state plan submittal depends on the design of the 

state plan. The following plan designs do not require a 

projection of CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs under the 

state plan because they ensure that the CO2 emission performance 

rates or a state rate-based or mass-based CO2 goal is achieved 

when affected EGUs comply with the emission standards. 

 State plan establishes separate rate-based CO2 emission 

standards for affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility 

steam generating units and stationary combustion turbines 

 

778 For simplicity purposes, the EPA refers here to state 

measures under a state measures plan as being included “in the 

state plan” although such state-enforceable measures are not 

codified as part of the federally enforceable approved state 

plan. However, the approval of a state measures plan is 

dependent on a demonstration in the state plan submittal that 

those state-enforceable measures meet the requirements in the 

emission guidelines and that those state measures, alone or in 

combination with federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs, will meet the mass-based CO2 goal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 940 of 1546

(in lb CO2/MWh) that are equal to or lower than the CO2

emission performance rates in the emission guidelines 

during the interim and final plan performance periods. 

 State plan establishes a single rate-based CO2 emission 

standard for all affected EGUs that is equal to or lower 

than the state’s rate-based CO2 goal in the emission 

guidelines during the interim and final plan perform. 

 State plan establishes mass-based emission standards for 

affected EGUs that cumulatively do not exceed a state’s 

mass-based state CO2 goal in the emission guidelines 

during the interim and final plan performance periods. 

 State plan establishes mass-based emission standards for 

affected EGUs that, together with state enforceable 

limits on mass emissions from new EGUs, cumulatively do 

not exceed the state’s presumptively approvable power 

sector mass budgets in the emission guidelines during the 

interim and final plan performance periods. 

All other state plan designs must include a projection of 

CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs under the state plan. 

For example, if a state chooses to apply rate-based CO2 emission 

standards to individual affected EGUs, or to sub-categories of 

affected EGUs (such as fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam 

generating units and stationary combustion turbines), at a lb 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 941 of 1546

CO2/MWh rate that is higher than the CO2 emission performance 

rates or the state’s rate-based CO2 goal in the emission 

guidelines, then a projection is required. Also, if a state 

chooses to implement a mass-based program including both 

affected EGUs and new EGUs, but with total allowable emissions 

in excess of the presumptively approvable power sector mass 

budget for that state, the state must provide a projection of CO2

emission performance. Likewise, if a state chooses a state 

measures state plan approach, a projection of CO2 emission 

performance is required. 

(b) Methods and tools. A satisfactory demonstration of the 

future CO2 performance of affected EGUs must use technically 

sound methods that are reliable and replicable. A state plan 

submittal must explain how the projection method and/or tool 

works and why the method and/or tool chosen is appropriate 

considering the type of emission standards and/or state measures 

included (or relied upon, in the case of state measures) in a 

state plan. The results in the demonstration must be 

reproducible using the documented assumptions described in the 

state plan submittal. The method and projection of EGU 

generation and CO2 emissions can differ from the EPA’s forecast 

in the RIA.The EPA received comments on whether it would require 

specific modeling tools and input assumptions. Commenters raised 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 942 of 1546

concerns that the EPA may require states to use proprietary 

models, and that states do not have the financial resources to 

use such models. The EPA is not requiring a specific type of 

method or model, as long as the one chosen uses technically 

sound methods and tools that establish a clear relationship 

between electricity grid interactions and the range of factors 

that impact future EGU economic behavior, generation, and CO2

emissions. The EPA will assess whether a method or tool is 

technically sound based on its capability to represent changes 

in the electric system commensurate to the set of emission 

standards and state measures in a state plan while accounting 

for the key parameters specified in section VIII.D.2.a.(3)(c) 

below. Including a base case emissions projection in the state 

plan submittal, one that does not include any state plan 

emission standards or measures, will help facilitate EPA’s 

assessment of the CO2 performance projection. Methods and tools 

could range from applying future growth rates to historical 

generation and emissions data, or using statistical analysis, to 

electric sector energy modeling. (c) Required documentation of 

projections. When required to provide a CO2 emission performance 

projection, the state must also provide comprehensive 

documentation of analytic parameters for the EPA to assess the 

reasonableness of the projection. The analytic parameters, when 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 943 of 1546

considered as a whole, should reflect a logically consistent 

future outlook of the electric system. Refer to Projecting the 

Impact of RE and Demand Side EE Measures TSD of the final rule 

for further details on quantifying impacts of eligible RE and 

demand-side EE measures. 

CO2 Performance Projection documentation must include: 

 Geographic representation appropriate for capturing 

impacts and/or changes in electric system 

 Time period of analysis, which must extend through 2031 

 Electricity demand forecast (MWh load and MW peak demand) 

at the state and regional level. If the demand forecast 

is not from NERC, an ISO or RTO, EIA, or other publicly 

available source, then the projection must include 

justification and documentation of underlying assumptions 

that inform the development of the demand forecast such 

as annual economic and demand growth rate, population 

growth rate. 

 Planning reserve margins 

 Planned new capacity 

 Analytic treatment of the potential for building 

unplanned new capacity 

 Wholesale electricity prices 

 Fuel prices, when applicable; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 944 of 1546

 Fuel CO2 content 

 Unit-level fixed operations and maintenance costs, when 

applicable; 

 Unit-level variable operations and maintenance costs, 

when applicable; 

 Unit-level capacity 

 Unit-level heat rate 

 EGU-specific actions in the state plan designed to meet 

the required emission performance, including their 

timeline for implementation 

 State-enforceable measures with electricity savings and 

renewable electricity generation (MWhs) expected for 

individual and collective measures, as applicable. 

Quantification of MWhs expected from energy efficiency 

and renewable energy measures will involve assumptions 

that states must document, as described in the Projecting 

the Impacts of RE and Demand-Side Energy Efficiency 

Measures TSD. 

 Annual electricity generation (MWhs) by fuel type and CO2 

emission levels, for each affected EGU 

 Emission rate credit (ERC) or emission allowance prices, 

when applicable 

The state must also provide a clear demonstration that the state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 945 of 1546

measures and/or emission standards informing the projected 

achievement of the emission performance requirements will be 

permanent and remain in place. 

The EPA encourages participation in regional modeling 

efforts which are designed to allow sharing of data and help 

promote consistent approaches across state boundaries. A state 

that submits a single-state plan must consider interstate 

transfer of electricity across state boundaries, taking into 

account other states’ plan types reflecting the best available 

information at the time of the CO2 performance projection. Multistate plans or multi-state coordination among states retaining 

individual state goals must either use a single (regional) 

electricity demand forecast or must document its use of 

electricity demand forecasts from different information sources 

and demonstrate how any inconsistencies between the individual 

electricity demand forecasts have been reconciled. 

(d) Additional projection requirements under a rate based 

emissions standards plan. For an emission standards plan that 

applies rate-based CO2 emission standards to individual affected 

EGUs, or to sub-categories of affected EGUs, at a lb CO2/MWh rate 

that differs from (e.g., higher than) the CO2 emission 

performance rates or the state’s rate-based CO2 goal in the 

emission guidelines, a projection of affected EGU CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 946 of 1546

performance is required. The state must demonstrate that the 

weighted average CO2 emission rate of affected EGUs, when 

weighted by generation (in MWh) from affected EGUs subject to 

the different rate-based emission standards, will be equal to or 

less than the CO2 emission performance rates or the state's ratebased CO2 emission goal during the interim and final periods. 

The projection will involve an analysis of the change in 

generation of affected EGUs given the compliance costs and 

incentives under the application of different emission rate 

standards across affected EGUs in a state. It must accurately 

represent the emission standards in the plan and the use of ERCs 

for compliance, including market-based aspects of the emission 

standards, if relevant. 

In addition to the elements described in the previous 

section (c), the projection under this plan design must include: 

• The assignment of federally enforceable emissions 

standards for each affected EGU; 

• A projection showing how generation is expected to shift 

between and across affected EGUs over time; 

• Underlying assumptions regarding the availability and 

anticipated use of the MWh of electricity generated or 

electricity savings from eligible measures (or ERCs) 

• The specific calculation of how eligible MWh of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 947 of 1546

electricity generation or savings (or ERCs) are being 

used in the projection to adjust the CO2 emission rate of 

affected EGUs, consistent with the accounting methods for 

adjusting the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU 

specified in section VIII.K.1of the emission guidelines, 

if applicable; 

• ERC prices, if applicable; 

• If certain resources that will provide MWh generation (or 

ERCs) to adjust the reported CO2 emission rates of 

affected EGUs are or will be located in a state with a 

mass-based plan, demonstration that the resources are or 

will be eligible, based on Power Purchase Agreements 

(PPAs), Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) or related 

documentation, consistent with the requirements at 

Section VII.K.2. and section VIII.L of the final 

preamble. 

• Any other applicable assumptions used in the projection. 

 

(e) Additional projections requirements for a state measures 

plan. For a state measures plan, a projection of affected EGU CO2

emission performance must demonstrate that the state measures, 

whether alone or in conjunction with any federally enforceable 

CO2 emission standards, will achieve the mass-based CO2 goals in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 948 of 1546

the emission guidelines for the interim and final periods. The 

projection must accurately represent individual stateenforceable measures (or bundled measures) and timing for 

implementation of these state measures.

 (A state must demonstrate that its state-enforceable 

measures, along with any federally enforceable CO2 emission 

standards for affected EGUs included in a state plan, will 

achieve the state mass-based CO2 goal. In addition to the 

elements described in section VIII.D.2.a.(3)(c), the state must 

clearly document, at a minimum: 

• the assignment of federally enforceable emissions 

standards for each affected EGUs, if applicable; 

• the individual state measures, including their 

projected impacts over time. 

 Because different types of state measures could have 

varying degrees of impact on reducing or avoiding CO2 emissions 

from affected EGUs, and different state measures may interact 

with one another in terms of CO2 emission reduction impacts, the 

method and tools a state uses to project CO2 emissions impacts 

must have the capability to project how the combined set of 

state-enforceable measures are likely to impact CO2 emissions at 

affected EGUs. If a state chooses to use an emission budget 

trading program as a mass-based state measure, for example, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 949 of 1546

state must choose an analytic method or tool that can account 

for and properly represent any program flexibilities. For 

example, a mass-based state measures plan that incorporates an 

emissions budget trading program that includes a broader set of 

emission sources, such as programs implemented by California and 

the RGGI participating states, would fall under the state 

measures state plan approach. The state would show that the 

state enforceable emissions budget trading program and state 

measures ensure that the sum of emissions at all affected EGUs 

will be lower than or equal to the state’s CO2 emission goal in 

the time periods specified in these guidelines. All 

flexibilities must be clearly documented in the demonstration. 

(4) Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 

affected EGUs. The state plan submittal must specify how each 

emission standard is quantifiable and verifiable by describing 

the CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for affected EGUs. The applicable monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected EGUs with 

are outlined in section VIII.F. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that states 

must include in their state plans a record retention requirement 

for affected EGUs to maintain records for at least 10 years 

following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 950 of 1546

corrective action, report or record. Commenters requested 

clarification of the record retention requirements for states 

vs. for affected EGUs and also requested that the EPA clarify 

onsite vs. offsite record maintenance requirements for affected 

EGUs. The EPA is finalizing that states must include in their 

plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs of not 

less than 5 years following the date of each compliance period, 

compliance true-up period, occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, whichever is latest, that 

affected EGUs must maintain each record onsite for at least 2 

years after the date of the occurrence of each record and may 

maintain records offsite and electronically for the remaining 

years. Each record must be in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review. The EPA finds that these final 

recordkeeping requirements are appropriate and consistent with 

the requirements for other CAA section 111(d) emission 

guidelines. 

(5) State reporting and recordkeeping requirements. A state plan 

submittal must contain the process, content and schedule for 

state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress 

toward meeting the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2

emission goal. 

The EPA requested comments on the whether full reports 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 951 of 1546

containing all of the report elements should only be required 

every 2 years and on the appropriate frequency of reporting of 

the different proposed elements, considering both the goals of 

minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring program 

transparency and effectiveness. Commenters recognized that 

different reporting frequencies may be appropriate for different 

type of state plans. The EPA agrees with the commenters and is 

finalizing state reporting requirements based on the type of 

plan approach the state chooses to adopt and implement. These 

state reporting requirements and reporting periods are discussed 

in section VIII.D.2.b (for emission standards approach) and 

VIII.D.2.c (for state measures approach). The EPA finalizes that 

each state report is due to the EPA no later than the July 1 

following the end of each reporting period. The EPA recognizes 

the multiple comments received recommending extending the state 

report due date from July 1 to a later date or to allow the 

states the flexibility to propose an alternative report 

submittal date. The EPA is not pursuing these recommendations 

due to the implications of the state reports’ due date and the 

trigger and schedule for implementation of corrective measures 

(for the emission standards approach) or the backstop (for the 

state measures approach). The EPA believes the July 1 deadline 

for states to submit reports to the EPA on plan implementation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 952 of 1546

is doable given that the information required to be included in 

the reports will be available per the EGU reporting requirements 

in state plans. 

In addition to the state reporting requirements discussed 

in section VIII.D.2.b (for emission standards approach) and 

VIII.D.2.c (for state measures approach) and as discussed below, 

states must include in the supporting material of a final state 

plan submittal a timeline with all the programmatic milestone 

steps the state will take between the time of the state plan 

submittal and 2022 to ensure the plan is effective as of 2022. 

The EPA is also finalizing a requirement that states must submit 

a report to the EPA in 2021 that demonstrates that the state has 

met the programmatic milestone steps that the state indicated it 

would take from the submittal of the final plan through the end 

of 2020, and that the state is on track to implement the 

approved state plan as of January 1, 2022. A final state plan 

submission must include a requirement for the state to submit 

this report to the EPA no later than July 1, 2021. This report 

will help the EPA further assist and facilitate with states as 

part of an ongoing joint effort to ensure the necessary 

reductions are achieved. 

The EPA is finalizing the requirement that submissions 

related to this program be submitted electronically. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 953 of 1546

Specifically, that includes negative declarations, state plan 

submittals (including any supporting materials that are part of 

a state plan submittal), any plan revisions, and all reports 

required by the state plan. The EPA is developing an electronic 

system to support this requirement that can be accessed at the 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx/). See 

section VIII.E.8 for additional information on electronic 

submittal requirements. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that states 

must keep records at minimum for 20 years of all plan 

components, plan requirements, plan supporting documentation and 

status of meeting the plan requirements, including records of 

all data submitted by each affected EGU used to determine 

compliance with its emission standards. The EPA received 

multiple comments recommending that the EPA reduce recordkeeping 

requirements due to the burden in expenditure of resources and 

manpower to maintain records for at least 20 years. Commenters 

recommended that recordkeeping requirements be reduced to 5 

years consistent with emission guidelines for other existing 

sources. 

After considering the comments received, this final rule 

requires that a state must keep records of all plan components, 

plan requirements, supporting documentation, and the status of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 954 of 1546

meeting the plan requirements defined in the plan for the 

interim steps 1, 2 and 3 and the interim plan period from 2022-

2029. After 2029, states must keep records of all information 

relied upon in support of any continued demonstration that the 

final CO2 emissions performance rates or goals are being 

achieved. The EPA agrees with comments that a 20-year record 

retention requirement could be unduly burdensome, and has 

reduced the length of the record retention requirement for the 

final rule. During the interim period, states must keep records 

for 10 years from the date the record is used to determine 

compliance with an emissions standard, plan requirement, CO2

emission performance rate or CO2 emission goal. During the final 

period, states must keep records for 5 years from the date the 

date the record is used to determine compliance with an 

emissions standard, plan requirement, CO2 emission performance 

rate or CO2 emissions goal. All records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for expeditious review. States 

must also keep records of all data submitted by each affected 

EGU that was used to determine compliance with each affected 

EGU’s emission standard, and such data must meet the 

requirements of the emission guidelines, except for any 

information that is submitted to the EPA electronically pursuant 

to requirements in 40 CFR part 75. If the state is adopting and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 955 of 1546

implementing the state measures approach, the state must also 

maintain records of all data regarding implementation of each 

state measure and all data used to demonstrate achievement of CO2

emission performance rates or CO2 emission goal and such data 

must meet the requirements of the emission guidelines. The EPA 

finds that these final recordkeeping requirements balance the 

need to maintain records while reducing the strain on state 

resources. 

(6) Public participation and certification of hearing on state 

plan. A robust and meaningful public participation process 

during state plan development is critical. For the final plan 

submittal, states must meaningfully engage with members of the 

public, including communities,that may be particularly affected, 

during the plan development process. This section describes how 

the EPA will evaluate a state plan for compliance with the 

minimum required elements for public participation provided in 

the existing implementation regulations as well as 

recommendations for other steps the state can take to assure a 

robust and inclusive public participation. 

The existing implementing regulations regarding public 

participation requirements are in 40 CFR 60.23(c)-(f). Per the 

implementing regulations, states must conduct a public hearing 

on a final state plan before such plan is adopted and submitted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 956 of 1546

State plan development can be enhanced by tapping the expertise 

and program experience of several state government agencies, and 

state environmental agencies may find it useful to consult with

utility regulators (e.g. the public utility commissions) and 

state energy offices during the development of the state plan. 

The EPA also encourages states to conduct outreach meetings 

(that could include public hearings or meetings) with 

overburdened communities on its initial plan before the plan is 

submitted. In its plan submittal, a state must provide 

certification that the state made the plan submittal available 

to the public and gave reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public comment on the state plan submittal. The state must 

demonstrate that the public hearing on the state plan was held 

only after reasonable notice, which will be considered to 

include, at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing, 

notice given to the public by prominent advertisement announcing 

the date(s), time(s) and place(s) of such hearing(s). For each 

hearing held, a state plan submittal must include in the 

supporting documentation the list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, 

and a brief written summary of each presentation or written 

submission pursuant to the requirements of the implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 60.23. Additionally, the EPA recommends 

Deleted: greatly 

Deleted: . The EPA encourages states

Deleted: include the

Deleted: the 

Deleted: as appropriate in addition to the 

state environmental agencies early on and 

throughout in the 

Commented [A55]: recommend deleting entirely or rephrasing 

as suggested. This is no different from any other CAA regulation, 

under which such inter-agency dynamics are normal. 

Deleted: The EPA notes that utility regulators 

and state energy offices have the opportunity 

during the public participation processes 

required for state plans to provide input as 

well.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 957 of 1546

that states work with local municipalities, community-based 

organizations and the press to advertise their state hearing(s). 

The EPA also encourages states to provide background information 

about their proposed final state plan or their initial state 

plan in the appropriate languages in advance of their public 

hearing and at their public hearing. Additionally, the EPA 

recommends that states provide translators and other resources 

at their public hearings, to ensure that all members of the 

public can provide oral feedback. 

As previously discussed in this rule, recent studies also 

find that certain communities, including low-income communities 

and some communities of color (more specifically, populations 

defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic 

location) are disproportionately affected by certain climate 

change related impacts779. Also as discussed in this rule, 

effects from this rule can be anticipated to impact communities 

in various ways. Because certain communities have a potential 

likelihood to be impacted by state plans, the EPA believes that 

the existing public participation requirements under 40 CFR 

60.23 are effectuated for the purposes of this final rule by 

 

779 USGCRP 2014: Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and 

Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 841 pp. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 958 of 1546

states engaging in meaningful, active ways with such 

communities. 

In addition certain communities whose economies are 

significantly dependent on coal have been particularly impacted 

by the economic transition underway in the energy sector. The 

EPA notes that in the context of this ongoing market transition, 

the RIA indicates that some additional job loss may occur in 

these sectors due to this policy (with commensurate job creation 

in these and other sectors). The EPA encourages states to make 

an effort to provide background information about their proposed 

final state plan or their initial submittal to these communities 

in advance of their public hearing. The EPA also notes that 

companies have in specific instances successfully implemented 

the pollution reduction strategies envisioned here, such as a 

transition from coal generation to gas generation, without or 

with minimum job loss,780 and encourages states to take maximum 

advantage of such opportunities wherever possible. 

The EPA notes that meaningful public involvement goes beyond 

the holding of a public hearing. The EPA envisions meaningful 

engagement to include outreach to overburdened communities, 

sharing information and soliciting input on state plan 

development and on any accompanying assessments, such as those 

 

780 See, for example, Arapahoe Station, 

www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate%20PDFs/Xtra_Jan2014.pdf at 12.

Deleted: may be

Deleted: final rule. The EPA also

Commented [A56]: edit 

Commented [A57]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 959 of 1546

described in section IX. The agency uses the term “overburdened 

communities” in referring to low-income communities, communities 

of color, and indigenous populations that are central to our 

community and environmental justice considerations. In section 

VIII.E, the EPA provides states with examples of resources on 

how they can engage with overburdened communities in a 

meaningful way. With respect specifically to ensuring meaningful 

community involvement in their public hearing(s), however, the 

EPA recommends that states have both a website and toll-free 

number that all stakeholders, including overburdened 

communities, labor unions, and others can access to get more 

information regarding the upcoming hearing(s) and to get their 

questions related to upcoming hearings answered. Furthermore, 

the EPA recommends that states work with their local government 

partners to help them in reaching out to all stakeholders, 

including overburdened communities, about the upcoming public 

hearing(s). 

(7) Supporting documentation. The state plan submittal must 

provide supporting material and technical documentation related 

to applicable components of the plan submittal. 

(a) Legal authority. In its submittal, a state must adequately 

demonstrate that it has the legal authority 

(regulations/legislation) and funding to implement and enforce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 960 of 1546

each component of the state plan submittal, including federally 

enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs and state 

measures. A state can make such a demonstration by providing 

supporting material related to the state’s legal authority used 

to implement and enforce each component of the plan, such as 

copies of statutes, regulations, PUC orders, and any other 

applicable legal instruments. For states participating in a 

multi-state plan, the submittal(s) must also include as 

supporting documentation each state’s necessary legal authority 

to implement the portion of the plan that applies within the 

particular state, such as copies of state regulations and 

statutes, including a showing that the states have the necessary 

authority to enter into a multi-state agreement. 

(b) Technical documentation. As applicable, the state submittal 

must include materials necessary to support the EPA’s evaluation 

of the submittal including analytical materials used in the 

calculation of interim goal steps, multi-state goal calculation 

(if joint multi-state demonstration), analytical materials used 

in projecting CO2 emission performance that will be achieved 

through the plan, relevant implementation materials and any 

additional technical requirements and guidance the state 

proposes to use to implement elements of the plan. 

(c) Programmatic milestones and timeline. As part of the state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 961 of 1546

plan supporting documentation, the state must include in its 

submittal a timeline with all the programmatic milestone steps 

the state will take between the time of the state plan submittal 

and 2022 to ensure the plan is effective as of 2022. The 

programmatic milestones and timeline should be appropriate to 

the overall state plan approach included in the state plan 

submittal. 

(d) Reliability. As discussed in more detail in section 

VIII.G.2, each state must demonstrate as part of its state plan 

submission that it has considered reliability issues while 

developing its plan. 

b. Additional components required for the emission standards 

approach. The EPA is finalizing requirements that a final plan 

submittal using the emission standards approach must contain the 

following components, in addition to the components discussed in 

the preceding section VIII.D.2.a. 

(1) Identification of interim period emission performance rates 

or state goal (for 2022-2029), interim step performance rates or 

interim state goals (2022-2024; 2025-2027; 2028-2029) and final 

emission performance rates or state goal (2030 and beyond). The 

state plan submittal must indicate whether the plan is designed 

to meet the CO2 emission performance rates or the state CO2

emission goal. As noted in the emission guidelines, the EPA is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 962 of 1546

finalizing state goals in the form of a CO2 emission rate 

(emission rate-based goal) and in the form of tonnage CO2 

emissions (mass-based goal). The state may adopt either the 

rate-based or the mass-based state CO2 emission goal provided in 

the emission guidelines. If the state chooses the option of 

developing a plan that achieves the state CO2 emission goal, the 

state plan submittal must identify the rate-based or mass-based 

CO2 emission goal that must be achieved through the plan 

(expressed in numeric values, including the units of 

measurement, such as pounds of CO2 per net MWh of useful energy 

output or tons of CO2). The plan submittal must identify the 

state CO2 interim period goal (for 2022-2029), interim step goals 

(interim step goal 1 for 2022-2024; interim step goal 2 for 

2025-2027; interim step goal 3 for 2028-2029) and final CO2

emission goal of 2030 and beyond. 

 For each state, the EPA has finalized an interim goal for 

the interim period of 2022-2029 and a final goal to be met by 

2030. For the interim period, the EPA has also finalized three 

interim step goals: interim step 1 goal for 2022-2024, interim 

step 2 goal for 2025-2027 and interim step 3 goal for 2028-

2029.781 States are free to establish different interim step 

 

781 In this action, the EPA is providing interim state goals in 

the form of a CO2 emission rate (emission rate-based goal) and in 

the form of tonnage CO2 emissions (mass-based goal). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 963 of 1546

goals than those the EPA has specified in this final rule. If 

states choose to determine their own interim step goals, the 

state must demonstrate that it will still meet the interim goal 

for 2022-2029 finalized in this action and the plan submittal 

must include in its supporting documentation a description of 

the analytic process, tools, methods, and assumptions used to 

make this demonstration. 

For states participating in a multi-state plan with a joint 

goal (for interim and final periods), the individual state goals 

in the emission guidelines would be replaced with an equivalent 

multi-state goal for each period (interim and final). For a

rate-based multi-state plan this would be a weighted average 

rate-based emission goal, derived by the participating states, 

by calculating a weighted average CO2 emission rate based on the 

individual rate-based goals for each of the participating states 

and 2012 generation from affected EGUs. For a mass-based multistate plan, the joint goal would be a sum of the individual 

mass-based goals of the participating states, in tons of CO2. The 

plan submittal must include in its supporting documentation a 

description of the analytic process, tools, methods, and 

assumptions used to calculate the joint multi-state goal. 

(2) Identification of federally enforceable emission standards 

for affected EGUs. The state plan submittal for an emission 

Commented [A58]: is a state not allowed to switch at 2030? If 

so, we would like to discuss the implications for initial state 

decisions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 964 of 1546

standards plan type must include federally enforceable emission 

standards that apply to affected EGUs. The emission standards 

must meet the requirement of component (3) of this section, 

“Demonstrations that each emission standard is quantifiable, 

non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.” The 

plan must identify the affected EGUs to which these standards 

apply. The compliance periods for each emission standard for 

affected EGUs, on a calendar year basis, must be as follows for 

the interim period: January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024; January 

1, 2025 – December 31, 2027; and January 1, 2028 – December 31, 

2029. Starting on January 1, 2030, the compliance period for 

each emission standard is every 2 calendar years. States can 

choose to set shorter compliance periods for the emission 

standards than the compliance periods the EPA is finalizing in 

this rulemaking, but cannot set longer periods. As discussed in 

more detail in section VIII.F, the EPA recognizes that the 

compliance periods provided for in this rulemaking are longer 

than those historically and typically specified in CAA 

rulemakings. The EPA determined that the longer compliance 

periods provided for in this rulemaking are acceptable in the 

context of this specific rulemaking because of the unique 

characteristics of this rulemaking, including that CO2 is longlived in the atmosphere, and this rulemaking is focused on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 965 of 1546

performance standards related to those long-term impacts. 

For state plans in which affected EGUs may rely upon the 

use of ERCs for meeting a rate-based federally enforceable 

emission standard, the emission standards in the state plan must 

include requirements addressing the issuance, tracking and use 

for compliance of ERCs consistent with the requirements in the 

emission guidelines. The state plan must also demonstrate that 

the appropriate ERC tracking infrastructure that meets the 

requirements of the emission guidelines will be in place to 

administer the state plan requirements regarding ERCs and 

document the functionality of the tracking system. State plan 

requirements must include provisions to ensure that ERCs are 

properly tracked from issuance to submission for compliance. The 

state plan must also demonstrate that the MWh for which ERCs are 

issued are properly quantified and verified, through state EM&V 

and other verification plan requirements that meet the 

requirements in the emission guidelines. Rate-based emission 

standards must also include monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for CO2 emissions and useful energy 

output for affected EGUs; and related compliance demonstration 

requirements and mechanisms. These requirements are discussed in 

more detail in sections VIII.K. 

 For state plans using a mass-based emission trading program 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 966 of 1546

approach, the state plan must include implementation 

requirements that specify the emission budget and related 

compliance requirements and mechanisms. These requirements must 

include: CO2 emission monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for affected EGUs; provisions for state allocation 

of allowances; provisions for tracking of allowances, from 

issuance through submission for compliance; and the process for 

affected EGUs to demonstrate compliance (allowance “true-up” 

with reported CO2 emissions.) 

(3) Demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable, 

non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable and enforceable. The plan 

submittal must demonstrate that each emission standard is 

quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable and 

enforceable with respect to an affected EGU, as outlined below. 

An emission standard is quantifiable if it can be reliably 

measured, using technically sound methods, in a manner that can 

be replicated.782 

 

782 The CO2 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is the 

most technically reliable method of emission measurement for 

EGUs. CEMS provide a measurement method that is performance 

based rather than equipment specific and is verified based on 

NIST traceable standards. CEMS provide a continuous measurement 

stream that can account for variability in the fuels and the 

combustion process. Reference methods have been developed to 

ensure that all CEMS meet the same performance criteria, which 

helps to ensure a level playing field and consistent, accurate 

data. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 967 of 1546

An emission standard is non-duplicative with respect to an 

affected EGU if it is not already incorporated in another state 

plan, except in instances where incorporated as part of a multistate plan. An example of a duplicative emission standard would 

occur, for example, where a quantified and verified MWh from a 

wind turbine could be applied in more than one state’s CAA 

section 111(d) plan to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an 

affected EGU, except in the case of a multi-state plan where CO2

emission performance is demonstrated jointly for all affected 

EGUs subject to the multi-state plan.783 This does not mean that 

measures in an emission standard cannot also be used for other 

purposes. For example, a MWh of electric generation from a wind 

turbine could be used by an electric distribution utility to 

comply with state RPS requirements and also be used by an 

affected EGU comply with emission standard requirements under a 

state plan. Another example is when actions taken pursuant to 

 

783 For example, an ERC that is issued by a state under its ratebased emission standards may be used only once by an affected 

EGU to adjust its reported CO2 emission rate when demonstrating 

compliance with the emission standards. However, an ERC issued 

in one state could be used by an affected EGU to demonstrate 

compliance with its emission standard in another state, where 

states are collaborating in the implementation of their 

individual emission trading programs through interstate transfer 

of ERCs or CO2 emission allowances, or participating in a multistate plan with a rate-based or mass-based emission trading 

program. These coordinated multi-state approaches are addressed 

in section VIII. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 968 of 1546

CAA section 111(d) requirements can satisfy other CAA program 

requirements (e.g., Regional Haze requirements, MATS etc.) 

An emission standard is permanent if the emission standard 

must be met for each applicable compliance period. 

An emission standard is verifiable if adequate monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are in place to enable 

the state and the Administrator to independently evaluate, 

measure, and verify compliance with it. 

An emission standard is enforceable if it: (1) represents a 

technically accurate limitation or requirement and the time 

period for the limitation or requirement is specified, (2) 

compliance requirements are clearly defined, (3) the entities 

responsible for compliance and liable for violations can be 

identified, (4) each compliance activity or measure is 

enforceable as a practical matter in accordance with EPA 

guidance on practical enforceability,784 and the Administrator, 

the state, and third parties, maintain the ability to enforce 

against affected EGUs for violations and secure appropriate 

corrective actions, in the case of the Administrator pursuant to 

CAA sections 113(a)–(h), in the case of a state, pursuant to its 

plan, state law or CAA section 304, as applicable, and in the 

case of third parties, pursuant to CAA section 304. 

 

784 See prior footnote. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 969 of 1546

In developing its CAA section 111(d) plan, to ensure that 

the plan submittal is enforceable and in conformance with the 

CAA, a state should follow the EPA’s prior guidance on 

enforceability.785 These guidance documents serve as the 

foundation for the types of monitoring, reporting, and emission 

standards that the EPA has found can be, as a practical matter, 

enforced. 

In the proposed regulatory text describing the enforcing 

measures that states must include in state plans, the EPA 

inadvertently excluded a required demonstration that states and 

other third parties can enforce against affected EGUs for 

violations of an emission standard included in a state plan via 

civil action pursuant to CAA section 304. Commenters noted the 

EPA’s intent to require this demonstration based on statements 

in both the proposal preamble text and “State Plan 

Considerations” TSD786 and based on the requirements of CAA 

 

785 The EPA guidance on enforceability includes: (1) September 

23, 1987, memorandum and accompanying implementing guidance, 

“Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for 

Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” (2) August 5, 2004, 

“Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from ElectricSector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures,” and (3) 

July 2012 “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable 

Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal 

Implementation Plans, Appendix F.” 

786 State Plan Considerations technical support document for the 

Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule: http://www2.epa.gov/carbonpollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule-state-planconsiderations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 970 of 1546

section 304. We are finalizing a requirement for a demonstration 

that states and other third parties can enforce against affected 

EGUs for violations of an emission standard included in a state 

plan via civil action as part of the required plan component 

demonstrating enforceability. We are finalizing this requirement 

as a logical outgrowth of proposal preamble text, the proposal 

preamble citation to existing enforceability guidance documents 

that discuss this requirement, comments received, and the clear 

statutory foundation. 

(4) State reporting requirements. After consideration of the 

comments received regarding state reporting requirements, the 

EPA is finalizing for state plans using the emission standards 

approach that a state report is due to the EPA no later than the 

July 1 following the end of each reporting period. Within the 

interim period (2022-2029) the EPA is finalizing the following 

interim reporting periods: interim step 1 covers the 3 calendar 

years 2022-2024; interim step 2 covers the 3 calendar years 

2025-2027 and interim step 3 covers the 2 calendar years 2028-

2029. A biennial state report is required starting in 2030 and 

beyond covering the 2 calendar years of each reporting period. 

This final reporting schedule reduces the reporting frequency 

for states implementing the emission standards approach and is 

responsive to comments received that different reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 971 of 1546

frequencies may be appropriate for different type of state 

plans. The EPA believes that because of the federally 

enforceable emission standards that apply to affected EGUs and 

their corresponding monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements under the emission standards plan type, a lesser 

frequency of reporting by the state is warranted.. 

The state must include in each report to the EPA the status 

of implementation of emission standards for affected EGUs under 

the state plan, including current aggregate and individual CO2

emission performance by affected EGUs during the reporting 

period. The state report must include compliance demonstrations 

for affected EGUs and identify whether affected EGUs are on 

schedule to meet the applicable CO2 emission performance rate or 

emission goal during the performance periods and compliance 

periods, as specified in the state plan. For rate-based emission 

trading programs, the report must also include for EPA review 

the state’s review of the administration of their state ratebased emission trading program, as discussed in section 

VIII.K.2.g. 

As discussed in more detail in section VIII.F, the state 

must include an interim performance check in the report 

submitted after each of the first two interim step periods. The 

interim performance check will compare the CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 972 of 1546

performance level identified in the state plan for the 

applicable interim step period versus the actual CO2 emission 

performance achieved by affected EGUs during the period. In the 

report due to the EPA on July 1, 2030, the state must include a 

comparison of the actual CO2 emission performance achieved by 

affected EGUs for the interim period (2022-2029) with the 

interim CO2 emission performance rates or state rate-based or 

mass-based CO2 interim goal, as applicable. The report due on 

July 1, 2030, must also include the actual CO2 emission 

performance achieved by affected EGUs during the interim step 3 

period (2028-2029). Starting in 2032, the biennial state report 

must include a final performance check to demonstrate that the 

state continues to meet the final CO2 emission performance rates 

or state rate-based or mass-based CO2 goal. 

For state plans that use the emission standards approach 

and are subject to the corrective measures provisions in the 

guidelines, if actual CO2 emission performance (i.e., the 

emissions or emission rate) of affected EGUs exceeds the 

specified level of CO2 emission performance in the state plan by 

10 percent or more during the interim step 1 or step 2 reporting 

periods, the state report must include a notification to the EPA 

that corrective measures have been triggered. The same 

notification is required if actual CO2 emission performance fails 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 973 of 1546

to meet the specified level of emission performance in the state 

plan for the 8-year interim performance period or any final plan 

reporting period (after 2030). Corrective measures are discussed 

in detail in section VIII.F. 

c. Additional components required for the state measures 

approach. The EPA is finalizing requirements that a final plan 

submittal using the state measures approach must contain the 

following components, in addition to the components discussed in 

section VIII.D.2.a. We note again that states choosing the state 

measures plan type must use a mass-based state goal. 

(1) Identification of interim state mass goal (for 2022-2029), 

interim step state mass goals (2022-2024; 2025-2027; 2028-2029) 

and final state mass goal (2030 and beyond). The state plan 

submittal must identify the mass-based CO2 emission goal that 

must be achieved through the plan (expressed in tons of CO2). The 

plan submittal must identify the state CO2 interim period goal 

(for 2022-2029), interim steps goals (interim step goal 1 for 

2022-2024; interim step goal 2 for 2025-2027; interim step goal 

3 for 2028-2029) and final CO2 emission goal of 2030 and beyond. 

 For each state, the EPA has finalized an interim goal for 

the interim period of 2022-2029 and a final goal to be met by 

2030. For the interim period, the EPA has also finalized three 

interim step goals: interim step 1 goal for 2022-2024, interim 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 974 of 1546

step 2 goal for 2025-2027 and interim step 3 goal for 2028-

2029.787 States are free to establish different interim step 

goals than those the EPA has specified in this final rule. If 

states choose to determine their own interim step goals, the 

state must demonstrate that it will still meet the interim goal 

for 2022-2029 finalized in this action and the plan submittal 

must include in its supporting documentation a description of 

the analytic process, tools, methods, and assumptions used to 

make this demonstration. 

For states participating in a multi-state plan with a joint 

goal (for interim and final periods), the individual state goals 

in the emission guidelines would be replaced with an equivalent 

multi-state goal for each period (interim and final). The joint 

goal would be a sum of the individual mass-based goals of the 

participating states, in tons of CO2. The plan submittal must 

include in its supporting documentation a description of the 

analytic process, tools, methods, and assumptions used to 

calculate the joint multi-state goal. 

(2) Identification of federally enforceable emission standards 

for affected EGUs (if applicable). If applicable, the state plan 

submittal must include any federally enforceable CO2 emission 

 

787 In this action, the EPA is providing interim state goals in 

the form of a CO2 emission rate (emission rate-based goal) and in 

the form of tonnage CO2 emissions (mass-based goal). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 975 of 1546

standards that apply to affected EGUs, and demonstrate that 

those emission standards meet the requirements that apply in the 

context of an emission standards approach, discussed in the 

preceding section VIII.D.2.b. Specifically, the state plan 

submittal must demonstrate that each federally enforceable 

emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent 

and verifiable. 

(3) Identification of backstop of federally enforceable emission 

standards. A state measures plan must include a backstop of 

federally enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs that 

fully achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or the state’s 

interim and final CO2 emission goal if the state plan fails to 

achieve the intended level of CO2 emission performance. The 

backstop emission standards could be based on the federal plan, 

using the federal plan regulations as a model rule. For the 

federally enforceable backstop, the state plan submittal must 

identify the federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs, demonstrate that those emission standards meet 

the requirements that apply in the context of an emission 

standards approach, discussed in the preceding section, identify 

a schedule and trigger for implementation of the backstop that 

is consistent with the requirements in the emission guidelines 

as discussed in section VIII.C.4.b and identify all necessary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 976 of 1546

state administrative and technical procedures for implementing 

the backstop (e.g. how and when the state would notify affected 

EGUs that the backstop has been triggered). Aspects of the 

backstop are discussed in detail in section VIII.C.4.b. 

(4) Identification of state measures. A state adopting a state 

measures plan type must provide as a part of the supporting 

documentation of its plan submittal, a description of all the 

state enforceable measures the state will rely upon to achieve 

the requisite state goal, the applicable state laws or 

regulations related to such measures, and identification of 

parties or entities implementing such state measures. The state 

must also include in its supporting documentation the schedule 

and milestones for the implementation of the state measures, 

showing that the measures are expected to achieve the required 

reductions for each interim period and meet the final goal by 

2030. A state measures plan submittal that relies upon RE and 

demand-side EE programs and projects must also demonstrate in 

its supporting documentation that the minimum EM&V requirements 

apply to those programs and projects as a matter of state law. 

(5) State reporting requirements. After consideration of the 

comments received regarding state reporting requirements, the 

EPA is requiring in this final rule for states using the state 

measures approach that an annual state report is due to the EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 977 of 1546

no later than July 1 following the end of each calendar year 

during the interim period. This annual state report must include 

the status of implementation of federally enforceable emission 

standards (if applicable) and state measures and should include 

a report of the periodic programmatic milestones to show 

progress in program implementation. The programmatic milestones 

with specific dates for achievement should be appropriate to the 

state measures included in the state plan submittal. The EPA 

believes that annual state reporting is appropriate for state 

measures approach due to the flexibility inherent to the 

approach described in section VIII.C.4 including the potential 

use by the state of a wider variety of state measures, 

responsible parties, etc. This reporting frequency will also 

increase the degree of certainty on plan performance for states 

pursuing the state measures approach. 

As discussed in section VIII.F, for states using the state 

measures approach, the EPA is finalizing that at the end of the 

first two interim step periods, the state must also include in 

their annual report to the EPA the corresponding emission 

performance checks. The interim performance checks will compare 

the CO2 emission performance level identified in the state plan 

for the applicable interim step period versus the actual CO2

emission performance achieved by the aggregate of affected EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 978 of 1546

In the report submitted to the EPA on July 1, 2030, the state 

must also report the actual CO2 performance check for the interim 

period (2022-2029) with the interim mass-based CO2 goal, as well 

as the actual CO2 emission performance achieved by affected EGUs 

during the interim step 3 period (2028-2029). 

Beginning with the final period, the state must submit 

biennial reports no later than July 1 after the end of each 

reporting period that includes an actual performance check to 

demonstrate that the state continues to meet the final state CO2

goal. 

If, at the time of the state report to the EPA, the state 

has not met the programmatic milestones for the reporting 

period, or the performance check shows that the actual CO2

emission performance of affected EGUs warrants implementation of 

backstop requirements788, the state must include in the state 

report a notification to the EPA that the backstop has been 

triggered and describe the steps taken by the state to inform 

 

788 As explained in section VIII.C.3.b., state plans subject to the 

backstop requirement must require the backstop to take effect if 

actual CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs fails to meet 

the level of emission performance specified in the plan over the 

8-year interim performance period (2022-2029, or for any 2-year 

final goal performance period. The plan also must require the 

backsto to take effect if actual emission performance is 

deficient by 10 percent or more relative to the performance 

levels that the state has chosen to specify in its plan for the 

interim step 1 period (2022-2024) or the interim step 2 period 

(2025-2027).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 979 of 1546

the affected EGUs that the backstop has been triggered. In the 

event of such an exceedance under the state measures approach, 

the backstop federally enforceable emission standards for the 

EGUs must be effective within 18 months of the deadline for the 

state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress 

toward the meeting the state CO2 emission goal. For example, if a 

state report due on July 1, 2025, shows that actual CO2 emission 

performance of affected EGUs is deficient by 10 percent or more 

relative to the specified level of emission performance for 

2022-2024 in the state plan, the backstop federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs must be effective as of 

January 1, 2027. 

(6) Supporting documentation. 

(a) Demonstration that each state measure is quantifiable, nonduplicative, permanent, verifiable and enforceable. A state 

using the state measures approach, in support of its plan, must 

also include in the supporting documentation of the state plan 

submittal the state measures789 that are not federally 

enforceable emission standards, and describe how each state 

measure is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, 

 

789 “State measures” refer to measures that the state adopts and 

implements as a matter of state law. Such measures are 

enforceable only per applicable state law, and are not included 

in the federally enforceable state plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 980 of 1546

and enforceable with respect to an affected entity. 

A state measure is quantifiable if it can be reliably 

measured, using technically sound methods, in a manner that can 

be replicated. 

A state measure is non-duplicative with respect to an 

affected entity if it is not already incorporated as a state 

measure or an emission standard in another state plan or state 

plan supporting material, except in instances where incorporated 

in another state as part of a multi-state plan. This does not 

mean that measures in a state measure cannot also be used for 

other purposes. For example actions taken pursuant to CAA 

section 111(d) requirements can satisfy other CAA program 

requirements (e.g., Regional Haze requirements, MATS etc.) and 

state requirements (e.g., RPS). 

A state measure is permanent if the state measure must be 

met for each applicable compliance period. 

A state measure is verifiable if adequate monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are in place to enable 

the state to independently evaluate, measure and verify 

compliance with it. 

A state measure is enforceable790 if it: (1) represents a 

 

790 Under the state measures approach, state measures are 

enforceable only per applicable state law. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 981 of 1546

technically accurate limitation or requirement and the time 

period for the limitation or requirement is specified, (2) 

compliance requirements are clearly defined, (3) the affected 

entities responsible for compliance and liable for violations 

can be identified, (4) each compliance activity or measure is 

practically enforceable in accordance with EPA guidance on 

practical enforceability,791 and the state maintains the ability 

to enforce against affected EGUs for violations and secure 

appropriate corrective actions pursuant to its plan or state 

law. 

The EPA will disapprove a state plan if the documentation 

is not sufficient for the EPA to be able to determine whether 

the state measures are expected to yield CO2 emission reductions 

sufficient to result in the necessary CO2 emission performance 

from affected EGUs for the CO2 emission performance rates or 

state CO2 emission goal to be achieved. 

 

791 The EPA’s prior guidance on enforceability serves as the 

foundation for the types of measures that the EPA has found can 

be, as a practical matter, enforced. The EPA’s guidance on 

enforceability includes: (1) September 23, 1987, memorandum and 

accompanying implementing guidance, “Review of State 

Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 

Sufficiency,” (2) August 5, 2004, “Guidance on SIP Credits for 

Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Measures,” and (3) July 2012 “Roadmap for 

Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and 

Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans,” Appendix 

F. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 982 of 1546

d. Legal basis for the components. 

(1) General legal basis. Under section 111(d), state plans must 

“provide for the implementation and enforcement of [the] 

standards of performance.” Similar language occurs elsewhere in 

the CAA. First, for SIPs, section 110(a)(1) requires SIPs to 

“provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of 

the NAAQS. However, section 110(a)(2), unlike 111(d), details a 

number of specific requirements for SIPs that, in part, speak 

exactly to how a SIP should “provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement” of the NAAQS. We note that section 

111(d) provides explicitly only that the “procedures,” and not 

the substantive requirements, for section 111(d) state plans 

should be “similar” to those in section 110, and thus a 

substantive requirement in section 110(a)(2) is not an 

independent source of authority for the EPA to require the same 

for section 111(d) plans. However, when there is a gap for the 

EPA to fill in interpreting how a section 111(d) plan should 

“provide for implementation and enforcement of the] standards of 

performance,” and Congress explicitly addressed a similar gap in 

section 110, then it may be reasonable for the EPA to fill the 

gap in section 111(d) using an analogous mechanism to that in 

section 110(a)(2), to the extent that the section 110(a)(2) 

requirement makes sense and is reasonable in the context of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 983 of 1546

section 111(d). On the other hand, that Congress did not 

explicitly provide such details as are found in section 

110(a)(2) indicates that Congress intended to give the EPA 

considerable leeway in interpreting the ambiguous phrase 

“provides for implementation and enforcement of [the] standards 

of performance.” 

For example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) explicitly requires 

states to provide necessary assurances that they have adequate 

personnel, funding and authority to carry out the SIP. Section 

111(d), on the other hand, does not explicitly contain this 

requirement. Thus, there is a gap to fill with respect to this 

issue when the EPA interprets section 111(d)’s requirement that 

plans “provide for implementation and enforcement” of the 

standards of performance, and it is reasonable for the EPA to 

fill the gap by requiring adequate funding and authority, both 

because adequate funding and authority are fundamental 

prerequisites to adequate implementation and enforcement of any 

program, and because Congress has explicitly recognized this 

fundamental nature in the section 110 context.792 

 

792 On the other hand, there are specific requirements in 

110(a)(2) that are fundamental for SIPs, but would not make 

sense in the 111(d) context. For example, the specific 

requirement for an ambient air quality monitoring network in 

110(a)(2)(B) is irrelevant in the 111(d) context. For a detailed 

discussion of the specific legal basis for each component, 

please see the Legal Memorandum for this final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 984 of 1546

We note two other places where the CAA requires a state 

program to satisfy similar language regarding implementation and 

enforcement. First, section 112(l)(1) allows states to adopt and 

submit a program for “implementation and enforcement” of section 

112 standards. Section 112(l)(5) further provides that the 

program must (among other things) have adequate authority to 

enforce against sources, and adequate authority and resources to 

implement the program. Second, section 111(c) provides that, if 

a state develops and submits “adequate procedures” for 

“implementing and enforcing” section 111(b) standards of 

performance for new sources in that state, the Administrator 

shall delegate to the state the Administrator’s authority to 

“implement and enforce” those standards. The EPA has interpreted 

these ambiguous provisions in the EPA’s “Good Practices Manual 

for Delegation of NSPS and NESHAPS” and recommended (in the 

context of guidance) that state programs have a number of 

components, such as source monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting, in order to adequately implement and enforce section 

111(b) or 112 standards. This again indicates it is reasonable 

for the EPA to fill a gap in section 111(d)’s language and 

similarly require source monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting, as these are fundamental to implementing and 

enforcing standards of performance that achieve the state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 985 of 1546

performance rates or goals. 

Some commenters argued that states have primary authority 

over the content of state plans and that the EPA lacks authority 

to disapprove a state plan as unsatisfactory simply because it 

lacks one or more of these components. We disagree. The EPA has 

the authority to interpret the statutory language of section 

111(d) and to make rules that effectuate that interpretation. 

With respect to the components of an approvable plan, we are 

interpreting the statutory phrase “provide for implementation 

and enforcement” and making rules that set out the minimum 

elements that are necessary for a state plan to be 

“satisfactory” in meeting this statutory requirement. This does 

not in any way intrude on the state’s ability to decide what mix 

of measures should be used to achieve the necessary emission 

reductions. Nor does it intrude in any way on the state’s 

ability to decide how to satisfy a component. For example, for 

legal authority, we are not dictating which state agencies or 

officials must specifically have the necessary legal authority; 

that is entirely up to the state so long as the fundamental 

requirement to have adequate legal authority to implement and 

enforce the plan is met. 

In addition, the EPA has already determined in the 1975 

implementing regulations that certain components, such as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 986 of 1546

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, are necessary for 

implementation and enforcement of section 111(d) standards of 

performance. 40 FR 53340, 53348/1 (Nov. 17, 1975). Thus, EPA’s 

position here is hardly novel. The EPA notes in discussing the 

implementation regulations, nothing in this final rule reopens 

provisions or issues that were previously decided in the 

original promulgation of the regulations unless otherwise 

explicitly reopened for this rule. 

(2) Legal considerations with changes to affected EGUs. In the 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposed the interpretation that if 

an existing source is subject to a section 111(d) state plan, 

and then undertakes a modification or reconstruction, the source 

remains subject to the state plan, while also becoming subject 

to the modification or reconstruction requirements. 79 FR 34830, 

34903–4. The EPA is not finalizing a position on this issue in 

this final rule, and intends to re-propose and take comment on 

this issue through the upcoming federal plan rulemaking. The 

EPA’s deferral of action on this issue does not impact states’ 

and affected EGUs’ pending obligations under this final rule 

relating to plan submission deadlines, as this issue concerns 

potential obligations or impacts after an existing source is 

subject to the requirements of a state plan. The EPA will 

propose and finalize its position on this issue through the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 987 of 1546

upcoming federal plan rulemaking, which will be well in advance 

of the plan performance period beginning in 2022, at which point 

state plan obligations on existing sources are effectuated. 

(3) Legal considerations regarding design, equipment, work 

practice or operational standards. In the proposal, the EPA 

asked for comment on three approaches to inclusion of design, 

equipment, work practice and operational standards in section 

111(d) plans. 79 FR 34830, 34926/3 (June 18, 2014). Under the 

first approach, states would be precluded from including these 

standards in section 111(d) plans unless the design, equipment, 

work practice or operational standard could be understood as a 

“standard of performance” or could be understood to “provide for 

implementation and enforcement” of standards of performance. We 

also asked, for the first approach, whether it was even 

possible, given the statutory language of 111(h), to consider a 

design, equipment, work practice or operational standard as a 

“standard of performance.” Under the second approach, states 

could include design, equipment, work practice or operational 

standards in the event that it could be shown a “standard of 

performance” was not feasible, as set out in section 111(h). 

Under the third approach, a state could include design, 

equipment, work practice and operational standards in a 111(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 988 of 1546

plan without any constraints. We also asked whether, if there 

was legal uncertainty as to the status of these standards, the 

EPA should authorize states to include them in their 111(d) 

plans with the understanding that if the EPA’s authorization 

were invalidated by a court, states would have to revise their 

plans accordingly. 

The EPA is finalizing the first approach. Specifically, a 

state’s standards of performance (in other words, either the 

federally enforceable backstop under the state measures approach 

or the emissions standards under the emissions standards 

approach) cannot consist of (in whole or part) design, 

equipment, work practice or operational standards. A state may 

include such standards in a 111(d) plan in order to implement 

the standards of performance. For example, a state taking a 

mass-based approach may include in its 111(d) plan a limit on 

hours of operation on a particular affected EGU, but that 

operational standard itself cannot substitute for a mass-based 

limit on the affected EGU.793 

This follows from the statute. First, section 111(h)(1) 

authorizes the Administrator, when it is not feasible for 

 

793 In particular, a state may include in its 111(d) state plan 

an emission standard that is reflective of the CO2 performance 

resulting from operational standards the state imposes on an 

affected EGU. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 989 of 1546

certain reasons (specified in 111(h)(2)) to prescribe or enforce 

a standard of performance, to instead promulgate a design, 

equipment, work practice or operational standard. If a standard 

of performance could include design, equipment, work practice or 

operational standards, such authority would be unnecessary. 

Second, 111(h)(5) states that design, equipment, work practice 

or operational standards “described in” 111(h) shall be treated 

as standards of performance for the purposes of the CAA. This 

creates a strong inference that standards of performance 

otherwise should not include design, equipment, work practice, 

or operational standards. Finally, the general definition of 

“standard of performance” in 302(l) is similar to the definition 

of “emission limitation” (or “emission standard”) in 302(k), 

with the exception that the definition of “emission limitation” 

explicitly includes design, equipment, work practice and 

operational standards, but the definition of “standard of 

performance” omits them. Thus, as with our discussion of the 

term “standard of performance” above in VIII.B.7.e(1), even if 

the general definition of “standard of performance” in 302(l) 

applies to 111(d), the omission of design, equipment, work 

practice, and operational standards in 302(l) confirms our 

interpretation that they cannot be a 111 “standard of 

performance” (except under the limited circumstances in 111(h)). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 990 of 1546

We conclude that it is reasonable, and perhaps compelled, to 

interpret the term “standards of performance” in 111(d) to not 

include design, equipment, work practice and operational 

standards. 

However, section 111(d) requires plans to “provide for 

implementation and enforcement of [the] standards of 

performance.” This language does not explicitly prohibit a plan 

from including design, equipment, work practice and operational 

standards, and allows for them to be included so long as they 

are understood to provide for implementation of the standards of 

performance. If they are included, the 111(d) plan must still be 

“satisfactory” in other respects, in particular in establishing 

standards of performance that are not in whole or in part 

design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. 

(4) Legal basis for engagement with communities. As previously 

discussed, section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to promulgate 

procedures “similar” to those in section 110 under which states 

adopt and submit 111(d) plans. Section 110(a)(1) requires states 

to adopt and submit implementation plans “after reasonable 

notice and public hearings.” The implementing regulations under 

40 CFR 60.27 reflect similar public participation requirements 

with respect to section 111(d) state plans. The EPA is sensitive 

to the legal importance of adequate public participation in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 991 of 1546

state plan process, including public participation by affected 

communities. As previously discussed in this rule, recent 

studies also find that certain communities, including low-income 

communities and some communities of color are disproportionately 

affected by certain climate change-related impacts. Because 

certain communities have a potential likelihood to be impacted 

by state plans for this rule, the EPA believes that the existing 

public participation requirements under 40 CFR 60.23 are 

effectuated for the purposes of this final rule by states 

engaging in meaningful, active ways with such communities. By 

requiring states to demonstrate they have meaningfully engaged 

with overburdened communities potentially impacted by state 

plans as part of the state plan development process, states 

meeting this requirement will satisfy the applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements regarding public participation. 

3. Components of the federally approved state plan

In this action the EPA finalizes that, to be fully 

approved, a state plan submittal must meet the criteria and 

include the required components described above. The EPA will 

propose and take final action on each state plan submittal in 

the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for notice and 

comment. When a state plan submittal is approved by the EPA, the 

EPA will codify the approved 111(d) state plan in 40 CFR part 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 992 of 1546

62. The following components of the state plan submittal will 

become the federally enforceable state 111(d) plan: 

 Federally enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs 

 Federally enforceable backstop of emission standards for 

affected EGUs 

 Implementing and enforcing measures for federally 

enforceable emission standards including EGU monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

 State recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

E. State Plan Submittal and Approval Process and Timing 

1. Overview 

 In this action the EPA is finalizing that state plan 

submittals are due on September 6, 2016, which is 13 months 

after finalization of the emission guidelines, with the option 

of an extension to submit final state plans by as late as 

September 6, 2018, which is three years after finalization of 

this rule. The compelling nature of the climate change 

challenge, and the need to begin promptly what will be a lengthy 

effort to implement the requirements of these guidelines, 

warrant this schedule. The EPA also believes, for reasons 

further described in the next section, why this schedule is 

achievable for states to submit final plans. We discuss the 

timing of state plans in more detail in this section below.

Commented [A59]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 993 of 1546

Discussed in the following sections are state plan 

submittal and timing, required components for initial state plan 

submittals and the 2017 update, multi-state plan submissions, 

process for EPA review of state plans, failure to submit a plan, 

state plan modifications (including modifications to interim and 

final CO2 emission goals, plan templates and electronic 

submittal, and legal bases regarding state plan process. 

2. State plan submittal and timing 

The implementing regulations (40 CFR 60.23) require that 

state plans be submitted to the EPA within 9 months of 

promulgation of the emission guidelines, unless the EPA 

specifies otherwise.794 For these 111(d) guidelines, the EPA is 

finalizing that each state must by September 6, 2016 (13 months 

after the final rule) either submit a final plan submittal or 

seek an extension to submit a final plan by, at the latest,

September 6, 2018. In the case of a state electing to 

participate in the Clean Energy Incentive Program, this 2016 

submittal must include a non-binding statement of intent to 

participate in the program. To seek an extension of the 

September 6, 2016 deadline until no later than September 6, 

2018, a state must submit an initial plan submittal by September 

6, 2016, that addresses three required components. Addressing 

 

794 40 CFR 60.23(a)(1). 

Commented [A60]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 994 of 1546

these three required components will demonstrate that a state is 

able to undertake steps and processes necessary to timely submit 

a final plan by the extended date of September 6, 2018. If an 

extension is requested and granted, states must also submit a 

2017 update by September 6, 2017, that documents the state’s 

continued progress towards meeting the September 6, 2018 final 

plan submittal deadline. 

In the proposal, EPA proposed a 13 month final state plan 

submittal deadline, with a 1 year possible extension for states 

submitting individual state plans and a 2 year possible 

extension for states submitting multi-state plans as part of a 

multi-state region. The EPA received substantive comment on the 

achievability of these proposed deadlines for state plan 

submittals. Multiple commenters expressed concern that due to 

timing of legislative cycles (some of which are every 2 years), 

regulatory processes, and other necessary tasks, states would 

find it extremely difficult to submit plans in 1 or 2 years, 

whether or not they were planning to submit as part of a multistate region. The EPA agrees based on this input that a schedule 

shorter than 3 years will be challenging for many — though not 

all - states. In light of the comments received and in order to 

provide maximum flexibility to states while still taking timely 

action to reduce CO2 emissions, in this final rule the EPA is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 995 of 1546

allowing for up to a 2 year extension until September 6, 2018, 

for both individual and multi-state plans, to provide a total of 

3 years for states to submit a final plan if an extension is 

received. Based on comments received, information the EPA has 

regarding steps states have already begun taking towards plan 

development, and extensive experience with similar state plan 

submission deadlines under Clean Air Act section 110 state 

implementation plans, the EPA believes states will be able to 

submit final plans within 3 years by September 6, 2018, in the 

event states are not required to submit a final plan by 

September 6, 2016. We address the substantive requirements of 

initial plan submittals and 2017 updates in the next section. 

The EPA highlights one purpose of the initial plan 

submittal is to encourage and potentially facilitate states to 

do necessary planning and engagement with stakeholders so states 

are able to submit an approvable final state plan by the 

extended deadline of September 6, 2018. Some states have welldeveloped existing programs and the attendant legal authority 

underpinning such programs to more easily meet the September 6, 

2016 deadline by submitting a final plan which largely contains 

or relies upon such existing programs.795 Based on comments and 

 

795 Based on comments received, we understand that the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic states that participate in RGGI may be in this 

position.

Commented [A61]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 996 of 1546

stakeholder feedback, however, the EPA anticipates that some

states intending to develop and submit a final plan will seek an

extension given the time it may take to undergo necessary 

legislative, stakeholder, and planning processes. The EPA 

acknowledges that the initial plan submittal of September 6, 

2016, is not essential to the ability for states to submit final 

plans by September 6, 2018, so that even without this 2016 

deadline, the EPA could require states to meet the 2018 

deadline. Even so, this earlier date in the 3 year planning 

process serves as a useful “check-in” that provides several 

significant advantages. First, this earlier date provides all 

states an opportunity to understand what approaches other states 

are considering. Because there are significant benefits to 

regional cooperation, the EPA believes that a formal process to 

collect and then provide this information will help all states 

develop better plans. Second, because the guidelines provide 

significant flexibility, the ability for the EPA to provide 

early input to states who may be pursuing more innovative 

approaches will help ensure that all state plans are ultimately 

approvable. The EPA therefore believes the initial plan 

submittal is an appropriate means by which to offer the optional 

extension, and for reasons further described in section 

VIII.E.3, that the requirements of the initial submittal are 

Deleted: many

Deleted: the optional

Commented [A62]: edit
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 997 of 1546

achievable by September 6, 2016, so states will be able to 

develop and submit a plan that meets the requirements of the 

final emissions guidelines and section 111(d) of the CAA by the 

extended date. 

Additionally, some states may choose to not submit a state 

plan. For states that do not submit a state plan, the CAA gives 

the EPA express authority to implement a federal plan for 

sources in that state upon determination by the EPA that a state 

has failed to submit a state plan by the required date. For 

states that do not intend to submit a state plan to meet the 

obligations of this final rule, by promulgating a federal plan 

for sources in states that do not submit a plan by September 6, 

2016, such sources would have an additional 2 years to plan for 

and determine compliance strategies than had promulgation of a 

federal plan been predicated on states failing to submit a plan 

by September 6, 2018. The EPA also notes that this final rule 

affords states and sources with many implementation 

flexibilities and approaches for state plans that the EPA itself 

may not have the authority to implement through a federal plan. 

Therefore, affected EGUs subject to a federal plan promulgated 

for a state that refuses to submit a state plan may benefit from 

an additional 2 years to plan for compliance with a federal plan 

with potentially fewer flexibilities. 

Deleted: the EPA has reason to believe that 

Deleted: will

Deleted: as required by the final emission 

guidelines and section 111(d) of the CAA

Commented [A63]: edit

Deleted: 796

Deleted: continue to take the position upon 

finalization of this rule that they will
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 998 of 1546

If no affected EGU is located within a state, the state 

must submit a letter to the EPA certifying that no such 

facilities exist by September 6, 2016.797 The EPA will publish a 

notice in the Federal Register to notify the public of receipt 

of such letters. If an affected EGU is later found to be located 

in that state, the state must submit a final plan addressing 

such affected EGU or the EPA will determine the state has failed 

to submit a plan as required by the emission guidelines and CAA 

section 111(d), and begin the process of implementing a federal 

plan for that source. 

In the case of a tribe that has one or more affected EGUs 

located in its area of Indian country, if the tribe either does 

not submit a CAA section 111(d) plan or does not receive EPA 

approval of a submitted plan, the EPA has the responsibility to 

establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for that area if it 

determines that such a plan is necessary or appropriate to 

protect air quality.798 

The EPA notes that the current implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 60 do not specify who has the authority to make a 

formal submission of the state plan to the EPA for review. In 

order to clarify who on behalf of a state is authorized to 

 

797 40 CFR 60.23(b). 798 See 40 CFR 49.1 to 49.11. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 999 of 1546

submit an initial plan submittal, 2017 update, final state plan 

(or negative declaration, if applicable), and any revisions to 

an approved plan, the EPA has included a requirement in this 

final rule mirroring that of the requirement in 40 CFR part 51 

App. V.2.1.(a) with respect to SIPs that identifies the Governor 

of a state as the authorized official for submitting the state 

plan to the EPA. If the Governor wishes to designate another 

responsible official the authority to submit a state plan, the 

EPA must be notified via letter from the Governor prior to the 

2016 deadline for plan submittal so that they have the ability 

to submit the initial or final plan submittal in the State Plan 

Electronic Collection System (SPeCS). If the Governor has 

previously delegated authority to make CAA submittals on the 

Governor’s behalf, a state may submit documentation of the 

delegation in lieu of a letter from the Governor. The letter or 

documentation must identify the designee to whom authority is 

being designated and must include the name and contact 

information for the designee and also identify the state plan 

preparers who will need access to SPeCS discussed in section 

VIII.E.8. A state may also submit the names of the state plan 

preparers via a separate letter prior to the designation letter 

from the Governor in order to expedite the state plan 

administrative process. Required contact information for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1000 of 1546

designee and preparers includes the person’s title, organization 

and email address. The EPA recommends this information be 

submitted early in the state planning process to allow 

sufficient time for completion of SPeCS registration so that 

those authorized to use the system are provided access. 

3. Components of an initial state plan submittal and 2017 update 

and approvability criteria 

As noted, states may request a 2 year extension to submit a 

final plan through making an initial submittal by September 6, 

2016. For the extension to be granted, the EPA is finalizing 

that the initial plan submittal must addres 3 required 

components: 

An identification of final plan approaches under 

consideration and description of progress made to date on 

the final plan components. 

 An explanation of why the state requires additional time 

to submit a final plan by September 6, 2018. 

 Demonstration or description of opportunity for public 

comment on the initial plan submittal and meaningful 

engagement with stakeholders799, including overburdened 

communities, during both the time in preparation for the 

 

799 Such stakeholders may include labor unions and workers that 

have an interest in the state plan, and communities whose 

economies are dependent on coal. 

Deleted: .

Commented [A64]: edit 

Deleted: appropriate justification 

explaining

Commented [A65]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1001 of 1546

initial plan submittal and the time in development of the 

final plan. 

During the public comment period, multiple commenters 

stated that the proposed timeframe for states to submit an 

initial state plan submittal was not achievable, citing, among 

other things, the number of decisions needed to be made by a 

state or states, and that the EPA needed to clarify the 

requirements for an initial state plan submittal. Multiple 

commenters also expressed concern that the requirements for an 

initial plan submittal required final decisions to be made by 

states, and that the initial plan submittal deadline was not 

enough time for states to make these decisions. 

It is important to note that the EPA is not requiring the 

adoption of any enforceable measures or final decisions in order 

for the state to address any of the initial submittal components 

by September 6, 2016. The EPA believes the absence of requiring 

enforceable measures to be included with the initial submittal 

greatly supports the ability of states intending to develop a 

final state plan to submit an initial plan submittal within 13 

months of this final rule. States are required to submit 

enforceable measures supported by technically complex 

documentation, such as modeling, and adopted through state 

public participation and regulatory or legislative processes as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1002 of 1546

part of SIPs under other parts of the Clean Air Act within 

timeframes comparable to the 13 months the EPA is providing for 

initial plan submittals.800 

In order to further address the commenters’ concerns 

regarding possible ambiguity of the requirements for an initial 

submittal so that an extension is granted, the EPA is providing 

clarity regarding the required components for an initial 

submittal. Regarding the component that states address an 

appropriate justification for an extension, the EPA proposed 

that appropriate justifications for seeking an extension beyond 

2016 for submitting a final plan include: a state’s required 

schedule for legislative approval and administrative rulemaking, 

the need for multi-state coordination in the development of an 

individual state plan, or the process and coordination necessary 

to develop a multi-state plan. In this final rule, the EPA is 

finalizing these as appropriate justifications for seeking an 

extension beyond 2016. It is important to note that the initial 

submittal does not require legislation and/or regulations to be 

 

800 For example, 13 states were required to submit SIP revisions 

sufficient to regulate GHGs under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act 

within either three weeks or 12 months in response to the EPA’s 

SIP call. See “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources 

of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy 

and SIP Call”, 75 FR 77698, (December 13, 2010). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1003 of 1546

passed prior in order for the state to be granted an extension, 

but the initial plan submittal should describe any concrete 

steps the state has already taken on legislation and/or 

administrative rulemaking and detail what the remaining steps 

are in those processes before a final plan can be submitted. The 

EPA also sought comment on other circumstances for which an 

extension of time would be appropriate, and also whether some 

justifications for extensions should not be permitted. 

Commenters stated that states should be able to seek extensions 

whenever an extension can be reasonably justified, and that the 

EPA should take at face value states’ good faith efforts by 

accepting any state assertion that more time is needed to 

develop a plan unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. 

The EPA believes there may be appropriate justifications states 

may submit in addition to the ones described in this final rule. 

Given the opportunity for states to submit appropriate 

justifications other than the ones detailed here, and that 

states may rely upon other components to address this one, the 

EPA believes addressing this component requiring an appropriate 

justification for an extension is achievable by September 6, 

2016, with relative ease by states intending to submit a final 

plan by September 6, 2018. 

In order to additionally clarify the required components of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1004 of 1546

the initial submittal, the following are types of explanations 

of information states should provide as part of the initial 

submittal to successfully address each of the two required 

components for getting an extension: 

 Details on whether a state is considering a single or 

multi-state plan, a plan that meets the CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 rate or mass emission 

goal, and/or an emission standards or state measures plan 

type. 

 A description of how the state intends to address 

development of the required components of the final state 

plan, including a roadmap describing what actions have 

already been taken, what steps remain, and the schedule 

for completing those steps. 

 A commitment to maintain any existing measures the state 

intends to rely upon for its final plan in order to 

achieve the necessary reductions once the performance 

period begins. 

 Describing public participation opportunities such as 

stakeholder and community meetings, or public hearings, 

throughout the 3 year plan development process. This 

could also include leverage of public participation 

approaches that states already use to identify and engage 

Deleted: may

Commented [A66]: edit
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1005 of 1546

potentially affected communities. 

The EPA emphasizes the required initial submittal 

components are intended to provide a reasonable pathway for 

states to demonstrate whether they will be able to submit an 

approvable plan by the extended date of September 6, 2018. The 

EPA also anticipates that through the requirement to address 

these components, the initial plan submittal will also 

facilitate state planning and stakeholder engagement, 

particularly as one component requires the public and 

stakeholders have an opportunity to comment on the initial plan 

submittal. As previously described, these components do not 

require final decisions to be made by states, and this is 

further illustrated by the clarifications on how states may meet 

each of the two required components. Accordingly, the EPA 

believes each of these components are not onerous for to address 

in an initial plan submittal by the September 6, 2016 deadline. 

To further underscore this point, the EPA is further explaining 

the clarifying examples listed above of how states may address 

the three required components, and highlighting the 

achievability of these examples for states to address through 

the initial submittal by September 6, 2016. 

For identification of the intended final plan approach, 

states could identify whether the state is considering the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1006 of 1546

option of the CO2 emission performance rates, a rate-based CO2

goal, or a mass-based CO2 goal, and whether the state is 

intending to pursue a single-state or multi-state plan. 

Stakeholders commented that states will not be far enough along 

in the rule development process to have made these decisions. 

Commenters also stated that many state legislatures would need 

to pass legislation giving state environmental agencies legal 

authority and direction before they could begin to make 

decisions such as rate or mass-based approach or single or 

multi-state plan submittal. In order to address the commenters’ 

concerns, the EPA wishes to clarify that state approaches 

identified in the initial state plan submittal do not need to be 

final and/or formalized through a state legislature, and that 

states may opt to identify pursuit of more than one approach at 

the same time, or to indicate the status of the deliberation of 

this issue within the state. 

The EPA received substantive comment regarding the 

potential adverse consequences for states pursuing a multi-state 

approach and receiving an extension until 2018, where, for 

various reasons, a state or states then decide(s) to pursue the 

single state approach. Commenters viewed this as being 

potentially problematic since, as proposed, a single state could 

only receive an extension until 2017, and if a multi-state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1007 of 1546

effort does not work out the deadline for seeking the extension 

until 2017 would have passed. The EPA notes finalizing a 2 year 

extension that is available for any state, whether they are 

pursuing an individual state plan or a multi-state plan resolves 

the commenters’ concern about conflicting extension deadlines if 

states involved in a multi-state effort decide not to pursue the 

multi-state approach. Importantly, such identification in an 

initial submittal does not obligate the state to then actually 

adopt that approach in their final plan as the EPA acknowledges 

that based on state processes and public input through plan 

development during the extended submission period, a state may 

end up adopting a state plan approach more suitable to the needs 

of that state and its affected EGUs than previously identified 

in the initial submittal. 

States can also submit an appropriate justification by 

providing a description of how the state intends to address 

development of the final state plan through a roadmap of 

identifying steps already taken and steps the state expects to 

take, as the EPA recognizes that states in general have already 

taken a number of steps to prepare for state plan development to 

meet the obligations of this rule. For example, since proposal, 

states have: begun exploring tradeoffs among various state plan 

approaches such as individual versus multistate coordination, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1008 of 1546

increased utilization of demand-side EE and RE programs, and 

implementing rate-based versus mass-based programs; increased 

their understanding of existing state programs and policies that 

reduce carbon emissions; built relationships and communications 

between key state institutions such as environmental agencies, 

public utility commissions, governors’ offices, and energy 

regulators; hosted public stakeholder meetings to educate and 

solicit input from the public; and begun discussing state 

processes for developing potential state plans. 

The EPA underscores that states that have taken these steps 

since proposal may easily address both required components of 

the initial plan submittal by describing such steps, identifying 

next steps (which may be a natural extension of these already 

implemented activities), and laying out a schedule for 

development of a final plan. States that have taken these steps 

would especially be able to address the component regarding an 

appropriate justification for an extension as the EPA recognizes 

the substantial work such states have begun to put towards 

development of state plans, and the continuation of this work 

justifies additional time to complete necessary steps to result 

in an approvable state plan. The EPA emphasizes that for states 

who intend to submit a final plan and need an extension, the 

components of the initial submittal are not intended to require 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1009 of 1546

burdensome final action by states by September 6, 2016, but to 

identify a viable path to completing a final plan by September 

6, 2018. 

An initial plan submittal that contains a commitment to 

maintain any existing measures the state intends to rely upon 

for its final plan in order to get the necessary reductions once 

the performance period begins (e.g. RE standards and demand-side 

EE programs the state intends to rely upon through a state 

measures plan type), at least until the final plan is approved, 

also addresses the requirement that states provide an 

appropriate justification for an extension. Given the state’s 

request for additional time prior to putting in place 

enforceable measures to reduce CO2, it would be reasonable and 

appropriate, and in keeping with the goals of 111(d) to ensure 

that any existing CO2 reduction measures that the state intends 

to rely upon in place while the state is developing a final 

plan. Such commitment would demonstrate that the state is taking 

substantive steps towards successful development of a final plan 

within 3 years. 

Regarding the required public participation component of 

the initial plan submittal, the EPA believes this requirement is 

both achievable for states to submit an initial plan by the 

September 6, 2016 deadline, and provides a benefit in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1010 of 1546

facilitating state plan development so that states are more 

likely to be able to submit a final plan within 3 years if the 

extension is granted. The EPA can use a comment opportunity on 

the initial plan submittal to advise the state whether aspects 

of the draft initial submittal and overall plan development are 

appropriate for purposes of meeting the requirements of the 

final rule so that the state will be able to procure the 

extension through an acceptable initial submittal and submit a 

final plan by the extended deadline. The EPA notes the comment 

period on the initial plan submittal is only one opportunity the 

EPA has to assist a state in the state plan development process. 

The EPA has historically worked with states throughout the state 

plan development process to help ensure that the state plan is 

approvable once submitted to the EPA, and expects this level of 

engagement with states to continue throughout the plan 

development process. This requirement will also facilitate early 

identification of concerns stakeholders and the public may have 

with aspects of a final plan the state is considering. As states 

have longtime and extensive experience with responding to public 

comments in numerous contexts, including in the context of other 

Clean Air Act programs such as Section 110 state implementation 

plan development and in permit issuance under NSR and title V, 

the EPA anticipates states will be able to timely address the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1011 of 1546

initial plan public participation. 

As previously discussed, because certain communities have a 

potential likelihood to be impacted by state plans, the EPA 

believes that the existing public participation requirements 

under 40 CFR 60.23 are effectuated for the purposes of this 

final rule by states engaging in meaningful, active ways with 

such communities. Therefore, the public participation component 

of the initial submittal includes meaningful engagement 

overburdened communities, throughout the state plan development 

process and including through the initial plan submittal. In 

order to demonstrate to the EPA that states are actively 

engaging with affected communities, states could provide in 

their initial plan submittal a summary of steps they have 

already taken to engage the public and how they intend to 

continue meaningful engagement with the public, including 

overburdened communities during the additional time (if an 

extension is granted) for development of the final plan. In 

addition to approaches that states already use to identify and 

engage potentially affected communities, the EPA encourages 

states to use the proximity analysis conducted for this 

rulemaking (which is described in section IX.A) as a tool to 

help them identify overburdened communities that could be 

potentially impacted by their plans. Other tools, such as EJ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1012 of 1546

screen, can also be helpful. The EPA in its continued outreach 

with states during the implementation phase will also provide 

resources to assist them in engaging with overburdened 

communities. The EPA believes that through the provision of 

these resources states will also more easily be able to address 

this required component of the initial submittal regarding 

public engagement, including with overburdened communities, by 

September 6, 2016. 

In addition to the resources the EPA intends to provide 

with states, there are existing resources states can take 

advantage of to address this component as well. On the steps 

that states could take to engage overburdened communities in a 

meaningful way, the Agency recommends that states consult the 

EPA’s May 2015 Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Development of Regulatory Actions. In this document, 

the EPA defines meaningful involvement, as ensuring that, 

“potentially affected community members have an appropriate 

opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed 

activity (i.e., rulemaking) that may affect their environment 

and/or health; the population’s contribution can influence the 

EPA’s [regulatory authority’s] rulemaking decisions; the 

concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the 

decision-making process; and the EPA [decision-makers] will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1013 of 1546

seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially 

affected by the EPA’s [or other regulatory authority’s] 

rulemaking process.”801 Additionally, this guidance document also 

encourages those writing rules consider the positive impacts 

that a rulemaking will have on communities).802 Another resource 

that the EPA recommends that states consult when devising their 

state plans is the document “Considering Environmental Justice 

in Permitting” available on the agency’s website.803 Both of the 

resources discussed above can add to what states may already 

have in place to effectively engage overburdened communities in 

the rulemaking process. 

The EPA recommends that as part of their meaningful 

engagement with overburdened communities, states work with 

overburdened communities to ensure that they have a clear 

understanding of the benefits and any potential adverse impacts 

that a state plan might have on their communities and that there 

is a clear process for states to respond to input from 

communities. 

 

801 Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of Regulatory Actions. 

http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering

-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf. May 2015. 

802 Ibid. 803 Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting. 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/planej/permitting.html#actions. 

Commented [A67]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1014 of 1546

If a state seeks an extension by submitting an appropriate 

initial plan submittal addressing the two required components as 

described above by September 6, 2016, the EPA will grant the 

extension. If the state does not submit an initial plan 

submittal by September 6, 2016, that contains the two required 

components, the EPA will notify the state by letter, within 90 

days, that the agency cannot grant the extension request based 

the state’s initial plan submittal. The EPA will notify a state 

by letter only if the initial plan submittal does not address 

the two required components. An extension for submitting a final 

plan will be deemed granted if the EPA does not deny the 

extension request based on the initial plan submittal. The EPA 

has determined this approach is authorized by, and consistent 

with, 40 CFR 60.27(a) of the implementing regulations. 

For states that request and receive a 2 year extension, the 

state must submit an update halfway through that extension, by 

September 6, 2017. In the proposal the EPA included a 

requirement regarding a 2017 check in. Because the EPA is 

finalizing that states are able to get a 2 year extension 

regardless of whether they are submitting an individual or multi 

state final plan, the EPA believes it appropriate to ensure 

through the 2017 update that the state is making continuous 

progress on its initial plan and that it is on track to meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1015 of 1546

final plan submittal deadline of September 6, 2018. The EPA will 

also be able to use the information provided through the 2017 

update to further assist states in plan development. 

The final rule requires that states address in the 2017 

update the following components: 

 A summary of the status with respect to required 

components of the final plan, including a list of which 

components are not yet complete. 

 A commitment to a plan approach (e.g., single or multistate, rate or mass emission performance level), 

including draft or proposed legislation and/or 

regulations. 

 An updated comprehensive roadmap with a schedule and 

milestones for completing the plan, including progress to 

date in developing a final plan and steps taken in 

furtherance of actions needed to finalize a final plan. 

In order to assess if a state is on track to submit a final 

plan by the 2018 extension deadline, the EPA is requiring that 

the 2017 update must contain a progress update on components 

from the initial plan submittal, and a list of which final plan 

components are still not complete. This progress update must 

demonstrate that state is meeting any steps and schedule it 

outlined in its initial plan submittal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1016 of 1546

The EPA is also requiring that the 2017 update include a 

commitment to the type of plan approach the state will take in 

the final plan submittal. During the public comment period, many 

commenters stated that legislative action would be required to 

enact this final rule at the state level, and that the proposal 

did not provide enough time for legislative action or other 

regulatory actions needed for a state to be granted an 

extension. In order to respond to these comments, the EPA is 

clarifying that proposed or passed legislation or regulations 

are not required in the initial plan submittal due by September 

6, 2016. While a state may indicate consideration of multiple 

state plan approaches in the initial plan submittal, the EPA is 

requiring that the state commit to one approach in the 2017 

update. This commitment must include draft or proposed 

legislation or regulations that must become final at the state 

level prior to submitting a final plan submittal to the EPA. 

While commenters expressed concern with not being able to have 

legislation enacted in time to receive an extension until 2018, 

the EPA has determined that 2 years is a reasonable timeframe 

for a state to decide on the type of approach it will take in 

the final plan submittal and to draft legislation or regulations 

for this approach in order to timely meet the extended September 

6, 2018 deadline. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1017 of 1546

4. Multi-state plan submissions 

For states wishing to participate in a multi-state plan, 

the EPA is finalizing three forms of submittal that states may 

choose for the submittal of a multi-state plan. 

First, the EPA is finalizing its proposed approach where 

one multi-state plan submittal is made on behalf of all 

participating states. The joint submittal must be signed by 

authorized officials for each of the states participating in the 

multi-state plan and would have the same legal effect as an 

individual submittal for each participating state. The joint 

submittal must adequately address plan components that apply 

jointly for all participating states and for each individual 

state in the multi-state plan, including necessary state legal 

authority to implement the plan, such as state regulations and 

statutes. Because the multi-state plan functions as a single 

plan, each of the required plan components (e.g., plan emission 

goals, program implementation milestones, emission performance 

checks, and reporting) would be designed and implemented by the 

participating states on a multi-state basis. 

The EPA received comments from states requesting 

flexibility for multi-state plan submittals. In response to 

these comments, the EPA is also finalizing two additional 

options on which it solicited comment. First, states 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1018 of 1546

participating in a multi-state plan can provide a single 

submittal — signed by authorized officials from each 

participating state — that addresses common plan elements. This 

option requires individual participating states to provide 

supplemental individual submittals that provide state-specific 

elements of the multi-state plan. The common multi-state 

submittal must address all relevant common plan elements and 

each individual participating state submittal must address all 

required plan components (including common plan elements, even 

if only through cross reference to the common plan submittal). 

Under this approach, the combined common submittal and each of 

the individual participating state submittals would constitute 

the multi-state plan submitted for EPA review. The joint common 

submittal must be signed by authorized officials for each of the 

states participating in the multi-state plan and would have the 

same legal effect as an individual submittal for each 

participating state. 

Second, the EPA is finalizing an approach where all states 

participating in a multi-state plan separately make individual 

submittals that address all elements of the multi-state plan. 

These submittals would need to be materially consistent for all 

common plan elements that apply to all participating states, and 

would also address individual state-specific aspects of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1019 of 1546

multi-state plan. Each individual state plan submittal would 

need to address all required plan components. The EPA encourages 

states participating in this type of multi-state plan to use as 

much common material as possible to ease review of the state 

plans. 

These approaches will provide states with flexibility in 

addressing contingencies where one or more states submit plan 

components that are not approvable. In such instances, these 

options simplify the EPA’s approval of remaining common or 

individual portions of a multi-state plan and help address 

contingencies during plan development where a state fails to 

finalize its participation in a multi-state plan, with minimal 

disruption to the submittals of the remaining participating 

states. These additional submittal approaches also facilitate 

multi-state plans where the participating states are 

coordinating the implementation of their plans but are not 

taking on a joint multi-state emission goal for affected EGUs. 

For example, states may seek to engage in a multi-state approach 

that links rate-based or mass-based emission trading programs 

through appropriate authorizations (e.g. reciprocity agreements, 

or state regulations) that allow affected EGUs to use emission 

allowances or RE/EE credits issued in one state for compliance 

with an emission standard in another state. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1020 of 1546

In order to avoid a multi-state plan becoming unapprovable 

due to one state submitting an unapprovable portion of a multistate plan, withdrawing from the multi-state plan, or failing to 

implement the multi-state plan, states may include express 

severability clauses if their multi-state plan is able to stand 

without further revision if one of the situations described 

above occurs. The severability clause must specify how the 

remainder of the multi-state plan or individual state plan would 

continue to function with the withdrawal of a state or states, 

and may also include pre-specified revisions. The EPA will 

evaluate the appropriateness of such a clause as part of its 

review of the multi-state plan submittal. 

5. Process for EPA review of state plans 

Our proposal laid out the basic steps for the EPA’s review 

and action on submitted state plans and, at some length, 

discussed the required components of state plans, as further 

described in the preceding sections. We received a number of 

thoughtful and helpful comments on these issues. We are 

finalizing the basic requirements in this rule and are 

proposing, in the companion proposed federal plan under section 

111d, some additional procedural elements we believe will be 

helpful to states, stakeholders and the EPA moving forward. 

Following the September 6, 2016 deadline for state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1021 of 1546

submittals, the EPA will review plan submittals. For a state 

that submits an initial plan submittal by September 6, 2016, and 

requests an extension of the deadline for the submission of a 

final state plan submittal, the EPA will determine if the 

initial plan submittal meets the minimum requirements for an 

initial plan submittal. If the initial plan submittal meets the 

minimum requirements specified in the emission guidelines, the 

state’s request for a deadline extension to submit a final plan 

submittal will be deemed granted, and the final plan submittal 

must be submitted to the EPA by no later than September 6, 2018. 

After receipt of a final plan submittal, the EPA will 

review the plan submittal and, within 12 months, approve or 

disapprove the plan through a notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process publicized in the Federal Register, similar to that used 

for acting upon SIP submittals under section 110 of the CAA. The 

implementing regulations currently provide for the EPA to act on 

a final plan within 4 months after the deadline for submission, 

which is consistent with versions of section 110 prior to the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA. 40 CFR 60.27(b). To be consistent 

with the current version of section 110, the EPA intends to 

adopt a timeline of 12 months to review final plan submittals 

upon receipt of complete submittals, as is generally consistent 

with the timing requirements of section 110 with respect to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1022 of 1546

complete SIP submittals. Such a timeline would also provide the 

EPA with adequate time for review and rulemaking procedures, and 

ensuring an opportunity for public notice and opportunity for 

comment. We note, however, that we did not propose this timeline 

for review and action on state plans in our proposal, and, in 

particular, starting the 12 month review period from the date of 

receipt of a complete submission.804 Therefore, we intend to 

propose the appropriate revisions to the implementing 

regulations as part of the upcoming federal plan proposal for 

section 111(d). 

 In addition, while the CPP proposal and this final rule 

lay out in considerable detail the required components of a 

state plan, the EPA believes that it would also be helpful to 

include in the rule a completeness determination process, 

similar to that used for SIP submittals under section 110, which 

will allow the EPA to determine whether a final plan submittal 

contains the components necessary to enable the EPA to determine 

through notice and comment rulemaking whether such submittal 

complies with the requirements of section 111(d). This is a 

procedural requirement under CAA section 110(k)(1) for state 

implementation plans, and the EPA believes this requirement is 

 

804 The EPA proposed 12 months after the date required for 

submission of a plan or plan revision to approve or disapprove 

such plan or revision or each portion thereof. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1023 of 1546

appropriate to establish under section 111(d)’s direction of the 

EPA to prescribe through regulations a procedure similar to that 

provided by section 110. However, because the EPA did not 

propose such regulations as part of the proposal for this 

action, the EPA intends to do so as part of the federal plan 

proposal for section 111(d). The EPA notes that this preamble 

(in section VIII.D) and final rule lay out required components 

of state plans and all the requirements for a state plan 

submittal, and therefore states have the necessary information 

at this time to develop state plans. The upcoming completeness 

criteria will not add to or change these required components, 

but only add a procedural step that allows the EPA to identify 

whether there are absent or insufficient components in the plan 

submittal that would render the EPA unable to act on such 

submittal because it is incomplete. As we further explain in 

the federal plan proposal, a determination by the EPA that a 

plan submittal is incomplete has the effect of a state having a 

still-pending statutory obligation to submit a plan that meets 

the requirements of section 111(d). 

The EPA is planning to propose an amendment to the section 

111(d) implementing regulations that will add the partial 

approval/disapproval and conditional approval mechanisms in 

section 110(k)(3) and (4) to the procedure for acting on section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1024 of 1546

111(d) plans. The input the agency got in response to the 

proposal for these guidelines indicated that the flexibility 

provided by these mechanisms could be useful getting state plans 

in place. The EPA agrees, and is proposing to amend the 

implementing regulations as part of the rulemaking for the 

federal 111(d) plan. The EPA is not taking final action on these 

changes in this action. 

 The later timing for our action on partial 

approval/disapproval and conditional procedures does not create 

any issue with finalizing this rule. These procedural 

adjustments will only come into play after states have submitted 

their plans and the EPA is required to act on them and we intend 

to finalize these procedural changes prior to September 6, 2016, 

when the first plan submittals would occur. Until then, the EPA 

believes that every plan is submitted with the intent to be 

fully approvable and there is no need for states to rely on the 

possibility of these procedures when developing their plans. 

Conditional approval and partial approval/disapproval should be 

used to deal with approvability issues that arise despite the 

best efforts of states and the EPA to work together to make sure 

a submittal in the first instance is fully approvable. The EPA 

plans to finalize any changes in the implementing regulations 

before the EPA is required to act on state submittals, so that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1025 of 1546

the EPA and states will have appropriate flexibility in the plan 

approval process. 

6. Failure to submit a plan 

If a state does not submit a final plan submittal by the 

applicable deadline, or submits a final plan the EPA determines 

to be incomplete, the EPA will notify the state by letter of its 

failure to submit. The EPA will publish a Federal Register

notice informing the public of its finding of failure to submit. 

Upon a finding of failure to submit for a state, a statutory 

clock will run requiring the EPA to promulgate a federal plan 

for such state no later than 2 years after the EPA makes the 

finding unless the state submits, and the EPA approves, a state 

plan during this time. We refer to the federal plan proposal for 

more details on how and when a federal plan would be triggered.

7. State plan modifications 

a. Modifications to an approved state plan. During the course of 

implementation of an approved state plan, a state may wish to 

update or alter one or more of the enforceable measures in the 

state plan, or replace certain existing enforceable measures 

with new measures. The EPA received broad support for allowing 

states to submit modifications to approved state plans and we 

agree that this is an important aspect of this program. In this 

rulemaking, therefore, the EPA is finalizing that a state may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1026 of 1546

revise its state plan, and states in a multi-state plan may 

revise their joint plan. Consistent with the timing for final 

plan submittals originally submitted by states, the EPA will act 

on state plan revisions within 12 months of a complete 

submittal. The EPA expects that the long plan performance 

timeframes in this final rule and flexibility provided to states 

in developing state plans will lessen the need for modifications 

to approved state plans. 

 A state may enter or exit a multi-state plan through a plan 

modification, with certain limitations. Multiple commenters 

stated that the EPA should clarify the plan modification process 

in such instances. 

 Where a new state with a single-state approved plan seeks 

to join a multi-state plan, the state may submit a modification 

of its plan indicating that it is joining the multi-state plan 

and including the necessary plan components under the multistate plan. The current participants of the multi-state plan 

will also need to submit a plan modification, to acknowledge the 

new state participant and to recalculate the multi-state ratebased or mass-based CO2 goal. Functionally, both the modification 

of the single-state plan of the new participant and the multistate plan of the current plan participants could be addressed 

through the same plan modification submittal or addressed under 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1027 of 1546

a plan modification submittal comparable to the alternate 

formats for multi-state plan submittals addressed in section 

VIII.E.4. 

 The entry or exit of a state to/from a multi-state plan 

involves the recalculation of the multi-state rate-based or 

mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs in the participating 

states. The recalculated multi-state rate-based or mass-based CO2

goal must take into account and ensure achievement of the 

individual state rate-based or mass-based CO2 goal for the new 

state(s) that is joining the multi-state plan. If implementation 

of the individual state plan has triggered the need for 

corrective measures prior to the plan modification, the 

modification must take into account the need to make up for any 

shortfall in CO2 emission performance in the individual state 

plan prior to joining the multi-state plan. Where one or more 

states are leaving a multi-state plan through a plan 

modification, the process is similar and the same considerations 

must be taken into account in connection with the states that 

are leaving the multi-state plan. 

 As a result of these requirements and considerations, the 

EPA is finalizing certain requirements for multi-state plan 

modifications. A multi-state plan modification may be submitted 

to the EPA at any time. However, an approved multi-state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1028 of 1546

modification may only take effect at the beginning of a new 

interim or final plan performance period. These requirements are 

necessary to ensure that state rate-based or mass-based CO2 goals 

in the emission guidelines are achieved. In addition, such 

requirements for the timing of the effective date of multi-state 

plan modifications are necessary for coordination of the 

implementation of multi-state plans, especially where such plans 

include a multi-state emission trading approach. This approach 

is also consistent with the approach the EPA is proposing for 

the implementation of federal plan, where relevant for a 

state(s). 

The EPA solicited comment on whether, for new projections 

of emission performance included in a submitted plan 

modification, the projection methods, tools, and assumptions 

used should match those used for the projection in the original 

demonstration of plan performance, or should be updated to 

reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as assumptions for 

current and future economic conditions and technology cost and 

performance. Comments received on this topic were generally 

supportive of allowing the use of updated data in state plan 

modifications, citing that states should have the ability to 

determine whether the original data and assumptions or updated 

data and assumptions are appropriate. The EPA is finalizing that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1029 of 1546

new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, 

tools, and assumptions do not have to match those used for the 

projection in the original demonstration of plan performance; 

they can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, 

such as assumptions for current and future economic conditions 

and technology cost and performance. 

As discussed in more detail in section VIII.G, the final 

rule has several measures to ensure that it does not interfere 

with the industry’s ability to maintain reliability. One such 

measure is that if a state cannot address a reliability issue in 

accordance with an approved state plan, the state can submit a 

request to the EPA to modify the state plan. See section VIII.G 

for a more detailed discussion of this issue. 

The EPA is not finalizing any circumstances under which a 

state may or may not revise its state plan, with the exception 

that a state may not revise its state plan in a way that results 

in the affected EGU’s not meeting the requisite CO2 emission 

performance levels. 

b. Modifications to interim and final CO2 emission goals. As 

discussed in section VII, the final rule specifies that the 

state interim and final CO2 emission goals for affected EGUs in a 

state may be adjusted to address inventory changes within a 

state’s fleet of affected EGUs. If these changes occur before a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1030 of 1546

state submits its initial or final plan, the state should 

indicate in its submittal the circumstance that necessitates the 

goal adjustment and the revised interim or final CO2 emission 

goal. If the circumstances occur after a state has an approved 

plan, a state must submit a modification to its approved plan. 

The plan revision submittal must indicate the circumstance that 

necessitates the goal adjustment, the revised interim and/or 

final CO2 emission goal, and the adjustments to the enforceable 

measures in the plan. 

8. Plan templates and electronic submittal 

The EPA is finalizing the requirement that submissions 

related to this program be submitted electronically. 

Specifically, that includes negative declarations, state plan 

submittals (including any supporting materials that are part of 

a state plan submittal), any plan revisions, and all reports 

required by the state plan. The rule provides that files that 

are submitted to the EPA in an electronic format may be 

maintained by states in an electronic format. The submission of 

the information by the authorized official must be in a noneditable format. In addition to the non-editable version, the 

EPA is also requiring that all plan components designated as 

federally enforceable must be submitted in an editable version 

as well, as discussed below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1031 of 1546

a. Submittal of an editable version of federally enforceable 

plan components. To ensure that the EPA has the ability to 

identify, evaluate, merge, update and track federally 

enforceable plan components in a timely and comprehensive 

manner, the EPA is requiring states to submit an editable copy 

of the specific plan components in their submittal that are 

designated as federally enforceable, either effective upon the 

EPA plan approval or as a state plan backstop measure. The 

editable version is in addition to the non-editable version. 

Examples of editable file formats include Microsoft Word, Apple 

Pages and WordPerfect.

b. Revisions to an approved plan. States shall provide the EPA 

with both a non-editable and editable copy of any submitted 

revision to existing approved federally enforceable plan 

components, including state plan backstop measures. The editable 

copy of any such submitted plan revision must indicate the 

changes made, if any, to the existing approved federally 

enforceable plan components, using a mechanism such as 

redline/strikethrough. This approach to identifying the changes 

made to the existing federally enforceable plan components is 

consistent with the criteria for determining the completeness of 

SIP submissions set forth in Section 2.1(d) of Appendix V to 40 

CFR part 51. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1032 of 1546

c. Electronic submittal. It is the EPA’s experience that 

electronic submittal of information has increased the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. The EPA is 

developing the SPeCS, a web accessible electronic system to 

support this requirement that will be accessed at the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx/). The EPA 

will pre-register authorized officials and plan preparers in 

CDX. See section VIII.E.2 for additional information on the preregistration process for authorized officials and plan 

preparers. Detailed instructions for accessing CDX and SPeCS 

will be outlined in the “111(d) SPeCS User Guide: How to submit 

state 111(d) plan material to EPA” which will be available on 

the EPA’s Clean Power Plan Toolbox for States. The EPA will 

provide SPeCS training for states prior to the state plan 

submittal due date. 

Once in CDX, SPeCS can be selected from the Active Program 

Service List. The preparer (e.g., state representative compiling 

a state plan submittal) assembles the submission package. The 

preparer can upload files and complete electronic forms. 

However, the preparer may not formally submit and sign packages. 

Only registered authorized officials may submit and sign for the 

state with the exception of draft submittals. The EPA’s intent 

is to allow submittal of draft plans or parts of plans for early 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1033 of 1546

EPA review prior to formal submission by the authorized official 

and will allow preparers, as well as authorized officials, to 

submit draft documents. The authorized official will be able to 

assemble submission packages and will be able to modify 

submission packages that a preparer has assembled. The key 

difference between the preparer and the authorized official is 

that the authorized official can submit and sign a package for 

formal EPA review using an electronic signature. In the case of 

a multi-state plan, each participating state’s authorized 

official must provide an electronic signature. 

The process has been designed to be compliant with the 

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), under 40 CFR 

part 3, which provides the legal framework for electronic 

reporting under all of the EPA’s environmental regulations. The 

framework includes criteria for assuring that the electronic 

signature is legally associated with an electronic document for 

the purpose of expressing the same meaning and intention as 

would a handwritten signature if affixed to an equivalent paper 

document. In other words, the electronic signature is as equally 

enforceable as a paper signature. For more information on 

CROMERR, see the Web site: http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/. States 

who claim that a state plan submittal or supporting 

documentation includes confidential business information (CBI) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1034 of 1546

must submit that information on a compact disc, flash drive, or 

other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: State and Local 

Programs Group, MD C539-01, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The EPA received a number of comments on the electronic 

submittal of state plans. Some commenters preferred the option 

to submit electronically rather than the requirement to do so. 

In the final rule, for the reasons discussed below, the EPA is 

requiring electronic submittal of state plans and not allowing 

alternate options for plan submittal (e.g. paper submittal). 

Requiring electronic submittal is in keeping with current 

trends in data availability and will result in less burden on 

the regulated community. Electronic submittal will facilitate 

two-way business communication between states and the EPA, will 

guide states through the submittal process to ensure submission 

of all required plan components, and will enable states to 

submit proposed plans to the EPA electronically for early EPA 

comments. Electronic submittal will also facilitate, expedite 

and promote national consistency in the EPA’s review of state 

plans and promote transparency by providing stakeholder-specific 

access to updated information on state plan status and posting 

of plan requirements for viewing by the public, government 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1035 of 1546

regulators and regulated entities. The EPA recently implemented 

an electronic submittal process for SIPs under CAA section 110 

and continues to explore opportunities to increase the ease and 

efficiency with which states and the regulated community can 

meet regulatory data submittal requirements. In summary, the EPA 

believes electronic submittal will be enormously beneficial in 

terms of improving coordination and cooperation between the EPA 

and its state partners in developing approvable state plans. We 

note, however, that there may be some circumstances where having 

paper copies of the plan is needed to facilitate public 

engagement, and encourage states to take those considerations 

into account. 

d. Plan templates. In the proposal, the EPA requested comment on 

the creation of templates for initial and final state plan 

submittals. Multiple commenters requested the EPA provide state 

plan templates. One commenter requested templates for different 

plan designs (e.g. a mass-based trading framework, a rate-based 

trading framework, multi-state compliance and a utility-based 

portfolio approach) and for specific plan components (e.g. how 

to incorporate a state RE standard and an EE program into a 

state plan, how to assess the emission reductions delivered by 

RE and EE). The EPA has determined that the broad range of 

approaches states may take in preparing individual or multi-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1036 of 1546

state plans makes the development of specific templates 

challenging and likely not useful to states. However, concurrent 

with this final rule, the EPA is proposing model rules for both 

rate- and mass-based programs in conjunction with the proposed 

federal plan. These effectively can serve as a template for 

states when preparing their state plan submittals. The EPA will 

continue extensive outreach to states and work closely with them 

on the need for additional tools and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans. 

9. Legal basis regarding state plan process 

Section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to promulgate procedures 

“similar” to those in section 110 under which states adopt and 

submit 111(d) plans. The EPA has interpreted this provision 

previously in the implementing regulations found in 40 CFR part 

60 subpart B. As discussed above, the EPA intends that planned 

revisions to the part 60 implementing regulations will clarify 

(among other things) whether certain procedures are appropriate 

for the EPA’s action on 111(d) state plans, and if so, precisely 

how those procedures should apply. The EPA is proposing these 

revisions to the 111(d) implementing regulations in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking for the federal plan being issued 

concurrently with this final rule. In this section we discuss 

the legal basis for procedures that the EPA is finalizing in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1037 of 1546

this action: initial plan submittals, extensions, and plan 

revisions. 

 First, by using the ambigous word “similar,” Congress 

delegated authority to the EPA to determine precisely what 

procedures would govern 111(d) plans. “Similar” does not have an 

identical meaning as the word “same.” Webster’s Third New 

International Dictionary defines “similar” as “having 

characteristics in common, very much alike” or “alike in 

substance or essentials.” Webster’s Third New International 

Dictionary 2120 (1993). On the other hand, “same” is defined as 

“resembling in every way, not different in relevant essentials,” 

“conforming in every respect,” or “corresponding so closely as 

to be indistinguishable.” Id. at 2007. 

 Had Congress intended that the procedures for section 

111(d) plans be indistinguishable from those in section 110, 

Congress knew how to say so. See, e.g., 36 U.S.C. § 

2352(b)(2)(B) (“same procedures”). And had Congress intended 

that the procedures for section 111(d) plans be as close as 

possible to those in section 110, Congress knew how to say that. 

See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 4325(c) (agency “shall ensure, to the 

maximum extent practicable, that the procedures are similar to” 

certain other procedures). Therefore, Congress must have 

intended to give the EPA leeway to create procedures for section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1038 of 1546

111(d) state plans that somewhat vary from those in section 110, 

so long as the section 111(d) procedures are reasonably tied to 

the purpose and text of section 111(d). In other words, 

“similar” creates a gap in the statute that the EPA may 

reasonably fill. 

a. Initial plan submittals and extensions. Initial plan 

submittals in this instance are a reasonable gap-filling 

procedural step. As explained in our proposal, certain aspects 

of section 111(d) plan development for these particular 

guidelines warrant our creation of this procedural step, even 

though section 110 does not provide for initial plan submittals. 

As explained above, though, we are not bound under section 

111(d)(1) to follow exactly the same procedures.. 

 With respect to the timing of initial plan submittals, 

final submittals, and extensions, we note that section 111 does 

not prescribe any particular deadlines, instead leaving it to 

EPA’s discretion to establish “similar” procedures to section 

110. The implementing regulations for section 111(d) plans 

require state plans to be submitted within 9 months of 

finalization of emission guidelines. Section 110(a)(1) 

provides that states should adopt and submit SIPs that provide 

for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS 

within 3 years, or such shorter period as the Administrator may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1039 of 1546

prescribe.805 As further explained in Section VIII.E., the EPA is 

providing states with up to 3 years to submit a final plan under 

this rule, contingent upon the grant of an extension through an 

initial submittal plan due by September 6, 2016. Section 

110(a)(1) does not provide any particular factors for the 

Administrator to consider in prescribing a shorter period. Thus, 

the EPA’s prescription of a shorter period for either an initial 

plan submittal or a final plan submittal is consistent with the 

discretion granted in section 110(a)(1). We further discuss the 

reasons for why the 13 months initial plan submittal deadline is 

reasonable in Section VIII.E., and such deadline is achievable 

by states seeking to submit a final plan within 3 years. We also 

note that section 110(b) provides for extensions of 2 years for 

plans to implement secondary NAAQS, that other provisions in 

part D provide for extensions of due dates of attainment plans 

in certain circumstances, and that the section 111(d) 

implementing regulations provide for extensions generally. We 

conclude, in view of the above discussion of “similar,” that the 

approach of initial plan submittals and extensions of due dates 

as proposed are reasonable procedures that, while not identical 

to the procedures in section 110, are still similar. 

 

805 Under this grant of authority to prescribe shorter deadlines, 

the EPA has in a number of occasions required SIPs to be 

submitted in 1 year. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1040 of 1546

 Some commenters argued that the 1-year period for initial 

plan submittals and, even assuming an extension, the additional 

1- to 2-year period for final submittals were unreasonably 

short, particularly in light of the possibility that some state 

legislatures might need to act to provide adequate legal 

authority for these particular plans. We are not finalizing the 

1-year extension for single state submittals, and we have 

addressed concerns about legal authority for the initial plan 

submittals by allowing states to identify remaining legislative 

action in those submittals. 

 With respect to the overall period of up to 3 years for 

submittals, we continue to find it reasonable and consistent 

with other deadlines in the CAA. First, section 110(a)(1) 

requires states to submit a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of new NAAQS within 3 years of 

promulgation of that NAAQS. This is true even if the EPA 

promulgates a NAAQS for a previously non-criteria pollutant. In 

that case, it is possible and even likely that at least some 

state agencies will lack statutory authority to regulate the new 

pollutant. Nonetheless, Congress dictated that states should 

submit section 110(a)(1) plans within 3 years. 

 Furthermore, we note that under subpart 1 of Part D of 

Title 1, attainment plans are generally due no later than 3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1041 of 1546

years after designation of a nonattainment area, and under other 

subparts of Part D, plans are due even more quickly. For 

example, under subpart 4, attainment plans for particulate 

matter are generally due 18 months after designation, and under 

subpart 5, the same deadline applies for attainment plans for 

sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide and lead. Developing attainment 

plans may or may not require states to seek additional 

legislative authority, but certainly in terms of complexity they 

are similar to section 111(d) plans for this guideline. In 

general, attainment plans must contain (among other things) a 

comprehensive inventory of sources of the relevant pollutant and 

its precursors (which in populated areas can be very numerous), 

control measures for those sources (including individualized 

control measures for the larger sources), and modeled 

demonstrations of attainment (which in some instances requires 

photochemical grid modeling). Thus, it is reasonable to have the 

same timeline for these section 111(d) plans as Congress 

generally provided for attainment plans in section 172(b). 

b. State plan modifications. Section 110(l) provides for states 

to revise their SIPs, as does 40 CFR 60.28 for section 111(d) 

plans. Section 110(l) also sets out a standard for revisions: it 

prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1042 of 1546

or reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Under the existing section 111(d) 

implementing regulations, the Administrator will disapprove 

section 111(d) plan revisions as unsatisfactory when they do not 

meet the requirements of subpart B to part 60. See 40 CFR 

60.27(c)(3). However, the implementing regulations do not set 

forth a substantive standard like that in section 110(l). 

Section 111(d)(1) does not mention revisions (except 

indirectly through the reference to section 110) and, therefore, 

does not explicitly provide any substantive requirements for 

them. There is, therefore, a gap in the statute that the EPA may 

reasonably fill, since many stakeholders commented on the 

desirability of states being able to modify their plans, and the 

EPA agrees. It is reasonable, at a minimum, that the state plan 

as revised should continue to provide for implementation and 

enforcement of the standards of performance, and to achieve the 

CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission performance 

goal. This is analogous to the substantive requirements of 

section 110(l), which as explained above for section 110(a)(2), 

we may consider in determining how to reasonably fill statutory 

gaps for section 111(d) plans. 

In our proposal, we proposed that certain revisions to 

state plans under these emission guidelines, those that revised 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1043 of 1546

enforceable measures for affected EGUs, should satisfy some 

additional conditions. First, the state should demonstrate that 

the plan continues to achieve the CO2 emission performance rates 

or state CO2 emission performance goal. We proposed that this 

demonstration might be simple for minor revisions, but for major 

revisions a more complete demonstration may be required. We are 

finalizing this proposal. As legal basis for this position, we 

note that a demonstration is necessary to show that a state plan 

provides for implementation of standards of performance that 

achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission 

performance goal, and as explained above we can reasonably 

require the same of revisions. 

It is also reasonable to tailor the requirements of the 

demonstration to the magnitude of the revision. The EPA has 

taken a similar approach to tailoring the requirements for a 

technical demonstration that, under section 110(l), a SIP 

revision does not interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment of the NAAQS. If a SIP revision does not 

relax the stringency of any SIP measure, then the demonstration 

is simple. If the SIP revision does relax the stringency of SIP 

measures, then a qualitative or quantitative analysis may be 

necessary to show non-interference, depending on the nature of 

the revision, the current air quality in the area, and other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1044 of 1546

factors. 

Finally, we proposed that revisions “should not result in 

reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs 

specified in the original approved plan. In other words, no 

‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” 79 FR 34917/1. We received 

adverse comments that this standard did not have a basis in 

section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for 

EPA approval of a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is 

satisfactory in establishing and providing for implementation 

and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the 

performance emission rates or goal, the same standard should 

apply to revisions. In other words, the standard for revisions 

should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We 

believe that our proposal was unclear as to this point and we 

agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same as 

for submittals. We have finalized this position. 

F. State Plan Performance Demonstrations 

This section describes state plan requirements related to 

compliance periods, monitoring and reporting for affected EGUs; 

plan performance demonstrations; consequences if the CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals are not met; and 

out-year requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1045 of 1546

1. Compliance periods, monitoring and reporting requirements for 

affected EGUs 

For plans that include emission standards on affected EGUs, 

the EGU emission standards for the interim period must have 

schedules of compliance for each interim step 1, 2 and 3 for the 

calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, respectively. 

For the final period, EGUs must have emission standards that 

have schedules of compliance for each 2 calendar years starting 

in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-2033, 2034-2035, etc.). If a 

backstop is triggered for a state measures plan, the schedule of 

compliance for the federally enforceable emission standards must 

begin no later than 18 months after the backstop is triggered 

and end at the end of the same compliance period. For example, 

if a backstop is triggered on July 1, 2025, the compliance 

period for the backstop emission standards must begin no later 

than January 1, 2027, and end on December 31, 2027. The next 

compliance period for the backstop emission standards would be 

January 1, 2028-December 31, 2029. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that the 

appropriate averaging time for any rate-based emission standard 

for affected EGUs be no longer than 12 months within a plan 

performance period and no longer than 3 years for a mass-based 

standard. The EPA solicited comments on longer and shorter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1046 of 1546

averaging times for emission standards included in state plans. 

The EPA received comments stating that the proposed 12 month 

averaging was too short and that there was no reason why the 

compliance period under a rate-based plan should be different 

from a mass-based plan. Comments stated that a multi-year 

averaging period is appropriate for rate-based and mass-based 

plans to account for variations that can occur in a single year, 

allowing operators the flexibility they need to manage 

unforeseen events. The commenters also recommended that the 

final rule use discrete 3-year periods for compliance 

reconciliation instead of the rolling-average approach proposed. 

The EPA has considered all comments received on this matter 

and is finalizing the compliance periods indicated above, which 

respond to the comments by applying to both rate- and mass-based 

programs, providing compliance periods longer than 1 year, and 

establishing block compliance periods rather than a rolling 

average approach. We agree with comments that longer averaging 

periods allow for operational and seasonal variability to even 

out. The EPA finalizes that states can choose to set shorter 

compliance periods for their emission standards but none that 

are longer than the compliance periods the EPA is finalizing in 

this rulemaking. If a state chooses to set shorter compliance 

periods, we urge them to make efforts to be cognizant of other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1047 of 1546

deadlines facing EGUs to assure that there will not be 

conflicts. The EPA recognizes that the compliance periods 

provided for in this rulemaking are longer than those 

historically and typically specified in CAA rulemakings. “The 

time over which [the compliance standards] extend should be as 

short term as possible and should generally not exceed one 

month.” See e.g., June 13, 1989 “Guidance on Limiting Potential 

to Emit in New Source Permitting” and January 25, 1995 “Guidance 

on Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit 

through SIP and §112 Rules and General Permits.” However, the 

EPA has determined that the longer compliance periods provided 

for in this rulemaking are acceptable in the context of this 

specific rulemaking because of the unique characteristics of 

this rulemaking, including that CO2 is long-lived in the 

atmosphere, and this rulemaking is focused on performance 

standards related to those long-term impacts. The distinction 

between these unique characteristics and the EPA’s general 

practice regarding compliance periods is bolstered by the EPA 

guidance on appropriate averaging periods for emission 

limitations in NAAQS implementation. For example, the EPA 

guidance has stated that in implementation of the ozone 

standards, which have a short averaging period, the averaging 

period for VOC emission limitations should be correspondingly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1048 of 1546

short. See 51 FR 43857. A longer averaging period for VOC 

emission limitations (VOCs are one of the key precursors to 

ozone formation) can allow spikes in emissions that adversely 

impact ambient air and violate the short term ozone standards. 

This is precisely the opposite of the unique characteristics 

cited above: the long-lived persistence of CO2 in the 

stratosphere and the intent of these guidelines to address the 

long-term impacts. 

State plans must contain requirements for tracking and 

reporting actual plan performance during implementation, which 

includes reporting of CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. Affected 

EGUs must comply with emissions monitoring and reporting 

requirements that are largely incorporated from 40 CFR part 75 

monitoring and reporting requirements. The majority of affected 

EGUs are already familiar with the reporting requirements of 

part 75, and because of this, the EPA has chosen to streamline 

the applicable reporting requirements for affected EGUs under 

the state plans in the final rule. States must require all 

affected EGUs to monitor and report hourly CO2 emissions and net 

energy output (including total net MWh output that is comprised 

of generation, and where applicable, useful thermal output 

converted to net MWhs) on a quarterly basis in accordance with 

40 CFR part 75. Note that this requirement applies for all types 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1049 of 1546

of state plans, regardless of whether the state chooses the 

option of the CO2 emission performance rates, a state rate-based 

CO2 emission goal, or a state mass-based CO2 emission goal. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that state 

plans must include monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for useful energy output from affected EGUs. 

Multiple commenters questioned whether gross rather than net 

electrical production should be reported by affected EGUs and 

recommended that the EPA should utilize gross rather than net 

generation. Many commenters recommended electricity be reported 

in the form used in the 111(b) rules for consistency between 

reporting requirements and simplification of calculation of 

emission limitations between new and old sources. Commenters 

also stated that to the extent the EPA seeks to provide guidance 

to states regarding its preferred monitoring and reporting 

procedures, the EPA should encourage states to avoid imposing 

additional monitoring and reporting burdens by taking advantage 

of the monitoring requirements that already exist to the 

greatest extent possible. For example, the commenters noted that 

the 40 CFR part 75 monitoring procedures used to comply with 

other programs, such as the Title IV Acid Rain Program, provide 

much of the data that would be needed to demonstrate compliance 

under the rule. Comments stated that the June 2014 proposal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1050 of 1546

appeared to mandate a monitoring approach that would eliminate 

key flexibilities provided in the part 75 regulations, thus 

requiring utilities to maintain separate document collection and 

reporting procedures and potentially eliminating important 

alternative monitoring options intended to ensure 

representative, cost-effective monitoring approaches are 

available. The commenters asked the EPA to revise its proposal 

to make clear that the procedures established under part 75 will 

suffice or explain the need for any exceptions. Commenters 

indicated that the rule should require all affected EGUs to 

monitor CO2 emissions and net hourly electric output under 40 CFR 

part 75, and report the data using the EPA's Emission Collection 

and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) assuring a more uniform 

monitoring and reporting process for all EGUs. The EPA believes 

that the final monitoring and reporting requirements (via ECMPS) 

address the issue of duplicative requirements and alleviate 

concern about lost flexibility raised by commenters. 

2. Plan performance demonstrations 

The state plan must include emission performance checks, 

and for state measures plans, periodic program implementation 

milestones. The state plan must provide for tracking of emission 

performance, and for measures to be implemented if the emission 

performance of affected EGUs in the state does not meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1051 of 1546

applicable CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission 

goal during a performance period. 

 As discussed above in section VII, the agency is finalizing 

CO2 emission performance rates or state-specific CO2 emission 

goals that represent emission levels to be achieved by 2030 and 

emission levels to be achieved on average over the 2022-2029 

interim period, and over three interim steps of 2022-2024, 2025-

2027 and 2028-2029. A state may choose to define different 

interim step emission levels for achieving its required 2022-

2029 average performance rate. The EPA recognizes the importance 

of ensuring that, during the 8-year interim period (2022-2029) 

for the interim performance rates or interim state goal, a state 

is making steady progress toward achieving the required level of 

emission performance. For both emission standards plans and 

state measures plans, the final rule requires periodic checks on 

overall emission performance leading to corrective measures or 

implementation of the backstop, if necessary, as described in 

section VIII.F.3 below. States must demonstrate that the interim 

steps were achieved at the end of the first two interim step 

periods. 

 In 2032 and every 2 years thereafter, states must 

demonstrate that affected EGUs achieved the final performance 

rates or state goal on average during each 2-year reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1052 of 1546

period (i.e., 2030-31, 2032-33, 2034-2035 etc.). The multi-year 

performance periods for measuring actual plan performance 

against the performance rates or state goals allow states some 

flexibility that accounts for seasonal operation of affected 

EGUs, and inclusion of RE and demand-side EE efforts. 

 For a rate-based plan, emission performance is an average 

CO2 emission rate for affected EGUs representing cumulative CO2 

emissions for affected EGUs over the course of each reporting 

period divided by cumulative MWh energy output806 from affected 

EGUs over the reporting period, with rate adjustments for 

qualifying measures, such as RE and demand-side EE measures. For 

a mass-based plan, emission performance is total tons of CO2

emitted by affected EGUs over the reporting period. 

 For emission standards plans, as discussed in section 

VIII.D, the state must submit a report to the EPA containing the 

emissions performance comparison for each reporting period no 

later than the July 1 following the end of each reporting period 

(i.e., by July 1, 2025; July 1, 2028; July 1, 2030; July 1, 

2032; and so on). As discussed in section VIII.D, the emission 

comparison required in the July 1, 2030 report must compare the 

actual emissions from affected EGUs over the interim period 

 

806 For EGUs that produce both electric energy output and other 

useful energy output, there would also be a credit for nonelectric output, expressed in MWh.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1053 of 1546

(2022-2029) with the interim CO2 emission performance rates or 

state CO2 emission goal. The report is not required to include a 

comparison for the interim step 3 period, but should include the 

actual emissions from affected EGUs during the interim step 3 

period. 

 The EPA notes that for certain types of emission standards 

plans, with mass-based emission standards in the form of an 

emission budget trading program, achievement of a state’s massbased CO2 goal (including interim step goals and final goal) will 

be assessed by the EPA based on compliance by affected EGUs with 

their emission standards under the program, rather than CO2

emissions during a specific interim step period or final period. 

As discussed in section VIII.C.3.b.(2)(a), this approach is 

limited to plans with emission budget trading programs where 

compliance by affected EGUs with the emission standards will 

ensure that, on a cumulative basis, the state interim and final 

mass-based CO2 goals are achieved.807 This approach allows for CO2

allowance banking across plan performance periods, including 

from the interim period to the final period. As a result, CO2

emissions by affected EGUs could differ from the state mass-

 

807 Emission budget trading programs in such plans establish CO2 

emission budgets equal to or less than the state mass CO2 goal, 

as specified for the interim plan performance period (including 

specified levels in interim steps 1 through 3) and the final 

two-year plan performance periods. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1054 of 1546

based CO2 goal during an individual plan performance period, but 

on a cumulative basis CO2 emissions from affected EGUs would not 

exceed what is allowable if the interim and final CO2 goals are 

achieved. 

 Also as discussed in section VIII.D, states that choose a 

state measures plan must submit an annual report no later than 

July 1 following the end of each calendar year in the interim 

period. This annual report must include the status of the 

implementation of programmatic milestones identified in the 

state plan submittal. The annual report that follows the end of 

each reporting period (i.e., 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-

2029) must also include an emissions performance comparison for 

the reporting period, as described above for the emissions 

standards plan. As discussed in section VIII.D, the emission 

comparison required in the July 1, 2030 report must compare the 

actual emissions from affected EGUs over the interim period 

(2022-2029) with the interim CO2 emission performance rates or 

state CO2 emission goal. The report is not required to include a 

comparison for the interim step 3 period, but should include the 

actual emissions from affected EGUs during the interim step 3 

period. Beginning with the final period of 2030 and onward, 

states using a state measures plan must submit a biennial report 

no later than July 1 following the end of each reporting period 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1055 of 1546

with an emission performance comparison for each reporting 

period, consistent with the reporting requirements for emission 

standards plans. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that a state 

report is due to the EPA no later than July 1 of the year 

immediately following the end of each reporting period. The EPA 

requested comment on the appropriate frequency of reporting of 

the different proposed reporting elements, considering both the 

goals of minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring 

program effectiveness. In particular, the agency requested 

comment on whether full reports containing all of the elements 

should only be required every 2 years rather than annually and 

whether these reports should be submitted electronically, to 

streamline transmission. 

The EPA mainly received adverse comments for requiring 

annual state reporting; commenters stated that this requirement 

was too burdensome for both states and the EPA. Commenters also 

requested that the EPA extend the due date of the annual report 

from July 1 to at least December 31. Commenters stated that 

because of the timing of current data collection, and the need 

to leave time to organize and submit the reports, allowing only 

6 months after the close of the year is problematic. Commenters 

asked that the EPA consider reducing the amount of data required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1056 of 1546

if annual reporting was required. 

 Considering the comments received and the goals of 

minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring program 

effectiveness, the EPA has reduced the frequency of reporting of 

emissions data to every 3 years for the first two interim steps 

and every 2 years thereafter. However, the EPA is finalizing 

that state reports are due to the EPA no later than July 1 

following the end of each reporting period. The EPA believes 

states can design their state plans to receive the data and 

information needed for these reports in a timely manner so that 

this requirement can be met. Furthermore, some of the state 

reporting requirements, such as reporting of EGU emissions, can 

be met through existing reporting mechanisms (ECMPS) and would 

not place additional burdens on states. 

3. Consequences if actual emission performance does not meet the 

CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal 

The EPA recognizes that, under certain scenarios, an 

approved state plan might fail to achieve a level of emission 

performance that meets the emission guidelines or the level of 

performance established in a state plan for an interim 

milestone. Despite successful implementation of certain types of 

plans, emissions under the plan could turn out to be higher than 

projected at the time of plan approval because actual conditions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1057 of 1546

vary from assumptions used when projecting emission performance. 

Emissions also could theoretically exceed projections because 

affected entities under a state plan did not fulfill their 

responsibilities, or because the state did not fulfill its 

responsibilities. 

The final rule specifies the consequences in the event that 

actual emission performance under a state plan does not meet, or 

is not on track to meet, the applicable interim and interim step 

CO2 emission performance rates or state goals in 2022–2029, or 

does not meet the applicable final CO2 emission performance rates 

or state CO2 emission goal in 2030–2031 or later. The 

determination that a state is not on track to meet the 

applicable interim goal or interim step goals in 2022–2029 or 

the applicable final goal in 2030–2031 or later, or the CO2

emission performance rates, will be made through the actual 

performance checks to be included in state reports of 

performance data described in section VIII.D.2.a above. 

For emission standards plans, the final rule specifies that 

corrective measures must be enacted once triggered. Corrective 

measures apply only to emission standard plans in which full 

compliance by affected EGUs would not necessarily lead to 

achievement of the emission performance rates or CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1058 of 1546

goals.808 For such plans, corrective measures are triggered if 

actual CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs is deficient by 

10 percent or more relative to the specified level of emission 

performance in the state plan for the step 1 or step 2 interim 

performance periods. Corrective measures also are triggered if 

actual emission performance fails to meet the specified level in 

the plan for the 8-year interim period 2022-2029, or for any 

two-year final goal performance period (after 2030). In such 

cases, the state report must include a notification to the EPA 

that corrective measures have been triggered. If, in the event 

of such an exceedance, the EPA determines that corrective 

measures have been triggered and the state has failed to notify 

the EPA, the EPA will inform the affected EGUs that corrective 

measures have been triggered. 

When corrective measures are triggered, the state must 

submit to the EPA a plan revision including corrective measures 

that adjust requirements or add new measures. The corrective 

 

808 To be specific, corrective measures requirements apply to all 

emission standard plan designs that do not mathematically assure 

that the plan performance level will be achieved when all 

affected EGUs are in compliance with their emission standards, 

regardless of electricity production and electricity 

mix. Corrective measures requirements apply, for example, to 

emission standards plans that include standards on affected EGUs 

that differ from the emission performance rates in the 

guidelines and emission standards plans that pair a rate-based 

plan performance level with mass-based standards on affected 

EGUs. Backstop requirements apply to state measures plans. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1059 of 1546

measures must both ensure future achievement of the CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goal and achieve 

additional emission reductions to offset any emission 

performance shortfall that occurred during a performance period. 

The shortfall must be made up as expeditiously as practicable. 

The state plan revision submission must explain how the 

corrective measures both make up for the shortfall and address 

the state plan deficiency that caused the shortfall. The state 

must submit the revised plan to the EPA within 24 months after 

submitting the state report indicating the exceedance. The EPA 

will then act on the plan revision within 12 months, consistent 

with other plan revisions and with the timing for final plan 

submittals originally submitted by states. The state must 

implement corrective measures within 6 months of the EPA’s 

approval of a plan revision adding them. 

For states using the state measures approach, the EPA is 

finalizing the backstop requirement as described in section 

VIII.C.4.b of this preamble. As discussed in section VIII.D.2, 

the determination that a state using the state measures approach 

is not on track to meet the applicable interim goal or interim 

step goals in 2022–2029 or the applicable final goal in 2030–

2031 or later, is based on checks that must be included in state 

reports and that must be submitted annually during the interim 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1060 of 1546

period and biennially during the final period. The state must 

report any failure to meet programmatic milestones during the 

interim period. In addition, the state must report actual 

performance checks, similar to the requirements discussed above 

for emission standards plans. If, at the time of the state 

report to the EPA, the state did not meet the programmatic 

milestones for the reporting period, or the performance check 

shows that the plan’s actual CO2 emission performance warrants 

implementation of backstop requirements,809 the state must 

include in the state report a notification to the EPA that the 

backstop has been triggered. If, in the event of such an 

exceedance, the EPA determines that the backstop has been 

triggered and the state has failed to notify the EPA, the EPA 

will inform the affected EGUs that the backstop has been 

triggered. 

Multiple commenters requested that corrective measures not 

be required in the case of a catastrophic, uncontrollable event. 

 

809 As explained in section VIII.C.3.b., state measures plans must 

require the backstop to take effect if actual CO2 emission 

performance fails to meet the level of emission performance 

specified in the plan over the 8-year interim performance period 

(2022-2029, or for any 2-year final goal performance period. 

The plan also must require the backstop to take effect if actual 

emission performance is deficient by 10 percent or more relative 

to the performance levels that the state has chosen to specify 

in its plan for the interim step 1 period (2022-2024) or the 

interim step 2 period (2025-2027).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1061 of 1546

We recognize that there are potential system emergencies that 

cannot be anticipated that could cause a severe stress on the 

electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year 

requirements in a state plan may not be achievable by certain 

affected EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to 

reliability. We are finalizing a reliability safety valve, an 

initial period of up to 90 days during which a reliabilitycritical affected EGU or EGUs will not be required to meet the 

emission standard established for it under the state plan but 

rather will meet an alternative standard. While the reliability 

safety valve is in use, the emissions of the affected EGU or 

EGUs that exceed their obligations under the approved state plan 

will not be counted against the state’s overall goal or emission 

performance rate for affected EGUs and will not be counted as an 

exceedance that would otherwise trigger corrective measures 

under an emission standard plan type or an exceedance that would 

trigger a backstop under a state measures plan type. Use of the 

reliability safety valve will not alter or abrogate any other 

obligations under the approved state plan. After the initial 

period of up to 90 days, the reliability-critical affected EGU 

is required to continue to operate under the original state plan 

emission standard or an alternative standard, and the state must 

revise its plan to accommodate changes needed to respond to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1062 of 1546

ongoing reliability requirements and to ensure than any 

emissions excess of the applicable state goals or performance 

rates occurring after the initial period of up to 90 days are 

accounted for and offset. See section VIII.G.2.e of this 

preamble. 

Multiple commenters supported the inclusion of strong 

enforcement measures for ensuring the interim and final goals 

are met, including the required use of corrective measures when 

triggered. Other commenters provided feedback as to the 

percentage that actual emission performance would need to exceed 

the level of emission performance specified in the statewide 

plan to trigger corrective measures. Some commenters supported 

the trigger that we are finalizing (actual emissions or emission 

rate performance that is 10 percent or more than the projected 

plan performance level), while some recommended a lower or 

higher trigger. 

We have decided to finalize the trigger at 10 percent 

exceedance because we view 10 percent as both low enough to 

ensure that states that need corrective measures implement them 

before they exceed their specified level of emission performance 

to a degree that might be irreversible, and high enough that 

corrective measures are not triggered by fluctuations in 

emissions that do not indicate that a state may not be able to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1063 of 1546

achieve its projected goal. The EPA requested comment on whether 

the agency should promulgate a mechanism under CAA section 

111(d) similar to the SIP call mechanism in CAA section 110. 

Under this approach, after the agency makes a finding of the 

plan’s failure to achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or 

state CO2 emission goal during a performance period, the EPA 

would require the state to cure the deficiency with a new plan 

within a specified period of time. If the state still lacked an 

approved plan by the end of that time period, the EPA would have 

the authority to promulgate a federal plan under CAA section 

111(d)(2)(A). 79 FR 34830, 34908/1-2 (June 18, 2014). 

The EPA intends that planned revisions to the part 60 

implementing regulations will clarify (among other things) 

whether the EPA has authority to call for plan revisions under 

section 111(d) when a state’s plan is not complying with the 

requirements of this guideline, and if so, precisely what 

procedures should apply. The EPA is proposing these revisions to 

the 111(d) implementing regulations in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the federal plan. The EPA is not taking final 

action now on this issue or the related change to the 

implementing regulations. 

a. Legal basis for corrective measures. The EPA discussed the 

concept of corrective measures in our 1992 General Preamble for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1064 of 1546

the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990. 57 

FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992). The General Preamble sets out four 

general principles that apply to all SIPs, “including those 

involving emissions trading, marketable permits and allowances.” 

Id. at 13568. The fourth principle, accountability, means (among 

other things) that “the SIP must contain means ... to track 

emission changes at sources and provide for corrective action if 

emissions reductions are not achieved according to the plan.” In 

the General Preamble, we noted that Part D of Title I explicitly 

provided for this in certain instances by requiring milestones 

and contingency measures. 

Some commenters noted that the contingency measures 

explicitly required by part D are required to be adopted in the 

attainment plan and ready to implement when a milestone is not 

achieved or the area fails to attain the relevant NAAQS. These 

commenters therefore concluded that corrective measures for 

111(d) plans should likewise already be adopted in the 111(d) 

plan and ready to implement. We disagree. Under Part D, 

contingency measures are not expected to fully bring the area 

into attainment. In fact, this would not be possible given the 

difficulty of predicting in advance exactly what measures would 

be needed to fully attain. A better analogue in Part D for the 

corrective measures in these guidelines is the primary way Part 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1065 of 1546

D addresses failure to attain: the state is required to revise 

its plan in various ways within a certain time in order to bring 

about attainment. See, e.g., section 179(d). This is analogous 

to what we are requiring for corrective measures. Thus, part D 

contingency measures are unlike the corrective measures in this 

rule. 

However, the requirement to revise an attainment plan in 

response to failure to attain differs somewhat from the 

corrective measures in these guidelines. Under these guidelines, 

the corrective measures must make up the difference by which the 

plan fell short of the goal, including any prior shortfall that 

had accumulated if the plan fell short of the goal in prior 

years. There is no corresponding requirement in attainment 

planning to increase the stringency of the plan by an amount 

that somehow makes up for any shortfall in attainment from prior 

years; instead the revised plan must demonstrate attainment 

going forward, and other more stringent requirements (such as 

requirements for best available control measures) may be 

triggered. 

 This distinction is the natural result of the difference 

between these guidelines and NAAQS attainment planning. In this 

case, we are finalizing guidelines representing technology-based 

standards for a pollutant with cumulative and long-lasting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1066 of 1546

effects. If a plan falls short of a performance goal, then in 

effect the standards of performance in the plan have failed to 

reflect the BSER over the corresponding period. Due to the 

cumulative effects of CO2, it is possible to remedy this failure 

by requiring the plan to be revised in such a way that the 

standards of performance in the revised plan will reflect the 

BSER over the cumulative plan period, and this can be done by 

requiring the revised plan to make up the shortfall from the 

previous period. In short, the flexibility that these guidelines 

provide should not come at the cost of allowing the standards of 

performance to reflect less than the BSER over the long run.810 

Some commenters noted that 111(d) does not contain explicit 

provisions regarding corrective measures, and they therefore 

inferred that the EPA is not authorized to require them. That 

inference is mistaken. The requirement for 111(d) plans to 

“provide for implementation and enforcement” of the standards of 

performance is ambiguous and does not directly speak to whether 

corrective measures should or should not be required. There is 

therefore a gap for the EPA to fill. While the discussion above 

about Part D does not independently provide any authority to 

fill this gap, the fact that Congress created a scheme with 

 

810 Similar considerations apply to the requirement under the 

state measures approach to revise the plan to make up the 

shortfall. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1067 of 1546

stages of planning in Part D suggests that it would be 

reasonable, if appropriate, to fill this gap in 111(d) in a 

similar way. 

In this guideline, it is appropriate for emission standards 

plans to fill this gap with corrective measures if triggered. 

There are two ways an emission standards plan can provide for 

implementation of standards of performance that achieve the CO2

emission performance rates or requisite state CO2 emission 

performance goal. First, the state can set emission standards 

that necessarily achieve the performance rates or goal, even if 

the affected EGUs in the future vary in their relative amounts 

of electricity generated. Second, the state can set emission 

standards that are demonstrated to achieve the performance rates 

or goal based on assumptions about the relative amounts of 

electricity generated, but which may turn out to not actually 

achieve the goal even if all affected EGUs comply. This is 

analogous to an attainment plan that demonstrated attainment by 

the applicable attainment date, but due to unpredicted economic 

changes actually failed to attain. In this second case, the EPA 

interprets the ambiguous language “provide for implementation . 

. . of standards of performance” in the context of achieving the 

performance rate or emissions goal, to mean that at the time the 

plan is submitted it must contain some mechanism to check the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1068 of 1546

progress of the plan and correct course. The EPA has determined 

that, for this particular rule, the minimum mechanism is the set 

of milestones and provisions for corrective measures specified 

in this rule. Indeed, not requiring corrective measures in the 

case of deficient plan performance would undercut the viability 

of state plan options other than emission standard plans with 

uniform rates applied to all affected EGUs within the state. 

4. Out-year requirements: Maintaining or improving the level of 

emission performance required by the emission guidelines 

 The agency is determining CO2 emission performance rates and 

state CO2 emission goals for affected EGU emission performance 

based on application of the BSER during specified time periods. 

This raises the question of whether affected EGU emission 

performance should be maintained at the 2030 level – or instead 

should be further improved - once the final CO2 emission 

performance rate or state CO2 emission goal is met in 2030. This 

involves questions of performance rate and goal-setting as well 

as questions about state planning. The EPA believes that 

Congress either intended the emission performance improvements 

required under CAA section 111(d) to be maintained or, through 

silence, authorized the EPA to reasonably require maintenance. 

Other CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines set emission limits 

that do not expire. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1069 of 1546

level of emission performance for affected EGUs represented by 

the final CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission 

goal should continue to be maintained in the years after 2030. 

 As noted above, the state plan must demonstrate that plan 

measures are projected to achieve the final emission performance 

level by 2030. In addition, the state plan must identify 

requirements that continue to apply after 2030 and are likely to 

maintain affected EGU emission performance meeting the final 

goal. The state plan would be considered to provide for 

maintenance of emission performance consistent with the final 

goal if the plan measures used to demonstrate projected 

achievement of the final goal by 2030 will continue in force and 

not sunset. After implementation, the state is required to 

compare actual plan performance against the final goal on a 2-

year average basis starting in 2030, and to implement corrective 

measures or a backstop if triggered. 

 In the proposal, the EPA noted that “CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) calls for the EPA, at least every eight years, to 

review and, if appropriate, revise federal standards of 

performance for new sources” in order to assure regular updating 

of performance standards as technical advances provide 

technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The proposal 

“requests comment on the implications of this concept, if any, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1070 of 1546

for CAA section 111(d).” 79 FR 34830, 34908/3 (June 18, 2014). 

 We acknowledge the obligation to review section 111(b) 

standards as stated. The EPA is not finalizing any position with 

respect to any implications of this concept for section 111(d). 

We are promulgating rules for section 111(d) state plans that 

will establish standards of performance for existing sources to 

which a section 111(b) standard of performance would apply if 

such sources were new sources, within the definition in section 

111(a)(2) of “new source.” It is not necessary to address at 

this time whether subsequent review and/or appropriate revision 

of the corresponding section 111(b) standard of performance have 

any implications for review and/or revision of this rule. 

a. Legal basis for maintaining emission performance. In the 

proposal, the EPA proposed “that the level of emission 

performance for affected EGUs represented by the final goal 

should continue to be maintained.” The EPA explained that 

“Congress either intended the emission performance improvements 

required under CAA section 111(d) to be permanent or, through 

silence, authorized the EPA to reasonably require permanence. 

Other CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines set emission limits 

to be met permanently.” 79 FR 34830, 34908/2 (June 18, 2014). We 

also requested comment on whether “we should establish BSERbased state performance goals that extend further into the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1071 of 1546

future (e.g. beyond the proposed planning period), and if so, 

what those levels of improved performance should be.” Id. at 

34908/3. 

 We received adverse comment on establishing BSER-based 

state performance goals beyond the proposed planning period. 

Commenters argued that we did not have a sufficient basis at 

this time to determine what those future goals should be. We 

agree and have decided not to establish such goals. We are 

finalizing, though, that the level of emission performance for 

affected EGUs represented by the final goal should continue to 

be maintained, for the reasons given in our proposal and quoted 

above. 

 The general structure of the CAA supports our 

interpretation. Section 111(d) plans establish standards of 

performance that reflect the BSER, a technology-based standard. 

Generally speaking, in the future technology will only improve, 

and correspondingly the CAA does not provide explicit processes 

to relax technology-based standards. In contrast, the provisions 

in Part D of title I that address attainment of health-based 

standards, the NAAQS, explicitly provide that once the NAAQS are 

attained, emission reduction measures may be relaxes so long as 

the NAAQS are maintained. The absence in section 111(d) of 

explicit provisions for future relaxation of emission reduction 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1072 of 1546

measures, as compared to Part D, supports our interpretation 

that the emission reductions continue to be on-going after the 

CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals are 

achieved in 2030. This is consistent with our past practice for 

section 111(d) rules, which do not contain any provision that in 

the future removes or relaxes the promulgated guidelines. In 

light of the persistence of CO2 as a pollutant and its long-term 

impacts, it is particularly critical in these guidelines to 

explicitly provide for continuing emission reductions. 

G. Additional Considerations for State Plans 

1. Consideration of a facility’s “remaining useful life” and 

“other factors” 

This section discusses the way in which the final emission 

guidelines address the CAA section 111(d)(1) provision requiring 

the Administrator, in promulgating 111(d) regulations, to 

“permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any 

particular source under a [111(d)] plan . . . to take into 

consideration, among other factors, the remaining useful life of 

the existing source to which such standard applies.” 

The final guidelines permit a state, in developing its 

state plan, to fully consider and take into account the 

remaining useful life of an affected EGU and other factors in 

establishing the requirements that apply to that EGU, as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1073 of 1546

discussed further below. Therefore, consideration of facilityspecific factors and in particular, remaining useful life, does 

not justify a state making further adjustments to the 

performance rates or aggregate emission goal that the guidelines 

define for affected EGUs in a state and that must be achieved by 

the state plan. Thus, these guidelines do not provide for states 

to make additional goal adjustments based on remaining useful 

life and other facility-specific factors because they can fully 

consider these factors in designing their plans. 

a. Statutory and regulatory backdrop. This section describes the 

statutory and existing regulatory background concerning 

facility-specific considerations in implementation of section 

111(d). 

Section 111(d)(1)(A) requires states to submit a plan that 

“establishes standards of performance” for existing sources. 

Under section 111(d)(1)(B), the plan must also “provide for 

implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance.” Finally, the last sentence of section 111(d)(1) 

provides: “Regulations of the Administrator under this paragraph 

shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to 

any particular source under a plan submitted under this 

paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the 

remaining useful life of the existing source to which such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1074 of 1546

standard applies.” 

The EPA’s 1975 implementing regulations811 addressed a 

number of facility-specific factors that might affect 

requirements for an existing source under section 111(d). Those 

regulations provide that for designated pollutants, standards of 

performance in state plans must be as stringent as the EPA’s 

emission guidelines. Deviation from the standard might be 

appropriate where the state demonstrates with respect to a 

specific facility (or class of facilities): 

(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant 

age, location, or basic process design; 

(2) Physical impossibility of installing necessary 

control equipment; or 

(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or class 

of facilities) that make application of a less stringent 

standard or final compliance time significantly more 

reasonable. 

This provision was amended in 1995 (60 FR 65387, December 

19, 1995), and is now prefaced with the language “Unless 

otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a case-bycase basis for particular designated facilities or classes 

of facilities.” 40 CFR 60.24(f). 

b. Our proposal regarding the implementing regulations. Our 

proposal stated that the reference to “[u]nreasonable cost 

of control resulting from plant age” in 60.24(f) 

 

811 40 FR 53340 (Nov. 17, 1975). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1075 of 1546

“implements” the statutory provision on remaining useful 

life. We also stated that the implementing regulations 

“provide the EPA’s default structure for implementing the 

remaining useful life provision of CAA section 111(d).” We 

noted that the prefatory language “unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable subpart” gives the EPA 

discretion to alter the extent to which the implementing 

rules applied if appropriate for a particular source 

category and guidelines. We requested comment on our 

analysis of the existing implementing regulations and any 

implications for our regulatory text in respect to how 

these guidelines relate to those regulations. 

 Commenters stated, among other things, that the sentence 

concerning “remaining useful life” was added in the 1977 CAA 

Amendments and that therefore it could not be said that 

provisions from the 1975 implementing regulations “implement” 

the sentence. The EPA does not think as a general matter that it 

is necessarily impossible that a pre-statutory amendment rule 

could continue to serve as a reasonable implementation of a 

post-statutory amendment provision. However, we also think it is 

appropriate, as we suggested in the June 2014 proposal, to 

specify in the applicable subpart for these guidelines that the 

provisions in 60.24(f) should not apply to the class of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1076 of 1546

facilities covered by these guidelines. As a result, regardless 

of whether the implementing regulations appropriately implement 

the “remaining useful life” provision in general, the relevant 

consideration is that, as we now explain, these particular 

guidelines “permit the State in applying a standard of 

performance to any particular source under a plan submitted 

under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other 

factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to 

which such standard applies.” 

c. How these emission guidelines permit states to consider 

remaining useful life and other facility-specific factors. The 

EPA notes that, in general, the implementing regulation 

provisions for remaining useful life and other facility-specific 

factors are relevant for emission guidelines in which the EPA 

specifies a presumptive standard of performance that must be 

fully and directly implemented by each individual existing 

source within a specified source category. Such guidelines are 

similar to a CAA section 111(b) standard in their form. For 

example, the EPA emission guidelines for sulfuric acid plants, 

phosphate fertilizer plants, primary aluminum plants, and Kraft 

pulp plants specify emission limits for sources.812 In the case of 

 

812 See “Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document 

Availability,” 42 Fed. Reg. 12022 (Mar. 1, 1977); “Standards of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1077 of 1546

such emission guidelines, some individual sources, by virtue of 

their age or other unique circumstances, may warrant special 

accommodation. 

In these final guidelines for state plans to limit CO2 from 

affected EGUs, however, the agency does not specify presumptive 

performance rates that each individual EGU is to achieve in the 

absence of trading. Instead, these guidelines provide collective 

performance rates for two classes of affected EGUs (steam 

generating units and stationary combustion turbines), and give 

states the alternative of developing plans to achieve a state 

emission goal for the collective group of all affected EGUs in a 

state. Providing states with the ability to consider facilityspecific factors such as remaining useful life in designing 

their state plans is one of the fundamental reasons that the EPA 

designed the final rule in this way. In addition, the 

significant revisions since proposal to address achievability 

concerns (e.g., moving the start date from 2020 to 2022, and 

 

Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for 

Sulfuric Acid Mist,” 42 Fed. Reg. 55796 (Oct. 18, 1977); “Kraft 

Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 

44 Fed. Reg. 29828 (May 22, 1979); “Primary Aluminum Plants; 

Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 45 Fed. Reg. 26,294 

(Apr. 17, 1980); “Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Rule,” 61 Fed. Reg. 9905 

(Mar. 12, 1996). 

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1078 of 1546

other changes in interim and final state goals summarized in the 

next section) will help to ensure that states in practice can 

consider remaining useful life and other facility-specific 

factors in setting EGU requirements. Of course, EGUs vary 

considerably in age, so remaining useful life is potentially 

relevant to regulation of some units and not others. 

The guidelines capitalize on the inherent flexibility 

offered by aggregate EGU performance rates and by the state 

goals approach, allowing states flexibility on the form of the 

EGU standards that they include in CAA section 111(d) plans. A 

state could select a form of standards (e.g., marketable credits 

or permits, retirement of certain older facilities after their 

useful life, etc.) that avoids or diminishes concerns about 

facility-specific factors such as remaining useful life. If a 

state adopted the CO2 emission performance rates for fossil fuelfired electric utility steam generating units and stationary 

combustion turbines in conjunction with rate-based trading, 

though, the state would be taking remaining useful life into 

consideration by allowing affected EGUs to comply using ERCs. In 

effect, under a trading program with repeating compliance 

periods, a facility with a short remaining useful life has a 

total outlay that is proportionately smaller than a facility 

with a long remaining useful life, simply because the first 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1079 of 1546

facility would need to comply for fewer compliance periods and 

would need proportionately fewer ERCs than the second facility. 

Buying ERCs would avoid excessive up-front capital expenditures 

that might be unreasonable for a facility with a short remaining 

useful life, and would reduce the potential for stranded assets. 

In addition to providing states with flexibility on the 

form of the standards of performance in their plans, the 

guidelines leave to each state the design of the specific 

requirements that fall on each affected EGU in applying those 

standards. To the extent that an emission standard that a state 

may wish to adopt for affected EGUs raises facility-specific 

issues, the state may make adjustments to a particular 

facility’s requirements on facility-specific grounds, so long as 

any such adjustments are reflected (along with any necessary 

compensating emission reductions to meet the state goal) in the 

state’s CAA section 111(d) plan submission. 

Finally, we note that these guidelines permit states to use 

a rate or mass CO2 emission goal, and that each of these pathways 

allow states multiple design choices. Under either pathway 

states can take into consideration remaining useful life and 

seek to avoid stranded assets. 

 The EPA believes that this approach to permitting states to 

consider remaining useful life is appropriate because it 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1080 of 1546

reflects, and is compatible with, the interconnected nature of 

the electricity system. 

Although this discussion emphasizes state flexibility on 

plan design, it is important to note that the main intended 

beneficiaries of state flexibility are the affected EGUs 

themselves. As a key case in point, the EPA has endeavored to 

craft the final guidelines to support and facilitate state plans 

that include trading systems, including interstate trading 

systems that can help EGUs continue to operate with the 

flexibility that they currently enjoy on regional grid levels. 

Trading can provide affected EGUs that have a limited 

remaining useful life with the flexibility to comply through 

purchasing allowances or ERCs, thereby avoiding major capital 

expenditures that would create long-term debt. By buying 

allowances or ERCs, affected EGUs with a limited remaining 

useful life contribute to achieving emission reductions from the 

source category during the years that they operate. During its 

lifetime, a facility with a short remaining useful life will 

need fewer total credits or allowances than an otherwise 

comparable facility with a long remaining useful life, but the 

annualized cost to the two facilities is the same.813 

 

813 Trading of course has other benefits beyond helping to 

address remaining useful life concerns. For example, trading can 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1081 of 1546

In part to help states address remaining useful life 

considerations, the final guidelines facilitate state plans that 

employ trading in multiple ways: 

 By allowing trading under emission standards plans and 

state measures plans, and under rate-based plans and 

mass-based plans; 

 By defining national EGU performance rates that make it 

easier for states to set up rate-based trading regimes 

that allow for interstate trading of ERCs; 

 By clearly defining the requirements for mass-based and 

rate-based trading systems to ensure their integrity; and 

 By providing information on potential allocation 

approaches for mass-based trading. 

In addition, the EPA is separately proposing model trading rules 

for rate-based and mass-based trading to assist states with 

design of these programs in the section 111(d) context. 

d. Why remaining useful life and other facility-specific factors 

do not warrant adjustments in the guidelines’ performance rates 

and state goals. Under the final guidelines, remaining useful 

life and other facility-specific considerations do not provide a 

 

lower costs of achieving a given level of emission reduction and 

can provide economic incentives for innovation and development 

of cleaner technologies. 

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1082 of 1546

basis for adjusting the CO2 emission performance rates, or the 

state’s rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission goals, nor do they 

affect the state’s obligation to develop and submit an 

approvable CAA section 111(d) plan that adopts the CO2 emission 

performance rates or achieves the goal by the applicable 

deadline. After considering public comments discussed below and 

in the response to comments document, the EPA has retained this 

aspect of the proposed rule for the reasons described below. 

As noted above, the final guidelines provide aggregate 

emission goals for affected EGUs in each state, in addition to 

the CO2 emission performance rates. The guidelines also reflect a 

number of changes from proposal to address concerns about 

achievability of proposed state goals that were raised in public 

comments, many of which were explicitly prompted by 

consideration of the remaining useful life issue. The result is 

to afford states with broad flexibility to design requirements 

for affected EGUs to achieve the CO2 emission performance rates 

or state CO2 emission goals in ways that avoid requiring major 

capital expenditures, or imposing unreasonable costs, on those 

affected EGUs that have a limited remaining useful life. State 

plans may use any combination of the emissions reduction methods 

represented by the building blocks, and may also choose to 

employ emission reduction methods that were not assumed in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1083 of 1546

calculating state goals. 

To be more specific, the EPA notes that a state is not 

required to achieve the same level of emission reductions with 

respect to any one building block as assumed in the EPA’s BSER 

analysis. A state may use any combination of measures, including 

those not specifically factored into the BSER by the EPA. The 

EPA has estimated reasonable rather than maximum possible 

implementation levels for each building block in order to 

establish EGU emission rates and state goals that are achievable 

while allowing states to take advantage of the flexibility to 

pursue some building blocks more aggressively, and others less 

aggressively, than is reflected in the agency’s computations, 

according to each state’s needs and preferences. The guidelines 

provide further flexibility by allowing state plans to use 

emission reduction methods not reflected in the BSER. A 

description of multiple emission reduction methods is provided 

in sections VIII.I-J. 

e. Response to key comments on remaining useful life. In 

response to the proposed guidelines, some commenters said that 

the proposed state goals were unachievable and therefore too 

stringent to provide states, as a practical matter, with the 

flexibility to consider remaining useful life for individual 

units. These commenters said the result would be premature 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1084 of 1546

retirements and stranded assets. 

In the final guidelines, the EPA has addressed the comments 

about lack of practical flexibility to consider remaining useful 

life by revising key elements of the guidelines in ways that 

will ensure that the EGU performance levels and state goals are 

achievable considering cost. At the same time, the final 

guidelines maintain the broad flexibility of each state to 

design its own compliance pathway, taking into account any 

facility-level concerns – including remaining useful life – in 

designing EGU requirements. 

The changes to the BSER and goal-setting methodologies 

include: 

 Starting the interim goal period in 2022 rather than 

2020, which allows more lead time for states and 

regulated entities and helps to ensure that the interim 

goal is achievable 

 Revising the goal-setting formula and the state goals 

themselves 

 Updating analyses of achievable levels of improvement 

through the building blocks that together represent the 

BSER, while keeping them at reasonable, rather than 

maximum, levels (thus creating headroom which can, and is 

intended to, help to accommodate the range of ages of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1085 of 1546

different facilities) 

 Providing an explicit phase-in schedule for meeting the 

revised interim goals, while also allowing a state the 

option of choosing its own emission reduction trajectory 

The final guidelines also contain changes to avoid certain 

inconsistencies between the goal-setting methodology and 

accounting of reductions under state plans that could have made 

state goals less achievable for some states. 

Together, the changes described above help to ensure that 

the EGU performance rates and state goals established in the 

final guidelines are achievable, and leave states with the 

practical ability to issue rules that take into account the 

remaining useful life of affected EGU. 

 

As explained in the Legal Memorandum accompanying this 

rule, the EPA believes that Congress intended the remaining 

useful life provision to provide a mechanism for states to avoid 

the imposition of unreasonable retrofit costs on existing 

sources with relatively short remaining useful lives, a scenario 

that could result in stranded assets. However, commenters on the 

proposed rule raised a different stranded assets concern not 

primarily related to retrofit costs -- a concern that the 

proposed rule could cause changes in economic competitiveness of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1086 of 1546

particular EGUs that would prompt their retirement before the 

end of their economically useful lives. These commenters said 

the proposed state goals were so stringent that states would 

have no choice but to adopt requirements that would result in 

retirements of coal-fired capacity that had been built 

relatively recently or had recently made pollution control 

investments. In response to these comments, the EPA has 

conducted a stranded assets analysis which demonstrates that 

that the EGU performance rates and state goals in the final 

guidelines need not result in stranded assets.The EPA shares the 

goal of minimizing stranded assets. Although nothing in section 

111(d) explicitly bars a guideline that results in some 

facilities becoming uneconomic before the end of their useful 

lives, the EPA nonetheless has striven to design the guidelines 

so as to give states flexibility to develop plans that include, 

for example, differential treatment of affected EGUs or 

opportunities to rely on emissions trading, to allow power 

companies to recover their investments in generation units. 

For purposes of the stranded assets analysis, the EPA 

defined a “stranded asset” as an investment in a coal-fired EGU 

that retires before it is fully depreciated. Book life is the 

period over which long-lived assets are depreciated for 

financial reporting purposes. The agency estimated typical book 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1087 of 1546

life by researching financial statements of utility and merchant 

generation companies in filings to the Security and Exchange 

Commission. The agency estimated the book life of coal-fired 

EGUs to be 40 years, and assumed a 20-year book life for 

pollution control retrofits. The book life of coal-fired EGU 

(coal steam and IGCC) is twice as long as the debt life and the 

depreciation schedule used for federal tax purposes. Although 

the book life for environmental retrofits is often 15 years, the 

agency conservatively assumed 20 years in this analysis. 

The analysis examined coal generation in the three large 

regional interconnections of the United States. The analysis 

found that in both 2025 and 2030, for each region, the amount of 

2012 coal generation included in the final guidelines’ emission 

performance rate calculation -- after application of the 

building blocks -- is greater than the amount of 2012 generation 

from coal-fired EGUs that are not fully depreciated in those 

years under the book life assumptions described above. This 

shows that full application of the building blocks does not 

necessitate shifting generation away from these units. 

Stated another way, the national EGU performance rates in 

the final guidelines can be met without the retirement of 

affected EGUs before the end of their book life, and without the 

retirement of affected EGUs before the end of the book life of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1088 of 1546

capital-intensive pollution control retrofits installed on those 

EGUs. Thus, meeting the final EGU performance rates and state 

goals need not cause stranded assets. Details are available in a 

memo to the docket.814

Several commenters said that that the statute does not 

authorize the EPA to require other facilities to achieve greater 

reductions to compensate for a facility that warrants relief 

based on remaining useful life. One said that consideration of 

remaining useful life and other relevant factors is a one-way 

ratchet that provides relief to sources that cannot achieve the 

BSER, and that the EPA turns that approach on its head by 

prohibiting a state from providing such relief to a specific 

facility unless it can identify another facility to “punish” by 

requiring additional emissions reductions to offset that relief. 

The EPA disagrees with these comments, which proceed from 

an incorrect premise. The EPA is not determining a BSER-based 

emission levelachievable by each individual facility without 

trading, and then requiring better-than-BSER from some 

facilities to make up to worse-than-BSER performance that a 

state authorizes for other facilities because of a short 

remaining useful life. Rather, as previously noted, the 

 

814 Memorandum to Clean Power Plan Docket titled “Stranded Assets 

Analysis” dated July 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1089 of 1546

guidelines set EGU performance rates and state goals that 

represent the average or aggregate emission level achievable by 

affected EGUs based on regional average estimates of the impact 

of applying the BSER to collective groupings of affected EGUs.815

In estimating the amount of improvement achievable through each 

building block e.g., improvement in heat rate or amount of 

generation shift to lower-emitting EGUs), the EPA has estimated 

the average level achievable by EGUs in a region rather than 

attempting to estimate the level achievable by each and every 

affected EGU in the absence of trading. Thus, the fact that an 

individual facility may be unable, for example, to achieve the 

average level of heat rate improvement assumed in goal-setting 

is consistent with the EPA’s analysis, and does not undermine 

the EPA’s determination of EGU emission rates and state goals. 

The Legal Memorandum discusses additional reasons that the 

agency disagrees with comments that the guideline must permit 

adjustments in the guidelines’ EGU emission rates and state 

goals based on remaining useful life considerations. 

An additional reason that the EPA believes that 

 

815 The EPA expects that states that choose to adopt the national 

EGU performance rates for all of their EGUs would permit ERC 

trading, rather than requiring each facility to meet the 

applicable rate without trading. In effect, the presence of 

trading means that the EGU performance rates will be achieved on 

average by the EGUs involved in trading, rather than be achieved 

by each facility in the absence of trading. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1090 of 1546

consideration of remaining useful life and other facilityspecific factors does not warrant adjustments to state goals is 

that the design of the guidelines does not mandate that states 

impose requirements that would call for substantial capital 

investments at affected EGUs late in their useful life. Multiple 

methods are available for reducing emissions from affected EGUs 

that do not involve capital investments by the owner/operator of 

at an affected EGU. For example, generation shifts among 

affected EGUs, and addition of new RE generating capacity do not 

generally involve capital investments by the owner/operator at 

an affected EGU. Additional emission reduction methods available 

to states that do not entail significant capital costs at 

affected EGUs are discussed elsewhere in this preamble. 

Heat rate improvements at affected EGUs do require capital 

investments. However, states have flexibility to design their 

plan requirements; they are not required to mandate heat rate 

improvements at plants that have limited remaining useful life. 

In fact, astate can choose whether or not to require heat rate 

improvements at all. , The agency also notes that capital 

expenditures for heat rate improvements would be much smaller 

than capital expenditures required for example, for purchase and 

installation of scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide; a fleet-wide 

average cost for heat rate improvements based primarily on best 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1091 of 1546

practices at coal-fired generating units would not likely exceed 

$100/kW, compared with a typical SO2 wet scrubber cost of $500/kw 

(costs vary with unit size).816 Even if a state did choose to 

adopt requirements for heat rate improvement requirements, , the 

proposed guidelines would allow states to regulate affected EGUs 

through flexible regulatory approaches that do not require 

affected EGUs to incur large capital costs (e.g., averaging and 

trading programs). Under the EPA’s proposed approach - 

establishing state goals and providing states with flexibility 

in plan design – states have flexibility to make exactly the 

kind of judgments necessary to avoid requiring capital 

investments that would result in stranded assets. 

Remaining useful life and other factors, because of their 

facility-specific nature, are potentially relevant as states 

determine requirements that are directly applicable to affected 

EGUs. If relief is due a particular facility, the state has an 

available toolbox of emission reduction methods that it can use 

to develop a section 111(d) plan that will achieve the CO2

emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals on time. 

 

816 Heat rate improvement methods and related capital costs are 

discussed in the GHG Abatement Measures TSD; SO2 scrubber capital 

costs are from the documentation for the EPA’s IPM Base Case 

v5.13, Chapter 5, Table 5-3, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/ipm/Chapter_5.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1092 of 1546

The EPA therefore concludes that the remaining useful life of 

affected EGUs, and the other facility-specific factors 

identified in the existing implementing regulations, should not 

be regarded as a basis for adjusting the CO2 emission performance 

rates or a state CO2 emission goal, and should not relieve a 

state of its obligation to develop and submit an approvable plan 

that achieves that goal on time. 

f. Legal considerations regarding remaining useful life. Section 

111(d)(1) requires the EPA in promulgating section 111(d) 

regulations to “permit the State in applying a standard of 

performance to any particular source under a plan submitted 

under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other 

factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to 

which such standard applies.” Here, we discuss the legal basis 

for determining that the emission guidelines are consistent with 

this statutory requirement. For details, please see the Legal 

Memorandum. 

Section 111(d)(1)only requires that EPA emission guidelines 

permit states to take into account remaining useful life (among 

other factors), but section 111(d)(1) does not specify how the 

EPA must permit that. In other words, the meaning of the 

provision and the way that the EPA is to implement it in 

promulgating guidelines are not specified further in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1093 of 1546

provision. The provision is ambiguous and capable of 

implementation in several ways, and therefore the EPA has 

discretion to interpret and apply it. Furthermore, section 

111(d)(1) does not suggest that states must be given carte 

blanche to consider remaining useful life in any way that can be 

imagined. As detailed in section VIII.B.6, these guidelines 

permit states to take into account remaining useful life in a 

number of reasonable ways and thus the guidelines satisfy the 

statutory obligation. 

The phrase “remaining useful life” also appears in the 

visibility provisions of section 169A. There, in determining 

best available retrofit technology (BART), the state (or the 

EPA) must take into consideration (among other factors) “the 

remaining useful life of the source.” 42 USC 7491(g)(2); see 

also id. (g)(1) (reasonable progress). In the context of the 

visibility program, we have interpreted this provision to mean 

that the remaining useful life should be considered when 

calculating the annualized costs of retrofit controls. See 40 

CFR Pt. 51, App. Y, IV.D.4.k.1. This annualized cost is then 

used to determine a cost effectiveness, in dollars per ton of 

pollutant removed on an annual basis. As a result, a technology 

with a large initial capital cost that might have a reasonable 

cost-effectiveness for a facility with a long remaining useful 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1094 of 1546

life would have a much higher and possibly unreasonable costeffectiveness for a facility with a short remaining useful life. 

 Although section 111(d)(1) is different than section 

169A(g)(2) and need not be interpreted in the same way, we would 

note (as discussed in detail in VIII.B.6 above) that (for 

example) a trading program under these section 111(d) guidelines 

only requires compliance on a periodic basis and does not 

require any initial capital expenditures. Thus, over the life of 

the facility, a facility with a short remaining useful life will 

need fewer total credits or allowances than an otherwise 

comparable facility with a long remaining useful life, but the 

annualized cost to the two facilities is the same. In other 

words, under a trading program remaining useful life of a source 

is automatically accounted for in the way it is accounted for 

under the visibility program. 

 Some commenters stated that the EPA’s interpretation of 

remaining useful life is impermissible. These commenters claimed 

that states, if they wish to take into account remaining useful 

life at one affected EGU, must relax the stringency of the 

emission standard for that EGU. Then, the state would be 

compelled to increase the stringency of emission standards at 

other affected EGUs in order to achieve the state performance 

goal. According to these commenters, section 111(d) does not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1095 of 1546

allow this outcome. 

 First, the commenters are mistaken in their premise. As 

discussed in section VIII.B.6 and in the example immediately 

above, states can impose the exact same emission standards on 

two affected EGUs and still take into account remaining useful 

life through the availability of trading. In other words, states 

need not relax an emission standard here and strengthen an 

emission standard there in order to take into account remaining 

useful life. Thus, these guidelines permit states to take into 

account remaining useful life without any of the effects 

commenters are concerned about. 

 Second, even if states decide to relax emission standards 

at one EGU, on the basis of remaining useful life or any other 

factor, nothing in the last sentence of section 111(d)(1) 

prohibits these guidelines from requiring the state plan to 

still meet the state performance goal. In fact, that sentence is 

completely silent on the issue. Thus, the EPA has the discretion 

to determine what should be the concomitant effects if a state 

chooses to consider remaining useful life in a particular way. 

In this case the concomitant effect of a state relaxing one 

emission standard may be that the state must make up for it 

elsewhere in order to meet the goal, but nothing in section 

111(d)(1), including the statutory requirement to permit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1096 of 1546

consideration of remaining useful life, prohibits that outcome. 

2. Electric reliability

The final rule features overall flexibility, a long 

planning and implementation horizon, and a wide range of options 

for states and affected EGUs to achieve the CO2 emissions goal. 

This design reflects, among other things, the EPA’s commitment 

to ensuring that compliance with the final rule does not 

interfere with the industry’s ability to maintain the 

reliability of the nation’s electricity supply. Comments from 

state, regional and federal reliability entities, power 

companies and others, as well as consultation with the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), helped inform a number of changes made in 

this final rule to address reliability. In addition, FERC 

conducted one national and three regional technical conferences 

on the proposed rule in which the EPA participated and at which 

the issue of reliability was raised by numerous participants. 

 As discussed throughout the preamble and TSDs, the 

electricity sector is undergoing a period of intense change. 

While the change in the resource mix has accelerated in recent 

years, wind, solar, other RE, and EE resources have been 

reliably participating in the electric sector for a number of 

years. Many of the potential changes to the electric system that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1097 of 1546

the final rule may encourage, such as shifts to cleaner sources 

of power and efforts to reduce electricity demand, are already 

well underway in the electric industry. To the extent that the 

final rule accelerates these changes, there are multiple 

features well embedded in the electricity system that ensure 

that electric system reliability will be maintained. Electric 

system reliability is continually being considered and planned 

for. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress 

added a section to the Federal Power Act to make reliability 

standards mandatory and enforceable by FERC and the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Electric 

Reliability Organization which FERC designated and oversees. 

Along with its standards development work, NERC conducts annual 

reliability assessments via a 10-year forecast and winter and 

summer forecasts; audits owners, operators, and users for 

preparedness; and educates and trains industry personnel. 

Numerous other entities such as FERC, DOE, state PUCs, 

ISOs/RTOs, and other planning authorities also consider the 

reliability of the electric system. There are also numerous 

remedies that are routinely employed when there is a specific 

local or regional reliability issue. These include transmission 

system upgrades, installation of new generating capacity, 

calling on demand response, and other demand-side actions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1098 of 1546

Additionally, planning authorities and system operators 

constantly consider, plan for, and monitor the reliability of 

the electricity system with both a long-term and short-term 

perspective. Over the last century, the electric industry’s 

efforts regarding electric system reliability have become 

multidimensional, comprehensive, and sophisticated. Under this 

approach, planning authorities plan the system to assure the 

availability of sufficient generation, transmission, and 

distribution capacity to meet system needs in a way that 

minimizes the likelihood of equipment failure.817 Long-term 

system planning happens at both the local and regional levels 

with all segments of the electric system needing to operate 

together in an efficient and reliable manner. In the short-term, 

electric system operators operate the system within safe 

operating margins and work to restore the system quickly if a 

disruption occurs.818 Mandatory reliability standards apply to 

how the bulk electric system is planned and operated. For 

example, transmission operators and balancing authorities have 

to develop, maintain, and implement a set of plans to mitigate 

 

817 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power 

Systems: An Overview of the Technology, the Marketplace, and 

Government Regulations, IEEE Press, at 160 (2010). 818 Id. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1099 of 1546

operating emergencies.819 

As the electricity market changes and new challenges 

emerge, electric system regulators and industry participants 

make changes to how the electric system is designed and operated 

to respond to these challenges. For example, expressing 

reliability and rate concerns about fuel assurance issues, FERC 

recently issued an order requiring ISOs/RTOs to report on the 

status of their efforts to address market and system performance 

associated with fuel assurance.820 In February of 2015, 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), California 

Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), New York 

Independent System Operator (NYISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), 

ISO New England (ISO-NE), and PJM Interconnection (PJM) each 

filed a report with FERC highlighting their efforts to respond 

to fuel assurance concerns.821 This is just one of many examples 

 

819 NERC Reliability Standard EOP-001-2.1b — Emergency Operations 

Planning, available at 

http://www.nerc.net/standardsreports/standardssummary.aspx. 

820 Centralized Capacity Markets in Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent System Operators, 149 FERC ¶ 

61,145 (2014). FERC generally defines fuel assurance as 

“generator access to sufficient fuel supplies and the firmness 

of generator fuel arrangements”. Id. P 5. 821 For example, ISO-NE and PJM each filed “pay-for-performance” 

proposals to address fuel assurance in their regions. FERC 

recently acted on ISO-NE market rule changes providing increased 

market incentives in capacity, energy, and ancillary services 

markets for generators to be available to meet their obligations 

during reserve shortages. ISO New England Inc., 147 FERC ¶ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1100 of 1546

where electric system regulators and industry participants 

recognize a potential reliability issue and are proactively 

searching for solutions. 

The EPA’s approach in this final rule is consistent with 

our commitment to ensuring that compliance with the final rule 

does not interfere with the industry’s ability to maintain the 

reliability of the nation’s electricity supply. Many aspects of 

the final rule’s design are intended to support system 

reliability, especially the long compliance period and the basic 

design that allows states and affected EGUs flexibility to 

include a large variety of approaches and measures to achieve 

the environmental goals in a way that is tailored to each 

state’s and utility’s energy resources and policies. Despite the 

flexibility built into the design of the proposal, and the long 

emission reduction trajectory, many commenters expressed 

concerns that the proposed rule could jeopardize electric system 

reliability. We note that the EPA has received similar comments 

in EPA rulemakings dating as far back as the 1970s. The EPA has 

always taken and continues to take electric system reliability 

 

61,172 (2014). Additionally, FERC conditionally approved a PJM 

“pay-for-performance” proposal that creates a new capacity 

product to provide greater assurance of delivery of energy and 

reserves during emergency conditions, establishing credits for 

superior performance and charges for poor performance. PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1101 of 1546

comments very seriously. These reoccurring comments with regard 

to reliability notwithstanding, the electric industry has done 

an excellent job of maintaining reliability including when it 

has had to comply with environmental rules with much shorter 

compliance periods and much less flexibility than this final 

rule is able to provide. Now, more than ever, the electric 

industry has tools available to maintain reliability, including 

mandatory and enforceable reliability standards.822 

As with numerous prior CAA regulations affecting the 

electric power sector, environmental requirements for this 

 

822For example, then Executive Vice President-Markets and current 

President of PJM, an RTO with a substantial amount of coal-fired 

capacity and generation, Andrew Ott discussed the success of 

PJM’s market design in assuring that PJM met and exceeded target 

reserve margins while MATS was being implemented. See Statement 

of Andrew Ott, PJM Executive Vice President-Markets, FERC 

Technical Conference on Centralized Capacity Markets in Regional 

Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 

AD13-7-000, at 3, 7 (Sept. 25, 2013), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=6944&CalT

ype= &CalendarID=116&Date=09/25/2013&View=Listview. At the FERC 

national Clean Power Plan Technical Conference, Michael J. 

Kormos, PJM Executive Vice President-Operations, said that PJM’s

markets have proven, “resilient enough to respond to different 

policy initiatives. . . Whether it is the Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program of the 1990’s, the MATS rule or individual state RPS 

initiatives, the markets have been able to send the appropriate 

price signals that produce competitive outcomes.” See Michael J. 

Kormos, PJM Executive Vice President, Statement at FERC 

Technical Conference on EPA’s Clean Power Plan, AD15-4-000, at 3 

(Feb. 19, 2015), available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20150213081650-

Kormos,%20PJM.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1102 of 1546

industry are accommodated within the existing extensive 

framework established by federal and state law to ensure that 

electricity production and delivery are balanced on an ongoing 

basis and planned sufficiently to ensure reliability and 

affordability into the future. In addition, changes that the EPA 

is making in this final rule respond directly to the comments 

and the suggestions that we received on reliability and provide 

further assurance that implementation of the final rule will not 

create reliability concerns. 

First, the final rule allows significant flexibility in how 

the applicable CO2 emission performance rates or the statewide 

CO2 goals are met. Given the differing characteristics of the 

electric grid within each state and region, there are many paths 

to meeting the final rule’s requirements that can be taken while 

continuing to maintain a reliable electricity supply. As further 

described elsewhere in section VIII, states can develop plans to 

meet the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission 

goals by choosing from a variety of state plan types and 

approaches that afford states and affected EGUs appropriate 

flexibility. EE and other non-BSER approaches can strengthen a 

state’s ability to establish a plan to meet the CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goals by providing a 

considerable amount of headroom above the levels of the rates 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1103 of 1546

and goals. EE especially, because it reduces load, can provide 

assurance that reliability can and will be maintained. 

Additionally, the final rule offers opportunities for trading 

among affected EGUs within and between states, and other multistate approaches that will further support electric system 

reliability. 

Second, the final rule provides sufficient time to ensure 

system reliability. The final rule retains the 2030 date for the 

final period, which commenters largely supported as reasonable 

and not a concern for reliability, and addresses one of the key 

issues that commenters pointed to as a reliability-related 

concern by both moving the start of the interim period from 2020 

to 2022 and adjusting the interim goals to provide a more 

gradual phasing-in of the initial reduction requirement and thus 

a more gradual emissions reduction trajectory or glide path to 

the final 2030 goals. These changes deliver on the intent of the 

proposal to afford states and affected EGUs the latitude to 

determine their own emissions reduction schedules over the 

interim period. Both FERC’s May 15, 2015 letter823 and the 

comment record made it clear that providing sufficient time for 

 

823 On May 15, 2015, the five FERC Commissioners sent a letter to 

Acting Assistant Administration Janet McCabe regarding the EPA’s 

Clean Power Plan proposal. See FERC letter, available at

http://ferc.gov/media/headlines/2015/ferc-letter-epa.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1104 of 1546

planning and implementation is essential to ensuring electric 

system reliability. The EPA has responded by providing 

additional time to allow for planning and implementation of the 

final rule requirements, while at the same time allowing enough 

time between the beginning of the interim period and 2030 to 

achieve state goals or emissions performance rates. We note that 

the final rule does not require that all states have met their 

interim goal or performance rate by 2022 but rather that they 

meet it on average during the 2022 to 2029 period. 

As a result of these changes, the states themselves will 

have a meaningful opportunity – which, again, many commenters 

suggested the timing and stringency of the proposal failed to 

create despite our intent to do so – to determine the timing, 

cadence and sequence of actions needed for states and sources to 

meet final rule requirements while accommodating the ongoing 

activity needed to ensure system reliability. The final rule 

provides more than six years before reductions are required and 

an eight-year period from 2022 to 2029 to meet interim goals. 

Moreover, while the final rule requires each state to submit a 

plan by September 6, 2016, we recognize that some states may 

need more than 1 year to complete all of the actions needed for 

their final state plans, including consideration of reliability. 

Therefore, states have the opportunity to receive an extension 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1105 of 1546

for submitting a final plan. If the state needs additional time 

to submit a final plan, then the state may submit an initial 

submittal by September 6, 2016, that documents the reasons that 

the state needs more time and includes appropriate 

justifications for an extension, including a roadmap 

demonstrating the steps the state will take in order to submit 

a final plan by September 6, 2018. 

Third, we are including in the final rule a requirement 

that each state demonstrate in its final state plan submittal 

that it has considered reliability issues in developing its 

plan. This was suggested by a number of commenters, and we agree 

that it is a useful element to state plan development. 

Fourth, the final rule provides a mechanism for a state to 

seek a revision to its plan in order to address changes in 

circumstances that could have reliability impacts if not 

accommodated in the plan. The long compliance timeframe, with 

several interim steps, naturally provides opportunities for 

states, working with their utilities and reliability entities, 

to assess how implementation is proceeding, identify unforeseen 

changes that may warrant plan revisions, and work with the EPA 

to make necessary revisions. Similarly, the ready availability 

of emissions trading as a compliance tool affords EGUs ample 

flexibility to integrate compliance with both routine and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1106 of 1546

critical reliability needs. 

Fifth, in response to a variety of comments, we are 

providing a reliability safety mechanism that provides a path 

for a state to come to the EPA during an immediate unforeseen, 

emergency situation that threatens reliability to notify the EPA 

that an affected EGU or EGUs may need to temporarily comply with 

modified emission standards to respond to this kind of 

reliability concern. 

Sixth and finally we are committed to maintaining an 

ongoing relationship with FERC and DOE as this final rule is 

implemented to ensure continued reliable electric generation and 

transmissions. 

We provide more details about these various elements of the 

final rule, as well as other features of the rule that support 

system reliability, below. 

a. Summary of key comments. The EPA received a number of 

comments regarding the proposed rule and electric reliability. 

Many commenters provided specific, useful ideas regarding 

changes that could be made to the proposal to specifically 

address their reliability concerns. For example, many commenters 

state that allowing additional time to comply could help in 

meeting the final rule requirements while addressing their 

reliability concerns. Some commenters suggest that additional 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1107 of 1546

time would allow them to evaluate potential reliability impacts 

and system changes that need to be made to comply with final 

rule requirements while allowing affected EGUs time to meet 

interim CO2 emissions goals. The EPA also received comment that 

market-based approaches have features that could help support 

reliability, and therefore we should encourage states to join or 

form regional market-based programs. Commenters also stated that 

the EPA should require states to consult with grid operators who 

would analyze the impact of state plans on reliability. A number 

of commenters also suggested that the EPA should include some 

sort of reliability safety valve in the final rule. We note that 

many participants at the FERC technical conferences on the 

proposed rule also discussed a reliability safety valve in great 

detail with many suggestions for how such a reliability 

mechanism could be designed. The EPA appreciates these and all 

the comments we received regarding the interaction of the 

proposal and electric reliability. We have carefully considered 

all comments, consulted further with FERC and incorporated many 

of the suggested changes in this final rule. 

b. Final rule flexibility. In issuing this final rule, the EPA 

considered public comments on the potential interaction between 

the proposal and electric reliability. While we have made every 

effort to develop guidelines that would allow states and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1108 of 1546

utilities to steer clear of potential reliability disruptions, a 

number of commenters argued that the possibility of an 

unanticipated reliability event cannot be entirely eliminated. 

It is important to note that there are many factors that 

influence system reliability and, given the complexity of the 

electric grid, electric system planners and operators likely 

will not completely avoid reliability issues, even in the 

absence of these guidelines. The EPA designed the final rule to 

ensure to the greatest extent possible that actions taken by 

states and affected EGUs to comply with the final rule do not 

increase potential reliability issues or complicate their 

resolution. In fact, to the extent that meeting final rule 

requirements results in the reduction of demand, upgrades in 

transmission efficiency and infrastructure, and investment in 

new, more efficient technologies, the outcome could be that the 

system is more robust and faces fewer risks to electric 

reliability. 

One specific concern raised by many commenters is that the 

proposed plan development schedule may not leave sufficient time 

to conduct reliability planning between the development of state 

plans and the proposed start of the interim period in 2020. To 

address these concerns and to support a more effective 

reliability planning process, the EPA is moving the start of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1109 of 1546

interim period from 2020 to 2022 and adjusting the interim goals 

to provide a gradually phased-in initial reduction requirement 

and a more gradual glide path to the final 2030 goals. This more 

gradual application of the BSER over the 2022-2029 interim 

period provides the state with substantial latitude in selecting 

the emission reduction glide path for affected EGUs over that 

period. As noted above, the final rule also provides states with 

up to 3 years to adopt and submit their final state plans, and 

afterwards states can, if necessary, revise their plans before 

the beginning of the interim period. This timing gives system 

planners and operators the opportunity to do what they have 

already been doing; looking ahead to forecast potential 

contingencies that pose reliability risks and identifying those 

actions needed to mitigate those risks. The final rule allows 

states to develop a pathway over the interim period that 

reflects their own circumstances, such as reflecting planned 

additions and changes in generation mix and potentially taking 

advantage of opportunities for trading of credits or allowances 

by affected EGUs within and between states. Because achievement 

of the emission rates or goals can be demonstrated over several 

years, state plans can accommodate situations where, for 

example, it may take time to develop new generation, pipelines, 

or transmission while still providing many options for meeting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1110 of 1546

the final rule requirements and planning for the reliability of 

the system. 

c. Considering reliability during state plan development 

process. Under CAA section 111(d)(1)(B), state plans must 

provide for the implementation and enforcement of standards of 

performance for affected EGUs. The EPA does not believe a state 

that establishes standards of performance for affected EGUs 

without taking reliability concerns into consideration 

satisfactorily provides for the implementation of such standards 

of performance as required by CAA section 111(d)(1)(B), as a 

serious reliability issue would disrupt the state's 

implementation of the state plan. Therefore, the EPA is 

requiring that each state demonstrate as part of its final state 

plan submission that it has considered reliability issues while 

developing its plan in order to ensure that standards of 

performance can be implemented and enforced as required by the 

Clean Air Act. If system reliability is threatened, the ability 

of affected EGUs to meet the requirements of this final rule 

could be compromised if they are required to operate beyond the 

emission standards established in state plans in order to 

maintain the reliability of the electric grid. The requirement 

that states consider reliability as part of the development of 

state plans is therefore designed to ensure that state plans are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1111 of 1546

flexible enough to avoid this kind of potential conflict between 

maintaining reliability and providing for the implementation of 

emission standards for affected EGUs as required by the Clean 

Air Act. 

A number of commenters, notably ISOs and RTOs, also 

discussed reliability concerns in the context of state plans and 

pointed out that planning and anticipation of change are among 

the essential ingredients of ensuring the ongoing reliability of 

the electricity system. To that end, they recommended that as 

states are developing state plans, their activity include the 

consideration of the reliability needs of the region in which 

affected EGUs operate and of the potential impact of actions to 

be taken in compliance with state plans. Therefore, we are 

requiring that each state demonstrate in its final state plan 

submittal that it has considered reliability issues in 

developing its plan. One particularly effective way in which a 

state can make this demonstration is by consulting with the 

relevant ISOs/RTOs or other planning authorities as they develop 

their plans and documenting this consultation process in their 

state plan submissions. If a state chooses to consider 

reliability through consultation with the ISO/RTO or other 

planning authority, the EPA recommends that the state request 

that the planning authority review the state plan at least once 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1112 of 1546

during the plan development stage and provide its assessment of 

any reliability implications of the plan. Additionally, we 

encourage states that are considering reliability through an 

ISO/RTO or other planning authority consultation process to have 

a continuing dialogue with those entities during development of 

their final state plan. 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 final state plan 

submittal to the EPA. This consultation is designed to inform 

how the state might adjust its plan for meeting the CO2 reduction 

goal required under this guideline; the consultation is not a 

basis for relaxing that goal. While we consider this process to 

be an effective way for a state to demonstrate that it 

considered reliability in developing its final state plan, a 

state may provide other comparable support for a demonstration 

that it has considered reliability during the state plan 

development process.824 The EPA believes that this requirement 

to demonstrate consideration of reliability will provide an 

 

824 While the EPA is requiring that the states demonstrate that 

they have considered reliability in developing their plans, 

state plan submissions will not be evaluated substantively 

regarding reliability impacts. 

Deleted: Also as discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, the EPA encourages states to include 

state utility regulators and the state energy 

offices in the development of the state 

plan. These agencies have expertise that can 

help to assure that state plans complement the 

state’s power sector.

Commented [A68]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1113 of 1546

effective reliability evaluation in the state plan development 

process. It should further help states avoid any conflicts 

between state plans and the maintenance of reliability during 

implementation of the state plan and associated emission 

standards. Finally, we also encourage states as they develop 

their plans to consider, to the extent possible, other potential 

issues that may impact affected EGUs. For example, an affected 

EGU may be in an ISO/RTO that puts certain deadlines on 

generators that may not line up perfectly with state plan 

deadlines. 

d. State plan modifications. If, during the implementation of a 

state plan, a reliability issue cannot be addressed within the 

range of actions or mechanisms encompassed in an approved state 

plan, the state can submit a plan revision to the EPA to amend 

its plan. In such a circumstance, the state plan may need to be 

adjusted to enable affected EGUs to continue to meet final rule 

requirements without causing an otherwise unmanageable 

reliability threat. In all cases the plan revision must still 

ensure the affected EGUs meet the emission performance level set 

out in the 111(d) final rule. Whether or not these circumstances 

occur will depend in part upon how each state designs its state 

plan. States that design plans with a high level of flexibility, 

such as market-based plans or multi-state plans, are less likely 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1114 of 1546

to face a potential conflict between state plan requirements and 

the maintenance of reliability. States that participate in 

multi-state programs will be better able to weather unexpected 

reliability risks. 

Events not anticipated at the time of the final plan 

submittal - such as the retirement of a large low- or zeroemitting unit - may trigger the request for state plan 

revisions. It may also be the case that affected EGU-specific 

emissions standards in a state plan are proving to be too 

inflexible to allow the plan to accommodate market or other 

changes in the power sector. In such instances, there should be 

a lead time between the announced retirement of the unit and the 

need to amend the state plan. Therefore, the state should be 

able to utilize the revisions process that the EPA provides. 

The EPA will review a plan revision per the framework 

regulation requirements of 40 CFR part 60.28. If the state’s 

request for a state plan revision must be addressed in an 

expedited manner to assure a reliable supply of electricity, the 

state must document the risks to reliability that would be 

addressed by the plan revision by providing the EPA with a 

separate analysis of the reliability risk from the ISO/RTO or 

other planning authority. This analysis should be accompanied by 

a statement from the ISO/RTO or other planning/reliability 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1115 of 1546

authority that there are no practicable alternative resolutions 

to the reliability risk. In this case, the EPA will conduct an 

expedited review of the state plan revision.825 

e. Reliability safety valve. 

In this section we describe a reliability safety valve, 

available to states with affected EGUs providing reliabilitycritical generation in emergency circumstances. Specifically and 

as discussed below the reliability safety valve provides i) a 

90-day period during which the affected EGU will not be required 

to meet the emission standard established for it under the state 

plan but rather will meet an alternative standard, and ii) a 

period beginning after the initial 90 days during which the 

reliability-critical affected EGU maybe required to continue to 

operate under an alternative standard rather than under the 

original state plan emission standard, as needed in light of the 

emergency circumstances,or and the state must during this period 

revise its plan to accommodate changes needed to respond to 

ongoing reliability requirements. Any emissions in excess of the 

applicable state goals or performance rates occurring after the 

initial 90-day period must be accounted for and offset. 

 

825 The EPA will still undertake notice and comment rulemaking 

per the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act when 

acting on such state plan revision, but intends to prioritize 

review of plan revisions needed to address reliability concerns. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1116 of 1546

Many commenters expressed concerns that a serious, 

unforeseen event could occur during the final rule 

implementation period that would require immediate reliabilitycritical responses by system operators and affected EGUs that 

would result in unplanned or unauthorized emissions increases. 

After reviewing the comments, we believe that it is highly 

unlikely that there would be a conflict between activities 

undertaken under an approved state plan and the maintenance of 

electric reliability, except in the case of a state plan that 

puts relatively inflexible requirements on specific plants. 

While some have pointed out that severe weather or other shortterm events could potentially conflict with state plans, we note 

that most of those events are of short duration and would not 

require major – if any - adjustments to emission standards for 

affected EGUs or to state plans. For example, during an event 

like the extreme cold experienced in periods of the winter of 

2013-2014, affected EGUs may need to run at a higher level for a 

short period of time to accommodate increased demand and/or 

short-term unavailability of other generators. However, because 

compliance by affected EGUs will be demonstrated over 2-3 years, 

such a short-term event would not cause affected EGUs to be out 

of compliance with their applicable emission standards. States 

can also ensure that this is true by developing plans that allow 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1117 of 1546

adequate compliance flexibility to accommodate such short-term 

events. We note that we have included in this final rule a 

number of different features designed to facilitate emissions 

trading between and among EGUs on an interstate basis – and have 

done so, in no small part, in response to comments from states 

and stakeholders seeking to put in place or operate under statelevel and interstate emissions trading regimes. Affected EGUs 

operating in those circumstances and operating, in addition, 

subject to state plans that incorporate flexible glide paths and 

trading would be able to accommodate an unanticipated 

reliability event. 

We recognize, however, that affected EGUs operating in a 

state with a relatively inflexible state plan could face 

unanticipated system emergencies that could cause a severe 

stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that 

the requirements in that state’s plan may not be achievable by 

certain affected EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable 

risk to reliability. In particular, there could be extremely 

serious events, outside the control of affected EGUs, that would 

require an affected EGU or EGUs operating under an inflexible 

state plan to temporarily operate under modified emission 

standards to respond to this kind of reliability concern. 

Examples of such an event could include, a catastrophic event 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1118 of 1546

that damages critical or vulnerable equipment necessary for 

reliable grid operation; a major storm that floods and causes 

severe damage to a large NGCC plant so that it must shut down; 

or a nuclear unit that must cease generating unexpectedly and 

therefore other affected EGUs need to run at higher levels than 

authorized by the approved state plans. This is not an allinclusive list, but the examples illustrate several key 

attributes of the kinds of circumstances in which the 

reliability safety valve would apply. First, the event creating 

the reliability emergency would be unforeseeable, brought about 

by an extraordinary, unanticipated, potentially catastrophic 

event. Second, the relief provided would be for EGUs compelled 

to operate for purposes of providing generation without which 

the affected electricity grid would face some form of failure. 

Third, the EGU or EGUs in question would be subject to the 

requirements of a state plan that imposes emissions constraints 

such that the EGU or EGUs’ operation in response to the 

reliability emergency resulted in levels of emissions that 

violated those constraints. We do not anticipate that EGUs 

operating under a plan that permitted emissions trading would 

meet these criteria. 

The final guidelines provide a reliability safety valve for 

these types of situations. If an emergency situation arises, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1119 of 1546

affected state must submit an initial notification to the 

appropriate EPA regional office within 48 hours that it is 

necessary to modify the emission standards for a reliabilitycritical affected EGU or EGUs for up to an initial 90 days. The 

notification must include a full description of the emergency 

situation that is being addressed. It must also identify with 

particularity the affected EGU or EGUs that are required to run 

to assure reliability. It must also specify the modified 

emission standards at which the affected EGU or EGUs will 

operate. The EPA will consider this notification to be an 

approved short–term modification to the state plan, allowing the 

EGU to operate at an emission standard that is an alternative to 

the emission standard originally specified in the relevant state 

plan, subject to confirmation by the further documentation 

described below.826 

Within 7 days of submitting the initial notification, the 

state must submit a second notification providing documentation 

to the appropriate EPA regional office that includes a full 

description of the reliability concern and why an unforeseen, 

emergency situation that threatens reliability requires the 

 

826 The EPA reserves the right to review such notification, and 

in the event that the EPA finds such notification is improper, 

the EPA may disallow the short-term modification and affected 

EGUs must continue to operate under the original approved state 

plan emission standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1120 of 1546

affected EGU or EGUs to operate under modified emission 

standards (including discussion of why the flexibilities 

provided under the state’s plan are insufficient to address the 

concern). The state must also describe in its documentation how 

it is coordinating or will coordinate with relevant reliability 

coordinators and planning authorities to alleviate the problem 

in an expedited manner, and should indicate the maximum time 

that the state anticipates the affected EGU or EGUs will need to 

operate in a manner inconsistent with its or their obligations 

under the state’s approved plan, and the modified emission 

standards or levels at which the affected EGU or EGUs will be 

operating at during this period if it has changed from the 

initial notification. The documentation must also include a 

written concurrence from the relevant reliability coordinator 

and/or planning authority confirming the existence of the 

imminent reliability threat and supporting the temporary 

modification request or an explanation of why this kind of 

concurrence cannot be provided. Additionally, if the relevant 

planning authority has conducted a system-wide or other analysis 

of the reliability concern, the state should include that 

information in its request. If the state fails to submit this 

documentation on a timely basis, the EPA will notify the state, 

which must then notify the affected EGU(s) that they must 

Deleted: .

Commented [A69]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1121 of 1546

operate or resume operations under the original approved state 

plan emissions standards. 

It is important to note that the state and affected EGUs 

must continue to monitor and report their emissions and 

generation pursuant to requirements in this final rule and under 

the state plan during any short-term modification. For the 

duration of the up to 90 day short-term modification, the 

emissions of the affected EGU or EGUs that exceed their 

obligations under the approved state plan will not be counted 

against the state’s overall goal or emission performance rate. 

Such a modification will not alter or abrogate any other 

obligations under the approved state plan. 

During this short term modification period, the EPA expects 

that the source, the state and the relevant reliability 

coordinator and/or planning authority will assess whether the 

reliability issue can be addressed in a way that would allow the 

EGU or EGUs to resume operating under the original approved 

state plan within the 90 day period or whether revisions to the 

state plan need to be made to address the unexpected 

circumstances for the longer term (the unexpected unavailability 

of a nuclear unit, for example). 

The EPA recognizes that an emergency may persist past 90 

days. At least 7 days before the end of the initial 90 day 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1122 of 1546

reliability safety valve period, the state must notify the 

appropriate EPA regional office whether the reliability concern 

has been addressed and that the EGU or EGUs can resume meeting 

the original emissions standards established in the state plan 

prior to the short-term modification. 

If there still is a serious, ongoing reliability issue at 

the end of the short-term modification period that necessitates 

the EGU or EGUs to emit beyond the amount allowed under the 

state plan, the state must provide to the EPA a notification 

that it will be submitting a state plan revision and submit the 

plan revision as expeditiously as possible, specifying in the 

notice the date by which the revision will be submitted. The 

state must document the ongoing emergency with a second written 

concurrence from the relevant reliability coordinator and/or 

planning authority confirming the continuing urgent need for the 

EGU or EGUs to operate beyond the requirements of the state plan 

and that there is no other reasonable way of addressing the 

ongoing reliability emergency but for the EGU or EGUs to operate 

under an alternative emission standard than originally approved 

under the state plan. In this event, the EPA will work with the 

state on a case-by-case basis to identify an emissions standard 

for the affected EGU or EGUs for the period before a new state 

plan revision is approved. After the initial 90 day period, any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1123 of 1546

excess emissions beyond what is authorized in the original 

approved state plan will count against the state’s overall goal 

or emission performance rate. 

The EPA intends for this reliability safety valve to be 

used only in exceptional situations. In addition, this 

reliability safety valve applies only to this final rule and has 

no effect on Clean Air Act requirements to which the state or 

the affected EGUs are otherwise subject. As discussed earlier, 

we are providing states with the flexibility to design programs 

that incorporate the level of flexibility that allow affected 

EGUs to meet compliance obligations while responding to 

reliability needs, even in emergency situations. This 

flexibility means that a conflict between the requirements of 

the state plan and maintenance of reliability should be 

extremely rare. We recognize, however, that a state with an 

inflexible plan could be faced with more than one emergency and 

in this case the reliability safety valve may be used more than 

once. If the state finds that a second reliability emergency 

arises that conflicts with the state plan, the state must submit 

a revision to its state plan so that the state plan is flexible 

enough to assure that such conflicts do not recur and that the 

state is providing for the implementation of the standards of 

performance for affected EGUs as required by the Clean Air Act. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1124 of 1546

f. Coordination among federal partners. The EPA, DOE, and FERC 

have agreed to coordinate efforts to help ensure continued 

reliable electricity generation and transmission during the 

implementation of the final rule. The three agencies have 

developed a coordination strategy that reflects their joint 

understanding of how they will work together to monitor final 

rule implementation, share information, and resolve any 

difficulties that may be encountered. This strategy is based on 

the successful working relationship that the three agencies 

established in their joint effort to work together to monitor 

reliability during MATS implementation. 

g. Analyses of the reliability impacts of the proposal. The EPA 

appreciates that a large number of entities from many different 

industry perspectives have published reports and analysis with 

respect to electric reliability and the 111(d) proposed rule. We 

take concerns about reliability very seriously, and we 

appreciate the attention given to this issue in the comments and 

shared with us in public forums. It is important to note that 

these studies were conducted prior to promulgation of this final 

rule, and thus were only able to consider electric reliability 

with respect to the proposal. The EPA has made changes and 

improvements to the proposal in response to comments and new 

information, and some of the changes are relevant to the final 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1125 of 1546

rule’s potential effect on electric reliability. One notable 

change pertains to the start of the interim period, which is now 

2022 rather than 2020. Another important change to the final 

rule is a more gradual phase-in of the BSER for affected EGUs 

over the interim period (from 2022 through 2029). The final rule 

also provides considerable flexibility and multiple pathways to 

states, including allowing their EGUs to use multi-state trading 

and other approaches, which would allow essential units to 

continue to meet their compliance obligation while generating 

even at unplanned but reliability-critical levels. In addition, 

we have included in the final rule a reliability safety valve 

provision that can be utilized in certain emergency situations. 

These changes, in addition to already existing industry 

mechanisms and planning requirements, will help to ensure that 

industry will be able to maintain electric reliability. The EPA 

is confident that the final rule will cut harmful electric power 

plant pollution while maintaining a reliable electric grid 

because the final rule provides industry with the time and 

flexibility needed to continue its current and ongoing planning 

and investing to modernize and upgrade the electric power 

system. 

 In June of 2015, M.J. Bradley & Associates issued a report 

that enumerated a set of useful guiding principles for studying 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1126 of 1546

and evaluating the reliability impacts of the final rule.827 The 

report enumerated six principles: (1) a study should be 

transparent about the assumptions and data used; (2) a study 

should accurately reflect the existing status of the grid in its 

modeling assumptions; (3) a study should clearly identify the 

base case and not confuse what will happen as a result of the 

final rule with what would have happened anyway; (4) where 

possible, a study should contain sensitivities and probabilities 

as they are looking into the future which is necessarily 

uncertain; (5) a study should reflect the flexibility provided 

to states to allow them to design compliance approaches to 

maximize reliability; and (6) a study should provide realistic 

and reliability-focused results. These principles are helpful to 

keep in mind when reviewing recent studies. 

 NERC published its analyses of the proposed rule in 

November 2014 and again in April 2015.828 The EPA appreciates 

 

827 M.J. Bradley & Associates, Guiding Principles for Reliability 

Assessments Under EPA’s Clean Power Plan (June 3, 2015), 

available at http://www.mjbradley.com/node/295. 828 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Potential 

Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan (Nov. 5, 

2014), available at http://www.nerc.com/news/Pages/ReliabilityReview-of-Proposed-Clean-Power-Plan-Identifies-Areas-forFurther-Study,-Makes-Recommendations-for-Stakeholders.aspx; 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Potential 

Reliability Impact of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan: Phase 1

(Apr. 21, 2015), available at

http://www.nerc.com/news/Pages/Assessment-Uses-Scenario-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1127 of 1546

NERC’s attention to, and interest in, the proposed rule. 

However, we note that like some other studies, NERC assumes 

considerably less flexibility than actually is provided to 

states and EGUs in this final rule. The final rule provides 

states with considerable time and latitude in designing plans 

that are tailored to the system in which their EGUs operate, 

which should be reflected in any reliability analysis. Also, the 

NERC study does not fully reflect the current electric grid. For 

example, the amount of renewable generation that NERC assumes 

for 2020 is similar to levels of generation that we see today 

whereas projections for 2020 are considerably higher.829 Further, 

NERC conflates retirements that may happen as a result of the 

rule with those that are already planned. The Brattle Group has 

also reviewed NERC’s November 2014 initial analysis of the 

proposed rule, noting that it is important to distinguish 

between concerns about the building blocks and reliability 

concerns about compliance with state plans.830 The Brattle Group 

concluded that there are real world solutions to NERC’s 

 

Analysis-to-Identify-Potential-Reliability-Risks-from-ProposedClean-Power-Plan.aspx. 

829 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015, PRIL 2015. 830 Brattle Group, EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Reliability, 

Assessing NERC’s Initial Reliability Review (Feb. 2015), 

available at http://info.aee.net/hs-fs/hub/211732/file2486162659-pdf/PDF/EPAs-Clean-Power-Plan--ReliabilityBrattle.pdf?t=1434398407867. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1128 of 1546

concerns. These include making use of the many flexible options 

available to states under the rule to mitigate reliability 

risks. 

 Multiple ISOs/RTOs also provided analyses of the proposed 

rule, including MISO, PJM, ERCOT, and SPP.831 For example, MISO 

conducted an analysis of coal units at risk for retirement, 

finding that 14 GW of coal may be at risk.832 SPP performed a 

resource adequacy analysis that assumes planned retirements plus 

the EPA’s projected retirements, but did not similarly account 

for the building of new generation capacity.833 While we 

appreciate MISO’s and SPP’s concerns regarding retirements and 

 

831 See MISO, Analysis of EPA’s Proposal to Reduce CO2 Emissions 

from Existing Units (Nov. 12, 2014), available at

https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Communication%20Ma

terial/EPA%20Regulations/AnalysisofEPAProposalReduceCO2Emissions

.pdf; PJM, PJM Interconnection Economic Analysis of the EPA 

Clean Power Plan Proposal (Mar. 2, 2015), report listed at

http://www.pjm.com/documents/reports.aspx; SPP, SPP’s 

Reliability Impact Assessment of the EPA’s Proposed Clean Power 

Plan, (Oct. 8, 2014), available at

http://www.spp.org/publications/CPP%20Reliability%20Analysis%20R

esults%20Final%20Version.pdf; ERCOT, ERCOT Analysis of the Clean 

Power Plan (Nov. 17, 2014), available at

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2014/ERCOTAnalys

is-ImpactsCleanPowerPlan.pdf; and 

832 MISO, Analysis of EPA’s Proposal to Reduce CO2 Emissions from 

Existing Units, at 14 (Nov. 12, 2014), available at

https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Communication%20Ma

terial/EPA%20Regulations/AnalysisofEPAProposalReduceCO2Emissions

.pdf.

833 SPP, SPP’s Reliability Impact Assessment of the EPA’s 

Proposed Clean Power Plan, (Oct. 8, 2014), available at

http://www.spp.org/publications/CPP%20Reliability%20Analysis%20R

esults%20Final%20Version.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1129 of 1546

the potential that reserves will fall below reserve requirement 

levels, it is important to consider the many ways in which 

states can develop plans that account for their potential 

reliability concerns. The final rule continues to give states 

significant flexibility in how they comply with requirements, 

including both BSER and non-BSER measures as a means to comply. 

For example, demand-side EE measures can greatly assist states 

and affected EGUs in meeting the standards and/or state plan. 

Many studies assume that state plans will simply apply the BSER 

and do not recognize the large number of compliance approaches 

and opportunities that states and affected EGUs have available 

to them. The Analysis Group recently analyzed reliability 

considerations in MISO as the region considers how to comply 

with the final rule.834 The Analysis Group found that despite the 

large amount of coal that will likely retire in MISO in the 

coming years, the entities responsible for electric system 

reliability in MISO are prepared to collaboratively address any 

reliability issues that arise and that there is a “strong tool 

kit for managing `Essential Reliability Services‘ needed to 

 

834 Analysis Group, Electric System Reliability and EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan: The Case of MISO (June 8, 2015), available at

http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publ

ishing/analysis_group_clean_power_plan_miso_reliability.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1130 of 1546

assure high-quality electric service.”835 

ERCOT also performed an analysis, modeling numerous 

scenarios.836 ERCOT stated that its modeling identified two 

potential reliability problems – impacts of units retiring and 

increased levels of renewable generation on the ERCOT grid.837 As 

noted above, the final rule gives additional time for 

compliance, providing needed time to obtain new or replacement 

generation necessary as some existing generators retire. 

Moreover, affected EGUs needed for reliability should be able to 

employ the flexibilities afforded to them as they seek lower and 

zero-emitting generation. Finally, we note that ERCOT has a 

history of notable success in integrating RE into its electric 

grid, giving ERCOT significant expertise regarding challenges 

that may arise with the addition of new RE in order to comply 

with the final rule. In fact, a recent Brattle Group report used 

ERCOT as a case study for how to effectively integrate a large 

 

835 Analysis Group, Electric System Reliability and EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan: The Case of MISO, at 2 (June 8, 2015), available at

http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publ

ishing/analysis_group_clean_power_plan_miso_reliability.pdf. 

836 ERCOT, ERCOT Analysis of the Clean Power Plan (Nov. 17, 

2014), available at

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2014/ERCOTAnalys

is-ImpactsCleanPowerPlan.pdf. 

837 ERCOT, ERCOT Analysis of the Clean Power Plan, at 9 (Nov. 17, 

2014), available at

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2014/ERCOTAnalys

is-ImpactsCleanPowerPlan.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1131 of 1546

number of RE into the electric grid.838 

 PJM conducted its own analysis at the request of the 

Organization of PJM States (OPSI).839 This analysis is consistent 

with many of the M.J. Bradley guiding principles. PJM designed 

various scenarios to capture the impact of the proposed rule 

under a series of assumptions. Because the EPA had not yet 

issued the final rule, PJM cautioned against using the report as 

a reliability analysis or predictor of the future. PJM stated 

that, since 2007, PJM’s capacity markets have helped to attract 

35,000 MWs of additional generation. Even though 26,000 MWs will 

retire between 2009 and 2016, the PJM capacity market has 

procured sufficient resources to maintain reliability. 

 WECC also produced a study which is part of a longer-term, 

phased effort.840 The assumptions, methodology, and limitations 

were all clearly presented and there was extensive involvement 

 

838 Brattle Group, Integrating Renewable Energy Into the 

Electricity Grid: Case Studies Showing How System Operators are 

Maintaining Reliability (June 2015), available at

http://info.aee.net/integrating-renewable-energy-into-theelectricity-grid. 

839 PJM, PJM Interconnection Economic Analysis of the EPA Clean 

Power Plan Proposal (Mar. 2, 2015), report listed at

http://www.pjm.com/documents/reports.aspx. 

840 WECC, EPA Clean Power Plan: Phase I – Preliminary Technical 

Report (Sept. 19, 2014), available at

https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Relia

bility/140912_EPA-111(d)_PhaseI_TechFinal.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1132 of 1546

by a range of stakeholders. WECC stated that it is embarking on 

a phased-study process that seeks to “provide the industry with 

unbiased and independent analysis of this issue.”841 WECC 

concluded that the effects of the proposal on resource adequacy 

may be minimal but that resource adequacy cannot be fully 

assessed without realistic and/or proposed compliance 

scenarios.842 

 Analysis Group analyzed the proposed rule, finding that it 

provides states and affected EGUs with a wide range of options 

and operational discretion that can prevent reliability issues 

while also reducing carbon pollution and costs.843 Analysis Group 

noted that some of the concerns raised by stakeholders about the 

proposed rule assume “inflexible implementation, are based upon 

worst-case scenarios, and assume that policy makers, regulators, 

 

841 WECC, EPA Clean Power Plan: Phase I – Preliminary Technical 

Report, at 1 (Sept. 19, 2014), available at

https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Relia

bility/140912_EPA-111(d)_PhaseI_TechFinal.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1. 

842 WECC, EPA Clean Power Plan: Phase I – Preliminary Technical 

Report, at 30 (Sept. 19, 2014), available at

https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Relia

bility/140912_EPA-111(d)_PhaseI_TechFinal.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1. 

843 Analysis Group, Electric System Reliability and EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan Tools and Practices (Feb. 2015), available at

http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publ

ishing/electric_system_reliability_and_epas_clean_power_plan_too

ls_and_practices.pdf. 

Commented [A70]: suggest moving most of this discussion to 

RTC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1133 of 1546

and market participants will stand on the sidelines until it is 

far too late to act” to ensure reliability.844 It stated that 

these assumptions are not consistent with past actions. 

 We appreciate the time that multiple entities took to 

analyze and consider the potential impacts of the proposed rule. 

As we issue the final rule and states draft plans to implement 

the rule, we look forward to further analysis by these and other 

groups. Such analysis can provide states with needed resources 

to help them design state plans that will augment the efforts of 

the industry to maintain electric reliability. 

3. Consideration of effects to employment and economic 

development 

States in designing their state plans should consider the 

effects of their plans on employment and overall economic 

development to assure that the opportunities for economic growth 

and jobs that the plans offer are manifest. To the extent 

possible, states should try to assure that any communities that 

can be expected to experience job losses can also take advantage 

of the opportunities for job growth or otherwise transition to 

 

844 Analysis Group, Electric System Reliability and EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan Tools and Practices, at ES-3 (Feb. 2015), available 

at

http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publ

ishing/electric_system_reliability_and_epas_clean_power_plan_too

ls_and_practices.pdf.

Commented [A71]: Recommend deleting this text. Whatever 

the flaws in these analyses, the most important point is that they 

were analyses of a proposal that has now been superceded. To the 

extent these arose in comments, this would better work in the 

Response to Comments document. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1134 of 1546

healthy, sustainable economic growth. The EPA’s illustrative 

analysis describes the likelihood for some additional job loss 

in sectors related to coal that are attributable to 

implementation of this rule. At the same time, the EPA’s 

illustrative analysis highlights that there may be new jobs in 

the utility power sector associated with both improving the 

efficiency of fossil fuel-fired power plants, construction and 

operation of new natural gas-fired and renewable power 

production, and actions to increase demand side EE. 

Consideration of these effects in the context of the particulars 

of the state plan can help states craft plans that, to the 

extent possible, meet multiple environmental and economic goals. 

The Partnership for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic 

Revitalization (POWER) Initiative is a new interagency effort 

led by the Economic Development Administration in the Department 

of Commerce that specially targets economic development 

assistance to communities affected by changes in the coal 

industry and the utility power sector and may be of assistance 

to communities that experience job losses.845 As part of this 

initiative, the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor 

(DOL), Small Business Administration, and the Appalachian 

Regional Commission have together created an initiative to issue 

 

845 http://www.eda.gov/power/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1135 of 1546

grants to partnerships of regionally-driven economic development 

and workforce development organizations in impacted coal 

communities.846 

4. Workforce considerations 

Some stakeholders commented that, to ensure that emission 

reductions are realized, it is important that construction, 

operations and other skilled work undertaken pursuant to state 

plans is performed to specifications, and is effective, safe, 

and timely. The EPA agrees and encourages states to ask for a 

demonstration that the work is performed by a proficient 

workforce. A good way to ensure such a workforce is to require 

that workers have been certified by: 1) an 

apprenticeship program that is registered with the U.S. DOL, 

Office of Apprenticeship or a state apprenticeship program 

approved by the DOL; 2) a skill certification aligned with the 

U.S. DOE Better Building Workforce Guidelines and validated by a 

third party accrediting body recognized by DOE; or 3) other 

skill certification validated by a third party accrediting 

body. 

5. Tenth Amendment legal considerations 

Some commenters have raised concerns that the emission 

 

846 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/factsheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economicrevitaliz. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1136 of 1546

guidelines and requirements for 111(d) state plans violate 

principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution, 

particularly the Tenth Amendment. These commenters claim that 

states will be unconstitutionally “coerced” or “commandeered” 

into taking certain actions in order to avoid the prospect of 

either a federal 111(d) plan applying to sources in the state, 

or of losing federal funds. 

 We disagree on both fronts. First, the prospect of a 

federal plan applying to sources in a state does not “coerce” or 

“commandeer” that state into submitting its own satisfactory 

plan. Far from violating principles of federalism, this rule 

provides states with the initial opportunity to submit a 

satisfactory state plan, and provides states flexibility in 

developing that plan. If a state declines to take advantage of 

that opportunity, affected EGUs in that state will instead be 

subject to a federal plan that satisfies statutory 

requirements.847 This approach is consistent with ordinary 

 

847 Among other things, a federal plan will implement standards 

of performance subject to specific statutory requirements. See 

42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1). The APA and CAA would prohibit the 

imposition of any federal plan that is “arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a). Particularly given these independent 

constraints on the EPA’s authority with respect to any potential 

federal plan, the prospect of any such plan would not commandeer 

states or coerce them into submitting their own state plans. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1137 of 1546

cooperative federalism regimes that federal courts have 

routinely upheld against Tenth Amendment challenges.848 

 Second, states that decline to take certain actions under 

this rule will not face the prospect of sanctions, such as 

withdrawn federal highway funds. CAA section 111 does not 

contain sanctions provisions, and we are finalizing revisions to 

these emission guidelines making explicit that the EPA will not 

withhold federal funds from a state on account of that state’s 

failure to submit or implement an approvable 111(d) state plan. 

Some commenters pointed to section 110(m) as a possible 

source of the EPA’s sanction authority.849 Section 110(m) grants 

the EPA discretionary authority to withhold some federal highway 

funds under certain conditions. However, section 110(m) requires 

the EPA to adopt regulations to “establish criteria for 

exercising” this discretionary authority, and the only EPA 

regulations implementing section 110(m) apply to SIPs submitted 

 

848 See, e.g., Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 

Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 283–93 (1981); Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180, 

196–97 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that “Supreme Court precedent 

repeatedly affirm[s] the constitutionality of federal statutes 

that allow States to administer federal programs but provide for 

direct federal administration if a State chooses not to 

administer it”). 

849 Other commenters point to CAA section 179 as a possible 

direct source of this sanctions authority. However, the 

mandatory sanctions outlined in section 179 clearly apply only 

in the contexts of nonattainment SIPs and responses to SIP Calls 

made under CAA section 110(k)(5). See 42 U.S.C. § 7509(a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1138 of 1546

under section 110.850

The EPA never intended to even imply that we would 

contemplate using this authority to encourage state 

participation in this rule under section 111. To the contrary, 

we believe that imposition of a federal plan rather than 

sanctions is the appropriate path in the context of this 

program. Accordingly, regardless of whether the EPA could 

theoretically apply discretionary sanctions against states in 

the section 111(d) context, the rule today forbids the agency 

from exercising any such authority. We have included in this 

rule a provision that prohibits the agency from imposing 

sanctions in the event that a state fails to submit or implement 

a satisfactory plan under this rule. As states consider whether 

to take advantage of the opportunity to develop state plans, 

they can be assured that the EPA will not withdraw federal 

funding should they decline to participate. 

6. Title VI 

 States that are recipients of EPA financial assistance must 

comply with all federal nondiscrimination statutes that together 

prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national 

origin (including limited-English proficiency), disability, sex 

and age. These laws include: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

 

850 40 CFR 52.30 (defining “plan or plan item”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1139 of 1546

1964; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Section 13 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972; 

Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972; and the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975. Compliance with these 

nondiscrimination statutes is a recipient’s separate and 

distinct obligation from compliance with environmental 

regulations. In other words, all recipients are required to 

ensure that all aspects of their state plans do not violate any 

of the federal nondiscrimination statutes, including Title VI. 

The EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for 

carrying out compliance with these federal nondiscrimination 

statutes and does so through a variety of means including: 

complaint investigation; agency-initiated compliance reviews; 

pre-grant award assurances and audits; and technical assistance 

and outreach activities. Anyone who believes that any of the 

federal nondiscrimination laws enforced by OCR have been 

violated by a recipient of EPA financial assistance may file an 

administrative complaint with the EPA’s OCR. 

H. Resources for States to Consider in Developing Plans

 As part of the stakeholder outreach and comment processes, 

the EPA asked states what the agency could do to facilitate 

state plan development and implementation. In addition, after 

the comment period closed, the EPA continued to consult with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1140 of 1546

state organizations including the Association of Air Pollution 

Control Agencies (AAPCA), Environmental Council of the States 

(ECOS), National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

(NARUC), National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) 

and the National Governors Association (NGA). 

Some states indicated that they wanted the EPA to create 

resources to assist with state plan development, especially 

resources related to accounting for RE and demand-side EE in 

state plans. They requested clear methodologies for estimating 

emission reductions from RE and demand-side EE policies and 

programs so that these could be included as part of their 

compliance strategies. Stakeholders said that these tools and 

metrics should build upon the EPA’s “Roadmap for Incorporating 

Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into 

State and Tribal Implementation Plans,” as well as the State 

Energy Efficiency Action Network’s “Energy Efficiency Program 

Impact Evaluation Guide.” In addition, stakeholders requested 

clear guidance on how to measure the impacts of RE and demandside EE programs using established EM&V protocols. 

The EPA also heard that states would like guidance on plan 

development to be released at the same time as this final rule. 

This guidance should include allowable programs and policies for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1141 of 1546

compliance, examples of compliance pathways, clear information 

on multi-state plan development, and identification of tools. 

As a result of this feedback, in consultation with U.S. DOE 

and other federal agencies, the EPA continued to refine its 

toolbox of decision support resources at: http://www2.epa.gov/ 

www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox. The site includes 

information on regulatory requirements, including state plan 

guidance and state plan decision support. The state plan 

guidance section serves as a central repository for the final 

emission guidelines, RIA, guidance documents, TSDs and other 

supporting materials. The state plan decision support section 

includes information to help states evaluate different 

approaches and measures they might consider as they initiate 

plan development. This section includes, for example, a summary 

of existing state climate and RE and demand-side EE policies and 

programs, information on electric utility actions that reduce 

CO2, and tools and information to estimate the emissions impact 

of RE and demand-side EE programs. 

The EPA notes that our inclusion of a measure in the 

toolbox does not mean that a state plan must include that 

measure. In fact, inclusion of measures provided at the website 

does not necessarily imply the approvability of an approach or 

method for use in a state plan. States will need to demonstrate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1142 of 1546

that any measure included in a state plan meets all relevant 

criteria and adequately addresses elements of the plan 

components discussed in section VIII.D of this preamble. 

I. Considerations for CO2 Emission Reduction Measures that Occur 

at Affected EGUs 

 This section describes a range of emission reduction 

actions that may be taken at affected EGUs that reduce CO2

emissions from an affected EGU and/or improve its CO2 emission 

rate, and the accounting treatment for these actions in a state 

plan. Some of these actions do not necessitate additional 

accounting, monitoring or reporting requirements. Such actions 

are discussed in section VIII.I.1 below, and include heat rate 

improvements, fuel switching from one fossil fuel to another, 

integration of RE into EGU operations, and combined heat and 

power (CHP) expansion or retrofit. Other actions, however, do 

necessitate additional accounting, monitoring, or reporting 

requirements. These include use of CCS, CCU and biomass, as 

discussed in section VIII.I.2 below. 

 The discussion in this section applies for both rate-based 

and mass-based plans. Additional accounting considerations for 

mass-based plans are discussed in section VIII.J. Additional 

accounting considerations for rate-based plans, including how 

actions that substitute for generation from affected EGUs or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1143 of 1546

avoid the need for generation from affected EGUs may be used in 

a state plan to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU, 

are discussed in section VIII.K. 

1. Actions without additional accounting and reporting 

requirements 

 Many actions will reduce the reported CO2 emissions or CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU, without the need for 

additional accounting or monitoring and reporting requirements 

beyond the required CEMS tracking of actual stack CO2 emissions 

and tracking of actual energy output.851 The effect of these 

actions will result in changes in reported CO2 emissions and/or 

energy output by an affected EGU. These actions include: 

 heat rate improvements; 

 fuel switching to a fossil fuel with lower carbon content 

(e.g., from coal to natural gas); 

 integrated RE;852 and 

 CHP, including retrofit of an affected EGU to a CHP 

configuration, or revising the useful energy outputs 

 

851 Monitoring and reporting requirements for affected EGU CO2 

emissions and useful energy output are addressed in section 

VIII.F.

852 “Integrated RE” refers to RE that is directly incorporated 

into the mechanical systems and operation of the EGU. An example 

is a solar thermal energy system used to preheat boiler 

feedwater. Such approaches reduce the amount of fossil fuel heat 

input per unit of useful energy output. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1144 of 1546

(electrical and thermal) at an affected EGU already 

operating in a CHP configuration.853

 Heat rate improvements, fuel switching, integrating RE and 

CHP would not require any additional accounting or monitoring 

and reporting, because under the emission guidelines affected 

EGUs are already required to monitor and report CO2 emissions at 

the stack level, and to monitor and report useful energy 

outputs. Stack monitoring would reflect reductions in CO2

emissions from efficiency improvements, changes in fuel use 

(including incorporation of RE), and other on-site changes. 

2. Actions with additional accounting and reporting requirements 

 Certain actions that may be taken at an affected EGU to 

reduce CO2 emissions, specifically application of CCS and CCU, 

and use of biomass, require additional accounting and reporting. 

a. Application of CCS. Affected EGUs may utilize retrofit CCS 

 

853 The emission reduction potential from CHP stems from the unit 

using less fuel for producing useful electrical and thermal 

outputs than would be required to run separate electrical and 

thermal units. The emission reduction would depend on the type 

of affected EGU and available steam hosts in the vicinity of the 

affected EGU. A conventional combustion turbine generator, for 

example, converted into a CHP unit could effectively result in a 

reduction of 25 percent or more in the reported CO2 emission 

rate. The potential retrofitted EGU CHP market consists of 

converted simple cycle turbines, older steam plants in urban 

areas, and combined cycle units near beneficial thermal loads. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1145 of 1546

technology to reduce reported stack CO2 emissions from the EGU.854

Affected EGUs that apply CCS under a state plan must meet the 

same monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 

sequestered CO2 as new units that implement CCS to meet final 

standards of performance under CAA section 111(b) for new 

EGUs.855 Specifically, the final CAA section 111(b) rule for new 

sources requires that, if a new affected EGU uses CCS to meet 

the applicable CO2 emission limit, the EGU must report in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 98 subpart PP (Suppliers of Carbon 

Dioxide), and the captured CO2 must be injected at a facility or 

facilities that report in accordance with 40 CFR part 98 subpart 

RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide).856,857 See 40 CFR 

 

854 Addition of retrofit CCS technology should not trigger CAA 

section 111(b) applicability for modified or reconstructed 

sources. Pollution control projects do not trigger NSPS 

modifications and addition of CCS technology does not count 

toward the capital costs of reconstruction for NSPS. 

855 Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units. 

856 The final CAA section 111(b) rule finalizes amendments to 

subpart PP reporting requirements, specifically requiring that 

the following pieces of information be reported: (1) the 

electronic GHG Reporting Tool identification (e-GGRT ID) of the 

EGU facility from which CO2 was captured, and (2) the e-GGRT 

ID(s) for, and mass of CO2 transferred to, each GS site reporting 

under subpart RR. As noted, the final 111(b) rule also requires 

that any affected EGU unit that captures CO2 to meet the 

applicable emissions limit must transfer the captured CO2 to a 

facility that reports under 40 CFR part 98 subpart RR. 

857 Under final requirements in the CAA 111(b) NSPS, any well 

receiving CO2 captured from an affected EGU, be it a Class VI or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1146 of 1546

part 60.46Da(h)(5) and part 60.5555(d). Taken together, these 

requirements ensure that the amount of captured and sequestered 

CO2 will be tracked as appropriate at project- and nationallevels, and that the status of the CO2 in its sequestration site 

will be monitored, including air-side monitoring and reporting. 

As detailed in the preamble for the CAA section 111(b) standards 

for new EGUs, the EPA found that there is ample evidence that 

CCS is technically feasible and that partial CCS can be 

implemented at a new fossil fuel-fired steam generating EGU at a 

cost that is reasonable and that is consistent with the cost of 

other dispatchable, non-NGCC generating options. In the June 

2014 proposal, the EPA noted that CCS technology at existing 

EGUs would entail additional considerations beyond those at 

issue for newly constructed EGUs. Specifically, the cost of 

integrating a retrofit CCS system into an existing facility may 

be expected to be substantial, and some existing EGUs may have 

space limitations and thus may not be able to accommodate the 

expansion needed to install the equipment to implement CCS. 

Further, the EPA noted that aggregated costs of applying CCS as 

a component of the BSER for the large number of existing fossil 

 

Class II well, must report under subpart RR. A UIC Class II 

well’s regulatory status does not change because it receives 

such CO2, nor does it change by virtue of reporting under subpart 

RR. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1147 of 1546

fuel-fired steam EGUs would be substantial and would be expected 

to affect the cost and potentially the supply of electricity on 

a national basis. Because there are lower-cost systems of 

emission reduction available to reduce emissions from existing 

plants, the EPA did not propose nor finalize CCS as a component 

of the BSER for existing EGUs. 

However, the EPA noted that CCS may be a viable CO2

mitigation technology at some existing sources and that it would 

be available to states and to sources as a compliance option. 

Numerous commenters agreed with the EPA’s proposed determination 

that CCS technology is not part of the BSER building blocks for 

existing EGUs. Other commenters opposed inclusion of CCS 

requirements in state plans and provided specific reasons why 

CCS would not be applicable in certain states. Many commenters 

felt that CCS technology is not adequately demonstrated and is 

not economically practical at this time. Other commenters argued 

that CCS is an available technology and that it can be 

implemented at more EGUs than predicted by EPA modeling. 

Some commenters noted that there are opportunities to 

reduce the cost of CCS implementation by selling the captured CO2

for use in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations. One commenter 

expressed concern that federal requirements under the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program – specifically the requirement (mentioned 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1148 of 1546

above) to report under 40 CFR part 98 subpart RR – would 

foreclose, rather than encourage, the use of captured CO2 for 

EOR. The EPA received similar public comments on the CAA 111(b) 

proposal for new EGUs. The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

assertions and addressed those in the preamble for the final 

standards of performance and in the Response-to-Comments (RTC) 

document for the CAA 111(b) NSPS rulemaking. The EPA noted that 

the cost of compliance with subpart RR is not significant enough 

to offset the potential revenue for the EOR operator from the 

sale of produced oil for CCS projects that are reliant on EOR. 

The costs associated with subpart RR are relatively modest, 

especially in comparison with revenues from an EOR field. 

After consideration of the variety of comments we received 

on this issue, we are confirming our proposal that CCS is not an 

element of the BSER, but it is an available compliance measure 

for a state plan. EGUs implementing CCS would need to follow 

reporting requirements established in the final CAA section 

111(b) rule for new affected EGUs. 

b. Application of CCU. The EPA received comments suggesting that 

carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies should also be 

allowed as a CO2 emission rate adjustment measure for affected 

EGUs. 

Potential alternatives to storing CO2 in geologic formations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1149 of 1546

are emerging and may offer the opportunity to offset the cost of 

CO2 capture. For example, captured anthropogenic CO2 may be 

stored in solid carbonate materials such as precipitated calcium 

carbonate (PCC) or magnesium or calcium carbonate, bauxite 

residue carbonation, and certain types of cement through 

mineralization. The carbonate materials produced can be tailored 

to optimize performance in specific industrial and commercial 

applications. For example, these carbonate materials have been 

used in the construction industry and, more recently and 

innovatively, in cement production processes to replace Portland 

cement. 

The Skyonics Skymine® project, which opened its 

demonstration project in October 2014, is an example of captured 

CO2 being used in the production of carbonate products. This 

plant converts CO2 into commercial products. It captures over 

75,000 tons of CO2 annually from a San Antonio, Texas, cement 

plant and converts the CO2 into other products including sodium 

carbonate and sodium bicarbonate.858 Other companies – including 

Calera859 and New Sky860 – also offer commercially available 

technology for the beneficial use of captured CO2. These 

processes can be utilized in a variety of industrial 

 

858 http://skyonic.com/technologies/skymine. 859 http://www.calera.com/beneficial-reuse-of-co2/process.html. 860 http://www.newskyenergy.com/index.php/products/carboncycle. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1150 of 1546

applications – including at fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

However, consideration of how these emerging alternatives 

could be used to meet CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2

emission goals would require a better understanding of the 

ultimate fate of the captured CO2 and the degree to which the 

method permanently isolates the captured CO2 or displaces other 

CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. 

Several commenters also suggested that algae-based CCU 

(i.e., the use of algae to convert captured CO2 to useful 

products – especially biofuels) should be recognized for its 

potential to reduce emissions from existing fossil-fueled EGUs. 

Unlike geologic sequestration, there are currently no 

uniform monitoring and reporting mechanisms to demonstrate that 

these alternative end uses of captured CO2 result in overall 

reductions of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. As these 

alternative technologies are developed, the EPA is committed to 

working collaboratively with stakeholders to evaluate the 

efficacy of alternative utilization technologies, to address any 

regulatory hurdles, and to develop appropriate monitoring and 

reporting protocols to demonstrate CO2 reductions. 

In the meantime, state plans may allow affected EGUs to use 

qualifying CCU technologies to reduce CO2 emissions that are 

subject to an emission standard, or those that are counted when 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1151 of 1546

demonstrating achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates 

or a state rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission. State plans 

must include analysis supporting how the proposed qualifying CCU 

technology results in CO2 emission mitigation from affected EGUs 

and provide monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements 

to demonstrate the reductions. The EPA would then review the 

appropriateness and basis for the analysis and the verification 

requirements in the course of its review of the state plan. 

c. Application of biomass co-firing and repowering. The EPA 

received multiple comments supporting the use of biomass 

feedstocks as a means of reducing CO2 emissions within state 

plans. Several commenters also asserted that states should be 

able to determine how biomass can be used in their plans. 

Additionally, the EPA received a range of comments regarding the 

valuation of CO2 emissions from biomass combustion. Some argued 

that all biomass feedstocks should be considered “carbon 

neutral,” while others maintained that only the full stack 

emissions from biomass combustion should be counted. As 

discussed in the next section, the revised Framework for 

Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources861 and 

the 2012 Science Advisory Board peer review of the 2011 Draft 

 

861 www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Framework-for-AssessingBiogenic-CO2-Emissions.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1152 of 1546

Framework find that it is not scientifically valid to assume 

that all biogenic feedstocks are “carbon neutral.”862 Other 

comments focused on the use of sustainably-derived agricultural 

and forest biomass feedstocks, including stakeholders who 

supported and those against such feedstocks as approvable 

elements, and those who wanted further definition of these 

feedstocks. As discussed above, states can submit requirements 

regarding qualifying biomass feedstocks or feedstock categories 

in state plans. The EPA will review the appropriateness and 

basis for determining qualifying biomass feedstocks or feedstock 

categories in its review of the approvability of a state plan. 

(1) Considerations for use of biomass in state plans. As 

detailed in the President’s Climate Action Plan,863 part of the 

strategy to address climate change includes efforts to protect 

and restore our forests, as well as other critical landscapes 

including grasslands and wetlands, in the face of a changing 

climate. This country’s forests currently play a critical role 

in addressing carbon pollution, removing more than 13 percent of 

total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year.864 Conservation 

 

862 www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenicemissions.html.

863 www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/ 

president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

864 www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2015-Chapter-6-Land-Use-Land-Use-Change-andForestry.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1153 of 1546

and sustainable management can help ensure our forests and other 

lands will continue to remove carbon from the atmosphere while 

also improving soil and water quality, reducing wildfire risk 

and enhancing forests’ resilience in the face of climate change. 

The EPA recognizes that the use of some biomass-derived 

fuels can play a role in controlling increases of CO2 levels in 

the atmosphere. The use of some kinds of biomass has the 

potential to offer a wide range of environmental benefits, 

including carbon benefits. However these benefits can typically 

only be realized if biomass feedstocks are sourced responsibly 

and attributes of the carbon cycle related to the biomass 

feedstock are taken into account. The EPA anticipates that some 

states may consider the use of certain biomass-derived fuels 

used in electricity generation as a way to control increases of 

CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and will include them as part of 

their state plans to meet the emission guidelines. 

With regard to assessing qualifying biomass specified in 

state plans, the EPA generally acknowledges the CO2 and climate 

policy benefits of waste-derived biogenic feedstocks865 and 

 

865 Types of waste-derived biogenic feedstocks may include: 

landfill gas generated through the decomposition of MSW in a 

landfill; biogas generated from the decomposition of livestock 

waste, biogenic MSW, and/or other food waste in an anaerobic 

digester; biogas generated through the treatment of waste water, 

due to the anaerobic decomposition of biological materials; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1154 of 1546

certain forest- and agriculture-derived industrial byproduct 

feedstocks, based on the conclusions supported by a variety of 

technical studies, including the revised Framework for Assessing 

Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources. Such wastederived and certain industrial byproduct biomass feedstocks 

would likely be approvable as qualifying biomass in a state 

plan. In addition, given the importance of sustainable land 

management in achieving the carbon goals of the President’s 

Climate Action Plan, sustainably-derived agricultural and forest 

biomass feedstocks may also be acceptable as qualifying biomass 

in a state plan, if the state-supplied analysis of proposed 

qualifying feedstocks or feedstock categories can adequately 

demonstrate that such feedstocks or feedstock categories 

appropriately control increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 

Many states have recognized the importance of forests and 

other lands for climate resilience and mitigation, and have 

developed a variety of sustainable forestry policies, RE 

incentives and standards, and GHG accounting procedures. Some 

states, for example Oregon and California, have programs that 

recognize the multiple benefits that forests provide, including 

biodiversity and ecosystem services protection as well as 

 

livestock waste; and the biogenic fraction of MSW at waste-toenergy facilities. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1155 of 1546

climate change mitigation through carbon storage. Oregon has 

several programs focused on best forest management practices and 

sustainability, including the Oregon Indicators of Sustainable 

Forests, that promote environmentally, economically and socially 

sustainable management of state forests. California’s Forest 

Practice Regulations support sustained production of highquality timber while considering ecological, economic and social 

values, and the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund provides 

resources for forestry projects to improve forest health, 

maintain carbon storage and avoid GHG emissions from pests, 

wildfires and conversion to non-forest uses. 

Several states focus on sustainable bioenergy, as seen with 

the sustainability requirements for eligible biomass in the 

Massachusetts RPS, which, among other requirements, limits old 

growth forest harvests. Many states employ complementary 

programs that together work to address sustainable forestry 

practices. For example, Wisconsin uses a state forest 

sustainability framework that provides a common system to 

measure the sustainability of the state’s public and private 

forests, in conjunction with a series of voluntary best 

management guideline manuals for sustainable woody biomass and 

agriculturally-derived biomass. In addition to state-specific 

programs, some states also actively participate in sustainable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1156 of 1546

forest management or certification programs through third-party 

entities such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and 

the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). For example, in addition 

to other state sustainability programs, New York has certified 

more than 780,000 acres of state forestland to both SFI and 

FSC’s sustainable forest management programs. SFI and FSC have 

certified more than 63 and 35 million acres of forestland across 

the U.S., respectively. 

These examples demonstrate how states already use diverse 

strategies to promote sustainable forestry and agricultural 

management while realizing their unique economic, environmental 

and RE goals. As states evaluate options for meeting the 

emission guidelines, they may consider how the role of wastederived feedstocks as well as sustainably-derived biomass and 

sustainable forestry and agriculture programs, such as the 

examples highlighted above, may help them control or reduce CO2

emissions to the atmosphere. In addition, the EPA’s work on 

assessing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources may also 

help inform states’ efforts to assess the role of different 

biogenic feedstocks in their plans and broader climate 

strategies. 

 In November 2014, the agency released a second draft of the 

technical report, Framework for Assessing Biogenic Carbon 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1157 of 1546

Dioxide for Stationary Sources. The revised Framework, and the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review of the 2011 Draft 

Framework, finds that it is not scientifically valid to assume 

that all biogenic feedstocks are “carbon neutral” and that the 

net biogenic CO2 atmospheric contribution of different biogenic 

feedstocks generally depends on various factors related to 

feedstock characteristics, production, processing and combustion 

practices, and, in some cases, what would happen to that 

feedstock and the related biogenic emissions if not used for 

energy production.866 The revised Framework also found that the 

production and use of some biogenic feedstocks and subsequent 

biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources will not 

inevitably result in increased levels of CO2 to the atmosphere, 

unlike CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. The EPA is 

engaging in a second round of targeted peer review with the SAB 

in 2015.867 As part of this technical process, and as the EPA and 

states implement these emissions guidelines, the EPA will 

continue to assess and closely monitor overall bioenergy demand 

and associated landscape conditions for changes that might have 

negative impacts on public health or the environment. 

Information in the revised Framework and the second SAB peer 

 

866 www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenicemissions.html. 

867 www.epa.gov/sab. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1158 of 1546

review process, including stakeholder comments, should assist 

both states and the EPA in assessing qualifying biomass 

feedstocks included in state plans. 

(2) Additional considerations and requirements for biomass 

fuels. Affected EGUs may use qualifying biomass in order to 

control or reduce CO2 emissions that are subject to an emission 

standard requirement, or those that are counted when 

demonstrating achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates 

or a state rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission goal. Not all 

forms of biomass are expected to be approvable as qualified 

biomass. A state can submit state plan requirements regarding 

use of biomass feedstocks or categories of biomass feedstocks 

and the proposed valuation of biogenic CO2 emissions. State plan 

submissions must include analysis supporting why the proposed 

feedstocks or feedstock categories should qualify as an approach 

for controlling increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well 

as the proposed valuation of biogenic CO2 emissions (i.e., the 

proposed portion of biogenic CO2 emissions from use of the 

biomass feedstock that would not be counted when demonstrating 

compliance with an emission standard, or when demonstrating 

achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates or a state 

rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission goal). The EPA will 

evaluate the approvability of such state plan requirements based 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1159 of 1546

on the analysis provided. 

 

 State plans must specify how biogenic CO2 emissions will be 

monitored and reported, and identify specific EM&V, tracking and 

auditing approaches for qualified biomass feedstocks. Section 

VIII.D.2 requires that state plan submittals describe CO2

emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping measures. These 

requirements also apply to proposed state plan submissions on 

qualifying biomass feedstocks and must include specific 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 

verifying feedstock type, origin and associated biogenic CO2

benefits. Section VIII.K describes how state plan submittals 

must specify the requirements and procedures that EM&V measures 

must meet. As discussed in Section VIII.K, the EPA is addressing 

potential EM&V measures for qualifying biomass in EPA’s model 

trading rule and draft EM&V guidance, such as measures that 

would ensure that biomass-related biogenic CO2 benefits are 

quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent and 

enforceable. 

 State plan submittals should also include a description of 

how states will ensure that all biomass used meets the state 

plan requirements for qualifying biomass and associated biogenic 

CO2 benefits, such as using robust, independent third party 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1160 of 1546

verification and establishing measures to maintain transparency, 

including disclosure of relevant documentation and reports. 

State plan submittals must include measures for tracking and 

auditing performance to ensure that biomass used meets the state 

plan requirements for qualifying biomass and associated biogenic 

CO2 benefits., . Details on how to adjust CO2 rates through the 

use of qualified biomass feedstocks are provided in section 

VIII.K.1. 

 The EPA would review the appropriateness and basis for 

proposed qualifying biomass and biomass treatment determinations 

and related accounting, monitoring and reporting measures in the 

course of its review of a state plan. The EPA’s determination 

that a state plan satisfactorily proves that proposed biomass 

fuels qualify would be based in part on whether the plan 

submittal demonstrates that proposed state measures for 

qualifying biomass and related biogenic CO2 benefits are 

quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and 

permanent. The EPA recognizes that CCS technology (described 

above in section VIII.I.2.a) could be applied in conjunction 

with the use of qualified biomass. 

(3) Biomass co-firing. Affected EGUs may use qualifying biomass 

co-fired with fossil fuels at an affected EGU. As discussed 

above in this section, not all forms of biomass are expected to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1161 of 1546

be approvable and states should propose biomass feedstocks and 

treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in state plans, along with 

supporting analysis. The EPA will review the appropriateness and 

basis for such determinations and accounting measures in the 

course of its review of a state plan. 

 An affected EGU using qualifying biomass as a fuel must 

monitor and report both its overall CO2 emissions and its 

biogenic CO2 emissions. If biomass is to be used as means to 

control increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in a state 

plan, the plan must specify requirements for reporting biogenic 

CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. 

(4) Biomass repowering. Affected EGUs could fully repower to use 

primarily qualifying biomass. The characteristics of affected 

EGUs, as discussed in section IV.D, include the use of at least 

10 percent fossil fuel for applicability of these emission 

guidelines. An EGU repowering with at least 90 percent biomass 

fuels instead of fossil fuels becomes a non-affected EGU.868 An 

EGU repowering with less than 90 percent biomass would remain an 

affected EGU and therefore need to propose biomass feedstocks 

and treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in state plans, along 

 

868 For such an EGU to be considered non-affected, the EGU should 

be subject to a federally enforceable or practically enforceable 

condition, expressed in (for example) a construction permit or 

otherwise, that limits the amount of fossil fuel that may be 

used to 10 percent or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1162 of 1546

with supporting analysis. 

J. Additional Considerations and Requirements for Mass-Based 

State Plans 

 This section discusses considerations and requirements for 

different types of mass-based state plans. This includes massbased state plans using emission budget trading programs, and 

coordination among such programs where states retain individual 

mass CO2 emission goals. CAA section 111(d) requires states to 

submit, in part, a plan that establishes standards of 

performance for affected EGUs which reflect the BSER. The state 

plan must be satisfactory with respect to this requirement in 

order for the EPA to approve the plan. As previously described, 

states meet the statutory requirements of 111(d) and the 

requirements of the final emissions guidelines by establishing 

emission standards for affected EGUs that meet the performance 

rates, which reflect the application of BSER as determined by 

the EPA. This final rule allows states to alternatively 

establish emission standards that meet rate-based or mass-based 

goals. The state goals must be equivalent to the performance 

rates in order to reflect the application of the BSER as 

required by the statute and the final emissions guidelines. 

Therefore, a state choosing a mass-based implementation must 

address leakage as part of its mass-based plan in order to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1163 of 1546

satisfactorily establish emission standards for affected EGUs 

that reflect the BSER as set by the EPA. 

1. Accounting for CO2 emission reduction measures in mass-based 

state plans 

As discussed in section VIII.I, measures that occur at 

affected EGUs will result in CO2 emission reductions that are 

automatically accounted for in reported CO2 emissions. Other 

measures that provide substitute generation for affected EGUs or 

avoid the need for generation from affected EGUs, such as 

demand-side EE, are automatically accounted for under a massbased plan to the extent that these measures reduce reported CO2

emissions from affected EGUs. Unlike under a rate-based plan, no 

additional accounting is necessary in order to recognize these 

emission reductions. 

2. Use of emission budget trading programs 

This section addresses the use of emission budget trading 

programs in a mass-based state plan, including provisions 

required for such programs and the design of such programs in 

the context of a state plan. This includes program design 

approaches that ensure achievement of a state mass-based CO2

emission goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement) (section VIII.J.2.b), as well as how states 

can use emission budget trading programs with broader source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1164 of 1546

coverage and other flexibility features in a state plan, such as 

the programs currently implemented by California and the RGGI 

participating states (section VIII.J.2.c). Section VIII.J.2.d 

addresses other considerations for the design of emission budget 

trading programs that states may want to consider, such as 

allowance allocation approaches. Section VIII.J.3 addresses 

multi-state coordination among emission budget trading programs 

used in states that retain their individual state mass-based CO2

goals. 

a. State plan provisions required for a mass-based emission 

budget trading program approach. For a mass-based emission 

trading program approach, the state plan would include as its 

federally enforceable emission standards requirements that 

specify the emission budget and related compliance requirements 

and mechanisms. These requirements would include: CO2 emission 

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for 

affected EGUs; provisions for state allocation of allowances; 

provisions for tracking of allowances, from issuance through 

submission for compliance; and the process for affected EGUs to 

demonstrate compliance (allowance “true-up” with reported CO2

emissions). Mass-based emission standards that take the form of 

an emission budget trading program must be quantifiable, 

verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent. These 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1165 of 1546

requirements are described in more detail at section VIII.D.2.

 Where a state plan establishes mass-based emission 

standards for affected EGUs only, the emission standards and the 

implementing and enforcing measures may be included in the state 

plan as the full set of requirements implementing the emission 

budget trading program. Where an emission budget trading program 

in a state plan addresses affected EGUs and other fossil fuelfired EGUs or emission sources, pursuant to the approaches 

described in section VIII.b. through d. below, the requirements 

that must be included in the state plan are the federally 

enforceable emission standards in the state plan that apply 

specifically to affected EGUs, and the requirements that 

specifically require affected EGUs to participate in and comply 

with the requirements of the emission budget trading program. 

This includes the requirement for an affected EGU to surrender 

emission allowances equal to reported CO2 emissions, and meet 

monitoring and reporting requirements for CO2 emissions, among 

other requirements. These requirements may be submitted as part 

of the federally enforceable state plan through mechanisms with 

the appropriate legal authority and effect, such as state 

regulations, title V permit requirements for affected EGUs, and 

other possible instruments that impose these requirements 

specifically with respect to affected EGUs.. Under this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1166 of 1546

approach, the full set of regulations establishing the emission 

budget trading program that applies to affected EGUs and other 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs and other mission sources (if relevant) 

must be described as supporting documentation in the state plan 

submittal for EPA to evaluate the approvability of the plan by 

determining whether the affected EGUs will achieve the requisite 

goal. 

b. Requirement for emission budget trading programs to address 

potential leakage. In Section VII.D, the EPA specifies that 

potential emission leakage must be addressed in a state plan 

with mass-based emission standards..The EPA received comments 

suggesting various solutions to this concern, such as the 

inclusion of new sources under the rule and quantitative 

adjustments to mass CO2 goals for affected EGUs. In response to 

this issue, the EPA has sought to give states flexibility in how 

they respond to the risk of potential emission leakage and base 

the acceptable solutions on what will best suit a state’s unique 

characteristics and state plan structure. 

To address the potential for emission leakage to new 

sources under a mass-based plan approach, the EPA is requiring 

that a state submitting a plan that is designed to meet a state 

mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs must demonstrate that the 

plan addresses and mitigates the risk of potential emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1167 of 1546

leakage to new sources. The following options provide sufficient 

demonstration that potential emission leakage has been addressed 

in a mass-based state plan: 

1. Regulate new non-affected fossil EGUs as a matter of 

state law in conjunction with emission standards for 

affected EGUs in a mass based plan. If a state adopts an 

EPA-provided mass budget that includes the state massbased CO2 goal for affected EGUs plus a new source CO2

emission complement, this option could be presumptively 

approvable.869

2. Use allocation methods in the state plan that align 

incentives to generate for affected EGUs with 

incenctives to generate for new sources. If a state 

adopts allowance set-aside provisions exactly as they are 

outlined in the finalized model rule, this option could 

be presumptively approvable.870

3. Provide a demonstration in the state plan, supported by 

analysis, that emission leakage is unlikely to occur due 

to unique state characteristics or state plan design 

 

869 The EPA will evaluate the approvability of this aspect of an 

individual state plan using the model rule through independent 

notice and comment rulemaking.

870 As stated above, the EPA will evaluate the approvability of 

this aspect of an individual state plan using the model rule 

through independent notice and comment rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1168 of 1546

elements that address and mitigate the potential for 

emission leakage. 

In the first option, states may choose to regulate new nonaffected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, as a matter of state law, in 

conjunction with federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs under a mass-based plan. This regulation of both 

new and existing sources, as part of a state plan approach, is 

conceptually analogous to a method that has been adopted by the 

mass-based systems adopted by California and the RGGI 

participating states. To address potential emission leakage 

under this option, the mass-based plan includes federally 

enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs, and the 

supporting documentation for the plan describes stateenforceable regulations for, at a minimum, all new gridconnected fossil fuel-fired EGUs that meet the applicability 

standards for EGUs subject to CAA section 111(b). States have 

the option of regulating a wider array of sources if they 

choose, as a matter of state law. 

For this option, a state must adopt, as a matter of state 

law, a mass CO2 emission budget of sufficient size to cover both 

affected EGUs under the existing source mass CO2 goal provided 

in this final rule, along with sufficient CO2 emission tonnage to 

cover projected new sources. There are two pathways that states 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1169 of 1546

can use for adopting such an emission budget that applies to 

both affected EGUs and new sources. The EPA is providing a mass 

budget for each state that account for the state’s mass CO2 goal 

for affected EGUs and a complementary emission budget for new 

sources. States that both adopt the EPA-provided mass budget, 

based on the state mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs plus a 

new source CO2 emission complement, and regulate new sources 

under this emission budget as a matter of state law, in 

conjunction with federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs as part of the mass-based state plan may be able 

to submit a presumptively approvable plan. Such a plan would 

include federally enforceable emission standards for affected 

EGUs, and in the supporting documentation of the plan, would 

describe that the state is regulating new sources under a mass 

CO2 emission budget that is equal to or less than the state massbased CO2 goal for affected EGUs plus the EPA-specified CO2

emission complement, in conjunction with the federally 

enforceable emission standards for affected EGUs. If the state 

plan is designed to achieve the EPA provided mass budget, plan 

performance will be evaluated based on whether the existing 

affected EGUs, regulated under the federally enforceable state 

plan, and new sources regulated as a matter of state law, 

together meet the total mass budget that includes the state’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1170 of 1546

mass CO2 goal for affected EGUs and a complementary emission 

budget for new sources.

EPA-specified mass CO2 emission budgets for each state, 

including the state’s mass CO2 goal and a new source CO2 emission 

complement, are provided below. The derivation of the new source 

CO2 emission complements is explained in a TSD entitled New 

Source Complements to Mass Goals, which is available in the 

docket. 

Table [X]: 

State 

New Source 

Complements (Short 

Tons of CO2) 

Mass Goals (Short Tons of 

CO2) 

Mass Goals + New Source 

Complements (Short Tons of 

CO2) 

Interim Final Interim Final Interim Final 

Alabama 

 

737,243 

 

573,877 

 

62,210,288 

 

56,880,474 

 

62,947,531 

 

57,454,351 

Arizona 

 

386,707 

 

301,016 

 

33,061,997 

 

30,170,750 

 

33,448,703 

 

30,471,766 

Arkansas 

 

354,469 

 

275,922 

 

33,683,258 

 

30,322,632 

 

34,037,726 

 

30,598,553 

California 

 

3,884,430 

 

5,989,805 

 

51,027,075 

 

48,410,120 

 

54,911,504 

 

54,399,924 

Colorado 

 

1,689,973 

 

2,605,944 

 

33,387,883 

 

29,900,397 

 

35,077,855 

 

32,506,340 

Connecticut 

 

116,695 

 

90,837 

 

7,237,865 

 

6,941,523 

 

7,354,560 

 

7,032,359 

Delaware 

 

67,945 

 

52,889 

 

5,062,869 

 

4,711,825 

 

5,130,814 

 

4,764,714 

Florida 

 

1,510,912 

 

1,176,107 

 

112,984,729 

 

105,094,704 

 

114,495,640 

 

106,270,811 

Georgia 

 

583,680 

 

454,342 

 

50,926,084 

 

46,346,846 

 

51,509,763 

 

46,801,187 

Idaho 

 

120,876 

 

186,392 

 

1,550,142 

 

1,492,856 

 

1,671,018 

 

1,679,247 

Illinois 

 

705,248 

 

548,972 

 

74,800,876 

 

66,477,157 

 

75,506,124 

 

67,026,128 

Indiana 

 

809,521 

 

630,138 

 

85,617,065 

 

76,113,835 

 

86,426,585 

 

76,743,972 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1171 of 1546

Iowa 

 

257,673 

 

200,575 

 

28,254,411 

 

25,018,136 

 

28,512,084 

 

25,218,711 

Kansas 

 

224,655 

 

174,873 

 

24,859,333 

 

21,990,826 

 

25,083,987 

 

22,165,699 

Kentucky 

 

648,461 

 

504,768 

 

71,312,802 

 

63,126,121 

 

71,961,262 

 

63,630,889 

Louisiana 

 

417,374 

 

324,888 

 

39,310,314 

 

35,427,023 

 

39,727,687 

 

35,751,910 

Maine 

 

35,184 

 

27,387 

 

2,158,184 

 

2,073,942 

 

2,193,367 

 

2,101,329 

Maryland 

 

147,306 

 

114,664 

 

16,209,396 

 

14,347,628 

 

16,356,701 

 

14,462,291 

Massachusetts 

 

193,890 

 

150,926 

 

12,747,677 

 

12,104,747 

 

12,941,567 

 

12,255,672 

Michigan 

 

537,459 

 

418,363 

 

53,057,150 

 

47,544,064 

 

53,594,609 

 

47,962,427 

Minnesota 

 

246,934 

 

192,215 

 

25,433,592 

 

22,678,368 

 

25,680,525 

 

22,870,583 

Mississippi 

 

353,715 

 

275,335 

 

27,338,313 

 

25,304,337 

 

27,692,027 

 

25,579,672 

Missouri 

 

576,227 

 

448,541 

 

62,569,433 

 

55,462,884 

 

63,145,660 

 

55,911,424 

Montana 

 

574,952 

 

886,578 

 

12,791,330 

 

11,303,107 

 

13,366,281 

 

12,189,685 

Nebraska 

 

185,988 

 

144,775 

 

20,661,516 

 

18,272,739 

 

20,847,504 

 

18,417,513 

Nevada 

 

1,050,463 

 

1,619,818 

 

14,344,092 

 

13,523,584 

 

15,394,554 

 

15,143,402 

New Hampshire 

 

61,548 

 

47,910 

 

4,243,492 

 

3,997,579 

 

4,305,039 

 

4,045,489 

New Jersey 

 

270,194 

 

210,322 

 

17,426,381 

 

16,599,745 

 

17,696,575 

 

16,810,066 

New Mexico 

 

718,754 

 

1,108,321 

 

13,815,561 

 

12,412,602 

 

14,534,314 

 

13,520,922 

New York 

 

449,476 

 

349,876 

 

33,595,329 

 

31,257,429 

 

34,044,804 

 

31,607,304 

North Carolina 

 

596,441 

 

464,275 

 

56,986,025 

 

51,266,234 

 

57,582,465 

 

51,730,508 

North Dakota 

 

211,419 

 

164,570 

 

23,632,821 

 

20,883,232 

 

23,844,239 

 

21,047,801 

Ohio 

 

818,703 

 

637,286 

 

82,526,513 

 

73,769,806 

 

83,345,216 

 

74,407,091 

Oklahoma 

 

500,747 

 

389,786 

 

44,610,332 

 

40,488,199 

 

45,111,078 

 

40,877,985 

Oregon 

 

618,569 

 

953,835 

 

8,643,164 

 

8,118,654 

 

9,261,732 

 

9,072,489 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1172 of 1546

Pennsylvania 

 

1,083,565 

 

843,457 

 

99,330,827 

 

89,822,308 

 

100,414,392 

 

90,665,764 

Rhode Island 

 

60,356 

 

46,982 

 

3,657,385 

 

3,522,225 

 

3,717,740 

 

3,569,206 

South Carolina 

 

297,220 

 

231,359 

 

28,969,623 

 

25,998,968 

 

29,266,843 

 

26,230,326 

South Dakota 

 

39,979 

 

31,120 

 

3,948,950 

 

3,539,481 

 

3,988,928 

 

3,570,601 

Tennessee 

 

309,245 

 

240,719 

 

31,784,860 

 

28,348,396 

 

32,094,104 

 

28,589,114 

Texas 

 

5,326,929 

 

8,513,340 

 

208,090,841 

 

189,588,842 

 

213,417,769 

 

198,102,181 

Utah 

 

1,338,886 

 

2,064,567 

 

26,566,380 

 

23,778,193 

 

27,905,265 

 

25,842,760 

Virginia 

 

387,841 

 

301,899 

 

29,580,072 

 

27,433,111 

 

29,967,912 

 

27,735,010 

Washington 

 

725,056 

 

1,118,039 

 

11,679,707 

 

10,739,172 

 

12,404,762 

 

11,857,211 

West Virginia 

 

519,610 

 

404,469 

 

58,083,089 

 

51,325,342 

 

58,602,699 

 

51,729,811 

Wisconsin 

 

314,418 

 

244,746 

 

31,258,356 

 

27,986,988 

 

31,572,773 

 

28,231,734 

Wyoming 

 

1,616,503 

 

2,492,654 

 

35,780,052 

 

31,634,412 

 

37,396,555 

 

34,127,066 

Lands of the 

Navajo Nation 

 

1,103,837 

 

1,702,121 

 

24,557,793 

 

21,700,587 

 

25,661,630 

 

23,402,708 

Lands of the 

Uintah and 

Ouray 

Reservation 

 

115,133 

 

177,536 

 

2,561,445 

 

2,263,431 

 

2,676,578 

 

2,440,966 

Lands of the 

Fort Mojave 

Tribe 

 

50,670 

 

78,133 

 

611,103 

 

588,519 

 

661,772 

 

666,652 

Total 

 

33,953,076 

 

41,187,266 

 

1,844,537,775 

 

1,668,104,080 

 

1,878,490,827 

 

1,709,291,321 

States can, in the alternative, provide their own 

projections for a new source CO2 emission complement to their 

mass-based CO2 goals for affected EGUs. In the supporting 

documentation for the state plan submittal, the state must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1173 of 1546

specify the new source budget, specify the analysis used to 

derive such a new source CO2 emission complement, and the state 

must demonstrate that under the state plan affected EGUs in the 

state will meet the state mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs 

as a result of being regulated under the broader CO2 emission cap 

that applied to both affected EGUs and new sources. Such a 

projection must account for the fact that the mass-based state 

goals already incorporate a significant amount of demand growth. 

The EPA will evaluate the approvability of the plan based on 

whether the federally enforceable emission standards for 

affected EGUs in conjunction with the state-enforceable 

regulatory requirements for new sources will result in the 

affected EGUs meeting the state mass-based CO2 goal. In addition, 

since this is intended to mitigate leakage to new sources, the

state should not favor generation from new sources over existing 

sources in any way. If rather than designing a plan to achieve 

the EPA provided mass budget, the state uses its own projections 

for a new source complement and the plan is approved to meet 

this new source complement, plan performance will be evaluated 

based on whether the existing affected EGUs, regulated under the 

federally enforceable state plan, meet the state’s mass CO2 goal 

for affected EGUs.

Deleted: The state must describe 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Commented [A72]: edit 

Commented [A73]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1174 of 1546

The second demonstration option allows states to use 

allowance allocation methods that realign the incentives to 

generate across affected EGUs and new sources. These allocation 

approaches should be specified in state plans as part of the 

provisions for state allocation of allowances required under a 

mass-based plan approach (see section VIII.J.2.a). The EPA is 

proposing the inclusion of two allocation strategies as part of 

the mass-based approach in the proposed federal plan and model 

rule: updating output-based allocations and allowance set-asides 

that target RE and demand-side EE. These options are described 

in more detail below. If a state were to adopt allowance setaside provisions exactly as they are outlined in the finalized 

model rule, they could be considered presumptively approvable. 

The EPA will evaluate the approvability of this aspect of an 

individual state plan using the model rule through independent 

notice and comment rulemaking. The allowance allocation 

alternative for addressing leakage was chosen for the federal 

plan and model rule proposal because EPA does not have authority 

to extend regulation of and federal enforceability to new fossil 

fuel-fired sources under CAA section 111(d), and therefore we 

cannot include them under a federal mass-based plan approach. 

An updating output-based allocation method allocates a 

portion of the total CO2 emission budget to affected EGUs based, Commented [A74]: this is a topic that we would like to discuss 

further, per edits sent to EPA earlier 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1175 of 1546

in part, on their level of electricity generation in a recent 

period or periods. Therefore, the total allocation to an EGU 

that is eligible to receive allowances from an output-based 

allowance set-aside is not fixed, but instead depends on its 

generation. Under this approach, each eligible affected EGU may 

recieve a larger allowance allocation if it generates more. 

Therefore, eligible affected EGUs will have an incentive to 

generate more in order to receive more allowances, aligning 

their incentive to generate with new sources. 

This allocation method can be implemented through the 

creation of a set-aside that reserves a subset of the total 

allowances available to sources, and distributes them based upon 

the criteria described above. Because the total number of 

allowances is limited, this allocation approach will not exceed 

the overall state mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs. Instead, 

it merely modifies the distribution of allowances in a manner 

designed to mitigate potential emission leakage. 

The other allocation strategy included as part of the massbased approach in the proposed federal plan and model rule is a 

set-aside of allowances to be allocated to providers of 

incremental RE. A set-aside can also be allocated to providers 

of demand-side EE, or to both RE and demand-side EE. The 

increased availability of RE generation can serve as another 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1176 of 1546

source of generation to satisfy electricity demand. Increased 

demand-side EE will reduce the demand that sources need to meet. 

Therefore, both RE and demand-side EE can serve to reduce the 

incentive that new sources have to generate, and therefore align 

their incentives with affected EGUs. Thus, increased RE and 

demand-side EE, supported by a dedicated set-aside, can also 

serve to address potential emission leakage. 

If a state is submitting a plan with an allocations 

approach that differs from that of the finalized model rule, the 

state should also provide a demonstration of how the specified 

allocation method will provide sufficient incentive to 

counteract potential emission leakage. 

Finally, a state can provide a demonstration that emission 

leakage is unlikely to occur, without implementing either of the 

two strategies above, due to unique reasons, such as the 

presence of existing state policies addressing emission leakage 

or unique characteristics of the state and its power sector that 

will mitigate the potential for emission leakage. This 

demonstration must be supported by credible analysis. The EPA 

will determine if the state has provided a sufficient 

demonstration that potential emission leakage has already been 

adequately addressed, or if additional action is required as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1177 of 1546

part of the state plan. 

Aside from the possible incentives for emission leakage 

addressed in this section, there may be other potential 

generation incentives across states and unit subcategories that 

could increase CO2 emissions, particularly in an environment 

where various states are implementing a variety of state plan 

approaches in a shared grid region. Some examples of these 

incentives, particularly those that were specified by 

commenters, are discussed in section VIII.L. That section also 

describes how the EPA has structured this final rule to either 

prevent or minimize the potential for foregone emission 

reductions from differential incentives that may result from 

state plan implementation. These safeguards include placing 

restrictions on interstate trading when there could be a risk of 

such differential incentives. Additionally, the nature of the CO2

emission performance rates and state rate-based CO2 goals helps 

to minimize these potential effects, as does the MWh-accounting 

method for adjusting the CO2 emission rates of affected EGUs 

under rate-based plans. 

However, without a better understanding of the different 

mechanisms that states may ultimately choose to meet the 

emission guidelines, and how different requirements in different 

states may interact, the EPA cannot project every potential 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1178 of 1546

differential incentive that could lead to a loss of CO2 emission 

reductions. Therefore, once program implementation begins, the 

EPA will assess how emission performance across states may be 

affected by the interaction of different regulatory structures 

implemented through state plans. Based upon that evaluation, the 

EPA will determine whether there are potential concerns and what 

course of action may be appropriate to remedy such concerns.

c. Emission budget trading programs that ensure achievement of a 

state CO2 goal. A mass-based emission budget trading program can 

be designed such that compliance by affected EGUs will achieve 

the state mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement). Under this approach, a state 

plan would establish emission budgets for affected EGUs (or 

affected EGUs plus applicable new sources) during the interim 

and final plan performance periods that are equal to or lower 

than the applicable state mass-based CO2 goals specified in 

section VII, or the applicable state mass-based CO2 emission goal 

plus the new source CO2 emission complment specified in Table [X] 

in section VIII.J.2.b. above. Compliance periods for affected 

EGUs would also be aligned with the interim and final plan 

performance periods. This approach would limit total CO2

emissions from affected EGUs during the interim and final plan 

performance periods to an amount equal to or less than the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1179 of 1546

state’s mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement). 

Under this approach, compliance by affected EGUs with the 

mass-based emission standards in a plan would ensure that the 

state achieves its mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs (or 

mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement). No 

further demonstration would be necessary by the state to 

demonstrate that its plan would achieve the state’s mass-based 

CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission 

complement). 

For this type of plan, where the emission budget is equal 

to or less than the state mass CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal 

plus new source CO2 emission complement),871 the EPA would assess 

achievement of the state goal based on compliance by affected 

EGUs with the mass-based emission standards, rather than 

reported CO2 emissions by affected EGUs during the interim plan 

performance periods and final plan performance periods. This 

approach would allow for allowance banking between performance 

periods, including the interim and final performance periods 

outlined in this final rule. 

 Banking provisions have been used extensively in rate-based 

 

871 As specified for the interim plan performance period 

(including specified levels in interim steps 1 through 3) and 

the final two-year plan performance periods.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1180 of 1546

environmental programs and mass-based emission budget trading 

programs. This is because banking reduces the cost of attaining 

the requirements of the regulation. The EPA has determined that 

the same rationale and outcomes apply under a CO2 emission rate 

approach, in that allowing banking will reduce compliance costs. 

Banking encourages additional emission reductions in the nearterm if economic to meet a long-term emission rate constraint, 

which is beneficial due to social preferences for environmental 

improvements sooner rather than later. It is also beneficial 

when addressing pollutants that are long-lived in the 

atmosphere, such as CO2, and where increasing atmospheric 

concentration of the pollutant leads to increasing adverse 

atmospheric impacts. 

Banking also provides long-term economic signals to 

affected emission sources and other market participants where 

actions taken today will have economic value in helping meet 

tighter emission constraints in the future, provided those 

emission sources expect that the banked emission rate credits or 

emission allowances may be used for compliance in the future. 

Linking short-term and long-term economic incentives, which 

allows owners or operators of affected EGUs and other market 

participants to assess both short-term and long-term incentives 

when making decisions about compliance approaches or emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1181 of 1546

reduction investments, reduces long-term compliance costs for 

affected EGUs and ratepayer impacts. In addition, the increased 

temporal flexibility provided by banking would further help 

address potential electric reliability concerns, as banked ERCs 

can be used to meet emission standard requirements for an 

affected EGU. 

d. Addressing emission budget trading programs with broader 

source coverage and other flexibility features. As described in 

section VIII.C.3.b(2)(a) above, under the emission standards 

plan type, a mass-based emission budget trading program may be 

designed such that compliance by affected EGUs would assure 

achievement of the state mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2

goal plus new source CO2 emission complement). 

 However, emission budget trading programs, including those 

currently implemented by California and the RGGI participating 

states, include a number of different design elements that 

functionally expand the emission budget under certain 

circumstances. If a state chose, it could apply such mass-based 

emission standards, in the form of an emission budget trading 

program that differs in design from that outlined in section 

VIII.J.2.c above. These types of emission budget trading 

programs must be submitted as a part of a state measures plan 

type. Where an emission budget trading program addresses 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1182 of 1546

affected EGUs and other fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the requirements 

that must be included in the state plan are the federally 

enforceable emission standards in the state plan that apply 

specifically to affected EGUs, and the requirements that 

specifically require affected EGUs to participate in and comply 

with the requirements of the emission budget trading program. 

This includes the requirement for an affected EGU to surrender 

emission allowances equal to reported CO2 emissions, and meet 

monitoring and reporting requirements for CO2 emissions, among 

other requirements. These requirements may be submitted as part 

of the federally enforceable state plan through mechanisms with 

the appropriate legal authority and effect, such as state 

regulations, relevant title V permit requirements for affected 

EGUs, and other possible instruments that impose these 

requirements specifically with respect to affected EGUs. 872 Under 

this approach, the full set of regulations establishing the 

emission budget trading program that applies to affected EGUs 

and other fossil fuel-fired EGUs and other mission sources (if 

relevant) must be described as supporting documentation in the 

state plan submittal. This structure is appropriate to ensure 

 

872 This approach for establishing federally enforceable emission 

stndards based on requirements for affected EGUs subject to a 

broader emission budget trading program that also covers nonaffected emission sources is addressed in section VIII.J.2.a. 

above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1183 of 1546

that states with an emission budget trading program that 

addresses both affected EGUs and other fossil fuel-fired EGUs do 

not inappropriately submit requirements regarding entities other 

than affected EGUs for inclusion in the federally enforceable 

state plan. 

 

 Such state programs could include a number of different 

design elements. This includes broader program scope, where a 

program includes other emission sources beyond affected EGUs 

subject to CAA section 111(d) and new fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

such as industrial sources. Programs might also include design 

elements that make allowances available in addition to the 

established emission budget. This includes project-based offset 

allowances or credits from GHG emission reduction projects 

outside the covered sector and cost containment reserve 

provisions that make additional allowances available at 

specified allowance prices.873 

In the case where an emission budget trading program 

contains elements that functionally expand the emission budget 

 

873 For example, both the California and RGGI programs allow for 

the use of allowances awarded to GHG offset projects to be used 

to meet a specified portion of an affected emission source’s 

compliance obligation. The RGGI program contains a cost 

containment allowance reserve that makes available additional 

allowances up to a certain amount, at specified allowance price 

triggers. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1184 of 1546

in certain circumstances, compliance by affected EGUs with the 

mass-based emission standards would not necessarily ensure that 

CO2 emissions from affected EGUs do not exceed the state’s massbased CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement). However, states could modify such programs 

to remove flexibility mechanisms that functionally expand the 

emission budget, such as out-of-sector offsets and certain cost 

containment reserve mechanisms, and submit the program under an 

emission standards plan type. 

Where a state chooses to retain such flexibility mechanisms 

as part of an emission budget trading program, the program may 

only be implemented as part of a state measures plan type 

because these state flexibility mechanisms would not assure CO2

emissions from affected EGUs do not exceed the state’s massbased CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement. A description of the state measures plan 

type and related requirements is provided in section VIII.C.4. 

Under this type of approach, the state would be required to 

include a demonstration,874 in its state plan submittal, of how 

its plan would achieve the state mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-

 

874 A demonstration of how a plan will achieve a state’s ratebased or mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement) is one of the required plan 

components, as described in section VIII.D.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1185 of 1546

based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement). This 

demonstration would include a projection of the total CO2

emissions from the fleet of affected EGUs that would occur as a 

result of compliance with the emission standards in the plan. 

Section VIII.D.2 discusses how such demonstrations could address 

design elements of emission budget trading programs with broader 

scope and additional compliance flexibility mechanisms, such as 

those included in the California and RGGI programs. Once the 

plan is implemented, if the mass-based CO2 goal is not achieved 

during a plan performance period, the backstop federally 

enforceable emission standards included in the state plan that 

apply to affected EGUs would be implemented, as described in 

section VIII.C.4.b.875 

e. Considerations for mass-based emission budget trading 

programs. The EPA notes that while an emission budget trading 

program included in an emission standards plan must be designed 

 

875 Achievement of the state mass-based CO2 goal would be 

determined based solely on stack CO2 emissions from affected 

EGUs. Where a state program includes the ability of an affected 

emission source to use GHG offsets to meet a portion of its 

allowance compliance obligation, no “credit” is applied to 

reported CO2 emissions by the affected EGU. The use of offset 

allowances or credits in such programs merely allows an affected 

EGU to emit a ton of CO2 in the amount of submitted offset 

allowances or credits. In all cases, there is no adjustment 

applied to reported stack emissions of CO2 from an affected EGU 

when determining compliance with its emission limit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1186 of 1546

to achieve a state mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal 

plus new source CO2 emission complement), states have wide 

discretion in the design of such programs, provided the emission 

standards included in the plan are quantifiable, verifiable, 

enforceable, non-duplicative, and permanent. 

(1) Allowance allocation. A key example is state discretion in 

the CO2 allowance allocation methods included in the program.876

This includes the methods used to distribute CO2 allowances and 

the parties to which allowances are distributed. For example, if 

a state chose, it could include CO2 allowance allocation 

provisions that provide incentives for certain types of 

complementary activities, such as RE generation, that help 

achieve the overall CO2 emission limit for affected EGUs 

established under the program. In addition, a state could use 

its allocation provisions to encourage investments in RE and 

demand-side EE in low-income communities. States could also use 

CO2 allowance allocation provisions to provide incentives for 

early action, such as RE generation or demand-side EE savings 

that occur prior to the beginning of the interim plan 

performance period in 2022. For example, a state could include 

CO2 allowance allocation provisions where CO2 allowances are 

 

876 Allowance allocation refers to the methods used to distribute 

CO2 allowances to the owners or operators of affected EGUs and/or 

other market participants. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1187 of 1546

distributed to RE generators based on MWh of RE generation that 

occurs prior to 2022. Such provisions might be addressed through 

a finite set-aside of CO2 allowances that are available for 

allocation under these provisions. This set-aside could be 

additional to a set-aside created by the state for the Clean 

Energy Incentive Program discussed in section VIII.B.2. 

(2) Facility-level compliance. If a state chose, it could 

evaluate compliance (i.e., allowance true-up) under its emission 

budget trading program at the facility level, rather at the 

individual unit level. The EPA has adopted facility-level 

compliance in the emission budget-trading programs it 

administers, including the Acid Rain Program (70 FR 25162), 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162), and Cross-state Air 

Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208). Under this approach, states would 

still track reported unit-level CO2 emissions – while evaluating 

compliance at the facility level – allowing them to track 

increases and decreases of CO2 emissions at individual EGUs. 

3. Multi-state coordination: mass-based emission trading 

programs. 

 An individual state may provide for the use of CO2

allowances issued by another state(s) for compliance with the 

mass-based emission standards in its plan. This type of state 

plan would include regulatory provisions that enable affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1188 of 1546

EGUs to use allowances issued in other states for compliance 

under the state’s emission budget trading program. This type of 

state plan must also indicate how CO2 allowances will be tracked 

from issuance through use for compliance, through either a joint 

tracking system, interoperable tracking systems, or use of an 

EPA-administered tracking system.877 

 Two different implementation approaches could be used to 

create such links. A state could submit a “ready-for-interstatetrading” plan using an EPA-approved tracking system, but the 

plan would not identify links with other states. A state could 

also submit a plan with specified bilateral or multilateral 

links that explicitly identify partner states. 

 Interstate allowance linkages would not affect the 

approvability of each state’s individual plan. However, 

different considerations apply for the approvability of an 

individual plan with such links, based on whether the emission 

budget trading program in the plan applies only to affected EGUs 

or includes other emission sources, and if the plan is designed 

 

877 The emission standards in each individual state plan must 

include regulatory provisions that address the issuance of CO2

allowances and tracking of CO2 allowances from issuance through 

use for compliance, as described in section VIII.C.3.b.(2)(c). 

The description here addresses how those regulatory provisions 

will be implemented through the use of a joint tracking system, 

interoperable tracking systems, or an EPA-administered tracking 

system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1189 of 1546

to meet a state mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs only or to 

meet a mass-based CO2 goal plus a new source CO2 emission 

complement). These considerations are discussed in section 

VIII.B.5.c.(2)(a) below. 

 Under the first “ready-for-interstate-trading” 

implementation approach, a state would indicate in its state 

plan that its emission budget trading program will be 

administered using an EPA-approved (or EPA-administered) 

emission and allowance tracking system.878 State plans using a 

specified EPA-approved tracking system would be deemed by the 

EPA as ready for interstate linkage upon approval of the state 

plan. No additional EPA approval would be necessary for states 

to link their emission budget trading programs, and affected 

EGUs in those states could engage in interstate trading 

subsequent to EPA plan approval. 

 A state would indicate in its plan submittal that its 

emission budget trading system will use a specified EPA-approved 

tracking system. The state would also indicate in the regulatory 

provisions for its emission budget trading program that it would 

 

878 The EPA would designate tracking systems that it has 

determined adequately address the integrity elements necessary 

for the issuance and tracking of emission allowances, as 

described in section VIII.C.5.c.(2). Under this approach, a 

state could include in its plan such a designated tracking 

system, which has already been reviewed by the EPA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1190 of 1546

recognize as usable for compliance any emission allowance issued 

by any other state with an EPA-approved state plan that also 

uses the specified EPA-approved tracking system. 

 States could also adopt such a collaborative emission 

trading approach over time (through appropriate state plan 

revisions if the plan is not already structured as ready-forinterstate-trading), without requiring all of the original 

participating states to revise their EPA-approved plans. 

 Under the second implementation approach, a state could 

specify the other states from which it would recognize issued 

emission allowances as usable for compliance with its emission 

budget trading program. The state would indicate in the 

regulatory provisions for its emission budget trading program 

that emission allowances issued in other identified partner 

states may be used by affected EGUs for compliance. Such plans 

must indicate how allowances will be tracked from issuance 

through use for compliance, through either a joint tracking 

system, interoperable tracking systems, or EPA-administered 

tracking system. The EPA would assess the design and 

functionality of this tracking system(s) when reviewing 

individual submitted state plans. 

 Under this approach, states could also join such a 

collaborative emission trading approach over time. However, all 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1191 of 1546

participating states would need to revise their EPA-approved 

plans. If the expanded linkage is among previously approved 

plans with mass-based emission standards, approval of the plan 

revision would be limited to assessing the functionality of the 

shared tracking system or interoperable tracking systems in 

order to maintain the integrity of the linked programs.879 

a. Considerations for linked emission budget trading programs. 

For individually submitted plans, interstate emission allowance 

linkages would not affect the approvability of each state’s 

plan. However, approvability of an individual linked plan would 

differ based on the structure of the emission budget trading 

program included in the plan. These differences for plan 

approvability address distinctions among programs that include 

only affected EGUs and programs that cover a broader set of 

emission sources, as well as if the plan is designed to meet a 

state mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs only or to meet a 

mass-based CO2 goal plus a new source CO2 emission complement. 

Differences in approval criteria are necessary to ensure that 

each individual state plan demonstrates it will achieve a 

 

879 Depending on the specific regulatory provisions in the 

emission standards in their approved state plans, participating 

states may also need to revise their implementing regulations 

(and by extension their state plans) to accept CO2 emission 

allowances issued by new partner states as usable for compliance 

with their mass-based emission standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1192 of 1546

state’s mass-based CO2 emission goal for affected EGUs (or massbased CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement). The 

accounting applied to individual plans to assess whether a state 

achieves its mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement) will also differ, based on 

whether an emission budget trading program includes only 

affected EGUs (or affected EGUs and applicable new fossil fuelfired EGUs) or a broader set of emission sources. These 

considerations are addressed below, for both types of emission 

budget trading programs. 

(1) Links among emission budget trading programs that only 

include affected EGUs. Where the emission budget trading 

programs in each plan apply only to affected EGUs subject to CAA 

section 111(d) (or affected EGUs and applicable new fossil fuelfired EGUs), and include compliance timeframes that align with 

the interim and final plan performance periods, both plans would 

functionally be meeting an aggregated multi-state mass-based 

goal (or aggregated mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement), but without formally aggregating the goal 

(or aggregated mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission 

complement). CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in both states 

could not exceed the total combined CO2 emission budgets under 

the emission standards in the two states. A net “import” of CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1193 of 1546

allowances from one state would mean that allowable CO2 emissions 

in the other net “exporting” state are less than that state’s 

established emission budget. On a multi-state basis, CO2

emissions from affected EGUs could not exceed the sum of the 

states’ emission budgets. 

 Under this approach, if the emission budget for the massbased emission standard in each plan is equal to or lower than 

the state’s mass-based CO2 goal (or aggregated mass-based CO2

goal plus new source CO2 emission complement, if applicable), 

compliance by affected EGUs with the mass emission standard in a 

state880 would ensure that cumulatively the mass CO2 goals (or 

mass-based CO2 goals plus new source CO2 emission complements) of 

the linked states are achieved. As a result, achievement of an 

individual state’s mass CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement) would be assessed by the EPA 

based on compliance by affected EGUs with the mass-based 

emission standards in the state plan, rather than reported CO2

emissions by affected EGUs in the state.881

 

880 Compliance by an affected EGU with the emission standard is 

demonstrated based on surrender to the state of a number of CO2

allowances equal to its reported CO2 emissions. 881 This approach is warranted because under such linked 

programs, CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in one state that 

exceed a state’s mass CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement) would be accompanied by CO2

emissions from affected EGUs in another linked state that are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1194 of 1546

 The same accounting approach will apply for such plans in 

all cases, even if the state is linked to another state emission 

budget trading program that includes a broader set of emission 

sources (e.g., sources beyond affected EGUs, or beyond affected 

EGUs plus applicable new fossil fuel-fired EGUs), as described 

below. In all cases, where a state plan includes an emission 

budget trading program that applies only to affected EGUs (or 

beyond affected EGUs plus applicable new fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs), and includes compliance timeframes that align with plan 

performance periods, achievement of a state mass CO2 goal (or 

mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement) will 

be assessed by the EPA based on whether affected EGUs comply 

with the mass-based emission standard, rather than reported CO2

emissions from affected EGUs. 

(2) Links with emission budget trading programs that include a 

broader set of emission sources. State plans may include 

emission budget trading programs that include affected EGUs as 

well as other non-affected emission sources.882 

 Generally, as described in section VIII.C.3-4 above, such 

plans must demonstrate that the mass-based CO2 goal for affected 

 

below that state’s mass CO2 goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new 

source CO2 emission complement). 882 This may apply under both an emission standards plan and a 

state measures plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1195 of 1546

EGUs (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission 

complement) in a state will be achieved, as a result of 

implementation of the emission budget trading program.883 Where 

such a program is linked with other programs, the state plan 

must include a demonstration that the mass-based CO2 goal (or 

mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement) will 

be achieved, considering the emission allowance links with other 

programs. The EPA, in determining the approvability of each 

state’s plan under this approach, would evaluate the linkages 

between plans. Specifically, the EPA would evaluate whether the 

linkages would enable the EGUs in each participating state to 

meet the state’s applicable mass-based CO2 goal (or mass-based 

CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission complement). 

 During plan implementation, the EPA would assess whether 

the affected EGUs in a state achieved the state’s mass-based CO2

goal as follows (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement). Reported CO2 emissions from affected EGUs 

 

883 Under a program that applies to affected EGUs and other 

emission sources, compliance by affected EGUs with the emission 

standard – a requirement to surrender emission allowances equal 

to reported emissions – will not assure that a state’s CO2 mass 

goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission 

complement) is achieved. As a result, a further demonstration is 

required in the plan that compliance by affected EGUs with the 

program will result in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs that are 

at or below a state’s CO2 mass goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus 

new source CO2 emission complement). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1196 of 1546

under such plans must be at or below a state’s mass-based CO2

emission goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement) during an identified plan performance 

period, with the following state accounting adjustments for net 

“import” and net “export” of CO2 allowances: 

 Net “imports” of CO2 allowances: Reported CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs in a state may exceed the state CO2 mass goal 

(or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2 emission 

complement) during an identified plan performance period in 

the amount of an adjustment for the net “imported” CO2

allowances during the plan performance period. The 

adjustment represents the CO2 emissions (in tons) equal to 

the number of net “imported” CO2 allowances.884 Under this 

adjustment, such allowances must be issued by a state with 

an emission budget trading program that only applies to 

affected EGUs (or affected EGUs plus applicable new fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs). Net “imports” of allowances are 

determined through review of tracking system compliance 

accounts. 

 Net “exports” of CO2 allowances: Reported CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs in a state during an identified plan 

 

884 Net “imports” and “exports” of CO2 allowances are defined and 

explained below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1197 of 1546

performance period must be equal to or less than the CO2

mass goal (or mass-based CO2 goal plus new source CO2

emission complement) minus an adjustment for the “exported” 

CO2 allowances during the plan performance period. The 

adjustment represents CO2 emissions (in tons) equal to the 

number of net “exported” CO2 allowances. Net “exports” of 

allowances are determined through review of tracking system 

compliance accounts. 

 Where CO2 emissions from affected EGUs exceed these levels 

(based on reported CO2 emissions with applied plus or minus 

adjustments for net CO2 allowance “imports” or “exports”) by 10 

percent or more, a state would be considered to not have met its 

CO2 mass goal during an identified plan performance period. As a 

result, under a state measures state plan, implementation of the 

backstop federally enforceable emission standards for affected 

EGUs in the state plan would be triggered. 

 A net transfer of CO2 allowances during a plan performance 

period represents the net number of CO2 allowances (issued by a 

respective state) that are transferred from the compliance 

accounts of affected EGUs in that state to the compliance 

accounts of affected EGUs in another state.885 This net transfer 

 

885 A net transfer metric is applied as of the end of the plan 

performance period. This net accounting as of a specified date 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1198 of 1546

is determined based on compliance account holdings at the end of 

the plan performance period.886 For example, assume two states, 

State A and State B, with emission budgets of 1,000 tons of CO2. 

Each state issues 1,000 CO2 allowances. At the end of a plan 

performance period, affected EGUs in State A collectively hold 

500 CO2 allowances in their compliance accounts that were issued 

by State A. Affected EGUs in State B collectively hold in their 

compliance accounts 500 CO2 allowances issued by State A and 

1,000 CO2 allowances issued by State B. In this simplified 

example, a net transfer of 500 CO2 allowances has occurred 

between State A and State B. State A has “exported” 500 CO2

allowances to State B, while State B has “imported” 500 CO2

 

is necessary because multiple individual allowance transfers may 

occur among accounts during a plan performance period, 

representing normal trading activity. In addition, net transfers 

are based on compliance account holdings, because these 

represent the CO2 allowances directly available at that point in 

time for use by an affected EGU for complying with its emission 

limit. Emission budget trading programs typically allow nonaffected entities to hold allowances in general accounts. These 

parties are free to hold and trade CO2 allowances, providing 

market liquidity. General account holdings are not assessed as 

part of a periodic state net transfer accounting, as these 

allowances may subsequently be transferred to other accounts in 

multiple states and do not represent allowances currently held 

by an affected EGU that can be used for complying with its 

emission limit. 

886 Compliance account holdings, as used here, refer to the 

number of CO2 allowances surrendered for compliance during a plan 

performance period, as well as any remaining CO2 allowances held 

in a compliance account as of the end of a plan performance 

period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1199 of 1546

allowances from state A. 

K. Additional Considerations and Requirements for Rate-Based 

State Plans 

 This section discusses considerations and requirements for 

rate-based state plans. This section discusses eligibility, 

accounting, and quantification and verification requirements 

(EM&V) for the use of CO2 emission reduction measures that 

provide substitute generation for affected EGUs or avoid the 

need for generation from affected EGUs in rate-based state 

plans. These measures may be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate 

of an affected EGU under a rate-based state plan. This 

adjustment may occur when an affected EGU is demonstrating 

compliance with a rate-based emission standard, or when a state 

is demonstrating achievement of the CO2 emission performance 

rates or applicable rate-based state CO2 emission goal in the 

emission guidelines. This section also discusses requirements 

for state plans that include rate-based emission trading 

programs, including approaches and requirements for coordination 

among such programs where states retain individual state ratebased CO2 emission goals. 

1. Adjustments to CO2 emission rates in rate-based state plans 

Section VIII.K.2.a below describes the basic accounting 

method for adjusting a CO2 emission rate, as well as eligibility 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1200 of 1546

requirements for measures that may be used for adjusting a CO2

emission rate. Section VIII.K.2.b addresses measures that may 

not be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU in 

a state plan, and explains the basis for this exclusion. Section 

VIII.K.2.c addresses measures that reduce CO2 emissions outside 

the electric power sector. Such measures may not be counted 

under either a rate-based or mass-based state plan. 

a. Measures taken to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected 

EGU. This section describes how measures that substitute for 

generation from affected EGUs or avoid the need for generation 

from affected EGUs may be used in a state plan to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU. This section discusses the 

required accounting method for adjusting a CO2 emission rate, as 

well as general eligibility requirements that apply to different 

categories of measures that may be used to adjust a CO2 emission 

rate. Where relevant, this section also discusses additional 

specific accounting methods and other relevant requirements that 

apply to different categories of measures. 

A CO2 emission rate adjustment may be applied in different 

rate-based state plan contexts. For example, in a rate-based 

emission trading program, adjustments may be applied through the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1201 of 1546

use of ERCs.887 Regardless of the type of plan in which an 

adjustment is applied, the same basic accounting and general 

eligibility requirements described in this section will apply. 

 As discussed in this section, a wide range of actions may 

be taken to adjust the reported CO2 emission rate of an affected 

EGU in order to meet a rate-based emission standard and/or 

demonstrate achievement of a state CO2 rate-based emissions goal. 

All of the measures described in this section will substitute 

for generation from affected EGUs or avoid the need for 

generation from affected EGUs, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. 

This includes RE measures included in the EPA’s determination of 

the BSER, as well as other measures that were not included in 

the determination of the BSER, such as other RE resources, 

demand-side EE, CHP, WHP, electricity transmission and 

distribution improvements, nuclear energy, and international RE 

imports connected to the grid in the contiguous U.S., as 

discussed elsewhere in this preamble. 

 The EPA believes that the broad categories of measures 

listed in this section address the wide range of actions that 

 

887 ERCs may be issued for the measures presented in this 

section, as well as to affected EGUs that emit at a CO2 emission 

rate below their assigned emission rate limit. ERC issuance and 

trading is discussed in detail in section VIII.K.2. That section 

addresses the accounting method for ERC issuance to affected 

EGUs that perform below their assigned CO2 emission rate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1202 of 1546

are available to reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs under a 

rate-based state plan. However, the actions that a state could 

include in a rate-based state plan are not necessarily limited 

to those described in this section. Other specific actions not 

listed here may be incorporated in a state plan, provided they 

meet the general eligibility requirements listed in this 

section, as well as the other relevant requirements in the 

emission guidelines.888 Nor are states required to include in 

their plans all of the actions that are described in this 

section. 

This section discusses the basic accounting method for 

adjusting the reported CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU, 

through the use of measures that substitute for or avoid 

generation from affected EGUs. That method is based on adding 

MWh from such measures to the denominator of an affected EGU’s 

reported CO2 emission rate (lb CO2/MWh). Those additional MWh are 

based on quantified and verified electricity generation or 

electricity savings from eligible measures, and in the case of 

an affected EGUs compliance with its emission standard, are 

reflected in ERCs. This section also addresses eligibility 

requirements for resources that are used to adjust an affected 

EGU’s CO2 emission rate. 

 

888 These requirements are discussed in section VIII.D. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1203 of 1546

(1) General accounting approach for adjusting a CO2 emission 

rate. In this final rule, the reported CO2 emission rate of an 

affected EGU may be adjusted based on quantified and verified 

MWh from qualifying zero-emitting and low-emitting resources, as 

described in sections VIII.K.1.a.(2)-(10) below. These MWh are 

added to the denominator of an affected EGU’s reported CO2

emission rate, resulting in a lower adjusted CO2 emission rate. 

 The measures described in these sections reduce mass CO2

emissions from affected EGUs by substituting zero- or lowemitting generation for generation from affected EGUs, or by 

avoiding the need for generation altogether (in the case of 

resources that lower electricity demand through improved demandside EE and demand-side management). In both of these cases, 

generation from an affected EGU is replaced, through substitute 

generation or a reduction in electricity demand. To the extent 

that qualifying zero-emitting and low-emitting resources result 

in reduced generation and CO2 emissions from an individual 

affected EGU, those emission impacts are reflected in lower 

reported CO2 emissions and a reduction in MWh generation from the 

affected EGU. However, while there will be a reduction in CO2

emissions at the affected EGU, the fact that both CO2 emissions 

and MWh generation are reduced means that such impacts do not 

alter the reported CO2 emission rate of the affected EGU. As a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1204 of 1546

result, the MWh of replacement generation must be added to the 

denominator of the reported CO2 emission rate, in order to 

represent those impacts in the form of an adjusted CO2 emission 

rate. In this manner, adding MWh from these resources to the 

denominator of an affected EGU CO2 emission rate allows mass CO2

emission reductions from these measures to be fully reflected in 

an adjusted CO2 emission rate. 

 The following provides a simple calculation example of how 

MWh of replacement generation added to the denominator of an 

affected EGU’s reported CO2 emission rate results in a lower 

adjusted CO2 emission rate. Assume an affected EGU with CO2

emissions of 200,000 lb and electric generation of 100 MWh 

during a reporting period. The affected EGU’s reported CO2

emission rate is 2,000 lb/MWh (200,000 lb CO2/100 MWh = 2,000 

lb/MWh). When complying with its rate-based emission limit, the 

affected EGU submits 10 ERCs, representing 10 MWh of replacement 

generation.889 Adding 10 MWh of replacement generation to the 

reported MWh generation of the affected EGU results in an 

adjusted CO2 emission rate of 1,818 lb CO2/MWh (200,000 lb 

CO2/110 MWh = 1,818 lb CO2/MWh). 

 In the case of rate-based CO2 emission standards, an 

 

889 Requirements for the issuance of ERC and a further discussion 

of how ERCs are used in compliance with rate-based emission 

limits are addressed in section VIII.G.3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1205 of 1546

affected EGU demonstrates compliance with the emission standards 

if the affected EGU’s adjusted CO2 emission rate calculated in 

the aforementioned manner is less than or equal to the 

applicable CO2 emission standard rate.890 The CO2 emission 

performance rates or rate-based CO2 goal in the emission 

guidelines are met if the adjusted CO2 emission rate of affected 

EGUs in a state is at or below the specified CO2 emission rate in 

a state plan that applies for an identified plan performance 

period. 

Numerous commenters requested that the EPA ensure 

consistency between goal-setting calculations and the 

methodology used to demonstrate achievement of a CO2 emission 

rate under a state plan. This approach for adjusting a CO2

emission rate corresponds with how RE, the one component of the 

BSER that involves adjustment of a CO2 emission rate, is 

represented in the CO2 emission performance rates in the emission 

guidelines. Specifically, in the calculation of final CO2

emission performance rates, the MWhs of RE are reflected in two 

adjustments of the rate: a reduction of CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs in the numerator and a one-to-one replacement of 

affected EGU generation in the denominator, where it is assumed 

 

890 Any ERCs used to adjust a CO2 emission rate must meet 

requirements in the emission guidelines, which are described in 

section VIII.D. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1206 of 1546

that replaced generation from an affected EGU is subtracted from 

the denominator and the same number of zero-emitting MWh are 

added.891 

 When demonstrating achievement of a CO2 emission performance 

rate, the reported CO2 emissions already reflect the actual 

emission reductions from the deployment of qualifying nonemitting and low-emitting resources across the regional grid; a 

further adjustment of CO2 emissions would double count CO2

emissions impacts across the grid. Consistent with the EPA’s 

calculation of the CO2 emission performance rates and state ratebased CO2 goals in the emission guidelines, the zero-emitting 

MWhs (from substitute generation or a reduction in electricity 

demand) must still be added to the denominator of a reported CO2

emission rate to calculate an adjusted CO2 emission rate that 

appropriately reflects the replaced generation. Thus, the 

resultant rate, where the numerator reflects CO2 emission 

reductions from qualifying measures, and the denominator 

reflects replaced generation, is consistent with the goalsetting calculation. 

Several commenters suggested that the EPA consider the 

regional nature of the electricity grid and how RE and demand-

 

891 For a detailed discussion of this method, see Section VI.C.3. 

Form of the Performance Rates, in the Equation section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1207 of 1546

side EE impacts generation and CO2 emissions across the grid when 

accounting for the impacts of RE and demand-side EE measures in 

a rate-based plan approach. This MWh accounting structure 

corresponds with the regional treatment of RE resources in the 

BSER that provide substitute generation in the EPA-calculated CO2

emission performance rates in the emission guidelines. 

Consistent with assumptions used in calculating the CO2 emission 

performance rates in the emission guidelines, affected EGUs and 

states can take full credit for the MWh resulting from eligible 

measures they are responsible for deploying, no matter where 

those measures are implemented. CO2 emission reductions from the 

eligible measures may occur across the region; however, 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. 

Because of the separate accounting of MWhs and CO2

emissions, with emission impacts inherent in reported stack CO2

emissions and zero-emitting MWh impacts requiring explicit 

adjustments, the accounting method corresponds with the use of 

MWh-denominated ERCs in the rate-based emission trading 

framework specified in this rule. The accounting method only 

requires a quantification of the MWh generated or avoided by an 

eligible measure, and thus credits or adjustments can be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1208 of 1546

denominated in MWh and do not need to represent an approximation 

of the CO2 emission reductions that result from those MWhs. This 

creates a crediting system or rate adjustment process that is 

simpler to implement than one that requires an approximation of 

avoided CO2 emissions. 

The MWh accounting method also creates a crediting system 

or rate adjustment process that is indifferent to the rate-based 

CO2 emission goals of individual states, or the specific CO2

emission rate standards that states may apply, and the relative 

stringency of those goals or standards. Use of ERCs in ratebased emission trading programs is addressed in detail in 

section VIII.K.2. As a result, the MWh accounting method 

addresses interstate effects, because it inherently accounts for 

how generation replacement and CO2 emission reduction impacts may 

cross state borders. For example, if the accounting method was 

informed by avoided CO2 emission rates, it could create perverse 

incentives for development of zero- or low-emitting resources in 

states that result in the greatest calculated estimate of CO2

emission reductions for each replacement MWh. Instead, this 

accounting method is indifferent to avoided CO2 emission rates 

and creates the same number of zero-emitting credits or 

adjustment for each MWh of energy generation or savings, 

wherever they occur. For a detailed discussion on how the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1209 of 1546

accounting method addresses interstate effects, see section 

VIII.L. 

(2) General eligibility requirements for resources used to 

adjust a CO2 emission rate. The EPA is finalizing certain general 

eligibility requirements for resources used to adjust a CO2

emission rate. These requirements align eligibility with certain 

factors and assumptions used in establishing the BSER, and by 

extension, application of the BSER to the performance levels 

established for affected EGUs in the emission guidelines, as 

well as state rate and mass CO2 goals. As a result, the 

requirements ensure that measures that may be used in a state 

plan are treated consistently (to the extent possible) with the 

EPA’s assessment of the BSER.892 These general requirements also 

address potential interactions among rate and mass plans, as 

discussed more fully in section VIII.G.2. 

 As discussed in the sections that follow, the general 

eligibility criteria address: 

 the date from which MWh from eligible measures may be 

counted, and applied toward adjusting a CO2 rate; 

 the date from which eligible measures may be installed 

 

892 For example, eligibility requirements include installation 

dates for eligible RE measures that may be used in a state plan. 

These dates generally align with the dates used for broadly 

defining incremental RE resources that were considered in 

establishing the BSER. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1210 of 1546

(e.g., installation of RE generating capacity and 

installation of EE measures); and 

 the need to demonstrate that eligible measures replace or 

avoid generation from affected EGUs. 

. 

(a) Eligibility date for installation of RE/EE and othermeasures 

and MWh generation and savings. Incremental emission reduction 

measures, such as RE and demand-side EE, can be recognized as 

part of state plans, but only for the emission reductions they 

provide during a plan performance period. Specifically, this 

means that measures installed in any year after 2012 are 

considered eligible measures under this final rule, but only the 

quantified and verified MWh of electricity generation or 

electricity savings that they produce in 2022 and future years,, 

may be applied toward adjusting a CO2 emission rate. For example, 

MWh generation in 2022 from a wind turbine installed in 2013 may 

be applied toward adjusting a CO2 emission rate. This 2012 date 

applies to all eligible measures that are used to adjust a CO2

emission rate under a state plan. For example, eligible 

measures, such as CHP, nuclear power and DSM, also must be 

installed after 2012, but only their generation or savings 

produced in 2022 and after can be used to adjust a CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1211 of 1546

rate. 

As discussed in section VIII.C.2.a, a MWh of generation or 

savings that occurs in 2022 or a subsequent year may be carried 

forward (or “banked”) and applied in a future year. For example, 

a MWh of RE generation that occurs in 2022 may be applied to 

adjust a CO2 emission rate in 2023 or future years, without 

limitation.893 These MWh may be banked from the interim to final 

periods. 

This eligibility date criterion is consistent with the date 

of installation for “incremental” RE capacity that is included 

in the BSER building block 3, which is the basis for RE MWh 

incorporated in the CO2 emission performance rates for affected 

EGUs in the emission guidelines. For more information on RE in 

the BSER, see section V.E. 

Many commenters asserted that proposed state goals did not 

sufficiently account for actions states take that reduce CO2

emissions prior to the first plan performance period, and 

therefore requested that MWhs of electricity generation or 

electricity savings that occur prior to the first plan 

performance period be eligible to apply toward adjusting the CO2

 

893 Similarly, as discussed in section VIII.C.2.b.(2).(a), 

allowances may be banked in a mass-based trading program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1212 of 1546

emission rates of affected EGUs. The EPA recognizes the 

importance of early state action as the basis for significant CO2

emission reductions and as a key part of enabling state plans to 

achieve the CO2 emission performance levels or state CO2 goals. 

The ability to count eligible measures installed in 2013 and 

subsequent years for the MWhs they generate during a plan 

performance period provides significant recognition for early 

action, corresponding with the BSER framework that is based on 

cost-effective actions that many sources are already doing, 

while still conforming to CO2 performance rates and state goals 

that are forward-looking. In order to provide additional 

incentives for early investment in RE and demand-side EE, the 

EPA is also establishing a Clean Energy Incentive Program, as 

discussed in section VIII.B.2. ERCs distributed by states and 

the EPA through this program may also be used by affected EGUs 

to demonstrate compliance with an emission standard, and may be 

banked from the interim to final periods. 

Commenters concerns about treatment of early actions are 

further addressed by changes from proposal to the BSER 

assumptions and the methodology used by the EPA to establish the 

CO2 emission performance levels and rate-based state CO2 goals in 

the emission guidelines. The specifics of these changes are 

addressed in section V.A.3. Three examples of those changes are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1213 of 1546

provided below. 

First, affected EGUs that have maximized their CO2 emission 

reduction opportunities available through early action will be 

better positioned to meet the BSER CO2 emission performance rates 

or state goal applied to affected EGUs in their state. For 

example, a steam generating unit that has already reduced its CO2

emission rate through a heat rate improvement may have a CO2

emission rate of 2,000 lb/MWh whereas its rate was 2,100 lb/MWh 

prior to the improvement. Therefore, it has less distance to 

cover to meet its CO2 emission performance rate. 

Second, generation from existing RE capacity installed 

prior to 2013 has been excluded from the EPA’s calculation of 

the CO2 emission performances rates in the emission guidelines. 

That RE generating capacity will still provide zero-emitting 

generation to the grid meeting demand that will not need to be 

addressed by existing affected EGUs and will better position 

states and affected EGUs to meet the CO2 performances rates or 

state rate- or mass-based CO2 goals. 

Third, commenters expressed concern that demand-side EE 

targets as part of proposed state goals reflected an assumption 

of installation of increased EE measures starting 2017, which 

seemed to be an implicit requirement to take action prior to the 

performance period. Because demand-side EE is not used in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1214 of 1546

calculating the CO2 emission performance rates in the final 

emission guidelines, this is no longer a concern. Furthermore, 

eligible demand-side EE actions that occur after 2012 can be 

applied toward adjusting the CO2 emission rates of affected EGUs, 

providing a significant compliance option that is not assumed in 

emission performance rates or state goals. 

(b) Demonstration that measures substitute for grid generation. 

Eligible measures must be grid-connected. This eligibility 

criterion aligns with RE generation in building block 3 of the 

BSER, which substitutes for the need for generation from 

affected EGUs. 

 All EE measures must result in electricity savings at a 

building, facility, or other end-use location that is connected 

to the electricity grid. EE measures only avoid electric 

generation from grid-connected EGUs if the electrical loads 

where the efficiency improvements are made are interconnected to 

the grid. 

 Commenters sought clarity on this issue, so the EPA is 

providing this requirement as part of the final rule. Some 

commenters advocated for the inclusion of measures that were not 

grid connected as eligible resources, arguing that some of these 

measures substituted for non-affected EGUs and resulted in 

reductions in CO2 emissions. However, eligible measures must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1215 of 1546

able to substitute for generation from affected EGUs as defined 

under this rule, and thus must be tied to the electrical grid. 

(c) Geographic eligibility. All eligible emission reduction 

measures, including RE generation and demand-side EE, may occur 

in any state, with certain limitations, as described below. To 

the extent these measures are tied to a state plan,894 these 

measures may be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate, regardless of 

whether the associated generation or electricity savings occur 

inside or outside the state.895 This approach is generally 

consistent with the approach used in building block 3 of the 

BSER, which reflects regionally available RE. It also recognizes 

that emission reduction measures have impacts on electricity 

generation across the electricity system, both within and beyond 

a state’s borders. A more in-depth discussion of the basis for 

 

894 As used here, a measure is “tied to a state plan” if it is 

issued an ERC under approved procedures in a rate-based emission 

standards plan represents quantified and verified MWh energy 

generation or energy savings achieved by an approved state 

measure in a state measures plan. 

895 For example, under a rate-based emission standard with credit 

trading, ERCs may be issued for qualifying actions that occur 

both inside and outside the state, provided the measures meet 

requirements of EPA-approved state regulations and the provider 

applies to the state for the issuance of ERCs. Similarly, under 

a state measures plan, a state might include state requirements 

such as an RPS, where compliance with the RPS can be met through 

out-of-state RE generation. In this plan context, MWh of RE 

generation used to comply with the state RPS could be used by 

the state to adjust the CO2 emission rate of the fleet of 

affected EGUs in the state when demonstrating that its plan has 

achieved the state’s rate-based CO2 goal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1216 of 1546

treatment of in-state and out-of-state measures is provided in 

Sec.VIII.L. 

 State plans must demonstrate that emission standards and 

state measures (if applicable) are non-duplicative. Given the 

geographic eligibility approach described here, this includes a 

demonstration that a state plan does not allow recognition of a 

MWh, for use in adjusting the CO2 emission rate of an affected 

EGU, if the MWh is being or has been used for such a purpose 

under another state plan. Discussion of how such a demonstration 

can be made in the context of a rate-based emission trading 

program is in section VIII.D.2.b. 

The EPA received many comments on the treatment of in-state 

and out-of-state RE and demand-side EE. Most commenters 

recommended crediting of both in-state and out-of-state RE and 

demand-side EE measures, similar to the final rule approach for 

eligible emission reductions measures. Commenters argued that 

this approach makes sense based on the nature of the 

interconnected electricity grid and allows states and utilities 

to fully account for their RE and demand-side EE efforts, 

whether that RE or EE, and its related impacts, occurs inside or 

outside of their state. Some commenters expressed concerns that, 

at proposal, states with significant RE resources had large 

amounts of existing RE capacity included in their state CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1217 of 1546

goals, but that RE was functionally credited to other states for 

use in meeting their goals because it was associated with 

measures (such as an RPS) likely to be included in another 

state’s plan. This concern has been addressed through changes in 

the BSER RE assumptions in the final rule. This includes 

regionalization of the RE building block, and removal of 

existing RE capacity constructed prior to 2012 from the building 

block. The result of these changes is that the RE incorporated 

in the BSER is more equally shared across states. 

(i) Measures that occur in states with mass-based plans. As 

discussed above, eligible measures for adjusting the CO2 emission 

rate of an affected EGU may occur in any state, with certain 

conditions. This includes a condition that applies to eligible 

measures that occur in a state with an EPA-approved plan that is 

meeting a state mass-based CO2 goal. Eligible measures that could 

be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate under a rate-based state 

plan which are located in a state with a mass-based plan are 

restricted from being counted under another state’s rate-based 

plan. An exception is made for RE measures that occur in such 

mass-based states, because of its unique role in BSER. RE 

measures must meet additional eligibility criteria in order to 

be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU in a 

state with a rate-based plan. This exception only applies to RE, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1218 of 1546

other non-BSER emission reduction measures located in mass-based 

states, including demand-side EE, are restricted from ERC 

issuance in rate-based states. 

 These criteria are intended to address the fact that 

eligible measures should lead to substitution of generation from 

affected EGUs, with related impacts on CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs. Where states with mass-based plans implement 

mass-based CO2 emission standards, CO2 emissions reductions from 

affected EGUs must occur in order to comply with these emission 

standards and, unlike the rate-based approach, zero- and lowemitting MWhs do not play a specified role in demonstrating that 

the mass-based standards have been met.896 Since they are not 

counted in the mass-based demonstration, eligible measures 

located in mass-based states could be used in a state with a 

rate-based plan to adjust the CO2 emission rate of affected EGUs. 

Such adjustments would obviate the need for comparable CO2

emission reductions at affected EGUs in the rate-based state or 

the use of other measures to make a rate adjustment. In this 

scenario, to the extent that eligible measures substitute solely 

for generation from affected EGUs in a state with mass-based 

 

896 Where such measures substitute for generation from affected 

EGUs subject to a mass CO2 emission limit, such measures reduce 

the cost of meeting those mass emission limits, but do not 

result in incremental CO2 emission reductions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1219 of 1546

emission limits, and are also used to adjust the reported CO2

emission rate of affected EGUs in a rate-based state, no 

incremental CO2 emissions reductions would occur in the ratebased state as a result of the eligible measures.897 The result 

would be forgone CO2 emission reductions that would otherwise 

occur across the two states. These dynamics are further 

addressed in section VIII.L. 

 For RE measures located in a mass-based state to have some 

or all of its generation counted under a rate-based plan in 

another state, it must be demonstrated that the generation was 

delivered to the grid to meet electricity load in a state with a 

rate-based plan.898 Some examples of documentation that can serve 

as a demonstration include a power delivery contract or power 

purchase agreement. The EPA is giving states flexibility 

regarding the nature of this demonstration, but a state plan 

must describe the nature of the required demonstration and have 

it be approved by the EPA. 

 Under an emission standards plan, this demonstration must 

 

897 As used here, incremental emission reductions refers to 

emission reductions that are above and beyond what would be 

achieved solely through compliance with the emission standards 

in the mass-based state. 

898 This does not need to necessarily be the state where the MWh 

of energy generation from the measure is used to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1220 of 1546

be made by the provider of the RE measure seeking ERC issuance 

under the rate-based emission standards in a rate-based state, 

as part of the eligibility application for the measure.899 The 

rate-based state must include in its state plan provisions that 

describe a sufficient demonstration of geographic eligibility 

for the RE generation under rate-based emission standards. 

 Further examples of eligible demonstrations and how they 

should be outlined in state plans is provided in section VIII.L. 

(ii) Measures that occur in states that do not have affected 

EGUs. States, including areas of Indian country, that do not 

have any affected EGUs within their borders may be providers of 

credits to adjust CO2 emission rates. In its supplemental 

proposal for this proposed rulemaking, the EPA sought comment on 

whether or not jurisdictions without affected fossil fuel 

generation units subject to the proposed emission guidelines 

should be authorized to participate in state plans. Commenters 

were supportive of allowing those jurisdictions without affected 

EGUs the opportunity to participate in state plans. CO2 reduction 

measures in areas without affected EGUs have the potential to 

provide cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions and 

should be available on a voluntary basis to affected EGUs. 

 

899 Requirements for ERC issuance are addressed in section 

VIII.K.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1221 of 1546

Commenters noted that some tribes, for example, have many 

untapped RE resources that could be developed, and they should 

be able to realize the benefits of contributing to a state plan. 

Commenters stated that because of the integrated nature of the 

U.S. electricity grid, it is appropriate to allow all 

jurisdictions with the ability to contribute to and benefit from 

CO2 emission reductions or CO2 emission rate adjustments. 

For participating states, they must adhere to EM&V 

standards, installation dates, and any other criteria that apply 

to all states. Section VIII.K.3 below identifies and discusses 

the EM&V requirements used to quantify MWh savings from demandside EE and generation from zero-emitting sources. 

States, including areas of Indian country, that do not have 

any affected EGUs may provide ERCs to adjust CO2 emissions 

provided they are connected to the contiguous U.S. grid and meet 

the other requirements for eligibility. To qualify for ERCs from 

zero or low-emission resources, it must be demonstrated that the 

generation was delivered to the grid to meet electricity load in 

a state with a rate-based plan.900 Some examples of documentation 

that can serve as a demonstration include a power delivery 

contract or power purchase agreement. The EPA is giving states 

 

900 This does not need to necessarily be the state where the MWh 

of energy generation from the measure is used to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1222 of 1546

flexibility regarding the nature of this demonstration, but a 

state plan must describe the nature of the required 

demonstration and have it be approved by the EPA. 

In addition to RE resources, EE resources in areas of 

Indian country located within the borders of states with ratebased emission standards for affected EGUs may also be issued 

ERCs. The generation from EGUs serving the load in the area of 

Indian country is located in the state with a rate-based 

emission standard. The ERCs from demand-side EE resources must 

meet the eligibility requirements to adjust a CO2 emission rate, 

including installation date and EM&V requirements described 

below in section VIII.K.3. If the area of Indian country is 

located within the borders of a state that is meeting a massbased CO2 goal, then the demand-side EE resources are not 

eligible to be issued ERCs, whether they are within the area of 

Indian country of any other part of the state. 

Geographically isolated states and territories that are not 

connected to the contiguous U.S. grid and, hence, not able to 

also deliver the power are not allowed to provide ERCs for zeroor lower-emission power generation or for savings due to demandside energy efficiency programs. Specifically, this applies to 

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, which, as discussed 

previously in section VII.F, do not have to meet CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1223 of 1546

standards under this final rule.. 

(iii) Measures that occur outside the U.S. The EPA will work 

with states using the rate-based approach that are interested in 

allowing the use of RE from outside the U.S. to adjust CO2

emission rates. In these cases, all conditions for creditable 

domestic RE must be met, including that RE resources must be 

incremental and installed after 2012, and all EM&V standards 

must be met. In addition, the country generating the ERCs must 

be connected to the U.S. grid, and there must be a power 

purchase agreement or other contract for delivery of the power 

with an entity in the U.S. RE generation capacity outside the 

U.S. that existed prior to 2012 but was not exported to the U.S. 

is not considered new or incremental generation and, therefore, 

not eligible for adjusting CO2 emission rates under this rule. 

For example, a new transmission interconnection to existing RE 

in Canada would not be considered incremental, but a new 

interconnection to RE where the RE was built after 2012 would be 

considered incremental. See below in section VIII.K.1.a.(3) for 

more specifics regarding the use of incremental hydroelectric 

power in a rate-based approach. 

 The EPA received comments encouraging the use of 

international zero-emitting electricity imports in state plans, 

particularly hydroelectric power from Canada. Canada currently 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1224 of 1546

provides states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin with RE through 

existing grid connections. New projects are in various stages of 

development to increase generating capacity, which could be 

called upon as a base load resource to supplement variable forms 

of RE generation. Commenters said that the EPA should permit the 

use of all incremental hydropower—both domestic and 

international—towards EGU CO2 emission rate adjustments providing 

that double-counting can be prevented; and the EPA acknowledges 

this may be allowable, as long as the specified criteria have 

been met. 

(3) RE and demand-side EE. RE and demand-side EE measures may be 

used to adjust a CO2 emission rate, provided they meet the 

general eligibility requirements outlined above and the MWh 

electricity generation or electricity savings are properly 

quantified and verified.901 

 As used in this section, RE includes electric generating 

technologies using RE resources, such as wind, solar, 

geothermal, hydropower, biomass and wave and tidal power. As 

used in this section, demand-side EE may include a range of 

eligible measures, provided that the measures can be quantified 

 

901 All state plans must demonstrate that measures included in 

the plan are quantifiable and verifiable. See section VIII.K.2 

for discussion of requirements for the issuance of ERCs, and 

section VIII.K.3 for discussion of EM&V requirements for use of 

RE and demand-side EE in a state plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1225 of 1546

and verified in accordance with the EM&V requirements in the 

emission guidelines, which are addressed in section VIII.K.3. 

Examples of demand-side EE measures include, but are not limited 

to, EE measures that reduce electricity use in residential and 

commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and other gridconnected equipment. EE measures, for the purposes of this 

section, may consist of EE measures installed as the result of 

individual EE projects, as well as multiple EE measures 

installed through an EE program, such as EE deployment programs 

administered by electric utilities, state entities, and nonprofit entities.902 EE measures, for the purposes of this 

section, may also consist of state or local requirements that 

result in electricity savings, such as building energy codes and 

state appliance and equipment standards. Other interventions 

that result in electricity savings may also be considered an EE 

measure for the purposes of this section, provided the 

intervention can be specified and quantified and verified in 

accordance with EM&V requirements in the emission guidelines. 

 In addition, a capacity uprate at an existing RE facility 

(i.e., an uprate to generating capacity originally installed as 

 

902 EE programs may also be implemented by other entities. 

Eligible EE measures that are deployed through EE programs are 

not limited to those EE measures deployed through EE programs 

administered by the types of entities listed here. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1226 of 1546

of 2012 or earlier) is also eligible to adjust a CO2 emission 

rate. The capacity uprate must occur after 2012. Such uprates to 

capacity represent incremental capacity added after 2012. 

Quantification and accounting criteria for incremental RE (and 

nuclear generation) are as follows. The incremental generating 

capacity (in nameplate MW) is divided by the total uprated 

generating capacity (in nameplate MW) and then multiplied by 

generation output (in MWh) from the uprated generator. For 

example, if a hydroelectric power plant expands generating 

nameplate capacity from 100 MW to 125 MW and generation output 

increased to 1,000 MWh, then 200 MWh ((25 MW/125 MW) * 1,000 

MWh) is eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate, 

regardless of the overall level of generation for the period.903 

Many commenters supported using RE deployment as measures 

to adjust the CO2 emission rate of affected EGUs. Some commenters 

specifically agreed with the EPA’s determination that only new 

and incremental RE (including hydropower) should be used to 

adjust CO2 emission rates. Those commenters objected to counting 

existing RE that are already embedded in the baseline emissions 

and generation mix. A significant number of commenters supported 

the integration of RE into a rate-based credit trading system. 

 

903 For example, the overall generation from the uprated 

hydroelectric power plant may be higher or lower than generation 

levels that occurred at the plant prior to the capacity uprate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1227 of 1546

 Certain additional requirements apply for hydropower and 

biomass (including waste-to-energy) RE, as described below. 

(a) Hydroelectric power. Consistent with other types of RE, new 

hydroelectric power generating capacity installed after 2012 is 

eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 

 Relicensed facilities are considered existing capacity and, 

therefore, are not eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission 

rate, unless there is a capacity uprate as part of the 

relicensed permit. In such a case, only the incremental capacity 

is eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 

 The EPA noted that many commenters preferred that 

generation from hydropower displace generation from fossil 

sources. One commenter suggested that existing zero-emitting 

sources, including hydropower, do not reduce emissions from 

existing fossil generation, but that new or uprated zeroemitting sources would, because of their low variable rate, 

reduce fossil emissions. Several commenters recommended allowing 

incremental generation from new or uprated zero-emitting 

sources, including hydropower, be available for compliance. 

(b) Biomass. RE generating capacity installed after 2012 that 

uses qualifying biomass as a fuel source is eligible for use in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1228 of 1546

adjusting a CO2 emission rate.904 As discussed in section 

VIII.I.2.c., if a state intends to allow for the use of biomass 

as a compliance option for an affected EGU to meet a CO2 emission 

standard, a state must propose qualifying biomass feedstocks and 

treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in its plan, along with 

supporting analysis and quality control measures, and the EPA 

will review the appropriateness and basis for such 

determinations in the course of its review of a state plan. 

Where an RE generating unit uses qualifying biomass, as 

designated in an approved state plan, MWh generation from the 

unit could be used to adjust the reported CO2 emission rate of an 

affected EGU. Total MWh generation from an RE generating unit 

that uses qualifying biomass must be prorated based on either 

the heat input supplied from qualifying biomass as a proportion 

of total heat input, and also (if applicable) based on the 

approved proportion of biogenic CO2 emissions (i.e., the 

proportion of biogenic CO2 emissions from use of qualifying 

biomass feedstock that would not be counted) compared to total 

stack CO2 emissions from the RE generating unit. 

 Section VIII.K describes how state plan submittals must 

specify the requirements and procedures that EM&V measures must 

 

904 As with other RE, only generating capacity installed after 

2012 would be eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1229 of 1546

meet, and includes a discussion on how the EPA is addressing 

potential EM&V measures for qualifying biomass in the model 

trading rule and EPA’s draft EM&V guidance. 

(c) Waste-to-energy. Qualifying biomass may include the biogenic 

portion of MSW combusted in a waste-to-energy facility.905 With 

regard to assessing qualifying biomass proposed in state plans, 

the EPA generally acknowledges the CO2 emissions and climate 

policy benefits of waste-derived biomass, which includes 

biogenic MSW inputs to waste-to-energy facilities. The process 

and considerations for the use of biomass in state plans are 

discussed in section VIII.I.2.c. 

 MSW can be directly combusted in waste-to-energy facilities 

to generate electricity as an alternative to landfill disposal. 

In the U.S., almost all incineration of MSW occurs at waste-toenergy facilities or industrial facilities where the waste is 

combusted and energy is recovered.906 Total MSW generation in 

2012 was 251 million tons, but of that total volume generated, 

almost 87 million tons were recycled and composted.907 Increasing 

demand for electricity generated from waste-to-energy facilities 

 

905 As with other RE, only generating capacity installed after 

2012 would be eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 906 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-

2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.

html. 

907 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1230 of 1546

could increase competition for and generation of waste stream 

materials - including discarded organic waste materials – which 

could work against programs promoting waste reduction or cause 

diversion of these materials from existing or future efforts 

promoting composting and recycling. The EPA and many states have 

recognized the importance of integrated waste materials 

management strategies that emphasize a hierarchy of waste 

prevention, starting with waste reduction programs as the 

highest priority and then focusing on all other productive uses 

of waste materials to reduce the volume of disposed waste 

materials.908 For example, Oregon and Vermont have strategies 

that emphasize waste prevention, followed by reuse, then 

recycling and composting materials prior to treatment and 

disposal.909 

Information in the revised Framework for Assessing Biogenic 

CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources and other technical studies 

and tools (e.g., EPA Waste Reduction Model, EPA Decision Support 

Tool) should assist both states and the EPA in assessing the 

role of biogenic feedstocks used in waste-to-energy processes, 

 

908 http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/hierarchy.htm. 909

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/WastePrevention/main.htm

. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1231 of 1546

where use of such feedstocks is included in a state plan.910 

 When developing their plans, states planning to use wasteto-energy as an option for the adjustment of a CO2 emission rate 

should assess both their capacity to strengthen existing or 

implement new waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting 

programs, and measures to minimize any potential negative 

impacts of waste-to-energy operations on such programs. States 

must include that information in their plan submissions. The EPA 

will reject as qualified biomass any proposed waste-to-energy 

component of state plans if states do not include information on 

their efforts to strengthen existing or implement new waste 

reduction as well as reuse, recycling and composting programs, 

and measures to minimize any potential negative impacts of 

waste-to-energy operations on such programs. Only electric 

generation at a waste-to-energy facility that is related to the 

biogenic fraction of MSW and that is added after 2012 is 

eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 

A state plan must include a method for determining the 

proportion of total MWh generation from a waste-to-energy 

facility that is eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission 

rate. The EPA will evaluate the method as part of its evaluation 

 

910 http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/Warm_Form.html, 

https://mswdst.rti.org/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1232 of 1546

of the approvability of the state plan. Measuring the proportion 

of biogenic to fossil CO2 emissions can be performed through 

sampling and testing of the biogenic fraction of the MSW used as 

fuel at a waste-to-energy facility (e.g., via ASTM D-6866-06 

testing or other methods - ASTM, 2006; Bohar, et al. 2010), or 

based on the proportion of biogenic CO2 emissions to total CO2

emissions from the facility. For an example of the former 

method, if the biogenic fraction of MSW is 50 percent by input 

weight, only the proportion of MWh output attributable to the 

biogenic portion of MSW at the waste-to-energy facility may be 

used to adjust an affected EGU CO2 emission rate. Alternatively, 

as an example of the latter method, if biogenic CO2 emissions 

represent 50 percent of total reported CO2 emissions, a facility 

would need to estimate the fraction of biogenic to fossil MSW 

utilized and the net energy output of each component (based on 

relative higher heating values) to determine the percent of the 

MWh output from the waste-to-energy facility that may be used to 

adjust an affected EGU CO2 emission rate. Section VIII.K 

describes how state plan submittals must specify the 

requirements and procedures that EM&V measures must meet, and 

includes a discussion on how the EPA is addressing potential 

EM&V measures for qualifying biomass in the model trading rule 

and EPA’s draft EM&V guidance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1233 of 1546

 

The EPA received multiple comments supporting the use of 

waste-to-energy as part of state plans. Some commenters 

expressed concern that non-biogenic materials, such as plastics 

and metal, would be incinerated along with biogenic materials. 

As discussed above, only electric generation related to the 

biogenic fraction of MSW at a waste-to-energy facility added 

after 2012 is eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 

The EPA also received comments that expressed concern about the 

potential negative impacts on recycling and waste reduction 

efforts, while other commenters asserted that waste-to-energy 

practices encourage recycling programs. Some commenters also 

expressed concern about what treatment would be approvable for 

emissions from waste-to-energy practices. As discussed above, 

potential negative impacts from waste-to-energy production on 

recycling, waste reduction, and composting programs should be 

evaluated and efforts to mitigate negative impacts must be 

discussed in state plans. 

(4) Demand-side management. Avoided MWh that result from demandside management may be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

Eligible DSM actions are those that are non-emitting and avoid, 

rather than shift, the use of electricity by an electricity end-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1234 of 1546

user.911 The MWh that may be used for such an adjustment are 

determined based on the MW of demand reduction multiplied by the 

hours during which such a demand reduction is achieved (MW of 

demand reduction x hours = MWh avoided). DSM measures must be 

appropriately quantified and verified, in accordance with 

requirements in the emission guidelines, as discussed in section 

VIII.K.3. 

(5) Energy storage. Energy storage may not be directly 

recognized as an eligible measure that can be used to adjust a 

CO2 emission rate, because storage does not directly substitute 

for electric generation from the grid or avoid electricity use 

from the grid.912 The electric generation that is input to an 

energy storage unit may be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate, 

but the output from the energy storage unit may not.913 However, 

 

911 An example is a utility direct load control program, such as 

those where customer air conditioning units are cycled during 

periods of peak electricity demand. Actions that shift 

electricity demand from one time of day to another are not 

eligible, as these measures do not avoid electricity use from 

the grid. Use of emitting generators as a DSM measure are also 

not eligible. 

912 Energy storage depends on a generation source, either from a 

utility-scale EGU (e.g., a fossil EGU, a wind turbine, etc.) or 

a distributed generation source at an electricity end-user 

(e.g., a PV system installed at a building). 

913 This approach focuses on counting the qualifying electric 

generation, which may be an input to an energy storage unit. 

Counting both the generation input to energy storage and the 

output from the energy storage unit would be a form of double 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1235 of 1546

energy storage can be used as an enabling measure that 

facilitates greater use of RE, which can be used to adjust a CO2

emission rate. For example, utility scale energy storage may be 

used to facilitate greater grid penetration of RE generating 

capacity and can also be used to store RE generation that may 

have otherwise been shed in times of excess generating capacity. 

Likewise, on-site energy storage at an electricity end-user can 

enable greater use of RE to meet on-site electricity demand.914 

The EPA received multiple comments regarding the overall 

merits of energy storage. Consistent with the discussion above, 

the majority of commenters observed that storage technology 

enables greater grid penetration of RE and supports more 

efficient and effective operations of both RE and fossil-fuel 

plants. Commenters further noted that energy storage can provide 

RE to the grid when it is most needed, while simultaneously 

taking pressure off fossil-fuel plants to respond to sudden 

shifts in demand. Despite broad acknowledgment of the benefits 

of storage, public comments underscore its indirect and 

supporting role in providing zero-emission MWh to the grid 

 

counting. The electric generation that is stored may be counted; 

the subsequent output from the storage unit may not. 

914 For example, battery storage at a building with solar PV can 

enable the PV system to meet the building’s entire electrical 

load, by storing energy during times of peak PV system output 

for later use when the sun is not shining. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1236 of 1546

(consistent with the EPA’s decision to exclude energy storage as 

an eligible measure that can be used to adjust a CO2 emission 

rate). 

(6) Transmission and distribution measures. Electricity T&D 

measures that improve the efficiency of the T&D system and/or 

reduce electricity use may be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

This includes T&D measures that reduce losses of electricity 

during delivery from a generator to an end-user (sometimes 

referred to as “line losses”915) and T&D measures that reduce 

electricity use at the end-user, such as conservation voltage 

reduction (CVR).916 The EPA received many comments in support of 

 

915 T&D system losses (or “line losses”) are typically defined as 

the difference between electricity generation to the grid and 

electricity sales. These losses are the fraction of electricity 

lost to resistance along the T&D lines, which varies depending 

on the specific conductors, the current, and the length of the 

lines. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates 

that national electricity T&D losses average about 6% of the 

electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United 

States each year. 

916 Volt/VAR optimization (VVO) refers to coordinated efforts by 

utilities to manage and improve the delivery of power in order 

to increase the efficiency of electricity distribution. VVO is 

accomplished primarily through the implementation of smart grid 

technologies that improve the real-time response to the demand 

for power. Technologies for VVO include load tap changers and 

voltage regulators, which can help manage voltage levels, as 

well as capacitor banks that achieve reductions in transmission 

line loss. VVO efforts are often closely related to conservation 

voltage reduction (CVR), which are actions taken to reduce 

initial delivered voltage levels in feeder transmission lines 

while remaining within the 114 volt to 126 volt range (for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1237 of 1546

advanced energy technologies, including energy storage and 

transmission and distribution upgrades, and including these 

technologies in the suite of potential measures that states 

could consider for emission rate adjustments in their state 

plans. Comments pointed out that in addition to helping achieve 

emission standards, T&D efficiency improvements make the grid 

more robust and flexible, as well as delivering environmental 

benefits. In many parts of the country, grid operators, 

transmission planners, transmission owners and regulators are 

already taking steps to expand and modernize T&D networks. 

Commenters suggested that the EPA clarify the eligibility and 

criteria under which such measures would be permitted in a state 

plan. 

To be eligible, T&D measures must be installed after 2012. 

This general eligibility requirement is discussed above in 

section VIII.K.1.a. The MWh of avoided losses or reduction in 

end-use that result from T&D measures must be appropriately 

quantified and verified, as discussed in section VIII.K.3. 

(7) Water system efficiency. Water efficiency programs that 

improve EE at water and wastewater treatment facilities also 

provide demand-side EE savings opportunities. The EPA received 

 

normal 120-volt service) required at the customer meter, per the 

ANSI C84.1 standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1238 of 1546

comments supporting the use of water sector EE programs and 

projects. Commenters identified water and wastewater utilities 

as particularly well-suited for participating in EE programs and 

providing a source of electricity savings. Investments such as 

replacing pumps and other aging equipment and repairing leaks 

can result in greater EE. The EPA agrees that these electricity 

savings should be eligible for adjustments to CO2 emission rates 

at affected EGUs. 

To be eligible, water efficiency measures must be installed 

after 2012. This general eligibility requirement is discussed 

above in section VIII.K.1.a.(2). The MWh of avoided electricity 

use that result from water efficiency measures must be 

appropriately quantified and verified, as discussed in section 

VIII.K.3-4. 

(8) Nuclear power. As is discussed in section V.A.3, upon 

consideration of comments received, the EPA has not included 

nuclear generation from either existing or under construction 

units in the determination of the BSER. In addition to comments 

received on the provisions for determining the BSER, the EPA 

also received comments requesting that the EPA allow all 

generation from nuclear generating units to be recognized as an 

eligible measure that can be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

Commenters also recommended that the EPA consider nuclear 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1239 of 1546

generating units and RE generating units in a consistent manner 

for CO2 emission rate adjustments in state plans. We agree with 

comments that nuclear generation and RE should be treated 

consistently when it comes to CO2 emission rate adjustments. 

The EPA has determined that generation from new nuclear 

units and capacity uprates at existing nuclear units will be 

eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate, just like new 

and uprated capacity RE. However, consistent with the reasons 

discussed for not including the preservation of existing nuclear 

capacity in the BSER – namely, that such preservation does not 

actually reduce existing levels of CO2 emissions from affected 

EGUs – preserving generation from existing nuclear capacity is 

not eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission rate. 

In contrast, any incremental zero-emitting generation from 

new nuclear capacity would be expected to replace generation 

from affected EGUs and, thereby, reduce CO2 emissions; and the 

continued commitment of the owner/operators to completion of the 

new units and improving the efficiency of existing units through 

uprates can play a key role in state plans. Therefore, 

consistent with treatment of other low- and zero-emitting 

generation, new nuclear power generating capacity installed 

after 2012 and incremental generation resulting from nuclear 

uprates after 2012 are measures eligible for adjusting a CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1240 of 1546

emission rate. However, existing nuclear units (i.e., those that 

originally commenced operation in 2012 or earlier years) that 

receive operating license extensions are not eligible for use in 

adjusting a CO2 emission rate, except where such units receive a 

capacity uprate as a result of the relicensing process. Only the 

incremental capacity from the uprate is eligible for use to 

adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

Applicable generation (in MWh) from incremental nuclear power is 

determined in the same manner as that described for incremental 

RE above.(9) Combined heat and power (CHP) units. Electric 

generation from non-affected CHP units917 may be used to adjust 

the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU, as CHP units are lowemitting electric generating resources that can replace 

generation from affected EGUs. Electrical generation from nonaffected CHP units that meet the eligibility criteria under 

section VIII.K.1.a can be used to adjust the reported CO2

 

917 The accounting treatment described in this section is for a 

“topping cycle” CHP unit. A topping cycle CHP unit refers to a 

configuration where fuel is first used to generate electricity 

and then heat is recovered from the electric generation process 

to provide additional useful thermal and/or mechanical energy. A 

CHP unit can also be configured as a “bottoming cycle” unit. In 

a bottoming cycle CHP unit, fuel is first used to provide 

thermal energy for an industrial process and the waste heat from 

that process is then used to generate electricity. Some WHP 

units are also bottoming cycle units and the accounting 

treatment for bottoming cycle CHP units is provided with the WHP 

description below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1241 of 1546

emission rate of an affected EGU.. 

 The electrical generation from a non-affected CHP unit that 

can be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU 

must be calculated in accordance with the method specified in 

this section. The CHP unit’s electrical output is prorated based 

on the CO2 emission rate of the electrical output associated with 

the CHP unit (a CHP unit’s “incremental CO2 emission rate”) 

compared to a reference CO2 emission rate.918 This “incremental 

CO2 emission rate” related to the electric generation from the 

CHP unit would be relative to the applicable CO2 emission rate 

for affected EGUs in the state and would be limited to values 

between 0 and 1. The CHP unit’s electrical output is prorated as 

follows: 

 Prorated MWh = (1-incremental CHP emission rate/applicable 

 affected EGU emission limit rate)* CHP MWh output 

 Where the ratio is limited to values between 0 and 1. 

 The CHP electrical CO2 emission rate is the net emission 

rate when the CHP unit’s CO2 emissions related to its thermal 

 

918 The applicable CO2 emission limit rate depends on the type of 

state plan being implemented. Where a state plan includes a 

single CO2 emission limit rate for the fleet of affected EGUs, 

the applicable rate is the rate that applies to all affected 

EGUs. Where a state plan includes subcategorized rates for 

different categories of affected EGUs, the applicable rate is 

the rate that applies to affected NGCC EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1242 of 1546

output are deducted from the CHP unit’s total CO2 emissions. The 

CHP electrical CO2 emission rate is derived as follows: 

 CHP electrical CO2 emission rate = [CHP fuel input * fuel 

 emission factor – (UTO/boiler efficiency) * fuel emission 

 factor]/CHP electrical MWh 

 Where UTO is the useful thermal output from a 

 counterfactual industrial boiler that would have existed to 

 meet thermal load in the absence of the CHP unit. 

 This accounting approach takes into account the fact that a 

non-affected CHP unit is a fossil fuel-fired emission source, as 

well as the fact that the incremental CO2 emissions related to 

electrical generation from a non-affected CHP unit are typically 

very low. This low CO2 emission rate for electrical generation 

from a non-affected CHP unit is a product of both the fact that 

CHP units are typically very thermally efficient and the fact 

that a portion of the CO2 emissions from a non-affected CHP unit 

would have occurred anyway from an industrial boiler used to 

meet the thermal load in the absence of the CHP unit. In 

contrast, the CHP unit also provides the benefit of electricity 

generation while result in very low incremental CO2 emissions 

beyond what would have been emitted by an industrial boiler. As 

a result, the accounting method does not presume that emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1243 of 1546

reductions occur outside the electric power sector, but instead 

only accounts for the CO2 emissions related to the electrical 

production from a CHP unit that is used to substitute for 

electrical generation from affected EGUs. 

Non-affected CHP units can use qualifying biomass fuels. As 

described in section VIII.I.2.c., states should submit state 

plan requirements regarding qualifying biomass feedstocks and 

treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in state plans, along with 

supporting analysis and quality control measures, and the EPA 

would review the appropriateness and basis for such 

determinations in the course of its review of the approvability 

of a state plan. Considerations for qualifying biomass included 

in state plans are discussed in section VIII.I.2.2.c, while 

accounting and quantification requirements are provided in 

sections VIII.K.1 and 4.f., respectively. 

Most comments received on CHP recommended that the EPA 

explicitly describe how CHP can be accounted for in a state 

plan. Commenters described the CO2 emission reductions achieved 

through CHP’s thermal efficiency and the precedent set in other 

federal and state rules that have included CHP as a compliance 

option. Some commenters pointed out that without such a 

description, states would not be able to readily take advantage 

of the CO2 emission reductions that result from the use of CHP. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1244 of 1546

(10) Waste heat power (WHP). WHP units that meet the eligibility 

criteria under section VIII.K.1 may be used to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU. There are several types of WHP 

units. There are units, also referred to as bottoming cycle CHP 

units, where the fuel is first used to provide thermal energy 

for an industrial process and the waste heat from that process 

is then used to generate electricity.919 There are also WHP 

facilities where the waste heat from the initial combustion 

process is used to generate additional power. Under both 

configurations, there is no additional fossil fuel used to 

generate this additional power, so there are no incremental CO2

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.920

 

 

919 In such a configuration, the waste heat stream could also be 

generated from a mechanical process, such as at natural gas 

pipeline compressors. 

920 This only applies where no additional fossil fuel is used to 

supplement the use of waste heat in a WHP facility. Where fossil 

fuel is used to supplement waste heat in a WHP application, MWh 

of electrical generation that can be used to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU must be prorted based on the 

proportion of fossil fuel heat input to total heat input that is 

used by the WHP unit to generate electricity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1245 of 1546

 Most commenters that addressed WHP noted the benefits of 

WHP at the same time that they discussed the benefits of CHP. 

The commenters reflected that WHP is another potential 

compliance option and requested it be discussed explicitly as a 

compliance option that can be used to meet the emission 

guidelines. The comments discussed WHP benefits but did not 

elaborate on a preferred accounting method for MWh of electrical 

generation from WHP that could be used to adjust the CO2 emission 

rate of an affected EGU. 

b. Measures that may not be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

This section addresses measures that may not be used to adjust a 

CO2 emission rate. New, modified, and reconstructed EGUs covered 

under the CAA section 111(b) final Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units rule are not approvable sources of 

electric generation for adjusting the CO2 emission rate of an 

affected EGU under a rate-based state plan. As discussed earlier 

in section VII.C of this preamble, a key concern under this rule 

is leakage to new units that are not covered by the emission 

guidelines. Emissions leakage, or increased CO2 emissions due to 

increase utilization of unaffected sources, is contradictory to 

objectives of this rule and should, therefore, be minimized. 

Allowing affected EGUs to adjust their emission rates as a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1246 of 1546

result of lower-emitting new NGCC units not covered under this 

section 111(d) rule would not mitigate leakage concerns, and 

could even exacerbate the situation. Consequently, new EGUs 

covered under the 111(b) rule are not allowable measures in 

state plans because the EPA believes it would result in 

increased emission leakage. 

 The EPA received comments both supporting and opposing the use 

of new NGCC units in state plans. In addition to leakage 

concerns, commenters expressed concern with the potential 

incentives created by including new NGCC capacity in the BSER or 

as a compliance mechanism in state plans. Some commenters 

suggested that including new NGCC capacity in the BSER or for 

compliance would distort market incentives to build new NGCC 

units, particularly if new units were allowed to generate 

emission rate credits (ERCs) that could be sold to affected 

EGUs. These commenters suggested that the additional incentive 

for new NGCC units could make existing NGCC units less 

competitive. Other commenters suggested that including new NGCC 

capacity in state plans would promote generation from new CO2-

emitting units at the expense of new zero-emitting units, 

increasing overall emissions within a state. This effect would 

be exacerbated if state plans allowed new NGCC units to be 

treated as “zero-emitting” for purposes of compliance –- as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1247 of 1546

suggested by other commenters. In addition, commenters expressed 

concern that the EPA’s inclusion of new NGCC capacity in setting 

the BSER or in compliance could negatively impact ratepayers 

over the long-term by sending the wrong signal to industry and 

resulting in stranded assets if, in the future, carbon emissions 

become more expensive or the EPA proposes to incorporate sources 

built under the forthcoming section 111(b) standard into the 

section 111(d) program. Commenters also expressed concern that 

including generation from new NGCC units could create 

unreasonable uncertainty, given limitations on the ability to 

accurately project new NGCC builds; could create undue pressure 

on natural gas prices; and could create unfair disparities in 

the compliance opportunities afforded different states. 

In addition, commenters expressed concern that the EPA’s 

inclusion of new NGCC capacity in setting the BSER or in 

compliance could negatively impact ratepayers over the long-term 

by sending the wrong signal to industry and resulting in 

stranded assets if, in the future, carbon emissions become more 

expensive or the EPA proposes to incorporate sources built under 

the forthcoming section 111(b) standard into the section 111(d) 

program. Commenters also expressed concern that including 

generation from new NGCC units could create unreasonable 

uncertainty, given limitations on the ability to accurately 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1248 of 1546

project new NGCC builds; could create undue pressure on natural 

gas prices; and could create unfair disparities in the 

compliance opportunities afforded different states. In light of 

the emissions leakage concerns, and in consideration of these 

comments, the EPA is not allowing shifting generation to new 

NGCC units to be used as a measure for adjusting CO2 emission 

rates for affected EGUs in rate-based state plans. 

 

In addition, other new and existing non-affected fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs that are not subject to CAA section 111(b) or 

111(d), such as simple cycle combustion turbines, may not be 

used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU. While 

generation from such units could substitute for generation from 

affected EGUs, the EPA has determined that additional incentives 

for such generation, in the form of an explicit adjustment to 

the CO2 rate of an affected EGU, are not necessary or warranted. 

Providing for such an adjustment could create perverse 

incentives for the construction of new simple cycle CTs that are 

not subject to the applicability criteria of final Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units rule. These units 

could provide only limited adjustment credit, as operation 

beyond a certain capacity factor threshold would trigger 

Deleted: unitsto
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1249 of 1546

applicability under CAA section 111(b). Further, providing for 

the ability to generate adjustment credits would provide 

incentives for construction of less efficient fossil generating 

capacity than would likely otherwise be constructed (e.g., 

addition of a simple cycle combustion turbine rather than a NGCC 

unit). In addition, providing for the ability to generate 

adjustment credits could create perverse incentives for the 

continued operation of less efficient existing fossil generating 

capacity. Such outcomes run counter to the objectives of this 

final rule. 

c. Measures that reduce CO2 emissions outside the electric power 

sector. Measures that reduce CO2 emissions outside the electric 

power sector may not be counted toward meeting a CO2 emission 

performance level for affected EGUs or a state CO2 goal, under 

either a rate-based or mass-based approach, because all of the 

emission reduction measures included in the EPA’s determination 

of the BSER reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. Examples of 

measures that may not be counted toward meeting a CO2 emission 

performance level for affected EGUs or a state CO2 goal include 

GHG offset projects representing emission reductions that occur 

in the forestry and agriculture sectors,921 direct air capture, 

 

921 We note, however, that the final emission guidelines allow 

state measures like emission budget trading programs to include 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1250 of 1546

and crediting of CO2 emission reductions that occur in the 

transportation sector as a result of vehicle electrification. 

2. Requirements for rate-based emission trading approaches 

 As made clear in the proposal,922 all emission standards in 

a state plan must be quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, nonduplicative and permanent.923 This requirement is applicable to 

emission standards that include a rate-based emission trading 

program. The State Plan Considerations TSD for the proposal also 

explained that in order to ensure a plan is enforceable, a state 

plan must: identify in its plan the entity or entities 

responsible for meeting compliance and other enforceable 

obligations under the plan; include mechanisms for demonstrating 

compliance with plan requirements or demonstrating that other 

binding obligations are met; and provide a mechanism(s) for 

legal action if affected EGUs are not in compliance with plan 

requirements or if other entities fail to meet enforceable plan 

 

out-of-sector GHG offsets. For example, both the California and 

RGGI programs allow for the use of allowances awarded to GHG 

offset projects to be used to meet a specified portion of an 

affected emission source’s compliance obligation. The RGGI 

program contains a cost containment allowance reserve that makes 

available additional allowances up to a certain amount, at 

specified allowance price triggers. See section VIII.C.3.b(2)(a) 

of this preamble.

922 79 FR 34830, 34913. 923 These requirements are described in detail in section 

VIII.D.2.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1251 of 1546

obligations. A state plan using a rate-based emission trading 

approach must therefore include rate-based emission standards 

for affected EGUs along with related implementation and 

compliance requirements and mechanisms.924 These related 

requirements include those applicable to rate-based emission 

standards more broadly: CO2 emission monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, including 

requirements for monitoring and reporting of useful energy 

output. By satisfactorily addressing these requirements, state 

plans including a rate-based emission trading program will be 

able to meet the statutory requirements of CAA section 111(d) 

regarding the need for state plans to provide for the 

implementation and enforcement of emission standards, as well as 

meet the requirement that each emission standard be 

quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, and 

enforceable with respect to each affected EGU. 

The EPA also specifically proposed that for state plans 

that rely on measures that avoid EGU CO2 emissions, such as RE 

and demand-side EE measures, the state will also need to include 

quantification, monitoring, and verification provisions in its 

plan for these measures. The EPA is finalizing requirements 

 

924 As described below, these requirements would likely be 

provided in a state plan in the form of state regulations, but 

could potentially be provided in another form. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1252 of 1546

specific to rate-based emission trading programs as requirements 

the EPA has determined are necessary to assure the integrity of 

a rate-based approach that includes an emission trading program, 

and therefore assures a state plan using such an approach 

appropriately provides for the implementation and enforcement of 

rate-based emission standards in accordance with CAA section 

111(d).925 These specific requirements for a rate-based emission 

trading program include provisions for issuance of ERCs by the 

state and/or its designated agent; provisions for tracking ERCs, 

from issuance through submission for compliance; and the 

administrative process for submission of ERCs by the owner or 

operator of an affected EGU to the state, in order to adjust its 

reported CO2 emission rate when demonstrating compliance with a 

rate-based emission standard.926 These requirements must be 

submitted for inclusion in the federally enforceable plan, per 

the statutory requirement that states provide for the 

implementation and enforcement of emission standards. A rate 

based trading program would provide for the implementation and 

 

925 By “integrity of a rate-based emission trading program”, the 

EPA is referring to elements in the design and administration of 

a program necessary to assure that emission standards 

implemented using a rate-based emission trading approach are 

quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative, and 

permanent. 

926 See section VIII.G.1 for a discussion of the accounting 

method used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. 

Deleted: tte
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1253 of 1546

enforcement of rate based emission standards for a state plan 

that allows its affected EGUs to adjust a rate by the use of an 

ERC. 

The EPA will review a state plan submittal including a 

rate-based emission trading program to assure that the plan 

contains the requirements necessary to assure the integrity of a 

rate-based approach, and therefore provide for the 

implementation and enforcement of rate-based emission standards. 

These requirements are discussed in more detail in this section. 

The EPA also notes it is proposing model rules for both 

mass-based and rate-based emission trading programs. State plans 

that include the finalized model rule for a rate-based emission 

trading program could be presumptively approvable as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 111(d) and these emission 

guidelines. The EPA would evaluate the approvability of such 

plans through independent notice and comment rulemaking. 

A state may issue ERCs to an affected EGU that performs at 

a CO2 emission rate below a specified CO2 emission rate, as well 

as to providers of qualifying measures that provide substitute 

generation for affected EGUs or avoid the need for generation 

from affected EGUs. This latter category includes providers of 

qualifying RE and demand-side EE measures, as well as other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1254 of 1546

types of measures, as discussed in section VIII.G.1.b.927 

 ERCs may be used by an affected EGU to adjust its reported 

CO2 emission rate when demonstrating compliance with a rate-based 

emission limit. This adjustment is made by adding MWh to the 

denominator of an affected EGU’s reported CO2 emission rate, in 

the amount of submitted ERCs, resulting in a lower adjusted 

rate. To demonstrate compliance with a rate-based emission 

standard, an affected EGU would report its CO2 lb/MWh emission 

rate to the state regulatory body, and would also surrender to 

the state any ERCs it wishes to use to adjust its reported 

emission rate. The state regulator would then cancel the 

submitted ERCs. The affected EGU would add the MWh the ERCs 

represent to the denominator of its reported CO2 lb/MWh emission 

rate to demonstrate compliance with its emission standard. The 

state regulator could facilitate its evaluation of the affected 

EGU’s compliance (as well as evaluation by the affected EGUs, 

the EPA, and others) by providing functionality in its tracking 

system to run such compliance calculations. If the affected 

 

927 As used in this section, the term “EE program” refers to an 

EE deployment program. An EE program involves deployment of 

multiple EE measures or EE projects, such as utility- or stateadministered EE incentive programs that accelerate the 

deployment of EE technologies and practices. As used in this 

section, the term “EE/RE project” refers to a discrete EE 

project (e.g., an EE upgrade to a commercial building or set of 

buildings) or a RE generator (e.g., a single wind turbine or 

group of turbines).

Deleted: EGU
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1255 of 1546

EGU’s adjusted CO2 emission rate is equal to or lower than its 

applicable emission rate standard, the affected EGU would be in 

compliance. 

a. Issuance of ERCs to affected EGUs. ERCs may be issued to 

affected EGUs that emit below a specified CO2 emission rate, as 

discussed below. For issuance of ERCs to affected EGUs, the 

state plan must specify the accounting method and administrative 

process for ERC issuance. This includes the calculation method 

for determining the number of ERCs to be issued to an affected 

EGU, based on reported CO2 emissions and MWh energy output, in 

comparison to a reference CO2 emission rate. The reference rate 

is a specified CO2 lb/MWh emission rate that an affected EGU’s 

reported CO2 emission rate is compared to, when determining the 

amount of ERCs that may be issued to an affected EGU. 

Following determination of the number of ERCs an affected 

EGU is eligible to receive, based on an affected EGU’s reported 

CO2 emission rate compared to a specified reference rate, the 

state regulatory body would issue those ERCs into a tracking 

system account held by the owner or operator of the affected 

EGU. Tracking system requirements are addressed below at section 

VIII.G.3.c. 

The accounting method that may be applied in a state plan 

differs depending on whether a state plan includes a single 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1256 of 1546

rate-based emission standard that applies to all affected EGUs 

(e.g., if a plan is designed to meet a state rate-based CO2 goal) 

or separate rate-based emission standards that apply to 

subcategories of affected EGUs, namely fossil fuel-fired 

electric utility steam generating units and stationary 

combustion turbines. In both cases, ERCs are issued in MWh, 

based on the difference between an affected EGU’s reported CO2

emission rate (in CO2 lb/MWh) and a specified CO2 lb/MWh emission 

rate that the reported rate is compared to (referred to as a 

“reference rate”). The reference rate may be an affected EGU’s 

assigned CO2 emission limit rate or another CO2 emission rate, as 

described below. Where an affected EGU’s reported CO2 emission 

rate is lower than the specified reference CO2 emission rate, 

ERCs may be issued. 

Where a state plan includes emission standards in the form 

of a single rate-based emission standard that applies to all 

affected EGUs, the reference rate is the CO2 emission rate limit 

for affected EGUs. In this instance, ERCs may be issued based on 

an affected EGU’s reported CO2 emission rate as a proportion of 

the emission limit rate. For example, if the emission rate limit 

is 2,000 lb CO2/MWh and the affected EGU emits at a rate of 1,000 

lb CO2/MWh, 0.5 MWh would be awarded for every MWh generated by 

the affected EGU. ERCs would be issued to affected EGUs in whole 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1257 of 1546

MWh increments. The calculation method is as follows: 

ERCs928 = reported MWh by affected EGU929 x ((CO2 emission 

rate limit for affected EGUs930 – affected EGU reported CO2

emission rate931)/ CO2 emission rate limit for affected EGUs) 

For the example above, the calculation is as follows: 

ERCs = MWh reported x (2,000 – 1,000)/2,000 = MWh reported 

x 0.5 

If the affected EGU in this example generated 1,000,000 MWh, 

500,000 ERCs would be issued. 

Where a state plan includes separate emission standards for 

subcategories of affected EGUs, specifically affected fossil 

fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and 

stationary combustion turbines, the reference rate differs for 

affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating 

units and stationary combustion turbines. Additionally, if the 

state plan applies emission standards for its affected EGUs that 

are equal to the subcategorized CO2 emission performance rates 

there is a unique opportunity for the adjustment of an affected 

EGU’s emission rate using ERCs that are generated as a result of 

 

928 For all calculations in this section, where the result is a 

negative value, no ERCs would be issued.

929 This term represents the reported MWh by the affected EGU on 

an annual basis. 

930 This term represents the “reference rate.” 931 This term represents the annual reported CO2 emission rate of 

the affected EGU.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1258 of 1546

building block 2 incremental NGCC operation. The EPA is 

requiring state plans to account for incremental NGCC generation 

in ERC generation if a state plan applies the sub-categorized CO2

emission performance rates to its affected EGUs as emission 

standards. Additionally, the EPA is requiring that NGCCs are not 

able to use ERCs generated by it or any other NGCC’s building 

block 2 incremental generation. 

For affected steam generating units, the reference CO2

emission rate is the assigned CO2 emission rate limit for steam 

generating units, and the following accounting method for 

generating ERCs applies: 

ERCs932 = reported MWh x ((steam generating unit CO2 emission 

rate limit933 – steam generating unit reported CO2 emission rate)/ 

steam generating unit CO2 emission rate limit). 

For affected NGCC stationary combustion turbines, the 

accounting method for generating ERCs differs for “nonincremental” generation and “incremental” generation from the 

affected stationary combustion turbine in a sub-categorized 

rate-based emission trading program. For an affected NGCC 

stationary combustion turbine, the following equation provides a 

 

932 For all calculations in this section, where the result is a 

negative value, no ERCs would be issued. 

933 The “reference rate.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1259 of 1546

required accounting method for the non-incremental generating 

ERCs based on operation expected: 

ERCs = NGCC reported MWh x ((NGCC CO2 emission standard934 – 

NGCC reported CO2 emission rate)/ NGCC CO2 emission standard) 

According to this equation, ERC issuance is assessed based 

on the difference between the CO2 emission rate limit for the 

NGCC unit935 and the reported CO2 emission rate of the affected 

NGCC unit. In other words, affected NGCC stationary combustion 

turbines earn ERCs for non-incremental generation when they 

perform at an emission rate better than the reference rate for 

stationary combustion turbines, similarly to how affected steam 

units can earn ERCs. 

To account for incremental generation for a NGCC stationary 

combustion turbine to generate ERCs in a sub-categorized ratebased emission trading program, a state must use the incremental 

operation of an affected NGCC unit quantified for Building Block 

2 to allow a NGCC unit to generate ERCs based on its expected 

incremental generation. 

A state plan that provides for the use of ERCs issued based 

on incremental affected NGCC generation must provide a required 

calculation method that allows for issuance of ERCs based on the 

 

934 The “reference rate.” 935 This is the CO2 emission performance level for affected 

stationary combustion turbines in the emission guidelines.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1260 of 1546

ability of incremental generation from affected stationary 

combustion turbines to substitute for generation from affected 

steam generating units (as represented in building block 2), while 

also respecting the fact that affected stationary combustion 

turbines must also meet an assigned CO2 emission rate limit for 

the entirety of its MWh energy output. This accounting method must 

reflect the application of the BSER, as described in section V. 

The EPA will review whether a state’s accounting method is 

approvable per the requirements of the statute and this final 

rule as part of its overall plan review of the rate-based 

emission standards and implementing and enforcing measures in 

the state plan. The EPA notes that the proposed model for a 

rate-based emission trading program includes a proposed 

accounting method and takes comments on alternatives. The 

accounting method provided in a final model rule could be a 

presumptively approvable approach for issuance of ERCs based on 

the ability of incremental generation from affected stationary 

combustion turbines to substitute for generation from affected 

steam generating units. A state’s accounting requirements for 

generation of ERCs based on incremental affected NGCC generation 

must maintain consistency with the EPA’s application of the BSER 

when calculating CO2 emission performance rates for affected 

stationary combustion turbine and steam generating units. In 

Commented [A75]: If the EGs are not providing a required ERC 

creation method for NGCC, then presumably they must include a 

requirement that two states that wish to trade ERCs must use the 

same method? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1261 of 1546

particular, a state’s accounting method must maintain 

consistency of accounting in a state rate-based CO2 emission 

standard with the EPA’s application of building block 2 in 

calculating CO2 emission performance rates for affected fossil 

fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and 

stationary combustion turbines, which is based on use of 

incremental generation from affected stationary combustion 

turbine to replace generation from affected steam generating 

units. 

b. Issuance of ERCs for RE, demand-side EE, and other measures. 

ERCs may be issued for qualifying measures.936 For issuance of 

ERCs for qualifying measures, state plan requirements for ERC 

issuance must include a two-step process. In the first step of 

the process, a potential ERC provider submits an eligibility 

application for a qualifying program or project937 to the 

administering state regulator (or its agent938). The state 

 

936 Qualifying measures that can be used to adjust the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU are discussed at section 

VIII.G.1, and include RE, demand-side EE, and other measures, 

such as DSM, CHP and incremental nuclear generation.

937 For example, for an EE/RE program or project, as described in 

this section for illustrative purposes. The requirements 

described in this section for EE/RE programs and projects also 

apply for all other eligible qualifying measures discussed in 

section VIII.G.1. 

938 As used here, an agent is a party acting on behalf of the 

state, based on authority vested in it by the state, pursuant to 

the legal authority of the state. A state could designate an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1262 of 1546

regulator reviews the application to determine whether, in this 

example, an EE/RE program or project meets eligibility 

requirements for the issuance of ERCs.939 An eligibility 

application must include a description of the program or 

project, a projection of the MWh generation or energy savings 

anticipated over the life of the program or project, and an EM&V 

plan that meets state plan requirements. The EM&V plan must 

describe how MWh of RE generation or energy savings resulting 

from the program or project will be quantified and verified.940 A 

state, in its emission standard regulations, must include 

requirements for EM&V plans that are consistent with the 

requirements in the emission guidelines for EE/RE measures and 

other eligible measures, as discussed in section VIII.K.1 above, 

 

agent to provide certain limited administrative services, or 

could choose to vest an agent with greater authority. Where an 

agent issues an ERC on behalf of the state, such issuance would 

have the same legal effect as issuance of an ERC by the state. 

939 The entity implementing the EE/RE program or project 

(referred to in the preamble as a “provider”) would submit the 

application. This is the identified entity to which ERCs would 

ultimately be issued, to a tracking system account held by the 

entity. Such entities could include a wide variety of parties 

that implement EE/RE programs and projects, including owners or 

operators of affected EGUs, electric distribution companies, 

independent power producers, energy service companies, and 

administrators of state EE programs, among others. 

940 The verification process includes confirmation that 

quantified MWh are non-duplicative and permanent (i.e., are not 

being used in any other state plan to demonstrate compliance 

with an emission standard or achievement of a state CO2 goal). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1263 of 1546

and below. 

 The EPA has determined that state requirements for an 

eligibility application must include review of the application 

by an independent verifier, approved by the state as eligible 

per the requirements of the final emission guidelines to provide 

such verification, prior to submittal. This requirement builds 

on the approach used for assessing GHG offset projects, both in 

international emission trading programs and the GHG emission 

budget trading programs implemented by California and the RGGI 

participating states.941 An assessment by an independent verifier 

would be included as a component of an eligibility application. 

 The EPA has determined that independent verification 

requirements are necessary to ensure the integrity of state 

rate-based emission trading programs included in a state plan, 

given the wide range of eligible measures that may generate ERCs 

and the broad geographic locations in which those measures may 

occur. Inclusion of an independent verification component 

provides technical support for state regulatory bodies to ensure 

 

941 Information about the verification process for GHG offsets 

under the RGGI program, including verifier accreditation 

requirements and access to relevant documents, is available at 

http://www.rggi.org/market/offsets/verification. Similar 

information about the verification process for GHG offsets under 

the California program is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/offsets/verification/verifi

cation.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1264 of 1546

that eligibility applications and monitoring and verification 

reports are thoroughly reviewed prior to issuance of ERCs. 

Inclusion of an independent verification component is also 

consistent with similar approaches required by state PUCs for 

the review of demand-side EE program results and GHG offset 

provisions included in state GHG emission budget trading 

programs. 

 State plans with rate-based emission trading programs must 

include requirements regarding the qualification status of an 

independent verifier. An independent verifier is a person 

(including any company, any corporate parent or subsidiary, any 

contractors or subcontractors, and the actual person) who has 

the appropriate technical and other qualifications to provide 

verification reports. The independent verifier must not have, or 

have had, any direct or indirect financial or other interest in 

the subject of its verification report or ERCs that could impact 

its impartiality in performing verification services. State 

plans must require that a person be approved by the state as an 

independent verifier, as defined by this final rule, as eligible 

to perform the verifications required under the approved state 

plan. State plans must also include a mechanism to temporarily 

or permanently revoke the qualification status of an independent 

verifier, such that it can no longer provide verification 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1265 of 1546

services related to an eligibility application or M&V report for 

at least the duration of the period it does not meet the 

qualification requirements for independent verifiers in an 

approved state plan. The EPA’s proposed model rate-based 

emission trading rule contains provisions, including provisions 

addressing accreditation and conflicts of interest for 

independent verifiers, that could be presumptively approvable 

ways of meeting these requirements regarding independent 

verifiers. 

 

The state’s eligibility requirements and application 

procedures must ensure that only eligible actions may generate 

ERCs and that documentation is submitted only once for each 

program or project, and to only one state program.942 These 

provisions will ensure that actions that are eligible for the 

issuance of ERCs are “non-duplicative.”943 The tracking system 

used to administer a state’s rate-based emission trading system 

must provide transparent, electronic, public access to 

information about program and project eligibility applications, 

including EM&V plans, and regulatory approval status. 

 

942 This includes ensuring that multiple parties do not submit an 

eligibility application for the same EE program or project, or 

for the same RE generator. 

943 Emission standards must be “non-duplicative” as described in 

section VIII.D.2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1266 of 1546

 In the second step of the process, following implementation 

of the RE/EE program or project (as described in this example) 

that was approved in step one, the RE/EE provider periodically 

submits a monitoring and verification (M&V) report to the state 

regulatory body documenting the results of the program or 

project in MWh of electric generation or energy savings.944 These 

results are quantified according to the EM&V plan that was 

approved as part of step one. These results are verified by an 

accredited independent verifier, and its verification assessment 

must be included as part of the M&V report submitted to the 

state regulatory body. The administering state regulator (or its 

agent) then reviews the M&V report, and determines the number of 

ERCs (if any) that should be issued, based on the report. 

Finally, the state regulatory body (or its agent) issues ERCs to 

the provider of the approved program or project. These ERCs are 

issued to the tracking system account held by the program or 

project provider. 

 State plan requirements must ensure that only one ERC is 

issued for each verified MWh. This is addressed through 

 

944 State rate-based emission trading program regulations should 

specify the frequency for submission of monitoring and 

verification reports for approved qualified measures that have 

been deemed eligible to generate ERCs. These reporting periods 

should be annual, but a state could consider short or longer 

periods, depending on the type of ERC resource. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1267 of 1546

registration in the tracking system of programs and projects 

that have been qualified for the issuance of ERCs, to ensure 

that documentation is submitted only once for each RE/EE action, 

and to only one state program.945 The tracking system must 

provide transparent electronic public access to submitted M&V 

reports and regulatory approvals related to such reports.946 Such 

reports are the basis for issuance of ERCs. 

c. Tracking system requirements. State requirements must include 

provisions to ensure that ERCs issued to any eligible entity are 

properly tracked from issuance to submission by affected EGUs 

for compliance (where ERCs are “surrendered” by the owner or 

operator of an affected EGU and “retired” or “cancelled” by the 

administering state regulatory body), to ensure they are only 

used once to meet a regulatory obligation. This is addressed 

through specified requirements for tracking system account 

holders, ERC issuance, ERC transfers among accounts, compliance 

true-up for affected EGUs,947 and an accompanying tracking system 

 

945 EE/RE programs and projects, and other eligible measures, 

with an approved eligibility application would be designated in 

a tracking system as qualified programs or projects. Qualified 

programs and projects may be issued ERCs, based on approved M&V 

reports. 

946 This must include electronic Internet access to such 

information in the tracking system. 

947 “Compliance true-up” refers to ERC submission by an owner or 

operator of an affected EGU to adjust a reported CO2 emission 

rate, and determination of whether the adjusted rate is equal to 

or lower than the applicable rate-based emission limit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1268 of 1546

infrastructure design based on business rules specified in the 

emission trading program regulations. Each issued ERC must have 

a unique identifier (e.g., serial number) and the tracking 

system must provide for traceability of issued ERCs back to the 

program or project for which they were issued. 

The EPA received a number of comments from states and 

stakeholders about the value of the EPA’s support in developing 

and/or administering tracking systems to support state 

administration of rate-based emission trading systems. This 

could include regional systems and/or a national system. The EPA 

is exploring options for providing such support and is 

conducting an initial scoping assessment of tracking system 

support needs and functionality. 

d. Effect of improperly issued ERCs. Because the goal of this 

rulemaking is the actual reduction of CO2 emissions, it is 

fundamental that ERCs represent the MWh of energy generation or 

savings they purport to represent. To this end, only valid ERCs 

that actually meet the standards articulated in this rule may be 

used to satisfy any aspect of compliance by an affected EGU with 

emission standards. Despite safeguards included in the structure 

of ERC issuance and tracking systems, such as the review of 

eligibility applications and M&V reports, and state issuance of 

ERCs, ERCs may be issued that do not, in fact, represent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1269 of 1546

eligible zero-emission MWh as required in the emission 

guidelines. A variety of situations may result in such improper 

ERC issuance, ranging from simple paperwork errors to outright 

fraud. 

An approvable state plan that allows affected EGUs to 

comply with their emission standards in part through reliance on 

ERCs must include provisions making clear that an affected EGU 

may only use properly issued, valid ERCs to demonstrate 

compliance with its emission standard. An approvable state plan 

must include provisions making clear that an affected EGU may 

only demonstrate compliance with an ERC that actually represents 

the one MWh of electricity generation or savings that it 

purports to represent and that otherwise meets requirements in 

the emission guidelines. A state plan must include provisions 

that address requirements that apply if an ERC issued by the 

state is subsequently found to have been improperly issued. The 

proposed model rule for a rate-based emission trading program 

includes proposed provisions that would sufficiently address 

this plan requirement. 

Despite the requirement for a state plan to include 

provisions that sufficiently address the potential for 

improperly issued ERCs, and specify the remedies that apply in 

the case of such improper issuance, the EPA notes that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1270 of 1546

integrity elements included in the design of a rate-based 

emission trading program, as required in the emission 

guidelines, will greatly reduce the potential for improperly 

issued ERCs. 

e. Banking of ERCs. ERCs issued in 2022 or a subsequent year may 

be carried forward (or “banked”) and used for demonstrating 

compliance in a future year.948 For example, an ERC issued for a 

MWh of RE generation that occurs in 2022 may be applied to 

adjust a CO2 emission rate in 2023 or future years without 

limitation. ERCs may be banked from the interim plan performance 

period to the final plan performance period. Banking provides a 

number of advantages while ensuring that the same outputweighted average CO2 emission rates of the interim and final 

state CO2 goals are achieved over the course of a state plan. 

Banking provisions have been used extensively in rate-based 

environmental programs and mass-based emission budget trading 

programs.949 This is because banking reduces the cost of 

attaining the requirements of the regulation. The EPA has 

determined that the same rationale and outcomes apply under a CO2

 

948 States may also consider issuing ERCs representing MWh 

generation or savings that occur from 2013-2021. Requirements 

for including this type of a provision in a state plan are 

discussed in section VIII.G.1.b.(2). 

949 Banking under mass-based emission budget trading programs, 

and the rationale for banking provisions, is addressed below in 

section VIII.C.3.b.(2)(a).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1271 of 1546

emission rate approach, in that allowing banking will reduce 

compliance costs. Banking encourages additional emission 

reductions in the near-term if economic to meet a long-term 

emission rate constraint, which is beneficial due to social 

preferences for environmental improvements sooner rather than 

later.950

f. Considerations for ERC issuance. The EPA notes that stateadministered and state-overseen EE programs, such as those 

administered by state-regulated electric distribution utilities, 

could play a key role in supplying energy savings to a ratebased emission trading system in the form of ERCs. These 

programs have been the primary means for delivering EE programs 

and energy savings at scale, and also allow for a state to 

conduct a portfolio planning process to guide EE program design 

and focus in a manner that best provides multiple benefits to 

electricity ratepayers in a state. Such portfolio planning 

processes typically treat EE as an energy resource comparable to 

 

950 The absence of banking creates an incentive to defer both 

relatively low-cost and higher-cost CO2 emission reduction 

actions until a later period when emission rate limits become 

more stringent, rather than incentives to undertake the low-cost 

activities sooner in order to further delay the high cost 

actions. Under a rate-based emission trading program, banking 

will encourage ERC providers to generate larger numbers of ERCs 

in early years of a plan performance period, in anticipation of 

rising ERC prices over time, when demand for ERCs is expected to 

increase as rate-based CO2 emission standards become more 

stringent. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1272 of 1546

electricity generation. 

 The EPA also notes that non–ERC certificates may be issued 

by states and other bodies for MWh of energy generation and 

energy savings that are used to meet other state regulatory 

requirements, such as state RPS and EERS, or by individuals to 

make environmental or other claims in voluntary markets. 

 The EPA defines an ERC in the emission guidelines as a 

tradable compliance instrument that represents a zero-emission 

MWh (for the purposes of meeting the emission guidelines) from a 

qualifying measure that may be used to adjust the reported CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU subject to a rate-based 

emission standard in an approved state plan under CAA section 

111(d). The sole purpose of an ERC is for use by an affected EGU 

in demonstrating compliance with a rate-based emission standard 

in such an approved state plan. 

 An ERC is issued separately from any other instruments that 

may be issued for a MWh of energy generation or energy savings 

from a qualifying measure. Such other instruments may be issued 

for use in meeting other regulatory requirements (e.g., such as 

state RPS and EERS requirements) or for use in voluntary 

markets. An ERC may be issued based on the same data and 

verification requirements used by existing REC and EEC tracking 

systems for issuance of RECs and EECs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1273 of 1546

 The EPA notes that the definitions of other instruments, 

such as RECs, differ (as established under state statute, 

regulations, and PUC orders) and that requirements under state 

regulatory programs that use such instruments, such as state 

RPS, also differ. As a result, states may want to assess, when 

developing their state plan, how such existing instruments may 

interact with ERCs. For example, a state may want to assess how 

issuance of ERCs pursuant to a state plan may interact with 

compliance with a state RPS by entities affected under relevant 

state RPS regulations or PUC orders. The interaction of other 

instruments and ERCs may also impact existing or future 

arrangements in the private marketplace. Actions taken by 

states, separate from the design of their state plan, could 

address a number of these potential interactions. For example, 

state RPS regulations that specify a REC for a MWh of RE 

generation, and the attributes related to that MWh, may or may 

not explicitly or implicitly recognize that the holder of the 

REC is also entitled to the issuance of an ERC for a MWh of 

electricity generation from the eligible RE resource. This could 

impact existing and future RE power purchase agreements (PPAs) 

or REC purchase agreements. Such interactions among existing 

instruments and ERCs could also impact how marketing claims are 

made in the voluntary RE market. How a state might choose to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1274 of 1546

address these potential interactions will depend on a number of 

factors, including the utility regulatory structure in the 

state, existing statutory and regulatory requirements for state 

RPS, and existing RE PPAs and REC contracts. 

g. Program review. The EPA is requiring that states periodically 

review the administration of their state rate-based emission 

trading program. This program review must be submitted as part 

of a required state report to the EPA on the implementation of 

its state plan, as described in sections VIII.D.a.(5) and 

VIII.D.2.b.(4). Such a review submitted as part of a required 

state report would provide for the implementation of rate-based 

emission standards per the requirements of CAA section 

111(d)(2).For a rate-based emission trading program, the 

evaluation must cover the reporting period addressed in the 

state’s periodic reports to the EPA on plan implementation. 

 The program review must address all aspects of the 

administration of the program, including state evaluations and 

regulatory decisions regarding eligibility applications for ERC 

resources and M&V reports (and associated EM&V activities), and 

state issuance of ERCs. The program review must assess whether 

the program is being administered properly in accordance with 

the approved plan, that reported annual MWh of generation and 

savings from qualified ERC resources are being properly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1275 of 1546

quantified, verified, and reported in accordance with approved 

EM&V plans, and that appropriate records are being maintained. 

The program review must also address determination of the 

eligibility of verifiers by the state and the conduct of 

verifiers, including the quality of verifier reviews. Where 

significant problems are identified by the state’s program 

review, those problems shall be rectified by the state in a 

timely manner. 

 States must compile and maintain sufficient data to support 

the program review. Maintenance of such data will provide the 

EPA, if it chose, with the ability to audit a state’s 

administration of its rate-based emission trading program 

through appropriate means. 

3. EM&V requirements for RE, demand-side EE, and other measures 

used to adjust a CO2 rate 

This section discusses EM&V for RE, demand-side EE, and 

other measures that are used to generate ERCs or otherwise 

adjust an emission rate.951 EM&V is applied for purposes of 

quantifying and verifying MWh in rate-based state plans, as 

described below. Rate-based state plans must require that 

 

951 EM&V is defined to mean the set of procedures, methods, and 

analytic approaches used to quantify the MWh from demand-side EE 

and RE and other measures, and thereby ensure that the resulting 

savings and generation are quantifiable and verifiable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1276 of 1546

eligible resources document in EM&V plans and monitoring and 

verification (M&V) reports how all MWh saved and generated from 

eligible measures will be quantified and verified. Additionally, 

with respect to EM&V, the EPA’s proposed model rule identifies 

certain industry best practices and requirements that upon 

finalization could be adopted as presumptively approvable 

components of a state plan.952 

As discussed in VIII.K.1, quantified and verified MWh of RE 

generation, EE savings,953 and other eligible measures may be 

used to adjust a CO2 emission rate when demonstrating compliance 

with the emission guidelines. In states implementing emission 

standard type plans with rate-based trading, affected EGUs 

adjust their reported emission rate using ERCs, which represent 

MWh that are quantified and verified according to the EM&V 

 

952 The EPA recognizes that EM&V best practices are routinely 

evolving to reflect changes in markets, technologies and data 

availability. Therefore the agency is providing draft EM&V 

guidance with the proposed model rule, which can be updated over 

time to address any such changes to best practices. The guidance 

can also identify and describe alternative quantification 

approaches that may be approved for use, provided that such 

approaches meet the requirements of the finalized EM&V 

requirements. 

953 In the context of demand-side EE, “measure” refers to an 

installed piece of equipment or system at an end-use energy 

consumer facility, a strategy intended to affect consumer energy 

use behaviors, or a modification of equipment, systems or 

operations that reduces the amount of electricity that would 

have delivered an equivalent or improved level of end-use 

service in the absence of EE. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1277 of 1546

requirements described in this section. The EPA will evaluate 

the overall approvability of the plan taking into consideration 

whether the submitted EM&V requirements meet these final 

emission guidelines in support of the federally enforceable rate 

based emission standards on affected EGUs. 

a. Discussion of proposed EM&V approach and public comment. The 

EPA proposed that a state plan that incorporates RE and demandside EE measures must include an EM&V plan that explains how the 

effect of these measures will be determined in the course of 

plan implementation. The proposal sought comment on the 

suitability of current state and utility EM&V approaches for RE 

and demand-side EE programs in the context of an approvable 

state plan, and on whether harmonization of state approaches, or 

supplemental actions and procedures, should be required in an 

approvable state plan provided that supporting EM&V 

documentation meets applicable minimum requirements. In the 

proposal, the EPA also indicated it would issue guidance to help 

states, sources, and project providers quantify and verify MWh 

savings and generation resulting from zero-emitting RE and 

demand-side EE efforts. The proposal and associated “State Plans 

Considerations” TSD954 suggested that EM&V requirements could 

 

954 See discussion beginning on p. 34 of the State Plan 

Considerations TSD for the Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1278 of 1546

leverage existing industry practices, protocols, and tracking 

mechanisms currently utilized by the majority of states 

implementing RE and demand-side EE. The EPA further noted that 

many state regulatory bodies and other entities already have 

significant EM&V infrastructure in place and have been applying, 

refining, and enhancing their evaluation and quality assurance 

approaches for over 30 years, particularly with regard to the 

quantification and verification of energy savings resulting from 

utility-administered EE programs. The EPA also observed that the 

majority of RE generation is typically quantified and verified 

using readily available, reliable, and transparent methods such 

as direct metering of MWh. 

As a result, the agency took comment on whether this 

infrastructure is appropriate in the context of approvable state 

plans for use in rate-based state plans that include RE, demandside EE, and other measures. The majority of commenters 

addressing this question responded affirmatively, indicating 

that existing EM&V infrastructure is appropriate to assure 

quality, credibility, and integrity. 

b. Requirements for EM&V and M&V submittals. As discussed in 

section VIII.K.2, these final guidelines require that state 

 

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-planproposed-rule-state-plan-considerations. 

Commented [A76]: I suspect others indicated the need for better 

EM&V going forward. It would be worth mentioning that. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1279 of 1546

plans include a requirement that EM&V plans and monitoring and 

verification (M&V) reports be submitted to the state for ratebased state plan emission trading programs under either state 

plan type. States must require at the initiation of an eligible 

measure, project providers must develop and submit to the state 

an EM&V plan that documents how requirements for quantification 

and verification will be carried out over the period that MWh 

generation or savings are produced. States must also require 

that after a project or program is implemented, the provider 

must submit periodic M&V reports to confirm and describe how 

each of the requirements was applied. These reports must also 

document the quantified MWh savings or generation values, as 

determined on a retrospective (ex-post) basis. States may not 

allow MWh values to be determined using projections or other exante quantification approaches. As previously described, the EPA 

took comment on the suitability of current state and utility 

EM&V approaches for RE and demand-side EE programs in the 

context of an approvable state plan. These final requirements 

regarding EM&V plans and M&V reports are intended to leverage 

and closely resemble those already in routine use. 

For energy generating resources, including RE resources, 

states may leverage the programs and infrastructure they have in 

place for achievement of their RPS and take advantage of 

Commented [A77]: We would appreciate the opportunity to ask 

EPA to clarify what this would mean in practice. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1280 of 1546

registries in place for the issuance and tracking of RECs. Many 

existing REC tracking systems already include well-established 

safeguards, documentation requirements, and procedures for 

registry operations that could be adapted to serve similar 

functions in relation to the final emission guidelines. For 

example, a key element of RPS compliance in many states that 

parallels the final rule’s requirements is that each generating 

unit must be uniquely identified and recorded in a specified 

registry to avoid the double counting of credits at the time of 

issuance and retirement. In addition, the existing reports and 

documentation from tracking systems may, together with eligible 

independent third party verification reports, serve as the 

substantive basis for eligibility applications, EM&V plans and 

M&V reports for the issuance of ERCs to energy generating 

resources for affected EGUs to meet their obligations under the 

final rule. With respect to actual monitoring requirements, many 

existing REC registries include provisions for the monitoring of 

MWh of generation that would be appropriate to meet state plan 

requirements pursuant to the final rule, such as requirements to 

use a revenue quality meter. 

For demand-side EE, states must require that EM&V plans 

that are developed for purposes of adjusting an emission rate 

under this final rule include several specific components. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1281 of 1546

EPA notes these components reflect existing provisions in a wide 

range of publicly or rate-payer funded EE programs and energy 

service company (ESCO) projects. One of these components state 

plans must require is a demonstration of how savings will be 

quantified and verified by applying industry best-practice 

protocols and guidelines, as well as an explanation of the key 

assumptions and data sources used. State plans must require EM&V 

plans include and address the following: 

 A baseline that represents what would have happened in 

the absence of the EE intervention, such as the equipment 

that would most likely have been installed – or that a 

typical consumer or building owner would have continued 

using – in a given circumstance at the time of EE 

implementation 

 The effects of changes in independent factors affecting 

energy consumption and savings; that is, factors not 

directly related to the EE action, such as weather, 

occupancy, or production levels 

 The length of time the EE action is anticipated to 

continue to remain in place and operable, effectively 

providing savings (in years) 

Examples and discussion of industry best-practices for 

executing each of the above-listed components is provided in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1282 of 1546

EPA’s draft EM&V guidance for demand-side EE, which is being 

released in conjunction with the proposed model rule. The EPA 

notes the model trading rule it is proposing contains provisions 

for EM&V for demand-side EE, as well as specific requirements 

for non-affected CHP and RE, including provisions for 

incremental hydroelectric power, biomass RE facilities, and 

waste-to-energy facilities. 

The EPA notes state plans that include the finalized model 

rule for a rate-based emission trading program that is being 

proposed concurrently with this rulemaking could be 

presumptively approvable as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 111(d) and these emission guidelines regarding EM&V. The 

EPA would evaluate the approvability of such state plans through 

independent notice and comment rulemaking. 

c. Skill certification standards. Using a skilled workforce to 

implement demand-side EE and RE projects, and to evaluate, 

measure, quantify and verify the savings associated with EE 

projects or the additional generation from performance 

improvements at existing RE projects are both important in 

existing best industry practices. Several commenters pointed out 

that skill certification standards can help to assure quality 

and credibility of demand-side EE and RE projects. The EPA also 

recognizes that a skilled workforce performing the EM&V is 

Deleted: is
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1283 of 1546

important to substantiate the authenticity of emissions 

reductions. 

The EPA is therefore recommending in conjunction with the 

EM&V requirements discussed in this section, that states require 

workers installing demand side EE and RE projects as well as 

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

performance be certified by either a party aligned with the 

DOE’s Better Building Workforce Guidelines or 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 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1284 of 1546

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Building Workforce 

Guidelines and validated by a third party accrediting body 

recognized by DOE; or parties aligned with accrediting body 

recognized by DOE, or by an apprenticeship program that is 

registered with the federal Department of Labor (DOL), Office of 

Apprenticeship; or with 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. 

The EPA encourages states to ask for a demonstration that 

the work is performed by a proficient workforce. 

4. Multi-state coordination: rate-based emission trading 

programs 

 Individual rate-based state plans may provide for the 

interstate transfer of ERCs, which would enable an ERC issued by 

one state to be used for compliance by an affected EGU with a 

rate-based emission standard in another state. Such plans would 

include regulatory provisions in each state’s emission standard 

requirements that indicate that ERCs issued in other partner 

states may be used by affected EGUs for compliance. Such plans 

must indicate how ERCs will be tracked from issuance through use 

for compliance, through either a joint tracking system, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1285 of 1546

interoperable tracking systems, or an EPA-administered tracking 

system.955

 The approaches described in this section are only allowed 

for states that impose rate-based emission limits for affected 

EGUs that are equal to the CO2 emission performance levels in the 

emission guidelines. This approach is necessary to ensure that 

each state that is allowing for the interstate transfer of ERCs 

is implementing rate-based emission standards for affected EGUs 

at the same lb CO2/MWh level.956 This assures that all the 

participating states are issuing ERCs to affected fossil steam 

and NGCC units that emit below their assigned emission standards 

on the same basis. 

 This approach avoids providing different incentives, in the 

form of issued ERCs, to affected steam generating units and NGCC 

 

955 The emission standards in each individual state plan must 

include regulatory provisions that address the issuance of ERCs 

and tracking of ERCs from issuance through use for compliance, 

as described in section VIII.K.3-4. The description here 

addresses how those regulatory provisions will be implemented 

through the use of a joint tracking system, interoperable 

tracking systems, or an EPA-administered tracking system. 

956 As noted above in section VIII.C.6, states also have the 

option of implementing a multi-state plan with a single ratebased emission standard that applies to all affected EGUs in the 

participating states. This approach would also allow for 

interstate transfers of ERCs. Under this approach, a rate-based 

multi-state plan would include emission standards for affected 

EGUs based on a weighted average rate-based emission goal, 

derived by calculating a weighted average CO2 emission rate based 

on the individual rate-based goals for each of the participating 

states and 2012 generation from affected EGUs.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1286 of 1546

units in different states that have comparable CO2 emission 

rates. Providing different incentives to similar affected EGUs 

across states could create distortionary effects that lead to 

shifts in generation among states based on the different CO2

emission rate standards applied by states to similar types of 

affected EGUs. Providing for the interstate trade of ERCs in 

this instance would exacerbate these distortionary effects by 

providing arbitrage opportunities. 

 When demonstrating that a state’s CO2 emission goal is 

achieved as a result of plan implementation, a state with 

linkages to other states would be required to demonstrate that 

any ERCs issued by another state that are used by affected EGUs 

in the state for compliance with its rate-based CO2 emission 

standards were issued by states with an EPA-approved state 

plan.957

 States could implement these linkages among state plans 

with rate-based emission trading systems through three different 

applied implementation approaches: (1) plans that are “readyfor-interstate-trading;” (2) plans that include specified 

bilateral or multilateral linkages; and (3) plans that provide 

 

957 This could be done by reference to data in the tracking 

system used to implement a state’s rate-based emission trading 

program that identifies the origin of each ERC (e.g., by serial 

identifier). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1287 of 1546

for joint ERC issuance among states with materially consistent 

regulations. These approaches are summarized below: 

 Ready-for-interstate-trading plans: A state plan recognizes 

ERCs issued by any state with an EPA-approved plan that 

also uses a specified EPA-approved958 or EPA-administered 

tracking system. Plans are approved individually. A state 

plan need not designate the individual states by name from 

which it would accept issued ERCs. States can join such a 

coordinated approach over time, without the need for plan 

revisions.959

 Specified bilateral linkage: States recognize ERCs issued 

by named partner states. Partner states must demonstrate 

that they use a shared tracking system, interoperable 

tracking systems, or an EPA-administered tracking system. 

 

958 The EPA would designate tracking systems that it has 

determined adequately address the integrity elements necessary 

for the issuance and tracking of ERCs, as described in section 

VIII.C.5.c.(1). Under this approach, a state could include in 

its plan such a designated tracking system, which has already 

been reviewed by the EPA. 

959 The EPA notes that it is proposing a model rule for a ratebased emission trading program that could be used by states 

interested in implementing a ready-for-interstate-trading plan 

approach. A state plan that included the adopted rate-based 

model rule will be presumptively approvable as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 111(d) and the emission guidelines. 

If a state plan also met the requirements described in this 

section for ready-for-interstate-trading plans, it could be 

approved as ready-for-interstate trading. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1288 of 1546

Plans are approved individually, including review of the 

shared tracking system or interoperable tracking systems. 

 Joint ERC issuance: States implement materially consistent 

rate-based emission trading program regulations and share a 

tracking system. States coordinate their review of 

submissions for ERC issuance960 and their issuance of ERCs 

to the shared tracking system. Issued ERCs are recognized 

as usable for compliance in all states using the shared 

tracking system. Plans are approved individually, including 

review of the shared tracking system. 

 These implementation approaches are designed to streamline 

the process for linking emission trading programs, avoid or 

limit the need for plan revisions as new states join a 

collaborative emission trading approach, and facilitate the 

development of regional or broader multi-state markets for 

ERCs.961 

 

960 This refers to eligibility applications and monitoring and 

verification reports, which are required submittals for nonaffected EGU entities seeking the issuance of ERCs. Where 

affected EGUs are issued ERCs for emission performance below a 

specified CO2 emission rate, these ERCs are issued by the 

individual state in which they are subject to a rate-based 

emission standard. Requirements for ERC issuance are discussed 

in section VIII.K.3. 

961 The EPA also notes that individual state plans may utilize RE 

and demand-side EE (and other eligible measures), that occur in 

other states, as described in section VIII.L addressing 

interstate effects. Under an individual state plan, ERCs could 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1289 of 1546

L. Treatment of Interstate Effects 

 This section discusses how differing characteristics across 

states and sources could create risks of increased emissions 

under this rule through double counting of emission reduction 

measures or through foregone emission reductions due to movement 

of generation from source to source. The section also discusses 

how the final rule addresses these concerns: first, through the 

characteristics of goal-setting and the framework of state 

plans, and second, through specific requirements intended to 

minimize the risk of double counting and increased emissions. 

The section is structured as follows. First, this section 

discusses the dynamics that cause these risks to potentially 

arise. Second, it provides a discussion of how the risks of 

double counting and foregone reductions are minimized through 

the following provisions: the nature of the final emission 

performance rates, multi-state plan options that limit 

distortionary effects, the structure of mass-based plan and 

rate-based plan accounting for emission reductions measures, and 

 

be issued for RE and demand-side EE measures that occur in other 

states, provided the EE/RE provider submits the measures to the 

state and the measures meet requirements in the state’s ratebased emission trading program requirements. The multi-state 

approaches described above provide additional flexibility for 

states to informally and formally coordinate their 

implementation of rate-based plans across states while retaining 

individual rate-based state goals. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1290 of 1546

specified restrictions on the counting in a rate-based plan of 

emission reduction measures located in a mass-based state. 

Finally, the section discusses how the rate-based accounting 

framework minimizes incentives to develop emission reduction 

measures in particular states due to differences in rates. 

In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA acknowledged that 

emission reduction measures implemented under a state plan will 

likely have impacts across many affected sources both within and 

across state boundaries due to the dynamic and interstate nature 

of the electric grid, as is discussed above in section VIII.K.1. 

These interactions may be driven in part due to differences in 

power sector dynamics across states, including the types of 

affected EGUs in a state, the availability of eligible nonemitting resources, and the costs of different compliance 

options and existing policies in states. These state-level 

characteristics play out across dynamic regional grids that 

provide electricity across states. EGUs are dispatched both 

within and across state borders and are constantly adjusting 

behavior in response to available generation and electricity 

demand on the regional grid. Whenever CO2 emission reduction 

measures, such as RE or demand-side EE, are implemented, the 

measure can affect EGU generation and CO2 emissions across the 

regional grid. These impacts can change across multiple affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1291 of 1546

EGUs on a minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, and day-to-day basis 

as electricity demand changes and different generating resources 

are dispatched. These impacts will also change in the long-term, 

as the generating fleet and load behavior change over a period 

of years. Interactions among EGUs across states may be further 

driven by the plan types (i.e., rate-based or mass-based) and 

the individual characteristics of the plans that states choose 

to adopt. 

In the context of this complex environment of federal and 

state policies and interstate grids, commenters expressed 

concern about the risk of double-counting of measure impacts, 

particularly across state plans. Commenters stated that there is 

potential for distortionary incentives that could undermine 

overall CO2 emission reductions (often termed emissions 

“leakage”). Commenters requested that the EPA ensure that states 

avoid double-counting and minimize leakage effects when 

demonstrating achievement of state goals and minimize leakage 

effects. 

The EPA acknowledges that some amount of shifts in 

generation between sources within and across state borders will 

inevitably be present and unavoidable in the context of this 

rule and may affect how affected EGUs achieve the applicable CO2

performance rates or state goals under a state plan. In fact, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1292 of 1546

the definition of the BSER is premised upon shifts in generation 

across sources, particularly shifts from higher- to loweremitting units that result in overall emission reductions. 

However, in the context of these shifts, the extent to which the 

movement of generation may be driven not by the potential to 

capture lower-cost emission reduction but by arbitrage across 

different emission rates, causing inefficiencies in the power 

markets and possibly eroding overall emission reductions, should 

be minimized. 

 In particular, the EPA has determined final emission 

performance rates that serve to reduce relative differences 

between state goals, and thus also focus the potential for 

generation shifting between affected EGUs on achieving the 

emission reductions quantified in the BSER. In the proposal, 

goals differed more substantially between states based upon an 

assessment of what emission reduction potential units could 

access located within their state. Commenters observed that due 

to the interconnected nature of the power sector, units are not 

limited to such emission reduction measures within their state, 

and indeed any operational decisions that units take necessarily 

influence operational decisions at other units throughout the 

interconnected grid. As a result, in the final rule, we are 

finalizing CO2 emission performance rates, informed by regional 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1293 of 1546

emission reduction potential, for fossil fuel-fired electric 

utility steam generating units and stationary combustion 

turbines that are applied consistently across all affected EGUs. 

As the same source category-specific performance rates are 

applied to all units in the contiguous U.S. regardless of the 

state in which they are located, any differences between state 

goals in this final rule stem only from the relative prevalence 

in each state of fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam 

generating units and stationary combustion turbines. 

Consequently, there is substantially less incentive in this 

final rule for units to shift generation across state lines 

based solely on differences in state goals, since there is 

substantially less difference between the final rule’s state 

goals, and since those state goals are themselves premised on 

nationally consistent source category-specific performance 

rates. 

The EPA has also incorporated elements into the rule that 

seek to minimize double-counting and the distortionary effects 

that could potentially increase emissions.962 First, states have 

the option to adopt multi-state plans that reflect regional 

 

962 This section does not discuss emission leakage. See Sec. 

VII.D for a discussion of emission leakage and its impact on 

state goal equivalence. See section VIII.J for a discussion of 

requirements for mass-based plans to address leakage.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1294 of 1546

interactions while eliminating chances for double counting and 

providing a level playing field for trading of rate-based ERCs 

or mass-based allowances. Second, in the method for rate-based 

plan compliance, the rule provides a general accounting approach 

for adjusting an affected EGU’s or state’s CO2 rate that 

inherently acts to minimize state differences. These points are 

further discussed below. 

For both rate-based and mass-based approaches, the rule 

provides states with the option of creating either “ready-forinterstate-trading” plans or multi-state plans. These options 

for states working together provide opportunities to enable 

protections against double counting and minimize the presence of 

distortionary effects. 

“Ready-for-interstate-trading” and multi-state plans engage 

multiple states in the same system for the purpose of trading 

mass-based allowances or issuing and trading rate-based ERCs. 

This allows for efficient implementation of protections against 

double counting provided in state plan requirements, as multiple 

state are participating in the same tracking systems. This is 

particularly useful in the context of rate-based ERC issuance 

and tracking, where it must be ensured that the ERCs being 

generated are unique across rate-based plans. 

This final rule also reduces distortionary effects within 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1295 of 1546

the context of multi-state plans. It does so by restricting 

states to inter-state trading with equivalently denominated 

mass-based allowances or rate-based ERCs. In a mass-based 

context, all affected EGUs will trade uniform mass-based 

allowances, whether in a “ready-for-interstate-trading” plan or 

multi-state plan. In a rate-based plan context, “ready-forinterstate-trading” states must all adopt as their goal the CO2

emission performance rates as their joint goal. This assures 

that all the participating states are issuing ERCs using the 

same subcategorized performance rates, and that the sources in 

each state have equivalent incentives for trading ERCs. 

Similarly, under multi-state plans, the relevant states must 

choose to adopt identical rates, either the CO2 emission 

performance rates or a weighted average goal rate based on the 

rate-based goals of the all the states involved. These 

requirements along with a method for calculating a weighted 

average goal rate are specified in Sec.VIII.C.5. 

 Under all types of state plans, states must ensure that the 

emission reduction measures counted as part of meeting their 

plan requirements are not duplicative of any measures that are 

counted by another state, in order to avoid double counting of 

the MWhs of generation or energy savings that these measure 

produce. Depending on the accounting method used to reflect 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1296 of 1546

these measures in state goals, interstate effects could still 

allow for the double counting of the emission reductions 

resulting from these measures, particularly if mathematical 

adjustments were made to stack emissions to reflect these 

reductions.. Depending on how these measures are accounted for, 

the reductions could be counted by both the state that deployed 

the measure, and the state that reports a reduction in fossil 

generation or reported emissions. In this final rule, the MWhbased general accounting approaches for both mass-based and 

rate-based plans have been specifically designed to eliminate 

the risk of double counting of reductions, because emission 

reduction measures are accounted for only through their inherent 

impact on stack emissions for affected EGUs. 

Mass-based plans rely exclusively on reported stack 

emissions for determining whether a mass-based CO2 emission goal 

is achieved. This means that under a mass-based plan any 

emission reduction measures that are implemented are 

automatically accounted for in reduced stack emissions of CO2

from affected EGUs, which avoids concerns about counting the 

same mass reductions in two different mass-based states. 

In a rate-based plan, there needs to be an explicit 

adjustment of reported CO2 emission rates from affected EGUs, to 

reflect the measures that substitute low- or zero-emitting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1297 of 1546

generation or energy savings for affected EGU generation. States 

with rate-based plans must demonstrate that measures used to 

adjust their CO2 emission rate, such as RE and demand-side EE, 

are non-duplicative. The proposal attempted to address this 

issue in part by limiting demand-side EE that states could claim 

to in-state measures. In fact, those in-state measures still 

have an impact outside of the state and under the proposal’s 

approach, states would have been restricted from taking credit 

for all the measures they have put in place that reduce CO2

emissions. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a treatment that 

allows states to count all in-state and out-of-state measures, 

while addressing interstate effects through the structure of the 

rule’s accounting approach for adjusting the CO2 emission rate of 

an affected EGU, detailed in section VIII.K.1 above, used to 

show that the state has met its obligation under its state plan. 

 The general accounting approach for adjusting the CO2

emission rate of an affected EGU inherently accounts for the 

regional nature of how substitute generation and energy savings 

will impact affected EGU generation and CO2 emissions. The 

following discussions refer to the substituting generation and 

energy savings in question as RE and demand-side EE, but this 

method can apply to other non-BSER technologies that substitute 

for affected EGU generation. The adjusted CO2 emission rate gives 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1298 of 1546

credit to the affected EGU or state for the MWhs of RE and 

demand-side EE it is responsible for deploying, by allowing 

those MWhs to be added to the denominator of the CO2 rate, but 

makes no adjustment to the numerator. Instead, the numerator 

reflects reported stack emissions, which will reflect the extent 

to which RE and demand-side EE reduced the affected EGU’s 

generation and emissions, without needing to account for the 

state in which the RE or demand-side EE originated, or 

approximating exactly how it impacted the regional grid. Doublecounting of CO2 emission reductions is prevented because the 

reported emissions from each unit are represented in the 

numerator of each of those units’ emission rates, and those real 

emissions capture whatever emission reduction impact occurred 

with regard to any particular MWh of RE or demand-side EE. 

Because the general accounting approach disallows any adjustment 

to any EGU’s reported emissions, it is not possible for the real 

emission reductions prompted by any particular measure to be 

double-counted. 

Double-counting of MWhs in the denominator can be avoided 

because it is relatively straightforward to quantify the MWhs 

that the affected EGU is responsible for deploying and add them 

to the denominator, and this method aligns well with the MWhdenominated trading system described in this final rule. As long 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1299 of 1546

as it is assured that the MWhs of RE and demand-side EE are only 

being claimed by one affected EGU or state, as is outlined in 

section VIII.K, then there is no double-counting of MWh. 

Therefore, the accounting method avoids double counting of both 

CO2 emission reductions and MWhs, the two characteristics of RE 

and demand-side EE measures that affect CO2 emission rates. For 

further discussion of the MWh-based accounting method, including 

a calculation example, see section VIII.K.1. 

 There may also be interactions between mass-based and ratebased plans regarding counting measures, specifically where 

measures that provide substitute or avoided generation, such as 

RE and demand-side EE, are located in a mass-based state and can 

also be used by a rate-based state in meeting the CO2 performance 

rates or state goals. The EPA received comments on this 

particular issue, and many expressed concerns that this use of 

mass-based resources in a rate-based state would result in 

double-counting of emission reductions. 

Commenters provided analyses specifying how two states can 

benefit from the same RE and demand-side EE measures as a result 

of rate- and mass-based plan interactions. Some commenters 

considered this double-counting of emission reductions, and 

requested specific mathematical adjustments of reported 

generation or CO2 emissions from affected EGUs under either rate-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1300 of 1546

based or mass-based state plans in order to eliminate doublecounting. 

The EPA has determined that, in the context of interactions 

among rate-based and mass-based plans, there is not explicit 

double-counting of the CO2 emission reductions associated with 

counting measures located in mass-based states, considering the 

accounting methods outlined in this final rule. First, as 

discussed above, the accounting method for adjusting the CO2

emission rate only counts the MWhs generated by a measure to 

adjust the MWh in the denominator of its reported CO2 emission 

rate. The CO2 emissions impacts of the measures will be reflected 

in the rate-based state only to the extent that the MWhs 

resulted in lower reported CO2 emissions from an affected EGU in 

the rate-based state. To the extent that measures that provide 

substitute or avoided generation reduce generation from affected 

EGUs in a mass-based state, the effect of those measures is 

reflected in lower reported CO2 emissions of the mass-based EGUs. 

The CO2 emission reductions reflected in the rate and the mass 

state will necessarily be mutually exclusive, because both are 

based on reported stack emissions. Additionally, the mechanism 

in the mass-based state that is assuring CO2 emission reductions 

is the mass budget, which is met by affected EGUs adjusting 

their generation. Low- or zero-emitting MWhs from resources like 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1301 of 1546

RE and demand-side EE can serve load in the mass-based state and 

play a role in lowering compliance costs, but they play no 

direct role in mass-based compliance. As a result, no doublecounting of emission reductions can take place. 

Though there is no risk of double-counting emissions, some 

commenters expressed the concern that overall CO2 emissions 

reductions would be foregone in situations where a source in a 

rate-based state counts the MWh from measures in a mass-based 

state, but the generation from that measure acts solely to serve 

load in the mass-based state. In that scenario, expected CO2

emission reduction actions in the rate-based state are foregone 

as a result of counting MWh that resulted in CO2 emission 

reductions in a mass-based state. Therefore the EPA is 

restricting the ability of rate-based state to claim emission 

reduction measures, such as RE and demand-side EE, located in 

mass-based states. 

While the EPA understands this concern regarding foregone 

reductions, we do not believe it is appropriate to restrict RE 

crediting unilaterally between rate-based and mass-based states. 

Such a restriction could cut some states off from regional RE 

supplies that are assumed in the BSER building block 3 and 

incorporated in the CO2 emission performance rates or state ratebased CO2 goals in the emission guidelines. Allowing crediting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1302 of 1546

between rate- and mass-based states, as long as the risk of 

foregone CO2 emission reduction actions in rate-based states are 

minimized, will assure a supply of eligible RE MWhs that will 

further enable affected EGUs and states to meet obligations 

under the final rule. Therefore, the EPA has determined that it 

is appropriate for rate-based states to count MWhs from RE 

located in mass-based states, subject to the condition that the 

generation in question was intended to meet electricity load in 

a state with a rate-based plan.963 This maybe apply to some or 

all of the generation from an individual RE installation. To 

assure that the RE generation in question meets this condition, 

the EPA is requiring that RE generation from RE installations 

located in a mass-based state can only be counted in a ratebased state if the electricity generated is delivered with the 

intention to meet load in a state with a rate-based plan, and 

was treated as a generation resource used to serve regional load 

that included the rate-based state. This can be demonstrated 

through, for example, the provision of a power delivery contract 

or power purchase agreement in which an entity in the rate-based 

state contracts for the supply of the MWhs in question. The EPA 

is providing flexibility to states regarding the nature of the 

 

963 This does not need to necessarily be the state where the MWh 

of energy generation from the RE measure is used to adjust the 

CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1303 of 1546

required demonstration, though the state must specify eligible 

demonstrations for approval in state plans. Under an emission 

standards plan, this demonstration would be made by the provider 

of the measure seeking ERC issuance to the rate-based state. 

 The following are examples of how requirements for a 

demonstration could be established in state plans and used to 

allow RE in a mass-based state to be counted in a rate-based 

state. For an emissions standards state plan, a state could 

specify in the regulations for the rate-based emission standards 

included in its state plan that it will require an RE provider 

that seeks the issuance of ERCs to show that load-serving 

entities in the rate-based state have contracted for the 

delivery of the RE generation that occurs in a mass-based state 

to meet load in a rate-based state. Under this approach, an RE 

provider in a mass-based state could submit as part of an 

eligibility application a delivery contract or power purchase 

agreement showing that the generation was procured by the 

utility, and were treated as a generation resource used to serve 

regional load that included the rate-based state. This 

documentation would be sufficient demonstration to allow the RE 

generating resource to meet this additional geographic 

eligibility requirement for the amount of generation in 

question. All quantified and verified RE MWhs submitted for ERC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1304 of 1546

issuance would need to be associated with that power purchase 

contract or agreement, and this fact would need to be 

demonstrated in the monitoring and verification reports 

submitted for issuance of ERCs. 

 

 The ability for a rate-based state to count MWhs located in 

a mass-based state under the above conditions is limited to RE. 

Rate-based states are not allowed to claim demand-side EE or any 

other non-BSER emission reduction measures located in mass-based 

states for ERC issuance. While this limits rate-based sources’ 

access to additional resources, providing that access would 

result in a risk of foregone reductions. Further, unlike RE, 

there is no obligation related to demand-side EE and other nonBSER measures incorporated in the CO2 emission performance rates 

or state rate-based goals which would necessitate facilitating 

access to those resources. This treatment also does not apply to 

fossil-fuel fired EGUs, such as NGCC. If a mass-based emission 

limit has been applied to an affected EGU, there is no valid way 

to calculate whether it has MWh that are eligible for crediting, 

as is possible under a rate-based plan. 

 Finally, as stated earlier, commenters also expressed 

concern about the potential for relative increases in emissions 

to occur given relative differences between sources and states. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1305 of 1546

These differences could include states’ goals under either the 

rate- or mass-based approaches, or states’ accounting of new 

sources. These differences could induce increased generation in 

one state over another because the costs of compliance and 

relative costs of generation would vary between states. There 

was particular concern regarding how these differences would 

provide incentives for increasing generation at new fossil 

sources and expanding utilization of existing affected EGU 

generation in states that have less stringent goals, and that 

this movement of generation would result in increased emissions 

overall. This could potentially result in the achievement of 

performance rates but with fewer overall CO2 emissions reductions 

than projected nationally under the proposal. 

Commenters suggested that the issuance and trading of 

emission credits across states under a rate-based approach would 

result in incentives to create credits, through the development 

of RE for example, in certain states with higher state goals, 

and this could also be a source of increased overall emissions. 

They noted that RE siting would thus not occur in the most 

optimal locations. The commenters assumed that zero-emitting 

credits are denominated in mass units by multiplying the number 

of MWh by some emission rate: either the state goal rate, the 

current state emission rate, a regional emission rate, or a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1306 of 1546

calculated marginal rate. If those rates were higher in any 

states, zero-emitting MWhs would create more mass-denominated 

credits in those states, and thus RE and demand-side EE would be 

more valuable. 

 The incentive to target the location of zero-emitting 

generation or energy savings between states based on variation 

in its emission reduction value has been minimized by the fact 

that states participating in rate-based interstate trading must 

adopt the same emission performance rates or rate-based state 

goals. It is further minimized, even outside of an interstate 

trading framework, by the nature of the accounting method 

finalized in this rule. As explained above regarding the general 

accounting approach and the trading framework, we are adjusting 

rates using calculated MWhs, not based upon an emission 

reduction approximation as commenters outlined above. Not only 

does the method allow emission reductions to be accounted for as 

they occur across the grid, but it means the ERCs being traded 

across states represent one MWh of zero-emitting generation in 

whatever state it originated, and its value is unaffected by any 

emission rate associated with its state of origin. Thus, the 

finalized accounting and trading methods minimize the relative 

incentives for generating zero-emitting ERCs in a particular 

state based upon the rates that apply to that state. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1307 of 1546

IX. Community and Environmental Justice Considerations 

In this section we provide an overview of the actions that 

the agency is taking to help ensure that overburdened 

communities are not disproportionately impacted by this 

rulemaking. The agency uses the term “overburdened communities” 

in referring to low-income communities, communities of color, 

and indigenous communities that are central to our community and 

environmental justice considerations.964As described in the 

Executive Summary, climate change is an environmental justice 

issue. Low-income communities and communities of color already 

overburdened with pollution are likely to be disproportionately 

affected by, and less resilient to, the impacts of climate 

change. This rulemaking will provide broad benefit to 

communities across the nation, as its purpose is to reduce 

greenhouse gases, the most significant driver of climate change. 

While addressing climate change will provide broad benefits, it 

 

964 In this preamble, the EPA discusses environmental justice in 

two sections. Section XI.J specifically addresses how the agency 

has met the directives under Executive Order 12898. The EPA 

defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. This section of the preamble 

addresses actions that the agency is taking related to 

environmental justice and other issues (e.g., increased 

electricity costs) that may affect communities covered by 

Executive Order 12898 as well as other communities.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1308 of 1546

is particularly beneficial to low-income populations and some 

communities of color (in particular, populations defined jointly 

by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location) where 

people are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (a 

more robust discussion of the impacts of climate change on 

overburdened communities is provided in the Executive Order 

12898 section XII.J of this preamble). While climate change is a 

global phenomenon, the adverse effects of climate change can be 

very localized, as impacts such as storms, flooding, droughts, 

and the like are experienced in individual communities. 

Overburdened communities also often receive more than their 

fair share of conventional air pollution, with the attendant 

adverse health impacts. The changes in electricity generation 

that will result from this rule will further benefit communities 

by reducing existing air pollution that directly contributes to 

adverse localized health effects. These air quality improvements 

will be achieved through this rule because the electric 

generating units that emit the most greenhouse gases also have 

the highest emissions of conventional pollutants, such as SO2, 

NOx, fine particles, and HAP. These pollutants are known to 

contribute to adverse health outcomes, including the development 

of heart or lung diseases, such as asthma and bronchitis, 

increased susceptibility to respiratory and cardiac symptoms, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1309 of 1546

greater numbers of emergency room visits and hospital 

admissions, and premature deaths.965 The EPA expects that the 

reductions in utilization of higher-emitting units likely to 

occur during the implementation of state plans will produce 

significant reductions in emissions of conventional pollutants, 

particularly in overburdened communities. These reductions will 

have beneficial effects on air quality and public health both 

locally and regionally. Further, this rulemaking complements 

other actions already taken by the EPA to reduce conventional 

pollutant emissions and improve health outcomes for overburdened 

communities. 

By reducing millions of tons of CO2 emissions that are 

contributing to global greenhouse gas levels and providing 

strong leadership to encourage meaningful reductions by 

countries across the globe, this rule is a significant step to 

address health and economic impacts of climate change that will 

fall disproportionately on overburdened communities. By reducing 

millions of tons of conventional air pollutants, the rule will 

lead to better air quality and improved health in those 

communities. We heard from many commenters who recognize and 

welcome those benefits. 

 

965 Six Common Air Pollutants. 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1310 of 1546

There are other ways in which the actions that result from 

this rulemaking may affect overburdened communities in positive 

or potentially adverse ways and we also heard about these from 

commenters. 

While the agency expects overall emission decreases as a 

result of this rulemaking, we recognize that some EGUs may 

operate more frequently, as a result of this rulemaking. To the 

extent that we project increases in utilization as a result of 

this rulemaking, we expect these increases to occur generally in 

lower-emitting NGCC units, which have minimal or no emissions of 

SO2 and HAP, lower emissions of particulate matter, and much 

lower emissions of NOx compared to higher-emitting steam units. 

We acknowledge the concerns that have been raised on this point 

but also the difficulty in anticipating prior to plan 

implementation where those impacts might occur. In addition to 

providing for a robust state planning process with opportunity 

for meaningful input, the EPA is encouraging states to evaluate 

the actual impacts of their plans once implemented and, as 

described below, the EPA intends to conduct an assessment of 

whether and where emission increases may that may result from 

plan implementation and to work with states to mitigate adverse 

impacts, if any, in overburdened communities. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1311 of 1546

In addition to the many positive anticipated health 

benefits of this rulemaking, it also will increase the use of 

clean energy and will encourage energy efficiency. These changes 

in the electricity generation system, which are already 

occurring but may be accelerated by this program, are expected 

to have other positive benefits for communities. The electricity 

sector is, and will continue to be, investing more in RE and EE. 

The construction of renewable generation and the implementation 

of energy efficiency programs such as residential weatherization 

will bring investment and employment opportunities to the 

communities where they take place. It is important to ensure 

that all communities share in these benefits. And while we 

estimate that the benefits of this program will greatly exceed 

its costs (as noted in the RIA for this rulemaking), it is also 

important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in 

electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on 

those least able to afford them. 

The EPA has engaged with community groups throughout this 

rulemaking, and we received many comments on the issues outlined 

above from community groups, environmental justice 

organizations, faith-based organizations, public health 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1312 of 1546

organizations, and others.966 This input has informed this final 

rulemaking and prompted the EPA to consider other steps that the 

agency can take in the short and long term to assist states and 

stakeholders to consider environmental justice and impacts to 

communities in plan development and implementation. 

It has also prompted us to work with our federal partners 

to make sure that states and communities have information on 

federal resources available to assist communities. We describe 

these resources below, as well as resources that the EPA will be 

providing to assist communities in accessing EE/RE and financial 

assistance programs. In our discussion below we also provide 

models of programs that other states are currently using to 

assist communities in accessing available resources that states 

could use when developing their plans. 

Finally, and importantly, we recognize that communities 

must be able to participate meaningfully in state plan 

development. In this section, we discuss the requirements in the 

final rule for states, as they develop their plans, to provide 

opportunities for public involvement, and resources available to 

states and communities to enhance the success of the public 

process. 

 

966 Detailed information on the outreach conducted as part of 

this rulemaking is provided in section I of this preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1313 of 1546

A. Proximity Analysis 

The EPA is committed to assisting states and communities to 

develop plans that ensure there are no disproportionate, adverse 

impacts on overburdened communities. To provide information 

fundamental to beginning that process, the EPA has conducted 

aproximity analysis for this final rulemaking that summarizes 

demographic data on the communities located near power plants.967

The EPA understands that, in order to prevent 

disproportionately, high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on these communities, both states and 

communities must have information on the communities living near 

facilities, including demographic data, and that accessing and 

using census data files requires expertise that some community 

groups may lack. Therefore, the EPA used census data from the 

American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 to conduct a proximity 

analysis that can be used by states and communities as they 

develop state plans and as they later assess the final plans’ 

impacts. The analysis and its results are presented in the EJ 

Screening Report for the Clean Power Plan, which is located in 

the docket for this rulemaking at EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. 

 

967 The proximity analysis was conducted using data that is used 

to update the EPA’s environmental justice mapping and screening 

tool, EJSCREEN). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1314 of 1546

The proximity analysis provides detailed demographic 

information on the communities located within a 3-mile radius of 

each affected power plant in the United States. Included in the 

analysis is the breakdown by percentage of community 

characteristics such as income and minority status. The analysis 

shows a higher percentage of communities of color and low-income 

communities living near power plants than national averages. It 

is important to note that the impacts of power plant emissions 

are not limited to a 3-mile radius and the impacts of both 

potential increases and decreases in power plant emissions can 

be felt many miles away. Still, being aware of the 

characteristics of communities closest to power plants is a 

starting point in understanding how changes in the plant’s air 

emissions may affect the air quality experienced by some of 

those already experiencing environmental burdens. 

Although overall there is a higher fraction of communities 

of color and low-income populations living near power plants 

than national averages, there are differences between rural and 

urban power plants. There are many rural power plants that are 

located near small communities with high percentages of lowincome populations and lower percentages of communities of 

color. In urban areas, nearby communities tend to be both lowincome communities and communities of color. In light of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1315 of 1546

difference between rural and urban communities proximate to 

power plants and in order to adequately capture both the lowincome and minority aspects central to environmental justice 

considerations, we will use the term “overburdened” when 

referring to these communities. Our intent is for this term to 

be understood in an expansive sense, in order to capture the 

full scope of communities, including indigenous communities most 

often located in rural areas, that are central to our 

environmental justice and community considerations. 

As stated in the Executive Order 12898 discussion located 

in section XII.J of this preamble, the EPA believes that all 

communities will benefit from this final rulemaking because this 

action directly addresses the impacts of climate change by 

limiting GHG emissions through the establishment of CO2 emission 

guidelines for existing affected fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

The EPA also believes that the information provided in the 

proximity analysis will promote engagement between overburdened 

communities and their states and will be useful for states as 

they begin developing their plans. In addition to providing the 

proximity analysis in the docket of this rulemaking, the EPA 

will disseminate the proximity analysis to states and will make 

it publicly available on its Clean Power Plan (CPP) Community 

Portal. Furthermore, the EPA has also created an interactive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1316 of 1546

mapping tool that illustrates where power plants are located and 

provides information on a state level. This tool is available 

at: http://cleanpowerplanmaps.epa.gov/CleanPowerPlan/. 

Additionally, the EPA encourages states to conduct their 

own analyses of community considerations when developing their 

plans. Each state is uniquely knowledgeable about its own 

communities and well-positioned to consider the possible impacts 

of plans on overburdened communities within its state. 

Conducting state-specific analyses would not only help states 

assess possible impacts of plan options, but it would also 

enhance a state’s understanding of the means to engage these 

communities that would most effectively reach them and lead to 

valuable exchanges of information and concerns. A state 

analysis, together with the proximity analysis conducted by the 

EPA, would provide a solid foundation for engagement between a 

state and its overburdened communities. 

Such state-specific analyses need not be exhaustive. An

examination of the options a state is considering for its plan, 

and any projections of likely resulting increases in power plant 

emissions affecting low-income populations, communities of color 

populations, or indigenous communities, would be informative for 

communities. The analyses could include available air quality 

monitoring data and information from air quality models, and, if 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1317 of 1546

available, take into account information about local health 

vulnerabilities such as asthma rates or access to healthcare. 

Alternatively, a simple analysis may consider expected EGU 

utilization in geographic proximity to overburdened communities. 

The EPA will provide states with information on its publicly 

available environmental justice screening and mapping tool, EJ 

SCREEN, which they may use in conducting a state-specific 

analysis. The EPA will also provide states with resources 

containing examples of analyses that other states have conducted 

to examine the impacts of their programs on overburdened 

communities. Additionally, the EPA encourages states to submit a 

copy of their analysis if they chose to conduct one, with their 

initial and final plan submittals. 

B. Community Engagement in State Plan Development 

In sections VIII.D-E of this preamble, the EPA explains 

that states need to engage meaningfully with communities and 

other stakeholders during the initial and final plan submittal 

processes. Meaningful engagement to include outreach to 

overburdened communities, sharing information and soliciting 

input on state plan development and on any accompanying 

assessments such as those described above, and selecting methods 

for engagement to support communities’ involvement at critical 

junctures in plan formulation and implementation. This 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1318 of 1546

engagement also includes providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the state’s initial submittal and responding to 

significant comments received, including comments from 

overburdened communities, as well as conducting a public hearing 

and responding to comments before a final state plan is 

submitted. Additionally, the EPA expects that states will 

conduct outreach meetings, which could include public hearings 

or listening sessions, before the initial plan is submitted. The 

EPA also encourages states to provide background information 

about their proposed final state plan or their initial state 

plan in the appropriate languages in advance of their public 

hearing and at their public hearing. The EPA recommends that 

states provide translators and other resources at their public 

hearings, to ensure that members of the public can provide oral 

feedback. 

In the initial plan submittal, the final rule requires that 

states provide information to the agency about the community 

engagement they have undertaken and the means by which they 

intend to involve communities and other stakeholders as they 

develop their final plan. Furthermore, as noted in section 

VIII.E of this preamble, in determining if states are eligible 

for a 2-year extension for submission of final plans, the rule 

requires that states demonstrate how they are meaningfully 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1319 of 1546

engaging overburdened communities and other interested 

stakeholders as part of their public participation process. The 

EPA consulted its May 2015, Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory 

Actions, when crafting this rulemaking and recommends that 

states consult it to assist them in engaging meaningfully with 

overburdened communities.968 Additionally, states in their 

initial plan submittal and 2017 update must show how they 

identified overburdened communities with whom they are engaging 

as they develop their plans. Some suggested actions that states 

could take to engage actively with the public, including 

conducting meaningful engagement with overburdened communities, 

are outlined in section VIII.E of this preamble. Additionally, 

as outlined in section VIII.D , the final plan submitted by 

states should include an overview of the public hearing(s) 

conducted and information on how the state ensured that the 

hearing(s) were accessible to stakeholders including 

overburdened communities. 

The EPA is committed to supporting states in effectively 

engaging with overburdened communities as they develop and 

 

968 Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of Regulatory Actions. 

http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering

-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf. May 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1320 of 1546

implement their plans. The EPA will provide training and other 

resources throughout the implementation process that will assist 

states and communities in understanding plan requirements and 

options for plan development. These trainings will be a 

continuation of those that the EPA has already conducted with 

communities and states both pre- and post-proposal. The EPA will 

reach out to a wide variety of community stakeholders, including 

groups representing overburdened communities, faith-based 

organizations, academic organizations working with communities, 

affordable housing advocates, public health professionals, 

public health organizations, and other community stakeholders. 

C. Providing Communities with Access to Additional Resources 

In addition to providing resources to states, the EPA 

encourages states to be aware of existing efforts undertaken by 

other states aimed at providing overburdened communities access 

to financial and technical assistance programs for EE and RE, 

and to consider similar approaches that may make sense for their 

own states. 

One example of such a program is the Maryland EmPOWER Low 

Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP).969 The LIEEP program 

administered by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community 

 

969 EmPOWER Maryland Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs 

(LIEEP). 

http://www.mdhousing.org/website/Programs/lieep/Default.aspx. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1321 of 1546

Development (DHCD) helps low-income households through free 

installation of energy conservation materials (i.e., 

installation, hot water system improvements, lighting retrofits, 

furnace cleaning, tuning and safety repairs, refrigerator 

retrofits, etc.).970 Funding for this program is provided by 

EmPOWER Maryland partners: Baltimore Gas and Electric, Southern 

Maryland Electric Cooperative, Delmarva Power, Allegheny Energy 

and Pepco.971 This program is available to both homeowners and 

renters.972 Additionally, the Maryland Department of Housing 

provides low-income families with home heating bill assistance 

and furnace repairs and replacements through the Maryland Energy 

Assistance Program (MEAP).973 Maryland’s Electric Universal 

Service Program (EUSP) helps low-income electric customers with 

their electric bills.974

Another example of a program is EmPower New York, which 

provides no-cost energy solutions to low-income populations.975

Currently there are about 100,000 people that are receiving 

assistance. Both homeowners and renters are eligible to receive 

 

970 Ibid. 971 Ibid. 972 Ibid. 973 Energy Assistance. 

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=4326. 

974 Ibid. 975 EmPower New York. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/AllPrograms/Programs/EmPower-New-York 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1322 of 1546

assistance under this program. The types of assistance available 

include energy efficiency upgrades (plugging leaks, adding 

installation, replacing inefficient refrigerators and freezers 

and new energy-efficient lighting). Other states, like the State 

of Colorado’s Energy Outreach Colorado program, offer similar 

resources for low-income populations. 976

In 2013, the New York State Energy and Research Development 

Authority (NYSERDA) was able to secure a triple-A rated 

financial guarantee from the state’s Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund (SRF) for a $24 million bond issue. Proceeds funded 

residential energy efficiency loans that were available to all 

utility customers, including low-income households. SRF 

eligibility was based on the beneficial impact of EE investment 

in reducing atmospheric deposition on impaired water bodies 

consistent with Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. 

 As discussed below, there are also many federal programs 

that can help overburdened populations access the benefits of 

renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the economic benefits 

of a cleaner energy economy. 

In the coming months, the EPA will continue to provide 

information and resources for overburdened communities and 

states on existing federal, state, local, and other financial 

 

976 Energy Outreach Colorado. http://www.energyoutreach.org/about 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1323 of 1546

assistance programs to encourage EE/RE opportunities that are 

already available to communities. For example the EPA will 

provide a catalog of current or recent state and local programs 

that have successfully helped communities adopt EE/RE measures. 

The goal of these resources is to help overburdened communities 

gain the benefits of this rulemaking by encouraging that states 

use these types of tools in their state plans. The use of these 

RE/EE tools can also help overburdened households reduce their 

electricity consumption and bills. 

The EPA recognizes the potential impacts that this 

rulemaking could have on jobs in communities. Therefore, in 

section VIII.G of this preamble, the EPA has outlined that 

states, in designing their state plans, should consider the 

effects of their plans on employment and overall economic 

development to realize the opportunities for economic growth and 

jobs that the plans offer. To the extent possible, states should 

try to assure that communities that may be expected to 

experience job losses can also take advantage of the 

opportunities for job growth or otherwise transition to healthy, 

sustainable economic growth (e.g., with regard to delivering 

energy efficiency measures and installing rooftop solar panels). 

Additionally, as part of the resources that we will be providing 

to states and overburdened communities, the EPA will provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1324 of 1546

information on the White House’s POWER Initiative and other 

programs that specifically target economic development 

assistance to communities affected by changes in the coal 

industry and the utility power sector.977 

D. Federal Programs and Resources Available to Communities 

Federal agencies have a history of bringing energy 

efficiency and renewable energy to low-income 

communities. Earlier this summer, the Administration announced a 

new initiative to scale up access to solar energy and cut energy 

bills for all Americans, in particular low- and moderate-income 

communities and to create a more inclusive solar workforce. As 

part of this new initiative, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the EPA 

launched a National Community Solar Partnership to unlock access 

to solar energy for the nearly 50 percent of households and 

business that are renters or do not have adequate roof space to 

install solar systems with a focus on low and moderate income 

communities. The Administration also set a goal to install 300 

megawatts (MW) of renewable energy in federally subsidized 

housing by 2020 and new programs to provide technical assistance 

 

977 http://www.epa.gov/power/. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1325 of 1546

to make it easier to install solar energy on affordable housing, 

including clarifying how to use federal funding for energy 

efficiency and renewable energy. To continue enhancing 

employment opportunities in the solar industry for all 

Americans, AmeriCorps is providing funding to deploy solar 

energy and create jobs in underserved communities and DOE is 

working to expand solar energy education and opportunities for 

job training. 

These recent announcements build on the many existing 

federal programs and resources available to improve energy 

efficiency and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in 

vulnerable communities. Some examples of these resources 

include: the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance 

Program, Health and Human Service’s Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program, the Department of Agriculture’s Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, High Cost Energy Grant 

Program, and the Rural Housing Service’s Multi-Family Housing 

Program. 

HUD supports energy efficiency improvements and the 

deployment of renewable energy on affordable housing through 

their Energy Efficient Mortgage Program, Multifamily Property 

Assessed Clean Energy Pilot with the State of California, 

PowerSaver Program, and through the use of Section 108 Community 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1326 of 1546

Development Block Grants. The Department of Treasury provides 

several tax credits to support renewable energy development and 

energy efficiency in low-income communities, including the New 

Markets Tax Credit Program and the Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit. The Environmental Protection Agency’s RE-Powering 

America’s Land Initiative promotes the reuse of potentially 

contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites – many of which are 

in low-income communities – for renewable energy through a 

combination of tailored redevelopment tools for communities and 

developers, as well as site-specific technical support. EPA’s 

Green Power Partnership is increasing community use of renewable 

electricity across the country and in low-income communities. 

EPA partners with energy efficiency programs throughout the 

country that leverage ENERGY STAR to deliver broad consumer 

energy-saving benefits, of particular value to low-income 

households who can least afford high energy bills. ENERGY STAR 

also works with houses of worship to reduce energy costs – 

savings that can then be repurposed to their community mission, 

including programs and assistance to residents in low-income 

communities. The EPA will be working with these federal partners 

and others to ensure that states and vulnerable communities have 

access to information on these programs and their resources. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1327 of 1546

The federal government also has a number of programs to 

expand employment opportunities in the energy sector, including 

for underserved populations. Examples of these include HUD, DOE, 

and the Department of Education’s “STEM, Energy, and Economic 

Development” program; DOE’s Diversity in Science and Technology 

Advances National Clean Energy in Solar (DISTANCE-Solar) 

Program; Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy 

Deployment (GEARED); the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT), 

Apprenticeship USA Advancing Apprenticeships in the Energy 

Field, Job Corps Green Training and Greening of Centers, and 

YouthBuild; and EPA’s Environmental Workforce Development and 

Job Training (EWDJT) program. 

E. Multi-pollutant planning and Co-Pollutants 

As outlined in the final Clean Power Plan, states and 

sources have continued obligations to meet all other CAA 

requirements addressing conventional pollutants. Because the CAA 

envisions control of these other pollutants as a continuous 

process (through provisions such as periodic review of the NAAQS 

and residual risk requirements under the MACT program), the EPA 

believes that the Clean Power Plan provides an opportunity for 

states to consider strategies for meeting future CAA planning 

obligations as they develop their plans under this rulemaking. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1328 of 1546

Multi-pollutant strategies that incorporate criteria pollutant 

reductions over the planning horizons specific to particular 

states, jointly with strategies for reducing CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs needed to meet Clean Power Plan requirements over 

the time horizon of this rule, may accomplish greater 

environmental results with lower long-term costs. Such 

strategies may also provide opportunities for states, 

communities, and affected facilities to consider the most 

effective means of meeting these obligations while limiting or 

eliminating localized emission increases that would otherwise 

affect overburdened communities. Furthermore, this type of 

multi-pollutant approach has been suggested by states and 

regulated sources in past rulemakings as a tool to determine the 

best system of emission reductions. The EPA recommends that 

states consider such strategies in consultation with their 

communities, affected facilities, and other stakeholders. 

Air quality in a given area is affected by emissions from 

nearby sources and may be influenced by emissions that travel 

hundreds of miles and mix with emissions from other sources.978

In the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule the EPA used its authority 

to reduce emissions that significantly contribute to downwind 

exposures. The RIA for the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

 

978 76 FR 48348. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1329 of 1546

anticipates substantial health benefits for the population 

across a wide region. Similarly, the EPA believes that, like the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, this rulemaking will result in 

significant health benefits because it will reduce co-pollutant 

emissions of SO2 and NOx on a regional and national basis.979

Thus, localized increases in NOx emissions may well be more than 

offset by NOx decreases elsewhere in the region that produce a 

net improvement in ozone and particulate concentrations across 

the area. 

Another effect of the final CO2 emission guidelines for 

affected existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs may be increased 

utilization of other, unmodified EGUs - in particular high 

efficiency gas-fired EGUs - with relatively low GHG emissions 

per unit of electrical output. These plants may operate more 

hours during the year and could emit pollutants, including 

pollutants whose environmental effects would be localizedand/ or 

regional rather than global as is the case with GHG emissions. 

Changes in utilization already occur in response to energy 

demands and evolving energy sources, but the final CO2 emission 

guidelines for affected existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs can be 

expected to cause more such changes. Increased utilization of 

solid fossil fuel-fired units generally would not increase peak 

 

979 76 FR 48347. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1330 of 1546

concentrations of PM2.5, NOx, or ozone around such EGUs to levels 

higher than those that are already occurring because peak hourly 

or daily emissions generally would not change; however, 

increased utilization may make periods of relatively high 

concentrations more frequent. It should be noted that the gasfired sources likely to be dispatched more frequently have very 

low emissions of primary PM, SO2, and HAP per unit of electrical 

output and that they must continue to comply with other CAA 

requirements that directly address the conventional pollutants, 

including federal emission standards, rules included in state 

implementation plans, and conditions in title V operating 

permits, in addition to the guidelines in this final rulemaking. 

Therefore, local (or regional) air quality for these pollutants 

is not likely to be significantly affected. 

For natural gas-fired EGUs, the EPA found that regulation 

of HAP emissions “is not appropriate or necessary because the 

impacts due to HAP emissions from such units are negligible 

based on the results of the study documented in the utility 

RTC.”980 Because gas-fired EGUs emit essentially no mercury, 

increased utilization will not increase methyl mercury 

concentrations in water bodies near these affected EGUs. In 

studies done by DOE/NETL comparing cost and performance of coal-

 

980 65 FR 79831. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1331 of 1546

and NGCC-fired generation, they assumed SO2, NOx, PM (and Hg) 

emissions to be “negligible.” Their studies predict NOx 

emissions from a NGCC unit to be approximately 10 times lower 

than a subcritical or supercritical coal-fired boiler.981 Many, 

although not all, NGCC units are also very well controlled for 

emissions of NOx through the application of after combustion 

controls such as selective catalytic reduction. 

F. Assessing Impacts of State Plan Implementation 

It is important to the EPA that the implementation of state 

plans be assessed in order to identify whether they cause any 

adverse impacts on overburdened communities. The EPA will 

conduct its own assessment during the implementation phase of 

this rulemaking to determine whether the implementation of state 

plans developed pursuant to this rulemaking and other air 

quality rules are, in fact, reducing emissions and improving air 

quality in all areas or whether there are localized air quality 

impacts that need to be addressed under other CAA authorities. 

Furthermore, the EPA recommends that states conduct evaluations 

of their own to determine the impacts of their plans on 

overburdened communities. An example of one such approach to 

 

981 “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants 

Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity” Rev 

2a, September 2013 Revision 2, November 2010 DOE/NETL-2010/1397.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1332 of 1546

assessing a state plan for reducing greenhouse gases is the 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB), First Update on the 

Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework Pursuant 

to AB32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 

which outlines ongoing evaluations that it will conduct to 

determine the impacts of its programs (throughout the 

implementation stages) on overburdened communities.982 CARB’s 

Adaptive Management Plan for the Cap-and-Trade Program is one 

particular evaluation, which is intended to assess any localized 

emissions increases resulting from the program so that the state 

can appropriately respond.983 The EPA recommends that states 

consider CARB’s approaches and other programs as models for 

conducting ongoing assessments of the impacts of their state 

plans on overburdened communities. The EPA will provide training 

for states and communities on resources that they can use to 

assess options for plan development and implementation that 

appropriately consider localized impacts, especially co-

 

982 First Update on the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on 

the Framework Pursuant to AB32: The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_cl

imate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. May 2014. 

983 Adaptive Management Plan for the Cap-and-Trade Regulation. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/adaptive_management/plan.pd

f. October 2011. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1333 of 1546

pollutants, as well as training on how to develop and carry out 

these evaluations. 

This training will include guidance in accessing the 

publicly available information that sources and states currently 

report that can help with ongoing assessments of state plan 

impacts. For example, unit-specific emissions data and air 

quality monitoring data are readily available. This information, 

together with the assessment that the EPA will conduct in the 

implementation phase of this rulemaking and other analyses that 

states may develop, will enable states and communities to 

monitor any disproportionate emissions that may result in 

adverse impacts and address them. 

G. EPA Continued Engagement 

The EPA is committed to helping ensure that this action 

will not have disproportionate adverse human health or 

environmental effects on overburdened communities. Throughout 

the implementation phase of this rulemaking, the agency will 

continue to provide trainings and resources to assist 

overburdened communities and states as they engage with one 

another. Additionally, we will provide states with 

recommendations on best practices for engaging with overburdened 

communities. The EPA, through its outreach efforts during 

implementation, will continue to solicit feedback from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1334 of 1546

overburdened communities and states on topics for which they 

would like additional trainings and resources. 

The EPA will also provide states with resources containing 

examples of analyses that other states have conducted to examine 

the impacts of their programs on overburdened communities, as 

well as information on its publicly available environmental 

justice screening and mapping tool, EJ SCREEN. States are 

encouraged to use this preliminary information as well as other 

available information to conduct their own analyses. As 

described above, the EPA will assess the impacts of this 

rulemaking during its implementation. The EPA will house this 

assessment, along with the proximity analysis and other 

information generated throughout the implementation process, on 

its Clean Power Plan (CPP) Community Portal that will be linked 

to this rulemaking’s website (www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan). In 

addition, the EPA has expanded its set of resources that are 

being developed to help states and overburdened communities 

understand the breadth of policy options and programs that have 

successfully brought EE/RE to overburdened communities. The EPA 

is committed to continuing its engagement with states and 

communities from the beginning of plan development through plan 

implementation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1335 of 1546

A more detailed discussion concerning the application of 

Executive Order 12898 in this rulemaking can be found in section 

XI.J of this preamble. A summary of the EPA’s interactions with 

communities is in the EJ Screening Report for the Clean Power 

Plan, available in the docket of this rulemaking. Furthermore, 

the EPA’s responses to public comments, including comments 

received from communities, are provided in the response to 

comments documents located in the docket for this rulemaking. 

 In summary, the EPA in this final rulemaking has designed 

an integrative approach that helps to ensure that overburdened 

communities are not disproportionately impacted by this 

rulemaking. The proximity analysis that the agency has conducted 

for this rulemaking is a central component of this approach. Not 

only is the proximity analysis a useful tool to help identify 

overburdened communities that may be impacted by this rulemaking

(likely through reductions in air pollution), states can use 

this tool as they engage with communities in the development of 

their plans, consider a multi-pollutant approach, help 

overburdened communities access EE/RE and financial assistance 

programs and assess the impacts of their state plans. 

Additionally, in order to continue to ensure that overburdened 

communities are not disproportionately impacted by this 

rulemaking the EPA will also be conducting its own assessment 

Deleted: ,

Commented [A78]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1336 of 1546

during the implementation phase. Furthermore, the EPA will 

continue to engage with overburdened communities and states 

throughout the implementation phase of this rulemaking to help 

ensure that overburdened communities are not being 

disproportionately impacted. 

X. Interactions with Other EPA Programs and Rules 

 

A. Implications for the New Source Review Program 

The new source review (NSR) program is a preconstruction 

permitting program that requires major stationary sources of air 

pollution to obtain permits prior to beginning construction. The 

requirements of the NSR program apply both to new construction 

and to modifications of existing major sources. Generally, a 

source triggers these permitting requirements as a result of a 

modification when it undertakes a physical or operational change 

that results in a significant emission increase and a net 

emissions increase. NSR regulations define what constitutes a 

significant net emissions increase, and the concept is 

pollutant-specific. For GHG emissions, the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) applicability analysis is 

described in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (FR 75 31514, June 3, 

2010). As a general matter, a modifying major stationary source 

would trigger PSD permitting requirements for GHGs if it emits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1337 of 1546

GHGs in excess of 100,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (CO2e), and it undergoes a change or change in the 

method of operation (modification) resulting in an emissions 

increase of 75,000 tons per year CO2e as well as an increase on a 

mass basis. Once it has been determined that a change triggers 

the requirements of the NSR program, the source must obtain a 

permit prior to making the change. The pollutant(s) at issue and 

the air quality designation of the area where the facility is 

located or proposed to be built determine the specific 

permitting requirements. 

As part of its CAA section 111(d) plan, a state may impose 

requirements that require an affected EGU to undertake a 

physical or operational change to improve the unit’s efficiency 

that results in an increase in the unit’s dispatch and an 

increase in the unit’s annual emissions. If the emissions 

increase associated with the unit’s changes exceeds the 

thresholds in the NSR regulations discussed above for one or 

more regulated NSR pollutants, including the netting analysis, 

the changes would trigger NSR. 

While there may be instances in which an NSR permit would 

be required, we expect those situations to be few. As previously 

discussed in this preamble, states have considerable flexibility 

in selecting varied measures as they develop their plans to meet 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1338 of 1546

the goals of the emission guidelines. One of these flexibilities 

is the ability of the state to establish emission standards in 

their CAA section 111(d) plans in such a way so that their 

affected sources, in complying with those standards, in fact 

would not have emissions increases that trigger NSR. To achieve 

this, the state would need to conduct an analysis consistent 

with the NSR regulatory requirements that supports its 

determination that as long as affected sources comply with the 

emission standards in their CAA section 111(d) plan, the 

source’s emissions would not increase in a way that trigger NSR 

requirements. 

For example, a state could decide to adjust its demand-side 

measures or increase reliance on renewable energy as a way of 

reducing the future emissions of an affected source initially 

predicted (without such alterations) to increase its emissions 

as a result of a CAA section 111(d) plan requirement. In other 

words, a state plan’s incorporation of expanded use of cleaner 

generation or demand-side measures could yield the result that 

units that would otherwise be projected to trigger NSR through a 

physical change that might result in increased dispatch would 

not, in fact, increase their emissions, due to reduced demand 

for their operation. The state could also, as part of its CAA 

section 111(d) plan, develop conditions for a source expected to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1339 of 1546

trigger NSR that would limit the unit’s ability to move up in 

the dispatch enough to result in a significant net emissions 

increase that would trigger NSR (effectively establishing a 

synthetic minor limit). 984

As a result of such flexibility and anticipated state 

involvement, we expect that a limited number of affected sources 

would trigger NSR when states implement their plans. 

B. Implications for the Title V Program 

In the preamble to the June 18, 2014 proposal, the EPA 

discussed the issue of excessive title V fees resulting 

inadvertently as a consequence of the promulgation of the first 

section 111 standard to regulate GHGs. Specifically, the EPA 

explained that when the first section 111 standard is 

promulgated for GHGs, if we do not revise 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 

(the operating permit rule), then certain permitting authorities 

would be required to charge emissions-based fees for GHGs, 

resulting in fees that would be far in excess of what is 

 

984 Certain stationary sources that emit or have the potential to 

emit a pollutant at a level that is equal to or greater than 

specified thresholds are subject to major source requirements. 

See, e.g., CAA sections 165(a)(1), 169(1), 501(2), 502(a). A 

synthetic minor limitation is a legally and practicably 

enforceable restriction that has the effect of limiting 

emissions below the relevant level and that a source voluntarily 

obtains to avoid major stationary source requirements, such as 

the PSD or title V permitting programs. See, e.g., 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(4), 51.166(b)(4), 70.2 (definition of “potential to 

emit”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1340 of 1546

required to cover the reasonable costs of the permitting 

programs. To avoid this situation, the EPA proposed as part of 

the re-proposed carbon pollution standards for newly constructed 

fossil fuel-fired power plants (70 FR 1429-1519; January 8, 

2014) to exempt GHGs from the list of air pollutants that are 

subject to fee calculation requirements under the operating 

permit rules. Also, we proposed several options to impose a 

smaller fee adjustment for GHGs that would be reasonable and 

designed to recover the costs of addressing GHGs in permitting 

without being excessive. 

In a separate action in today’s Federal Register [INSERT 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL GHG NEW SOURCE 

RULE], the EPA is finalizing changes to the operating permits 

rules to address the title V fee issue. In particular, we are 

taking final action to exempt GHGs from emissions-based fee 

calculation requirements under the operating permit rules. In 

addition, we are also finalizing a modest GHG fee adjustment to 

recover the costs of addressing GHGs in permitting. The GHG 

adjustments we are finalizing are based on accounting for the 

number of permit actions that require a GHG assessment in a 

given period, rather than accounting for emissions levels of 

GHGs. Finally, the EPA is also finalizing the addition of text 

within 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, to clarify that the fee 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1341 of 1546

pollutant for operating permit purposes is GHG (as defined in 40 

CFR 70.2 and 71.2) to add clarity to our regulations and to 

avoid the potential need for possible future rulemakings to 

adjust the title V fee regulations if any constituent of GHG, 

other than CO2, becomes subject to regulation under CAA section 

111 for the first time. 

This title V fee issue is a one-time occurrence resulting 

from the promulgation of the first CAA section 111 standard to 

regulate GHGs (the standards of performance for new, modified, 

and reconstructed EGUs, also promulgated in today’s Federal 

Register). The title V fee issue is not an issue for any other 

subsequent CAA section 111 regulations, such as this section 

111(d) standard; thus, there is no need to address any title V 

fee issues in this final rule as part of this action. 

In the proposal, the EPA discussed that the section 111 

rules would have no effect on the applicability thresholds for 

GHG under the operating permit rules. After the proposal for 

this rulemaking was published, the United States Supreme Court 

issued its opinion in UARG v EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (June 23, 

2014), and in accordance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit 

subsequently issued an amended judgment in Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir., April 10, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1342 of 1546

2015). Those decisions support the same overall conclusion, as 

the EPA discussed in the proposal, with respect to the effect of 

this final section 111 rule on the applicability thresholds for 

GHGs under the operating permits rules, though for different 

reasons. 

With respect to title V, the Supreme Court said that EPA 

may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major source required to 

obtain a title V operating permit. In accordance with that 

decision, the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the title 

V regulations under review in that case to the extent that they 

require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely 

because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above 

the applicable major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit also 

directed the EPA to consider whether any further revisions to 

its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if 

so, to undertake to make such revisions. These court decisions 

make clear that promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for 

GHGs will not result in EPA imposing a requirement that 

stationary sources obtain a title V permit solely because such 

sources emit or have the potential to emit GHGs above the 

applicable major source thresholds. 

C. Interactions with Other EPA Rules
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1343 of 1546

Fossil fuel-fired EGUs are, or potentially will be, 

impacted by several other recently finalized or proposed EPA 

rules.985 The EPA recognizes the importance of assuring that each 

of the rules described below can achieve its intended 

environmental objectives in a commonsense, cost-effective 

manner, consistent with underlying statutory requirements, and 

while assuring a reliable power system. Executive Order 13563, 

“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 

18, 2011, states that “[i]n developing regulatory actions and 

identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to 

promote... coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each 

agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to 

achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote 

innovation.” Within the EPA, we are paying careful attention to 

the interrelatedness and potential impacts on the industry, 

reliability and cost that these various rulemakings can have. 

1. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) 

On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the MATS rule (77 FR 

9304) to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and 

existing coal- and oil-fired EGUs. The MATS rule will reduce 

 

985 We discuss other rulemakings solely for background purposes. 

The effort to coordinate rulemakings is not a defense to a 

violation of the CAA. Sources cannot defer compliance with 

existing requirements because of other upcoming regulations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1344 of 1546

emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, 

and nickel; and acid gases, including hydrochloric acid and 

hydrofluoric acid. These toxic air pollutants, also known as 

hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known to cause, or 

suspected of causing, damage nervous system damage, cancer, and 

other serious health effects. The MATS rule will also reduce SO2

and fine particle pollution, which will reduce particle 

concentrations in the air and prevent thousands of premature 

deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases 

and asthma episodes. 

New or reconstructed EGUs (i.e., sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2011) subject to the 

MATS rule are required to comply by April 16, 2012 or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

Existing sources subject to the MATS rule were required to 

begin meeting the rule’s requirements on April 16, 2015. 

Controls that will achieve the MATS performance standards are 

being installed on many units. Certain units, especially those 

that operate infrequently, may be considered not worth investing 

in given today’s electricity market, and are closing. The final 

MATS rule provided a foundation on which states and other 

permitting authorities could rely in granting an additional, 

fourth year for compliance provided for by the CAA. States 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1345 of 1546

report that these fourth year extensions are being granted. In 

addition, the EPA issued an enforcement policy that provides a 

clear pathway for reliability-critical units to receive an 

administrative order that includes a compliance schedule of up 

to an additional year, if it is needed to ensure electricity 

reliability. 

2. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

The CSAPR requires states to take action to improve air 

quality by reducing SO2 and NOX emissions that cross state lines. 

These pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles 

and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, 

making it difficult for other states to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The first phase of CSAPR became effective on January 1, 

2015, for SO2 and annual NOX, and May 1, 2015, for ozone season 

NOX. The second phase will become effective on January 1, 2017, 

for SO2 and annual NOx, and May 1, 2017, for ozone season NOx. 

Many of the power plants participating in CSAPR have taken 

actions to reduce hazardous air pollutants for MATS compliance 

that will also reduce SO2 and/or NOx. In this way these two rules 

are complementary. Compliance with one helps facilities comply 

with the other. 

3. Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Power 

Plants (316(b) Rule)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1346 of 1546

On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule under section 

316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. section 1326(b))

(referred to hereinafter as the 316(b) rule.) The rule was 

published on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48300; August 15, 2014), and 

became effective October 14, 2014. The 316(b) rule establishes 

new standards to reduce injury and death of fish and other 

aquatic life caused by cooling water intake structures at 

existing power plants and manufacturing facilities.986 The 316(b) 

rule subjects existing power plants and manufacturing facilities 

that withdraw in excess of 2 million gallons per day) of cooling 

water, and use at least 25 percent of that water for cooling 

purposes, to a national standard designed to reduce the number 

of fish destroyed through impingement and a national standard 

for establishing entrainment reduction requirements. All 

facilities subject to the rule must submit information on their 

operations for use by the permit authority in determining 316(b) 

permit conditions. Certain plants that withdraw very large 

volumes of water will also be required to conduct additional 

studies for use by the permit authority in determining the sitespecific entrainment reduction measures for such facilities. The 

 

986 CWA section 316(b) provides that standards applicable to 

point sources under sections 301 and 306 of the Act must require 

that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling 

water intake structures reflect the best technology available 

for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1347 of 1546

rule provides significant flexibility for compliance with the 

impingement standards and, as a result, is not projected to 

impose a substantial cost burden on affected facilities. With 

respect to entrainment, the rule calls upon the permitting 

authority to establish appropriate entrainment reduction 

measures, taking into account, among other factors, remaining 

useful plant life and quantified and qualitative social benefits 

and cost. The permit writer may also consider impacts on the 

reliability of energy delivery within the facility’s immediate 

area. Existing sources subject to the 316(b) rule are required 

to comply with the impingement requirements as soon as 

practicable after the entrainment requirements are determined. 

They must comply with applicable site-specific entrainment 

reduction controls based on the schedule of requirements 

established by the permitting authority. 

4. Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities 

(CCR Rule) 

On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued the final rule for the 

disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. 

The rule provides a comprehensive set of requirements for the 

safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly 

known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The CCR rule is 

the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1348 of 1546

the environment and public health. The CCR rule establishes 

technical requirements for existing and new CCR landfills and 

surface impoundments under Subtitle D of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, the nation's primary law for 

regulating solid waste. 

These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal 

-- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of 

contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure 

of coal ash surface impoundments by establishing requirements 

for where CCR landfills and surface impoundments may be located, 

how they must be designed, operated and monitored, when they 

must be inspected, and how they must be closed and cared for 

after closure. Additionally, the CCR rule sets out recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements, as well as the requirement for each 

facility to establish and post specific information to a 

publicly-accessible website. The final rule also supports the 

responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial 

use from disposal. 

5. Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards 

(SE ELG Rule) 

The EPA is reviewing public comments and working to 

finalize the proposed SE ELG rule which will impact existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs. In 2013, the EPA proposed the SE ELG 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1349 of 1546

rule (78 FR 34432; June 7, 2013) to strengthen the controls on 

discharges from certain steam electric power plants by revising 

technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards 

for the steam electric power generating point source category. 

The current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not 

adequately address the toxic pollutants discharged from the 

electric power industry, nor have they kept pace with process 

changes that have occurred over the last three decades. Existing 

steam electric power plants currently contribute 50-60 percent 

of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by all 

industrial categories regulated in the United States under the 

CWA. Furthermore, power plant discharges to surface waters are 

expected to increase as pollutants are increasingly captured by 

air pollution controls and transferred to wastewater discharges. 

The proposed regulation, which includes new requirements for 

both existing and new generating units, would reduce impacts to 

human health and the environment by reducing the amount of toxic 

metals and other pollutants currently discharged to surface 

waters from power plants. The EPA intends to take final action 

on the proposed rule by September 30, 2015. 

The EPA is endeavoring to enable EGUs to comply with 

applicable obligations under other power sector rules as 

efficiently as possible (e.g., by facilitating their ability to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1350 of 1546

coordinate planning and investment decisions with respect to 

those rules) and, where possible, implement integrated 

compliance strategies. For example, in the proposed SE ELG rule, 

the EPA describes its thinking on how it might effectively 

harmonize the potential requirements of that rule with the 

requirements of the final CCR rule. Because these two rules 

affect similar units and may be met with similar compliance 

strategies, common-sense implementation timeframes were 

established in the CCR final rule so that utilities would not be 

required to make major decisions about CCR units without first 

understanding the implications that such decisions would have 

for meeting the surface water protection requirements of the 

final ELG rule. The EPA is taking into account these new CCR 

requirements for coal ash as it develops the final SE ELG rule. 

The EPA's goal in harmonizing the SE ELG and CCR rules is to 

minimize the overall complexity of the two regulatory structures 

and avoid creating unnecessary burden. 

6. Other EPA Rules 

In addition to the power sector rules discussed above, the 

development of SIPs for criteria pollutants (ozone, PM2.5, and 

SO2) and regional haze may also have implications for existing 

fossil-fired EGUs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1351 of 1546

Regarding ozone, the proposal included a discussion of the 

June 6, 2013, proposed implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), addressing the 

statutory requirements for areas EPA has designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The final implementation 

rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was signed on February 13, 2015, 

and published on March 6, 2015, with an effective date of April 

6, 2015. In general, the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule 

interprets applicable statutory requirements and provides 

flexibility to states to minimize administrative burdens 

associated with developing and implementing plans to meet and 

maintain the NAAQS. The rule establishes due dates for 

attainment plans and clarifies attainment dates for each ozone 

nonattainment area according to its classification based on air 

quality thresholds, with attainment dates starting in July 2015 

through July 2032 depending on an area’s classification. 

On November 25, 2014, the EPA Administrator signed the 

proposed rulemaking for the 2015 revisions to the ozone NAAQS. 

The proposal was published in the Federal Register on December 

17, 2014 (79 FR 75234). The Administrator proposed to revise the 

primary ozone standard to a level in the range of 0.065 to 0.070 

ppm and took comment on lower levels including 0.060 ppm and on 

retaining the current standard of 0.075 ppm. Among other things, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1352 of 1546

the ozone NAAQS proposal also proposed to retain the current 

indicator, averaging time, and form of the standard and included 

a proposed secondary ozone NAAQS in the 0.065 to 0.070 ppm 

range. 

The proposal also outlined the key implementation 

milestones requiring revised state implementation plans, with 

due dates starting in October 2018 for infrastructure and 

interstate transport SIPs, attainment plans due 2020-21, and 

attainment dates of 2020-37. The EPA is under a court order to 

finalize its review of the ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2015. 

 Some commenters expressed concern with the potential 

impact proposed revisions to the ozone NAAQS could have on state 

planning efforts and affected entities’ ability to comply with 

any potentially new requirements associated with a revised ozone 

NAAQS and those related to the 111(d) emissions guidelines. In 

particular, commenters raised issues with a potentially more 

stringent ozone standard and the permitting and state planning 

implications this may create. While there was no discussion of 

the proposed revisions to the ozone NAAQS in the 111(d) 

emissions guidelines proposal, commenters expressed a desire for 

the EPA to coordinate promulgation of the final 111(d) emissions 

guidelines (and any other climate regulations) with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1353 of 1546

potential revision to the ozone standard to provide certainty 

and flexibility for states and affected sources. 

While it is premature to speculate about the outcome of the 

ozone NAAQS review and how a more stringent ozone NAAQS may 

impact sources of ozone precursor emissions, including EGUs, we 

believe the planning and compliance timeframes that would follow 

from a revised ozone NAAQS and the timeframes we are finalizing 

today for submittal of the CAA section 111(d) state plans will 

allow considerable time for coordination by states in the 

development of their respective plans, as needed. As stated in 

the proposal, the EPA is prepared to work with states to assist 

them in coordinating their efforts across these planning 

processes. 

Regarding PM2.5 NAAQS implementation, the proposal stated 

that the EPA was developing a proposed implementation rule to 

provide guidance to states on the development of SIPs for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposed PM2.5 SIP requirements rule was 

signed on March 10, 2015, and published on March 23, 2015 (80 FR 

15340). The proposal addresses a number of requirements 

including attainment plan due dates, attainment dates and 

attainment date extension criteria for Moderate and Serious 

nonattainment areas; determination criteria for Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) for Moderate areas and Best 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1354 of 1546

Available Control Measures (BACM) for Serious areas; plans for 

demonstrating reasonable further progress and for meeting 

periodic quantitative milestones; and criteria for reclassifying 

a Moderate nonattainment area to Serious. The EPA is planning to 

finalize the PM2.5 implementation rule in early 2016. 

There are currently only 9 areas designated nonattainment 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, with an effective date of April 15, 

2015. Since the attainment plans for these areas must be 

completed and submitted to the EPA in September 2016, we expect 

that the four states with such areas should have already decided 

on their approach to implementing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS when they 

begin to develop their plans for implementing the 111(d) 

guidelines, and will be able to coordinate the two. 

Related to the SO2 NAAQS, and as stated in the proposal, the 

SO2 NAAQS was revised in June 2010 to protect public health from 

the short-term effects of SO2 exposure. In July 2013, the EPA 

designated 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the SO2

NAAQS. The EPA based these nonattainment designations on the 

most recent set of certified air quality monitoring data as well 

as an assessment of nearby emission sources and weather patterns 

that contribute to the monitored levels. The date for attainment 

plans for these areas to be completed and submitted to the EPA 

was April 2015. As such, we expect states with such areas to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1355 of 1546

have already decided on their approach to implementing the SO2

NAAQS as they start planning for implementation of the 111(d) 

guidelines, which should allow for coordination and 

consideration of SO2 related air quality measures into their 

111(d) planning. The EPA intends to address the designations for 

all other areas in three separate actions in the future.987 These 

designations must be completed by no later than July 2, 2016, 

December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2020 with attainment plans 

due between 2018 and 2022. 

Regarding requirements under the regional haze program, 

several affected EGUs have deadlines in the 2016-2021 timeframe 

to install controls to comply with the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule. Soon after these deadlines, some of the same 

affected EGUs may be required to reduce their utilization, 

convert into natural gas-fired facilities, or shut down entirely 

as a result of state 111(d) plans. Some commenters have 

 

987 The EPA has developed a comprehensive implementation strategy 

for these future actions that focuses resources on identifying 

and addressing unhealthy levels of SO2 in areas where people are 

most likely to be exposed to violations of the standard. The 

strategy is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html, and 

the associated area designations schedule is at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/designations/pdfs/20

1503Schedule.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1356 of 1546

expressed concern that for these affected EGUs, specifically 

those that choose to retire, the capital equipment installed to 

comply with the Regional Haze Rule would likely become stranded 

assets. 

While the EPA is providing considerable flexibility for 

states and sources under the final 111(d) emissions guidelines, 

the EPA acknowledges the possibility that some sources could 

ultimately be faced with the potential for stranded assets as a 

result of state 111(d) plans. For these sources, however, states 

have the option of developing BART alternatives that replace 

control requirements that would otherwise result in stranded 

assets at a particular EGU with the aggregate emission 

reductions that will result from retirements, fuel switching, 

reduced utilization, or lesser controls at multiple EGUs. 

In fact, the EPA already has experience working with states 

to account for these very types of changed circumstances.988 The 

 

988 For example, Oregon replaced its BART determination for the 

Boardman Coal Plant with a new requirement that accounted for a 

planned shutdown before the EPA took action on the state’s SIP 

submission (76 FR 12661). Washington similarly replaced its BART 

determination for the TransAlta Centralia Power Plant before the 

EPA took action on the state’s SIP submission (77 FR 72742). 

Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision with a new BART determination 

for the AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station, which included 

enforceable requirements for reduced utilization and early unit 

retirements, to replace a FIP that had been promulgated by the 

EPA (79 FR 12944). Finally, the EPA finalized a BART 

determination for Unit 3 at the Dave Johnston Power Plant in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1357 of 1546

EPA will continue to work with states to explore options for 

integrating compliance requirements across multiple regulatory 

programs, as warranted. 

The EPA believes that CAA section 111(d) efforts and 

actions will tend to contribute to overall air quality 

improvements and thus should be complementary to criteria 

pollutant and regional haze SIP efforts. 

7. Final Rule Flexibilities 

As discussed in Section VIII of this preamble, the EPA is 

providing states flexibility in developing approvable plans 

under CAA section 111(d), including the ability to impose 

source-by-source limitations reflecting the BSER performance 

rates to each affected EGU or to adopt rate-based or mass-based 

emission performance goals, and to rely on a wide range of CO2

emission reduction measures, including measures that are not 

part of the BSER. The EPA is also providing states considerable 

flexibility with respect to the timeframes for plan development 

and implementation, with up to 3 years permitted for final plans 

to be submitted after the GHG emission guidelines are finalized, 

and up to 15 years for all emission reduction measures to be 

fully implemented. The EPA is establishing an 8-year interim 

 

Wyoming that included two compliance options, one of which 

included a federally enforceable retirement date and less costly 

controls.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1358 of 1546

period over which to achieve the full required reductions to 

meet the CO2 performance rates, and this begins in 2022, more 

than seven years from the June 18, 2014 date of proposal of the 

rulemaking. The 8-year interim period from 2022 through 2029, is 

separated into three steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029, 

each associated with its own interim CO2 emission performance 

rates. 

In light of these broad flexibilities, we believe that 

states will have ample opportunity, when developing and 

implementing their CAA section 111(d) plans, to coordinate their 

response to this requirement with source and state responses to 

any obligations that may be applicable to affected EGUs as a 

result of the MATS, CSAPR, 316(b), SE ELG and CCR rules, all of 

which are or soon will be final rules. In addition, we believe 

that states will be able to design CAA section 111(d) plans that 

use innovative, cost-effective regulatory strategies, that spark 

investment and innovation across a wide variety of clean energy 

technologies, and that will help reduce cost and ensure 

reliability, while also ensuring that all applicable 

environmental requirements are met.989 We also believe that the 

 

989 It should be noted that regulatory obligations imposed upon 

states and sources operate independently under different 

statutes and sections of statutes; the EPA expects that states 

and sources will take advantage of available flexibilities as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1359 of 1546

broad flexibilities in this action will enable states and 

affected EGUs to build on their longstanding, successful records 

of complying with multiple CAA, CWA, and other environmental 

requirements, while assuring an adequate, affordable, and 

reliable supply of electricity. 

XI. Impacts of the Final Action990 

A. What are the air impacts?

The EPA anticipates significant emission reductions under 

the final guidelines for the utility power sector. In the final 

emission guidelines, the EPA has translated the source categoryspecific CO2 emission performance rates into equivalent statelevel rate-based and mass-based CO2 goals in order to maximize 

the range of choices that states will have in developing their 

plans. Because of the range of choices available to states and 

the lack of a priori knowledge about the specific choices states 

will make in response to the final goals, the Regulatory Impact 

 

appropriate, but will comply with all relevant legal 

requirements. 

990 The impacts presented in this section of the preamble 

represent an illustrative implementation of the guidelines. As 

states implement the final guidelines, they have sufficient 

flexibility to adopt different state-level or regional 

approaches that may yield different costs, benefits, and 

environmental impacts. For example, states may use the 

flexibilities described in these guidelines to find approaches 

that are more cost-effective for their particular state or 

choose approaches that shift the balance of co-benefits and 

impacts to match broader state priorities. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1360 of 1546

Analysis (RIA) for this final action presents two scenarios 

designed to achieve these goals, which we term the “rate-based” 

illustrative plan approach and the “mass-based” illustrative 

plan approach.991

Under the rate-based approach, when compared to 2005, CO2

emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 22 

percent in 2020, 28 percent in 2025, and 32 percent in 2030. 

Under the mass-based approach, when compared to 2005, CO2

emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 23 

percent in 2020, 29 percent in 2025, and 32 percent in 2030. The 

final guidelines are projected to result in substantial cobenefits through reductions of SO2, NOX and PM2.5 that will have 

direct public health benefits by lowering ambient levels of 

these pollutants and ozone. Table [X] and Table [X] shows 

expected CO2 and other air pollutant emissions in the base case 

and reductions under the final guidelines for 2020, 2025, and 

2030 for both rate-based and mass-based approaches. 

 

991 It is important to note that the differences between the 

analytical results for the rate-based and mass-based 

illustrative plan approaches presented in the RIA may not be 

indicative of likely differences between the approaches if 

implemented by states and affected EGUs in response to the final 

guidelines. If one approach performs differently than the other 

on a given metric during a given time period, this does not 

imply this will apply in all instances.

Commented [A79]: Note that we are awaiting a discussion here 

or in RIA of modeling choices, EE, etc., and why the 2 rate structure 

is expected to function with power markets as other emission 

standards have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1361 of 1546

Table [X]. Summary of CO2 and Other Air Pollutant Emission 

Reductions from the Base Case under Rate-based Illustrative Plan 

Approach 

 

CO2

(millions 

short tons) 

SO2

(thousand 

short tons) 

NOX 

(thousand 

 short tons) 

2020 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,155 1,311 1,333 

Final Guidelines 2,085 1,297 1,282 

Emissions Reductions 69 14 50 

2025 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,165 1,275 1,302 

Final Guidelines 1,933 1,097 1,138 

Emissions Reductions 232 178 165 

2030 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,227 1,314 1,293 

Final Guidelines 1,812 996 1,011 

Emissions Reductions 415 318 282 

Source: Integrated Planning Model, 2015. 

Note: Emissions may not sum due to rounding. 

Table [X]. Summary of CO2 and Other Air Pollutant Emission 

Reductions from the Base Case under Mass-based Illustrative Plan 

Approach 

 

CO2

(million 

short tons) 

SO2

(thousand 

short tons) 

NOX 

(thousand 

short tons) 

2020 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,155 1,311 1,333 

Final Guidelines 2,073 1,257 1,272 

Emissions Reductions 81 54 60 

2025 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,165 1,275 1,302 

Final Guidelines 1,901 1,090 1,100 

Emissions Reductions 265 185 203 

2030 Final Guidelines 

Base Case 2,227 1,314 1,293 

Final Guidelines 1,814 1,034 1,015 

Emissions Reductions 413 280 278 

Source: Integrated Planning Model, 2015. 

Note: Emissions may not sum due to rounding. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1362 of 1546

The reductions in Tables [X] and [X] do not account for 

reductions in hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that may occur as 

a result of this rule. For instance, the fine particulate 

reductions presented above do not reflect all of the reductions 

in many heavy metal particulates. 

B. Endangered Species Act 

As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR at 

34933-934), the EPA has carefully considered the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

applicable ESA regulations, and reviewed relevant ESA case law 

and guidance, to determine whether consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries 

Service (together, the Services) is required by the ESA. The EPA 

proposed to conclude that the requirements of ESA section 

7(a)(2) would not be triggered by promulgation of the rule, and 

we now finalize that determination. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in 

consultation with one or both of the Services (depending on the 

species at issue), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, 

or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat of such species. 16 U.S.C. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1363 of 1546

1536(a)(2). Under relevant implementing regulations, section 

7(a)(2) applies only to actions where there is discretionary 

federal involvement or control. 50 CFR 402.03. Further, under 

the regulations consultation is required only for actions that 

“may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. 50 

CFR section 402.14. Consultation is not required where the 

action has no effect on such species or habitat. Under this 

standard, it is the federal agency taking the action that 

evaluates the action and determines whether consultation is 

required. See 51 FR 19926, 19949 (June 3, 1986). Effects of an 

action include both the direct and indirect effects that will be 

added to the environmental baseline. 50 CFR 402.02. Direct 

effects are the direct or immediate effects of an action on a 

listed species or its habitat.992 Indirect effects are those that 

are “caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but 

still are reasonably certain to occur.” Id. To trigger the 

consultation requirement, there must thus be a causal connection 

between the federal action, the effect in question, and the 

 

992 See Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service at 4-

25(March 1998) (providing examples of direct effects: e.g., 

driving an off road vehicle through the nesting habitat of a 

listed species of bird and destroying a ground nest; building a 

housing unit and destroying the habitat of a listed species). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1364 of 1546

listed species, and if the effect is indirect, it must be 

reasonably certain to occur. 

The EPA notes that the projected environmental effects of 

this rule are positive: reductions in overall GHG emissions, and 

reductions in PM and ozone-precursor emissions (SO2 and NOX). 

However, the EPA’s assessment that the rule will have an overall 

net positive environmental effect by virtue of reducing 

emissions of certain air pollutants does not address whether the 

rule may affect any listed species or designated critical 

habitat for ESA section 7(a)(2) purposes and does not constitute 

any finding of effects for that purpose. The fact that the rule 

will have overall positive effects on the national and global 

environment does not mean that the rule may affect any listed 

species in its habitat or the designated critical habitat of 

such species within the meaning of ESA section 7(a)(2) or the 

implementing regulations or require ESA consultation. The EPA 

has considered various types of potential effects in reaching 

the conclusion that ESA consultation is not required for this 

rule. 

With respect to the projected GHG emission reductions, the 

EPA considered in detail in the proposal why such reductions do 

not trigger ESA consultation requirements under section 7(a)(2). 

As explained in the proposal, in reaching this conclusion the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1365 of 1546

EPA was mindful of significant legal and technical analysis 

undertaken by FWS and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

in the context of listing the polar bear as a threatened species 

under the ESA. In that context, in 2008, FWS and DOI expressed 

the view that the best scientific data available were 

insufficient to draw a causal connection between GHG emissions 

and effects on the species in its habitat.993 The DOI Solicitor 

concluded that where the effect at issue is climate change, 

proposed actions involving GHG emissions cannot pass the “may 

affect” test of the section 7 regulations and thus are not 

subject to ESA consultation. 

As described in the proposal, the EPA has also previously 

considered issues relating to GHG emissions in connection with 

the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) and has supplemented 

DOI’s analysis with additional consideration of GHG modeling 

tools and data regarding listed species. Although the GHG 

emission reductions projected for this final rule are large 

(estimated reductions of about 415 million short tons of CO2 in 

2030 relative to the base case under the rate-based illustrative 

 

993 See, e.g., 73 FR 28212, 28300 (May 15, 2008); Memorandum from 

David Longly Bernhardt, Solicitor, U.S. Department of the 

Interior re: ‘‘Guidance on the Applicability of the Endangered 

Species Act’s Consultation Requirements to Proposed Actions 

Involving the Emission of Greenhouse Gases’’ (Oct. 3, 2008). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1366 of 1546

plan approach– see Table [X] above), the EPA evaluated larger 

reductions in assessing this same issue in the context of the 

light duty vehicle GHG emission standards for model years 2012-

2016 and 2017-2025. There the agency projected emission 

reductions over the lifetimes of the model years in question994

which are roughly five to six times those projected above and, 

based on air quality modeling of potential environmental 

effects, concluded that “EPA knows of no modeling tool which can 

link these small, time-attenuated changes in global metrics to 

particular effects on listed species in particular areas. 

Extrapolating from global metric to local effect with such small 

numbers, and accounting for further links in a causative chain, 

remain beyond current modeling capabilities.” EPA, Light Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Response to Comment Document for Joint 

Rulemaking at 4-102 (Docket EPA-OAR-HQ-2009-4782). The EPA 

reached this conclusion after evaluating issues relating to 

potential improvements relevant to both temperature and 

oceanographic pH outputs. The EPA's ultimate finding was that 

“any potential for a specific impact on listed species in their 

habitats associated with these very small changes in average 

 

994 See 75 FR at 25438 Table I.C 2–4 (May 7, 2010); 77 FR at 

62894 Table III–68 (Oct. 15, 2012). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1367 of 1546

global temperature and ocean pH is too remote to trigger the 

threshold for ESA section 7(a)(2).”Id. The EPA believes that the 

same conclusion applies to the present rule. See, e.g., Ground 

Zero Center for Non-Violent Action v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 383 F. 

3d 1082, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2004) (where the likelihood of 

jeopardy to a species from a federal action is extremely remote, 

ESA does not require consultation). The EPA’s conclusion is 

entirely consistent with DOI’s analysis regarding ESA 

requirements in the context of federal actions involving GHG 

emissions.995

With regard to non-GHG air emissions, the EPA also projects 

substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX as a collateral consequence 

 

995 The EPA has received correspondence from a U.S. Senator and a 

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives noting that the 

Services have identified several listed species affected by 

global climate change. See Letter from Rob Bishop, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, to Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated June 

11, 2015; Letter from Rob Bishop, Chairman, House Committee on 

Natural Resources, and James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, to Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated June 

15, 2015. EPA’s assessment of ESA requirements in connection 

with the present rule does not address whether global climate 

change may, as a general matter, be a relevant consideration in 

the status of certain listed species. Rather, the requirements 

of ESA section 7(a)(2) must be considered and applied to the 

specific action at issue. As explained above, EPA’s conclusion 

that ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation is not required here is 

premised on the specific facts and circumstances of the present 

rule and is fully consistent with prior relevant analyses 

conducted by DOI, FWS, and EPA.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1368 of 1546

of this final action. However, CAA section 111(d)(1) standards 

cannot directly control emissions of criteria pollutants. See 

CAA section 111(d)(1)(i). Consequently, CAA section 111(d) 

provides no discretion to adjust the standard based on potential 

impacts to endangered species of reduced criteria pollutant 

emissions. Section 7(a)(2) consultation thus is not required 

with respect to the projected reductions of criteria pollutant 

emissions. See 50 CFR 402.03; see also, WildEarth Guardians v. 

U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, 759 F.3d 1196, 1207-10 (10th Cir. 

2014) (EPA has no duty to consult under section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA regarding hazardous air pollutant controls that it did not 

require – and likely lacked authority to require – in a federal 

implementation plan for regional haze controls under section 

169A of the CAA). 

Finally, the EPA has also considered other potential 

effects of the rule (beyond reductions in air pollutants) and 

whether any such effects are “caused by” the rule and 

“reasonably certain to occur” within the meaning of the ESA 

regulatory definition of the effects of an action. 50 CFR 

402.02. As the EPA noted in the proposal, there are substantial 

questions as to whether any potential for relevant effects 

results from any element of the rule or would result instead 

from separate decisions and actions made in connection with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1369 of 1546

development, implementation, and enforcement of a plan to 

implement the standards established in the rule. Cf. American 

Trucking Assn's v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 

1999), rev'd on different grounds sub nom., Whitman v. American 

Trucking Assn's, 531 U.S. 457 (2000) (National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards have no economic impact, for purposes of 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, because impacts result from the 

actions of states through their development, implementation and 

enforcement of state implementation plans).996 The EPA 

 

996 One commenter questioned the EPA’s citation to American 

Trucking Assn's. As stated by the commenter, the statute at 

issue in that case – the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) – is 

distinguishable from the ESA in that it addresses only direct 

effects and does not consider indirect effects. The commenter 

misreads the EPA’s citation to this case. The EPA cites this 

case simply to reference a decision considering the impacts of 

an EPA action – the revision of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act – that in certain 

respects provides a useful analogy to the present rule. A NAAQS 

is implemented through a series of subsequent planning decisions 

generally taken by states by means of adoption of State 

Implementation Plans. States can choose to impose or avoid the 

types of impacts at issue in the D.C. Circuit case through their 

planning decisions; thus such impacts were not viewed as having 

been caused – for purposes of the RFA – by the EPA’s 

promulgation of the revised NAAQS in the first instance. The 

standard setting and implementation mechanisms under section 

111(d) are very similar. Under section 111(d), the EPA is 

required to establish “a procedure similar to that provided by 

section 7410” – the provision establishing the State 

Implementation Plan mechanism for implementing NAAQS. Thus, the 

D.C. Circuit’s discussion provides a useful analogy to the 

present rule and the various types of potential effects that may 

be attributable to future implementation planning decisions by 

states and other entities as they exercise their discretion in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1370 of 1546

recognized, for instance, that questions may exist whether 

decisions such as increased utilization of solar or wind power 

could have effects on listed species. The EPA received comments 

on the proposal asserting that because potential increased 

reliance on wind or solar power may be an element of Building 

Block 3, and because wind and solar facilities may in some cases 

have effects on listed species, the EPA must consult under the 

ESA on this aspect of the rule. The EPA is also aware of certain 

questions posed by a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives 

to FWS regarding potential effects of the rule on the Big Bend 

Power Station located in Florida, which discharges effluent that 

provides a warm water refuge for manatees.997 The Big Bend Power 

Station and another coal-fired facility located in Florida – the 

Crystal River Plant – are also referenced in the June 11, 2015, 

and June 15, 2015, congressional letters to EPA cited above. 

 

determining how to implement the federal guidelines, but not to 

promulgation of the rule itself. The EPA’s citation to this case 

was not intended to address any comparison of the scope of 

effects covered by the RFA and the effects cognizable under 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The EPA is aware that the ESA 

addresses both direct and indirect effects as defined by the 

applicable ESA regulations. The discussion supporting the EPA’s 

ESA conclusion expressly acknowledges the relevance of indirect 

effects to the ESA analysis and explains why such effects are 

not present here.

997 See Letter from Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural 

Resources, to Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, dated April 2, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1371 of 1546

The EPA has carefully considered the comments and the 

correspondence from Congress as well as the case law and other 

materials cited in those documents. The EPA does not believe 

that the effects of potential future changes in the energy 

sector – including increased reliance on wind or solar power as 

a result of future potential actions by states or other 

implementing entities – or any potential alterations in the 

operations of any particular facility are caused by the current 

rule or sufficiently certain to occur so as to require ESA 

consultation on the rule. The EPA appreciates that the ESA 

regulations call for consultation where actions authorized, 

funded, or carried out by federal agencies may have indirect 

effects on listed species or designated critical habitat. 

However, as noted above, indirect effects must be caused by the 

action at issue and must be reasonably certain to occur. At this 

point, there is no reasonable certainty regarding implementation 

of any planning measures in any location, let alone in any 

location occupied by a listed species or its designated critical 

habitat. The EPA cannot predict with reasonable certainty where 

such measures may take effect or which measures may be adopted. 

It is not clear, for instance, whether a particular 

implementation plan will call, if at all, for increased reliance 

on wind power, as opposed to solar power, or on some other form 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1372 of 1546

of low or zero carbon emitting generation. It is also entirely 

uncertain how a future implementation plan for a particular 

state might affect, if at all, operations at a specific 

facility. The precise steps included in an implementation plan 

cannot be determined or ordered by this federal action, and they 

are not sufficiently certain to be attributable to this final 

rule for ESA purposes. These steps will flow from a series of 

later in time decisions generally made by other entities – 

usually states – in their distinct planning processes. These 

later decisions cannot now be required by the rule, are not 

caused by the rule, and are not reasonably certain to occur. The 

EPA also notes that the plans adopted for particular states may 

themselves provide wide degrees of implementation flexibility, 

thus further increasing the uncertainty that any speciesimpacting activity will occur in any particular location, if at 

all. The Services have explained that section 7(a)(2) was not 

intended to preclude federal actions based on potential future 

speculative effects.998 These are precisely the types of 

 

998 See 51 FR at 19933 (describing effects that are “reasonably 

certain to occur” in the context of consideration of cumulative 

effects and distinguishing broader consideration that may be 

appropriate in applying a procedural statute such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act, as opposed to a substantive 

provision such as ESA section 7(a)(2) that may prohibit certain 

federal actions); Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1373 of 1546

speculative future activities and effects at issue here.999 For 

this additional reason, the EPA concludes that the rule does not 

have effects on listed species that trigger the section 7(a)(2) 

consultation requirement.1000

 

4-30(March 1998) (in the same context, describing indicators 

that an activity is reasonably certain to occur as including 

governmental approvals of the action or indications that such 

approval is imminent, project sponsors’ assurance that the 

action will proceed, obligation of venture capital, or 

initiation of contracts; and noting that the more governmental 

administrative discretion remains to be exercised, the less 

there is reasonable certainty the action will proceed). 

999 EPA also notes that some of the future implementing 

activities may involve federal actions that are subject to ESA 

consultation, thus providing consideration of any impacts on 

listed species at the appropriate point when particular 

activities have become reasonably certain. Several commenters on 

the proposal specifically noted that such future activities – 

e.g., development of additional renewable energy facilities such 

as wind farms – may call for ESA consultation. Further, EPA 

notes that section 9 of the ESA, which prohibits the take of 

individuals of most listed species, provides an additional 

protection for listed species as future implementing activities 

become reasonably certain. 

1000 The commenters cite certain cases that they assert support 

consulting under ESA section 7(a)(2). The EPA has considered 

these cases, each of which is distinguishable from the present 

rule. By way of example, a commenter cites two cases involving 

EPA actions: Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 

2005), rev’d, National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders 

of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007); and Washington Toxics 

Coalition v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005). In Defenders of 

Wildlife (a decision that was reversed by the U.S. Supreme 

Court), a principal relevant impact of the federal action at 

issue – the EPA’s approval of a state’s permitting program under 

the Clean Water Act – was that following the action, the 

relevant permitted activities would no longer be subject to 

consultation under the ESA. By contrast, promulgation of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1374 of 1546

C. What are the energy impacts? 

 The final guidelines have important energy market 

implications. Table [X] presents a variety of important energy 

market impacts for 2020, 2025, and 2030 under both the ratebased and mass-based illustrative plan approaches. 

Table [X]. Summary Table of Important Energy Market Impacts for 

Rate-based and Mass-based Illustrative Plan Approaches (Percent 

Change from Base Case) 

 Rate-Based Mass-Based 

 2020 2025 2030 2020 2025 2030 

Retail electricity 

prices 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 0% 

Price of coal at 

minemouth -1% -5% -4% -1% -5% -3% 

Coal production for 

power sector use -5% -14% -25% -7% -17% -24% 

 

present rule will result in no change to any ESA requirements 

applicable to any future activities directed by plans (either 

state or federal) implementing the rule. The action at issue in 

Washington Toxics Coalition involved the EPA’s registration of 

certain pesticide active ingredients under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Such actions 

provide authorization for the sale and distribution of those 

products, consistent with applicable labelling requirements. The 

EPA also notes that under the EPA’s regulations, registered 

pesticide labels must, among other things, specify the product 

ingredients and the methods and sites of product application. 40 

CFR 156.10. By contrast, the present rule only sets goals and 

describes potential pathways to meeting those goals, all of 

which are subject to future considerations and decisions 

involved in the implementation of plans (generally by states). 

The rule neither authorizes, nor directs, any of the future 

measures to meet the rule’s goals. Those activities remain 

subject to the full range of future decision making addressing 

which types of measures to implement, what emitting entities 

will be affected, how much, and when.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1375 of 1546

Price of natural gas 

delivered to power 

sector 

5% -8% 2% 4% -3% -2% 

Natural gas use for 

electricity generation 3% -1% -1% 5% 0% -4% 

These figures reflect the EPA’s illustrative modeling that 

presumes policies that lead to generation shifts and growing use 

of demand-side energy efficiency and renewable electricity 

generation out to 2029. If states make different policy choices, 

impacts could be different. For instance, if states implement 

renewable and/or demand-side energy efficiency policies on a 

more aggressive time-frame, impacts on natural gas and 

electricity prices would likely be less. Implementation of other 

measures not included in the BSER calculation or compliance 

modeling, such as nuclear uprates, transmission system 

improvements, use of energy storage technologies or retrofit 

CCS, could also mitigate gas price and/or electricity price 

impacts. 

 Energy market impacts from the guidelines are discussed 

more extensively in the RIA found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

D. What are the compliance costs?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1376 of 1546

 The compliance costs of this final action are represented 

in this analysis as the change in electric power generation 

costs between the base case and the final rule in which states 

pursue a distinct set of strategies beyond the strategies taken 

in the base case to meet the terms of the final guidelines. The 

compliance costs estimates include cost estimates for demandside energy efficiency. The compliance assumptions – and, 

therefore, the projected compliance costs - set forth in this 

analysis are illustrative in nature and do not represent the 

full suite of compliance flexibilities states may ultimately 

pursue. The illustrative analysis is designed to reflect, to the 

extent possible, the scope and the nature of the final 

guidelines. However, there is considerable uncertainty with 

regards to the precise measures that states will adopt to meet 

the final requirements, because there are considerable 

flexibilities afforded to the states in developing their state 

plans. 

 The incremental cost is the projected additional cost of 

complying with the guidelines in the year analyzed and includes 

the amortized cost of capital investment, needed new capacity, 

shifts between or amongst various fuels, deployment of demandside energy efficiency programs, and other actions associated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1377 of 1546

with compliance. These important dynamics are discussed in more 

detail in the RIA in the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA estimates the annual incremental compliance cost 

for the rate-based approach for final emission guidelines to be 

$2.5 billion in 2020, $1.0 billion in 2025 and $8.4 billion in 

2030, including the costs associated with monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping (MR&R).1001 The EPA estimates the annual 

incremental compliance cost for the mass-based approach for 

final emission guidelines to be $1.4 billion in 2020, $3.0 

billion in 2025 and $5.1 billion in 2030, including the costs 

associated with MR&R. 

More detailed cost estimates are available in the RIA 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

E. What are the economic and employment impacts? 

The final standards are projected to result in certain 

changes to power system operation as a compliance with the 

standards. See Table [X] above for a variety of important energy 

market impacts for 2020, 2025, and 2030 under both the ratebased and mass-based illustrative plan approaches. 

 It is important to note that the EPA’s modeling does not 

necessarily account for all of the factors that may influence 

 

1001 The MR&R costs estimates are $65 million in 2020, $15 million 

in 2025 and $15 million in 2030 and are assumed to be the same 

for both rate-based and mass-based illustrative plan approaches.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1378 of 1546

business decisions regarding future coal-fired capacity. Many 

power companies already factor a potential financial liability 

associated with carbon emissions into their long term capacity 

planning that would further influence business decisions to 

replace these aging assets with modern, and significantly 

cleaner, generation. 

The compliance modeling done to support the final rule 

assumes that overall electric demand will decrease as states 

ramp up programs that result in lower overall demand. Demandside energy efficiency levels are expected to increase such that 

they achieve about a 7.8 percent reduction on overall 

electricity demand levels in 2030 under the final guidelines. 

Changes in price or demand for electricity, natural gas, 

and coal can impact markets for goods and services produced by 

sectors that use these energy inputs in the production process 

or supply those sectors. Changes in the cost of production may 

result in changes in prices, quantities produced, and 

profitability of affected firms. The EPA recognizes that these 

guidelines provide significant flexibilities and states 

implementing the guidelines may choose to mitigate impacts to 

some markets outside the utility power sector. Similarly, demand 

for new generation or demand-side energy efficiency as a result 

of states implementing the guidelines can result in shifts in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1379 of 1546

production and profitability for firms that supply those goods 

and services. 

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider 

the effect of regulations on job creation and employment. 

According to the Executive Order, “our regulatory system must 

protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment 

while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation. It must be based on the best available 

science.” (Executive Order 13563, 2011) Although standard 

benefit-cost analyses have not typically included a separate 

analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts, we typically 

conduct employment analyses. During the current economic 

recovery, employment impacts are of particular concern and 

questions may arise about their existence and magnitude. 

 States have the responsibility and flexibility to implement 

policies and practices for compliance with the final guidelines. 

Quantifying the associated employment impacts is complicated 

by the wide range of approaches that states may use. As such, 

the EPA’s employment analysis includes projected employment 

impacts associated with illustrative plan approaches for these 

guidelines for the electric power industry, coal and natural gas 

production, and demand-side energy efficiency activities. These 

projections are derived, in part, from a detailed model of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1380 of 1546

utility power sector used for this regulatory analysis, and U.S 

government data on employment and labor productivity. In the 

electricity, coal, and natural gas sectors, the EPA estimates 

that these guidelines could result in a net decrease of 

approximately 25,000 job-years in 2025 for the final guidelines 

under the rate-based illustrative plan approach and 

approximately 26,000 job-years in 2025 under the mass-based 

approach. For 2030, the estimates of the net decrease in jobyears are 31,000 under the rate-based approach and 34,000 under 

the mass-based approach. The Agency is also offering an 

illustrative calculation of potential employment effects due to 

demand-side energy efficiency programs. Employment impacts from 

demand-side energy efficiency programs in 2030 could range from 

approximately 52,000 to 83,000 jobs under the final guidelines. 

 By its nature, demand-side energy efficiency reduces 

overall demand for electric power. The EPA recognizes as more 

efficiency is built into the U.S. power system over time, lower 

fuel requirements may lead to fewer jobs created in the coal and 

natural gas extraction sectors, as well as in fossil-fuel fired 

EGU construction and operation than would otherwise have been 

expected. The EPA also recognizes the fact that, in many cases, 

employment gains and losses that might be attributable to this 

rule would be expected to affect different sets of people. 

Commented [A80]: edit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1381 of 1546

Moreover, workers who lose jobs in these sectors may find 

employment elsewhere just as workers employed in new jobs in 

these sectors may have been previously employed elsewhere. 

Therefore, the employment estimates reported in these sectors 

may include workers previously employed elsewhere. This analysis 

also does not capture potential economy-wide impacts due to 

changes in prices (of fuel, electricity, labor, for example) or 

other factors such as improved labor productivity and reduced 

health care expenditures resulting from cleaner air. For these 

reasons, the numbers reported here should not be interpreted as 

a net national employment impact. 

F. What are the benefits of the final goals? 

Implementing the final standards will generate benefits by 

reducing emissions of CO2 and criteria pollutant precursors, 

including SO2, NOX, and directly emitted particles. SO2 and NOX

are precursors to PM2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns), and 

NOX is a precursor to ozone. The estimated benefits associated 

with these emission reductions are beyond those achieved by 

previous EPA rulemakings including the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards rule. The health and welfare benefits from reducing 

air pollution are considered co-benefits for these standards. 

For this rulemaking, we were only able to quantify the climate 

benefits from reduced emissions of CO2 and the health co-benefits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1382 of 1546

associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 and ozone. There are 

many additional benefits which we are not able to quantify, 

leading to an underestimate of monetized benefits. In summary, 

we estimate the total combined climate benefits and health cobenefits for the rate-based approach to be $3.5 to $4.6 billion 

in 2020, $18 to $28 billion in 2025, and $34 to $54 billion in 

2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$). Total combined climate 

benefits and health co-benefits for the mass-based approach are 

estimated to be $5.3 to $8.1 billion in 2020, $19 to $29 billion 

in 2025, and $32 to $48 billion in 2030 (3 percent discount 

rate, 2011$). A summary of the emission reductions and monetized 

benefits estimated for this rule at all discount rates is 

provided in Tables [X] through [X] of this preamble. 

Table [X]. Summary of the Monetized Global Climate Benefits for 

the Final Guidelines (billions of 2011$)a

 Discount Rate 

(Statistic) Monetized Climate Benefits 

YEAR 2020 2025 2030 

Rate-based Approach 

CO2 

Reductions 

(million 

short tons) 

 69 232 415 

 

5 percent (average 

SC-CO2) $0.80 $3.1 $6.4 

3 percent (average 

SC-CO2) $2.8 $10 $20 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1383 of 1546

2.5 percent 

(average SC-CO2) $4.1 $15 $29 

3 percent (95th

percentile SC-CO2) $8.2 $31 $61 

Mass-based Approach 

CO2 

Reductions 

(million 

short tons) 

 81 265 413 

 

5 percent (average 

SC-CO2) $0.94 $3.6 $6.4 

3 percent (average 

SC-CO2) $3.3 $12 $20 

2.5 percent 

(average SC-CO2) $4.9 $17 $29 

3 percent (95th

percentile SC-CO2) $9.7 $35 $60 

a Climate benefit estimates reflect impacts from CO2 emission 

changes in the analysis years presented in the table and do not 

account for changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions. These estimates are 

based on the global social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) estimates for 

the analysis years and are rounded to two significant figures. 

Table [X]. Summary of the Monetized Health Co-Benefits in the 

U.S. for the Final Guidelines, Rate-based Approach (billions of 

2011$)a 

Pollutant 

National 

Emission 

Reductions 

(thousands 

of short 

tons) 

Monetized 

Health Cobenefits 

Monetized 

Health Cobenefits 

(3 percent 

discount) 

(7 percent 

discount) 

Final Guidelines, Rate-based Approach, 2020 

PM2.5 precursors b 

SO2 14 $0.44 to 

$0.99 

$0.39 to 

$0.89 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1384 of 1546

NOX 50 $0.14 to 

$0.33 

$0.13 to 

$0.30 

Ozone precursor c 

NOX (ozone season only) 19 $0.12 to 

$0.52 

$0.12 to 

$0.52 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $0.70 to 

$1.8 

$0.64 to 

$1.7 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$3.5 to $4.6 $3.5 to $4.5

Final Guidelines, Rate-based Approach, 2025 

PM2.5 precursors b 

SO2 178 $6.4 to $14 $5.7 to $13 

NOX 165 $0.56 to 

$1.3 

$0.50 to 

$1.1 

Ozone precursor c 

NOX (ozone season only) 70 $0.49 to 

$2.1 

$0.49 to 

$2.1 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $7.4 to $18 $6.7 to $16 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$18 to $28 $17 to $26 

Final Guidelines, Rate-based Approach, 2030 

PM2.5 precursors b

SO2 318 $12 to $28 $11 to $25 

NOX 282 $1.0 to $2.3

$0.93 to 

$2.1 

Ozone precursor c

NOX (ozone season 

only) 118 $0.86 to 

$3.7 

$0.86 to 

$3.7 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $14 to $34 $13 to $31 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$34 to $54 $33 to $51 

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so 

estimates may not sum. It is important to note that the 

monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from 

direct exposure to SO2, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1385 of 1546

mercury, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. Air 

pollution health co-benefits are estimated using regional 

benefit-per-ton estimates for the contiguous U.S. 

b The monetized PM2.5 co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and NOX. The cobenefits do not include the benefits of reductions in directly 

emitted PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase overall 

benefits by a few percent based on the analyses conducted for 

the proposed rule. PM co-benefits are shown as a range 

reflecting the use of two concentration-response functions, with 

the lower end of the range based on a function from Krewski et 

al. (2009) and the upper end based on a function from Lepeule et 

al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

c The monetized ozone co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to ozone through 

reductions of NOX during the ozone season. Ozone co-benefits are 

shown as a range reflecting the use of several different 

concentration-response functions, with the lower end of the 

range based on a function from Bell, et al. (2004) and the upper 

end based on a function from Levy, et al. (2005). Ozone cobenefits occur in the analysis year, so they are the same for 

all discount rates. 

d We estimate climate benefits associated with four different 

values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5 percent 

discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 

percent). Referred to as the social cost of carbon, each value 

increases over time. For the purposes of this table, we show the 

benefits associated with the model average at 3 percent discount 

rate, however we emphasize the importance and value of 

considering the full range of social cost of carbon values. We 

provide combined climate and health estimates based on 

additional discount rates in the RIA. 

Table [X]. Summary of the Monetized Health Co-Benefits in the 

U.S. for the Final Guidelines, Mass-based Approach (billions of 

2011$)a 

Pollutant 

National 

Emission 

Reductions 

Monetized 

Health Cobenefits 

Monetized 

Health Cobenefits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1386 of 1546

(thousands 

of short 

tons) 

(3 percent 

discount) 

(7 percent 

discount) 

Final Guidelines, Mass-based Approach, 2020 

PM2.5 precursors b 

SO2 54 $1.7 to $3.8 $1.5 to $3.4

NOX 60 $0.17 to 

$0.39 

$0.16 to 

$0.36 

Ozone precursor c 

NOX (ozone season only) 23 $0.14 to 

$0.61 

$0.14 to 

$0.61 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $2.0 to $4.8 $1.8 to $4.4

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$5.3 to $8.1 $5.1 to $7.7

Final Guidelines, Mass-based Approach, 2025 

PM2.5 precursors b 

SO2 185 $6.0 to $13 $5.4 to $12 

NOX 203 $0.58 to 

$1.3 

$0.52 to 

$1.2 

Ozone precursor c 

NOX (ozone season only) 88 $0.56 to 

$2.4 

$0.56 to 

$2.4 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $7.1 to $17 $6.5 to $16 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$19 to $29 $18 to $27 

Final Guidelines, Mass-based Approach, 2030 

PM2.5 precursors b

SO2 280 $10 to $23 $9.0 to $20 

NOX 278 $0.87 to 

$2.0 

$0.79 to 

$1.8 

Ozone precursor c

NOX (ozone season 

only) 121 $0.82 to 

$3.5 

$0.82 to 

$3.5 

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits $12 to $28 $11 to $26 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1387 of 1546

Total Monetized Health Co-benefits 

combined with Monetized Climate 

Benefits d

$32 to $48 $31 to $46 

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so 

estimates may not sum. It is important to note that the 

monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from 

direct exposure to SO2, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to 

mercury, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. Air 

pollution health co-benefits are estimated using regional 

benefit-per-ton estimates for the contiguous U.S. 

b The monetized PM2.5 co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and NOX. The cobenefits do not include the benefits of reductions in directly 

emitted PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase overall 

benefits by a few percent based on the analyses conducted for 

the proposed rule. PM co-benefits are shown as a range 

reflecting the use of two concentration-response functions, with 

the lower end of the range based on a function from Krewski et 

al. (2009) and the upper end based on a function from Lepeule et 

al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

c The monetized ozone co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to ozone through 

reductions of NOX during the ozone season. Ozone co-benefits are 

shown as a range reflecting the use of several different 

concentration-response functions, with the lower end of the 

range based on a function from Bell, et al. (2004) and the upper 

end based on a function from Levy, et al. (2005). Ozone cobenefits occur in the analysis year, so they are the same for 

all discount rates. 

d We estimate climate benefits associated with four different 

values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5 percent 

discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 

percent). Referred to as the social cost of carbon, each value 

increases over time. For the purposes of this table, we show the 

benefits associated with the model average at 3 percent discount 

rate, however we emphasize the importance and value of 

considering the full range of social cost of carbon values. We 

provide combined climate and health estimates based on 

additional discount rates in the RIA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1388 of 1546

The EPA has used the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) 

estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Technical 

Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013, Revised June 

2015) (“current TSD”) to analyze CO2 climate impacts of this 

rulemaking.1002 We refer to these estimates, which were developed 

by the U.S. government, as “SC-CO2 estimates.” The SC-CO2 is a 

metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated 

with marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year. It 

includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as 

net changes in agricultural productivity and human health, 

property damage from increased flood risk, and changes in energy 

system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased 

costs for air conditioning. It is typically used to assess the 

avoided damages as a result of regulatory actions (i.e., 

 

1002 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, Technical Support Document: 

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by Council of 

Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department 

of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, 

Department of Transportation, Domestic Policy Council, 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, 

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury (May 2013, Revised 

July 2015). Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scctsd-final-july-2015.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1389 of 1546

benefits of rulemakings that lead to an incremental reduction in 

cumulative global CO2 emissions). 

The SC-CO2 estimates used in this analysis were developed 

over many years, using the best science available, and with 

input from the public. Specifically, an interagency working 

group (IWG) that included the EPA and other executive branch 

agencies and offices used three integrated assessment models 

(IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and recommended four 

global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2

estimates were first released in February 2010 and updated in 

2013 using new versions of each IAM. The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical 

Support Document (2010 TSD)1003 provides a complete discussion of 

the methods used to develop these estimates and the current TSD 

 

1003 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-114577, Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, with participation by the Council of Economic 

Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, 

Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, 

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury (February 2010). 

Also available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/foragencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1390 of 1546

presents and discusses the 2013 update (including two recent 

minor corrections to the estimates).1004 

The EPA received numerous comments on the SC-CO2 estimates 

as part of this rulemaking. The comments covered a wide range of 

topics including the technical details of the modeling conducted 

to develop the SC-CO2 estimates, the aggregation and presentation 

of the SC-CO2 estimates, and the process by which the SC-CO2

estimates were derived. Many but not all commenters were 

supportive of the SC-CO2 and its application to this rulemaking. 

Commenters also provided constructive recommendations for 

potential opportunities to improve the SC-CO2 estimates in future 

updates. Many of these comments were similar to those that OMB’s 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received in 

response to a separate request for public comment on the 

approach used to develop the estimates. After careful evaluation 

 

1004 The current version of the TSD is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/sccresponse-to-comments-final-july-2015.pdf, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0495, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Carbon, with participation by Council of Economic Advisers, 

Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of 

Transportation, Domestic Policy Council, Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

and Department of Treasury (May 2013, Revised July 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1391 of 1546

of the full range of comments submitted to OMB, the IWG 

continues to recommend the use of the SC-CO2 estimates in 

regulatory impact analysis.1005 With the release of the response 

to comments, the IWG announced plans to obtain expert 

independent advice from the National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (Academies) to ensure that the SC-CO2

estimates continue to reflect the best available scientific and 

economic information on climate change. The Academies review 

will be informed by the public comments received and focus on 

the technical merits and challenges of potential approaches to 

improving the SC-CO2 estimates in future updates. See the EPA 

Response to Comments document for the complete response to 

comments received on SC-CO2 as part of this rulemaking. 

Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to 

comments on SC-CO2 and announcement of the Academies process, OMB 

posted a revised TSD that includes two minor technical 

corrections to the current estimates. One technical correction 

addressed an inadvertent omission of climate change damages in 

the last year of analysis (2300) in one model and the second 

addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average 

the revised SC-CO2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean 

 

1005 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon 

for additional details, including the OMB Response to Comments 

and the SC-CO2 TSDs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1392 of 1546

SC-CO2 estimates reported in the November 2013 revision to the 

May 2013 TSD. The change in the estimates associated with the 

95th percentile estimates when using a 3 percent discount rate 

is slightly larger, as those estimates are heavily influenced by 

the results from the model that was affected by the indexing 

error. 

The EPA, as a member of the IWG on the SC-CO2, has 

carefully examined and evaluated the minor technical corrections 

in the revised TSD and the public comments submitted to OMB’s 

separate SC-CO2 comment process. Additionally, the EPA has 

carefully examined and evaluated all comments received regarding 

the SC-CO2 through this rulemaking process. The EPA concurs with 

the IWG’s conclusion that it is reasonable, and scientifically 

appropriate, to use the current SC-CO2 estimates for purposes of 

regulatory impact analysis, including for this proceeding. 

The four SC-CO2 estimates are as follows: $12, $40, $60, and 

$120 per short ton of CO2 emissions in the year 2020 (2011$).1006

The first three values are based on the average SC-CO2 from the 

three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, 

 

1006 The current version of the TSD is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scctsd-final-july-2015.pdf. The 2010 and 2013 TSDs present SC-CO2 in 

2007$ per metric ton. The estimates were adjusted to (1) short 

tons for using conversion factor 0.90718474 and (2) 2011$ using 

GDP Implicit Price Deflator, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI2013-02/pdf/ECONI-2013-02-Pg3.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1393 of 1546

respectively. The SC-CO2 value at several discount rates are 

included because the literature shows that the SC-CO2 is quite 

sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no 

consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an 

intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred 

by different generations). The fourth value is the 95th

percentile of the SC-CO2 from all three models at a 3 percent 

discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-expected 

impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the 

SC-CO2 distribution (representing less likely, but potentially 

catastrophic, outcomes). 

There are limitations in the estimates of the benefits from 

the final emission guidelines, including the omission of climate 

and other CO2 related benefits that could not be monetized. The 

2010 TSD discusses a number of limitations to the SC-CO2

analysis, including the incomplete way in which the IAMs capture 

catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their incomplete 

treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in 

the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and 

assumptions regarding risk aversion. Currently, IAMs do not 

assign value to all of the important impacts of CO2 recognized in 

the literature, such as ocean acidification or potential tipping 

points, for various reasons, including the inherent difficulties 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1394 of 1546

in valuing non-market impacts and the fact that the science 

incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the 

most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the 

discussion of their limitations represent the best available 

information about the social benefits of CO2 emission reductions 

to inform the benefit-cost analysis. As previously noted, the 

IWG plans to seek independent expert advice on technical 

opportunities to improve the SC-CO2 estimates from the Academies. 

The Academies process will help to ensure that the SC-CO2

estimates used by the federal government continue to reflect the 

best available science and methodologies. Additional details are 

provided in the TSDs. 

The health co-benefits estimates represent the total 

monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to 

reduced PM2.5 and ozone resulting from emission reductions from 

the illustrative compliance strategy for the final standards. 

Unlike the global SC-CO2 estimates, the air pollution health cobenefits are estimated for the contiguous U.S. only. We used a 

“benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this 

rulemaking. To create the PM2.5 benefit-per-ton estimates, we 

conducted air quality modeling for an illustrative scenario 

reflecting the proposed standards to convert precursor emissions 

into changes in ambient PM2.5 and ozone concentrations. We then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1395 of 1546

used these air quality modeling results in BenMAP1007 to calculate 

average regional benefit-per-ton estimates using the health 

impact assumptions used in the PM NAAQS RIA1008 and Ozone NAAQS 

RIAs.1009,1010 The three regions were the Eastern U.S., Western 

U.S., and California. To calculate the co-benefits for the final 

standards, we multiplied the regional benefit-per-ton estimates 

generated from modeling of the proposed standards by the 

corresponding regional emission reductions for the final 

standards.1011 All benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the 

 

1007 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/benmap/index.html 1008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. (EPA 

document number EPA-452/R-12-003, December). Available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf>. 

1009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008b. Final 

Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Research Triangle Park, 

NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group 

Research. (EPA document number EPA-452/R-08-003, March). 

Available at: 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>.

1010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. 

Section 3: Re-analysis of the Benefits of Attaining Alternative 

Ozone Standards to Incorporate Current Methods. Available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s3-

supplemental_analysis-updated_benefits11-5.09.pdf>. 

1011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support 

document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5

precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office 

of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, January. Available at: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1396 of 1546

geographic distribution of the modeled emissions for the 

proposed standards, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this final rulemaking, and thus they may not 

reflect the local variability in population density, 

meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other 

local factors for any specific location. More information 

regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-ton estimates is 

available in the RIA. 

PM benefit-per-ton values are generated using two 

concentration-response functions, Krewski et al. (2009) 1012 and 

Lepeule et al. (2012) 1013. These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effect estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that 

all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between PM2.5 precursors depending on the 

 

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/benmap/models/Source_Apportionmen

t_BPT_TSD_1_31_13.pdf>. 

1012 Krewski D.; M. Jerrett; R. T. Burnett; R. Ma; E. Hughes; Y. 

Shi, et al. 2009. Extended Follow-up and Spatial Analysis of the 

American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution 

and Mortality. Health Effects Institute. (HEI Research Report 

number 140). Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute. 

1013 Lepeule, J.; F. Laden; D. Dockery; J. Schwartz. 2012. 

“Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended 

Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.” 

Environmental Health Perspective, 120(7), July, pp. 965-970. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1397 of 1546

location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 concentrations, 

which drive population exposure. 

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 and 

ozone co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration 

response functions for premature mortality and the value of a 

statistical life used to value reductions in premature 

mortality. For PM2.5, we use two key empirical studies, one based 

on the American Cancer Society cohort study (Krewski et al, 

2009) and one based on the extended Six Cities cohort study 

(Lepuele et al, 2012). We present the PM2.5 co-benefits results as 

a range based on benefit-per-ton estimates calculated using the 

concentration-response functions from these two epidemiology 

studies, but this range does not capture the full range of 

uncertainty inherent in the co-benefits estimates. In the RIA 

for this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include 

PM2.5 co-benefits estimates using benefit-per-ton estimates based 

on expert judgments of the effect of PM2.5 on premature mortality 

(Roman et al., 2008)1014 as a characterization of uncertainty 

regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship. 

 

1014 Roman, H., et al. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter 

in the U.S.” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42, No. 7, 

February, pp. 2268 – 2274. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1398 of 1546

For the ozone co-benefits, we present the results as a range 

reflecting benefit-per-ton estimates which use several different 

concentration-response functions for mortality, with the lower 

end of the range based on a benefit-per-ton estimate using the 

function from Bell et al. (2004)1015 and the upper end based on a 

benefit-per-ton estimate using the function from Levy et al. 

(2005).1016 Similar to PM2.5, the range of ozone co-benefits does 

not capture the full range of inherent uncertainty. 

In this analysis, in estimating the benefits-per-ton for 

PM2.5 precursors, the EPA assumes that the health impact function 

for fine particles is without a threshold. This is based on the 

conclusions of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter,1017 which evaluated the substantial body of 

published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of 

epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies that documents 

the association between elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse 

 

1015 Bell, M.L., et al. 2004. “Ozone and Short-Term Mortality in 

95 U.S. Urban Communities, 1987-2000.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association, 292(19), pp. 2372-8. 1016 Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. 2005. “Ozone 

exposure and mortality: an empiric Bayes metaregression 

analysis.” Epidemiology. 16(4): p. 458-68. 1017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, RTP Division. (EPA document number EPA-600-R-08-

139F, December). Available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1399 of 1546

health effects, including increased premature mortality. This 

assessment, which was twice reviewed by the EPA’s independent 

Science Advisory Board, concluded that the scientific literature 

consistently finds that a no-threshold model most adequately 

portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. 

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the 

risks we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that 

coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. 

Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not 

available,1018 and thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage 

of premature mortality associated with this specific rule that 

is above the lowest measured PM2.5 levels (LML) for the two PM2.5

mortality epidemiology studies that form the basis for our 

analysis. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts above the 

LML, we provide the percentage of the population exposed above 

the lowest measured PM2.5 level (LML) in each of the two studies, 

using the estimates of baseline projected PM2.5 from the air 

 

1018 In addition, site-specific emission reductions will depend 

upon how states implement the guidelines. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1400 of 1546

quality modeling for the proposed guidelines used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for the EGU sector. Using the 

Krewski et al. (2009) study, 88 percent of the population is 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). Using the Lepeule et al. 

(2012) study, 46 percent of the population is exposed above the 

LML of 8 μg/m3. It is important to note that baseline exposure is 

only one parameter in the health impact function, along with 

baseline incidence rates, population, and change in air quality. 

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the air 

quality co-benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the air pollution 

emission reductions for the illustrative analysis of the final 

standards under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis 

does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012) because we lack the necessary air 

quality input and monitoring data to conduct a complete benefits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1401 of 1546

assessment. In addition, using a benefit-per-ton approach adds 

another important source of uncertainty to the benefits 

estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an 

indication of the sensitivity of our results to various 

assumptions. 

We note that the monetized co-benefits estimates shown here 

do not include several important benefit categories, including 

exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury 

and hydrogen chloride), as well as ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates 

for this rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these 

unquantified benefits in the RIA for the final guidelines. In 

addition, in the RIA for the final standards, we did not 

estimate changes in emissions of directly emitted particles. As 

a result, quantified PM2.5 related benefits are underestimated by 

a relatively small amount. In the RIA for the proposed 

guidelines, the benefits from reductions in directly emitted 

PM2.5 were less than 10 percent of total monetized health cobenefits across all scenarios and years. 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for this rule, which is available in the rulemaking 

docket. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1402 of 1546

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Additional information about these Statutory and Executive 

Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This final action is an economically significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes 

made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 

the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 

and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which 

is contained in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for Clean Power 

Plan Final Rule” (EPA-452/R-15-003, July 2015), is available in 

the docket and is briefly summarized in section XI of this 

preamble. 

 Consistent with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 

13563, the EPA estimated the costs and benefits for illustrative 

compliance approaches of implementing the guidelines. The final 

rule establishes: 1) carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance 

rates for two source categories of existing fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs, fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units 

and stationary combustion turbines, and 2) guidelines for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1403 of 1546

development, submittal and implementation of state plans that 

implement the CO2 emission performance rates. Actions taken to 

comply with the guidelines will also reduce the emissions of 

directly-emitted PM2.5, SO2 and NOX. The benefits associated with 

these PM2.5, SO2 and NOX reductions are referred to as cobenefits, as these reductions are not the primary objective of 

this rule. 

The EPA has used the social cost of carbon estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: Technical 

Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013, Revised 

July 2015) (“current TSD”) to analyze CO2 climate impacts of 

this rulemaking. We refer to these estimates, which were 

developed by the U.S. government, as “SC-CO2 estimates.” The 

SC-CO2 is an estimate of the monetary value of impacts 

associated with a marginal change in CO2 emissions in a 

given year. The four SC-CO2 estimates are associated with 

different discount rates (model average at 2.5 percent 

discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 

3 percent), and each increases over time. In this summary, 

the EPA provides the estimate of climate benefits 

associated with the SC-CO2 value deemed to be central in the 

current TSD: the model average at 3 percent discount rate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1404 of 1546

In the final emission guidelines, the EPA has translated 

the source category-specific CO2 emission performance rates into 

equivalent state-level rate-based and mass-based CO2 goals in 

order to maximize the range of choices that states will have in 

developing their plans. Because of the range of choices 

available to states and the lack of a priori knowledge about the 

specific choices states will make in response to the final 

goals, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule 

analyzed two implementation scenarios designed to achieve these 

goals, which we term the “rate-based” illustrative plan approach 

and the “mass-based” illustrative plan approach. 

It is very important to note that the differences between 

the analytical results for the rate-based and mass-based 

illustrative plan approaches presented in the RIA may not be 

indicative of likely differences between the approaches if 

implemented by states and affected EGUs in response to the final 

guidelines. Rather, the two sets of analyses are intended to 

illustrate two different approaches to accomplish the emission 

performance rates finalized in the Clean Power Plan Final Rule. 

In other words, if one approach performs differently than the 

other on a given metric during a given time period, this does 

not imply this will apply in all instances in all time periods 

in all places. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1405 of 1546

The EPA estimates that, in 2020, the final guidelines 

will yield monetized climate benefits (in 2011$) of 

approximately $2.8 billion for the rate-based approach and 

$3.3 billion for the mass-based approach (3 percent model 

average). For the rate-based approach, the air pollution 

health co-benefits in 2020 are estimated to be $0.7 billion 

to $1.8 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and 

$0.64 billion to $1.7 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent 

discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the air 

pollution health co-benefits in 2020 are estimated to be 

$2.0 billion to $4.8 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent 

discount rate and $1.8 billion to $4.4 billion (2011$) for 

a 7 percent discount rate. The annual, illustrative 

compliance costs estimated by IPM and inclusive of demandside energy efficiency program and participant costs and 

MRR costs in 2020, are approximately $2.5 billion for the 

rate-based approach and $1.4 billion for the mass-based 

approach (2011$). The quantified net benefits (the 

difference between monetized benefits and compliance costs) 

in 2020 are estimated to range from $1.0 billion to $2.1 

billion (2011$) for the rate-based approach and from $3.9 

billion to 6.7 billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, 

using a 3 percent discount rate (model average). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1406 of 1546

The EPA estimates that, in 2025, the final guidelines will 

yield monetized climate benefits (in 2011$) of approximately $10 

billion for the rate-based approach and $12 billion for the 

mass-based approach (3 percent model average). For the ratebased approach, the air pollution health co-benefits in 2025 are 

estimated to be $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2011$) for a 3 

percent discount rate and $6.7 billion to $16 billion (2011$) 

for a 7 percent discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the 

air pollution health co-benefits in 2025 are estimated to be 

$7.1 billion to $17 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount 

rate and $6.5 billion to $16 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent 

discount rate. The annual, illustrative compliance costs 

estimated by IPM and inclusive of demand side energy efficiency 

program and participant costs and MRR costs in 2025, are 

approximately $1.0 billion for the rate-based approach and $3.0 

billion for the mass-based approach (2011$). The quantified net 

benefits (the difference between monetized benefits and 

compliance costs) in 2025 are estimated to range from $17 

billion to $27 billion (2011$) for the rate-based approach and 

$16 billion to $26 billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, 

using a 3 percent discount rate (model average). 

The EPA estimates that, in 2030, the final guidelines will 

yield monetized climate benefits (in 2011$) of approximately $20 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1407 of 1546

billion for the rate-based approach and $20 billion for the 

mass-based approach (3 percent model average). For the ratebased approach, the air pollution health co-benefits in 2030 are 

estimated to be $14 billion to $34 billion (2011$) for a 3 

percent discount rate and $13 billion to $31 billion (2011$) for 

a 7 percent discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the air 

pollution health co-benefits in 2030 are estimated to be $12 

billion to $28 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and 

$11 billion to $26 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent discount 

rate. The annual, illustrative compliance costs estimated by IPM 

and inclusive of demand side energy efficiency program and 

participant costs and MRR costs in 2030, are approximately $8.4 

billion for the rate-based approach and $5.1 billion for the 

mass-based approach (2011$). The quantified net benefits (the 

difference between monetized benefits and compliance costs) in 

2030 are estimated to range from $26 billion to $45 billion 

(2011$) for the rate-based approach and from $26 billion to $43 

billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, using a 3 percent 

discount rate (model average). 

Table [X] and Table [X] provide the estimates of the 

climate benefits, health co-benefits, compliance costs and net 

benefits of the final emission guidelines for rate-based and 

mass-based illustrative plan approaches, respectively. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1408 of 1546

Table [X]. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the Final Guidelines in 2020, 2025 and 2030 

Under the Rate-Based Illustrative Plan Approach [Billions of 

2011$]a

 Rate-Based Approach 

2020 2025 2030

Climate 

Benefitsb 

5% discount 

rate $0.80 $3.1 $6.4 

3% discount 

rate $2.8 $10 $20 

2.5% 

discount 

rate 

$4.1 $15 $29 

95th 

percentile 

at 3% 

discount 

rate 

$8.2 $31 $61 

 Air Quality Co-benefits Discount Rate 

 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

Air Quality 

Health Cobenefitsc

$0.70 

to $1.8 

$0.64 

to $1.7 

$7.4 

to $18

$6.7 to 

$16 

$14 to 

$34 

$13 to 

$31 

Compliance 

Costsd $2.5 $1.0 $8.4 

Net 

Benefitse

$1.0 to 

$2.1 

$1.0 to 

$2.0 

$17 to 

$27 

$16 to 

$25 

$26 to 

$45 

$25 to 

$43 

Non-monetized climate benefits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1409 of 1546

NonMonetized 

Benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with reductions in 

emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and mercury 

Visibility impairment 

a All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not 

sum. 

b The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects 

global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for 

changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates 

are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2

emissions are long-lived and subsequent damages occur over many 

years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the 

average SC-CO2 estimated for a 3 percent discount rate. However, 

we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full 

range of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are 

also estimated using the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model 

average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 

95th percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2 estimates are yearspecific and increase over time. 

c The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure 

to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of SO2 and 

NOX. The range reflects the use of concentration-response 

functions from different epidemiology studies. The co-benefits 

do not include the benefits of reductions in directly emitted 

PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase overall benefits 

by a few percent based on the analyses conducted for the 

proposed rule. The reduction in premature fatalities each year 

accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from 

PM2.5 and ozone. These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

d Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance 

costs estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the 

final guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5 percent. 

This estimate includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1410 of 1546

costs and demand-side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs. 

e The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are 

calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate 

(model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health 

estimates based on additional discount rates. 

Table [X]. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the Final Guidelines in 2020, 2025 and 2030 

Under the Mass-Based Illustrative Plan Approach [Billions of 

2011$]a

 Mass-Based Approach

2020 2025 2030 

Climate 

Benefitsb 

5% discount 

rate $0.9 $3.6 $6.4 

3% discount 

rate $3.3 $12 $20 

2.5% 

discount 

rate 

$4.9 $17 $29 

95th 

percentile 

at 3% 

discount 

rate 

$9.7 $35 $60 

 Air Quality Co-benefits Discount Rate 

 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1411 of 1546

Air Quality 

Health Cobenefitsc

$2.0 to 

$4.8 

$1.8 to 

$4.4 

$7.1 

to $17

$6.5 to 

$16 

$12 to 

$28 

$11 to 

$26 

Compliance 

Costsd $1.4 $3.0 $5.1 

Net 

Benefitse

$3.9 to 

$6.7 

$3.7 to 

$6.3 

$16 to 

$26 

$15 to 

$24 

$26 to 

$43 

$25 to 

$40 

NonMonetized 

Benefits 

Non-monetized climate benefits 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2

Reductions in mercury deposition 

Ecosystem benefits associated with reductions in 

emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and mercury 

Visibility improvement 

a All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not 

sum. 

b The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects 

global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for 

changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates 

are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2

emissions are long-lived and subsequent damages occur over many 

years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the 

average SC-CO2 estimated for a 3 percent discount rate. However, 

we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full 

range of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are 

also estimated using the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model 

average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 

95th percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2 estimates are yearspecific and increase over time. 

c The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure 

to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of SO2 and 

NOX. The co-benefits do not include the benefits of reductions in 

directly emitted PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase 

overall benefits by a few percent based on the analyses 

conducted for the proposed rule. The range reflects the use of 

concentration-response functions from different epidemiology 

studies. The reduction in premature fatalities each year 

accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1412 of 1546

PM2.5 and ozone. These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is 

not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates 

by particle type. 

d Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance 

costs estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the 

final guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5 percent. 

This estimate includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

costs and demand-side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs. 

e The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are 

calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate 

(model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health 

estimates based on additional discount rates. 

There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not 

monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our 

estimates of the benefits from reducing CO2 emissions do not 

include important impacts like ocean acidification or potential 

tipping points in natural or managed ecosystems. Unquantified 

benefits also include climate benefits from reducing emissions 

of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) and 

co-benefits from reducing direct exposure to SO2, NOX and 

hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury), as well as from 

reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Based upon 

the foregoing discussion, it remains clear that the benefits of 

this final action are substantial, and far exceed the costs. 

Additional details on benefits, costs, and net benefits 

estimates are provided in this RIA.[ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1413 of 1546

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

 The information collection requirements in this rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the 

EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2503.02. You can find a 

copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

This rule does not directly impose specific requirements on 

EGUs located in states, U.S. territories or areas of Indian 

country. The rule also does not impose specific requirements on 

tribal governments that have affected EGUs located in their area 

of Indian country. For areas of Indian country, the rule 

establishes CO2 emission performance goals that could be 

addressed through either tribal or federal plans. A tribe would 

have the opportunity under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), but 

not the obligation, to apply to the EPA for Treatment as State 

(TAS) for purposes of a CAA section 111(d) plan and, if approved 

by the EPA, to establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for its area 

of Indian country. To date, no tribe has requested or obtained 

TAS eligibility for purposes of a CAA section 111(d) plan. For 

areas of Indian country with affected EGUs where a tribe has not 

applied for TAS and submitted any needed plan, if the EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1414 of 1546

determines that a CAA section 111(d) plan is necessary or 

appropriate, the EPA would have the responsibility to establish 

the plans. Because tribes are not required to implement section 

111(d) plans and because no tribe has yet sought TAS eligibility 

for this purpose, this action is not anticipated to impose any 

information collection burden on tribal governments over the 3-

year period covered by this ICR. 

This rule does impose specific requirements on state and 

U.S. territory governments with affected EGUs. The information 

collection requirements are based on the recordkeeping and 

reporting burden associated with developing, implementing, and 

enforcing a plan to limit CO2 emissions from existing sources in 

the utility power sector. These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to 

the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim 

of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this collection of information for 

the states (averaged over the first 3 years following 

promulgation) is estimated to be a range of 529,000 to 859,000 

hours at a total annual labor cost of $37.4 to $60.8 

million. The lower bound estimate reflects the assumption that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1415 of 1546

some states already have energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs in place. The higher bound estimate reflects the 

overly-conservative assumption that no states have energy 

efficiency and renewable energy programs in place. 

The annual burden for this collection of information for 

the two affected U.S. territories, i.e., Puerto Rico and Guam, 

(averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation of this 

action) is estimated to be 23,700 to 38,200 hours at a total 

annual labor cost of $1.68 to $2.71 million. 

The total annual burden for the federal government 

associated with the state collection of information (averaged 

over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated to 

be 54,900 hours at a total annual labor cost of $3.04 million. 

The total annual burden for the federal government associated 

with the territorial collection of information (averaged over 

the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated to be 

2,600 hours at a total annual labor cost of $145,000. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the agency will announce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1416 of 1546

that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for 

the approved information collection activities contained in this 

final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under 

the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small 

entities. Specifically, emission guidelines established under 

CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated 

entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small entities. After emission 

guidelines are promulgated, states and U.S. territories 

establish emission standards on existing sources, and it is 

those requirements that could potentially impact small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the 

analogous situation arising when the EPA establishes NAAQS, 

which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As 

here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise 

when states take subsequent action to maintain and/or 

achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See 

American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. 

Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not have significant impacts upon small 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1417 of 1546

entities because NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon 

small entities). 

Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that there is substantial 

interest in the rule among small entities and, as detailed in 

section III.A of the preamble to the proposed carbon pollution 

emission guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 34845-34847; June 

18, 2014) and in section II.D of the preamble to the proposed 

carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs in Indian 

Country and U.S. Territories (79 FR 65489; November 4, 2014), 

has conducted an unprecedented amount of stakeholder outreach. 

As part of that outreach, agency officials participated in many 

meetings with individual utilities and electric utility 

associations, as well as industry leaders and trade association 

representatives from various industries. While formulating the 

provisions of the rule, the EPA considered the input provided 

over the course of the stakeholder outreach as well as the input 

provided in the many public comments. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 

million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The 

emission guidelines do not impose any direct compliance 

requirements on EGUs located in states, U.S. territories or areas 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1418 of 1546

of Indian country. As explained in section XII.B above, the rule 

also does not impose specific requirements on tribal governments 

that have affected EGUs located in their area of Indian country. 

The rule does impose specific requirements on state and U.S. 

territory governments that have affected EGUs. Specifically, 

states and U.S. territories are required to develop plans to 

implement the guidelines under CAA section 111(d) for affected 

EGUs. The burden for states and U.S. territories to develop CAA 

section 111(d) plans in the 3-year period following promulgation 

of the rule was estimated and is listed in section XII.B above, 

but this burden is estimated to be below $100 million in any one 

year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 202 or section 205 of the UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Specifically, the state and U.S. territory 

governments to which rule requirements apply are not considered 

small governments. 

In light of the interest among governmental entities, the 

EPA conducted outreach with national organizations representing 

state and local elected officials and U.S. territory and tribal 

governmental entities while formulating the provisions of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1419 of 1546

rule. Sections III.A and XI.F of the preamble to the proposed 

carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 

34845-34847; June 18, 2014) and sections II.D and VI.F of the 

preamble to the proposed carbon pollution emission guidelines 

for existing EGUs in areas of Indian Country and U.S. 

Territories (79 FR 65489; November 4, 2014) describes the 

extensive stakeholder outreach the EPA has conducted on setting 

emission guidelines for existing EGUs. The EPA considered the 

input provided over the course of the stakeholder outreach as 

well as the input provided in the many public comments when 

developing the provisions of these emission guidelines. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

 The EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism 

implications, pursuant to agency policy for implementing the 

Order, because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 

state or local governments, and the federal government will not 

provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. As discussed in 

the Supporting Statement found in the docket for this 

rulemaking, the development of state plans will entail many 

hours of staff time to develop and coordinate programs for 

compliance with the rule, as well as time to work with state 

legislatures as appropriate, to develop a plan submittal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1420 of 1546

Consistent with this determination, the EPA provides the 

following federalism summary impact statement.

The EPA consulted with state and local officials early in 

the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to 

have meaningful and timely input into its development. As 

described in the Federalism discussion in the preamble to the 

proposed standards of performance for GHG emissions from new 

EGUs (79 FR 1501; January 8, 2014), the EPA consulted with state 

and local officials in the process of developing the proposed 

standards for newly constructed EGUs. This outreach addressed 

planned actions for new, reconstructed, modified and existing 

sources. The EPA invited the following 10 national organizations 

representing state and local elected officials to a meeting on 

April 12, 2011, in Washington DC: (1) National Governors 

Association; (2) National Conference of State Legislatures, (3) 

Council of State Governments, (4) National League of Cities, (5) 

U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National Association of Counties, 

(7) International City/County Management Association, (8) 

National Association of Towns and Townships, (9) County 

Executives of America, and (10) Environmental Council of States. 

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies also 

participated. On February 26, 2014, the EPA re-engaged with 

those governmental entities to provide a pre-proposal update on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1421 of 1546

the emission guidelines for existing EGUs and emission standards 

for modified and reconstructed EGUs. In addition, as described 

in section III.A of the preamble to the proposed carbon 

pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 34845-

34847; June 18, 2014), extensive stakeholder outreach conducted 

by the EPA allowed state leaders, including governors, state 

attorneys general, environmental commissioners, energy officers, 

public utility commissioners, and air directors, opportunities 

to engage with EPA officials and provide input regarding 

reducing carbon pollution from power plants. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

the EPA’s policy to promote communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed action from state and local officials. 

The EPA received comments from over 400 entities representing 

state and local governments. 

Several themes emerged from state and local government 

comments. Commenters raised concerns with the building blocks 

that comprise the best system of emission reduction (BSER), 

including the stringency of the building blocks, and the timing 

of achieving interim CO2 levels. They also identified the 

potential for electric system reliability issues and stranded 

assets due to the proposed timeframe for plan submittals and CO2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1422 of 1546

emission reductions. In addition, states commented on state plan 

development and implementation topics, including state plan 

approaches, early actions, trading programs, interstate 

crediting for RE, and EPA guidance and outreach. 

Commenters identified overarching concerns regarding the 

stringency of the CO2 goals and the timeframe for achieving 

reductions that encompassed the building blocks, the BSER, and 

associated timing for achievement of interim CO2 levels. State 

commenters, in particular, identified changes to the stringency 

of the building blocks, concerns with the timeframe over which 

reductions must be achieved, and concerns with the approaches 

and measures used for the BSER. For the final rule, in response 

to stakeholder comments, the EPA has made refinements to the 

building blocks, the period of time over which measures are 

deployed, and the stringency of emission limitations that those 

measures can achieve in a practical and reasonable cost way. The 

final BSER reflects those refinements. 

To many commenters, the proposal’s 2020 compliance date, 

together with the stringency of the interim CO2 goal, bore 

significant reliability implications. In this final rule, the 

agency is addressing those concerns via adjustments to the 

compliance timeframe (an 8-year interim period that begins in 

2022) and to the approach for meeting interim CO2 emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1423 of 1546

performance rates (a glide path separated into three steps, 

2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029), as well as a more gradual 

phase in of the emission reduction expectations. These 

adjustments provide more time for planning, consultation and 

decision making in the formulation of state plans and in EGUs’ 

choices of compliance strategies. The final rule also retains 

flexibilities presented in the proposal and offers additional 

opportunities, including opportunities for trading within and 

between states, and other multi-state compliance approaches that 

will further support electric system reliability. The EPA is 

also requiring states to consult with relevant ISOs/RTOs and/or 

planning/reliability authorities during plan development, and to 

document recommendations in their plans – and is providing the 

time for states to do so. Even with this foundation of 

flexibility in place, these final guidelines further provide 

states with the option of proposing amendments to approved plans 

in the event that unanticipated and significant reliability 

challenges arise. 

Commenters provided compelling information indicating that 

it will take longer than the agency initially anticipated to 

adjust investments and achieve interim CO2 reductions. 

Recognizing this, as well as the urgent need for actions to 

reduce GHG emissions, the EPA is requiring states to frame an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1424 of 1546

initial plan by August 31, 2016, and is allowing states two 

additional years to submit a final plan, if justified (to be 

submitted by August 31, 2018). 

States commented on state plan development and 

implementation topics that included state plan approaches, early 

actions being taken into account, trading programs being 

allowed, interstate crediting for RE being allowed, and guidance 

and outreach being provided by the EPA. For the state plan 

approaches, commenters expressed concerns with the proposed 

“portfolio approach” for state plans, including concerns with 

enforceability of requirements, and identified a “state 

commitment approach” with backstop measures as an option for 

state plans. In this final rule, in response to stakeholder 

comments on the portfolio approach and alternative approaches, 

the EPA is finalizing a “state measures” approach that includes 

a requirement for the inclusion of backstop measures. 

State commenters also expressed interest in the EPA 

ensuring that early actions to reduce CO2 are rewarded. In this 

final rule, states with currently existing programs and 

policies, and states that put in place new programs and policies 

early, will be better positioned to achieve the CO2 goals. 

Measures that a state takes prior to 2022, or programs already 

in place by 2022, that result in CO2 emission reductions during 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1425 of 1546

the 2022-2029 period will contribute toward meeting both the 

interim and final CO2 emission performance rates. Thus, states 

with currently existing programs and policies, and states that 

put in place new programs and policies early, will be better 

positioned to achieve the goals. RE generating capacity and 

demand-side EE measures that are installed after 2012 will be 

eligible for use in adjusting a CO2 emission performance rate. 

Many state commenters supported the use of mass-based and 

rate-based emission trading programs in state plans, including 

interstate emission trading programs. The EPA also received a 

number of comments from states and stakeholders about the value 

of EPA support in developing and/or administering tracking 

systems to support state administration of rate-based and massbased emission trading programs. In this final rule, states may 

use trading or averaging approaches and technologies or 

strategies that are not explicitly mentioned in any of the three 

building blocks as part of their overall plans, as long as they 

achieve the required emission reductions from affected fossilfuel-fired EGUs. In addition, in response to concerns from 

states and power companies that the need for up-front interstate 

cooperation in developing multi-state plans could inhibit the 

development of interstate programs that could lower cost, the 

final rule provides additional options to allow individual EGUs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1426 of 1546

to use creditable out-of-state reductions to achieve required CO2

reductions, without the need for up-front interstate agreements. 

The EPA is committed to working with states to provide support 

for tracking of emissions and allowances or credits, to help 

implement multi-state trading or averaging approaches. 

In their comments, many states identified the need for the 

EPA to provide guidance, including guidance on RE and EE 

emission measurement and verification (EM&V), and to maintain 

regular contact/forums with states throughout the implementation 

process. To provide state and local governments and other 

stakeholders with an understanding of the rule requirements, and 

to provide efficiencies where possible and reduce the cost and 

administrative burden, the EPA will continue outreach throughout 

the plan development and submittal process. Outreach will 

include opportunities for states to participate in briefings, 

teleconferences, and meetings about the final rule. The EPA’s 10 

regional offices will continue to be the entry point for states, 

tribes and territories to ask technical and policy questions. 

The agency will host (or partner with appropriate groups to cohost) a number of webinars about various components of the final 

rule during the first two months after the final rule is issued. 

The EPA will use information from this outreach process to 

inform the training and other tools that will be of most use to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1427 of 1546

the states, tribes, and territories that are implementing the 

final rule. The EPA expects to issue guidance on specific 

topics, including evaluation, measurement and verification 

(EM&V) for RE and demand-side EE, state-community engagement, 

and resources and financial assistance for RE and demand-side 

EE. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources 

become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue 

to make these resources available via a dedicated website. 

A list of the state and local government commenters has 

been provided to OMB and has been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In addition, the detailed response to comments from 

these entities is contained in the EPA’s response to comments 

document on this final rulemaking, which has also been placed in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

 As required by section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132, the EPA 

included a certification from its Federalism Official stating 

that the EPA had met the Executive Order’s requirements in a 

meaningful and timely manner when it sent the draft of this 

final action to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 

12866. A copy of the certification is included in the public 

version of the official record for this final action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1428 of 1546

Indian Tribal Governments 

This action has tribal implications. However, it will 

neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally 

recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Tribes 

are not required to develop or adopt CAA programs, but they may 

apply to the EPA for treatment in a manner similar to states 

(TAS) and, if approved, do so. As a result, tribes are not 

required to develop plans to implement the guidelines under CAA 

section 111(d) for affected EGUs in their areas of Indian 

country. To the extent that a tribal government seeks and 

attains TAS status for that purpose, these emission guidelines 

would require that planning requirements be met and emission 

management implementation plans be executed by the tribes. The 

EPA notes that this rule does not directly impose specific 

requirements on affected EGUs, including those located in areas 

of Indian country, but provides guidance to any tribe approved 

by the EPA to address CO2 emissions from EGUs subject to section 

111(d) of the CAA. The EPA also notes that none of the affected 

EGUs are owned or operated by tribal governments. 

 As described in sections III.A and XI.F of the preamble to 

the proposed carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing 

EGUs (79 FR 34845-34847; June 18, 2014) and sections II.D and 

VI.F of the preamble to the proposed carbon pollution emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1429 of 1546

guidelines for existing EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. 

Territories (79 FR 65489; November 4, 2014), the rule was 

developed after extensive and vigorous outreach to tribal 

governments. These tribes expressed varied points of view. Some 

tribes raised concerns about the impacts of the regulations on 

EGUs located in their areas of Indian country and the subsequent 

impact on jobs and revenue for their tribes. Other tribes 

expressed concern about the impact the regulations would have on 

the cost of water covered under treaty to their communities as a 

result of increased costs to the EGU that provide energy to 

transport the water to the tribes. Other tribes raised concerns 

about the impacts of climate change on their communities, 

resources, ways of life and hunting and treaty rights. The 

tribes were also interested in the scope of the guidelines being 

considered by the agency (e.g., over what time period, 

relationship to state and multi-state plans) and how tribes will 

participate in these planning activities. 

The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early 

in the process of developing this action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of 

that consultation follows. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1430 of 1546

Prior to issuing the supplemental proposal on November 4, 

2014, the EPA consulted with tribes as follows. The EPA held a 

consultation with the Ute Tribe, the Crow Nation, and the 

Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara (MHA) Nation on July 18, 2014. On 

August 22, 2014, the EPA held a consultation with the Fort 

Mojave Tribe. On September 15, 2014, the EPA held a consultation 

with the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation sent a letter to the 

EPA on September 18, 2014, summarizing the information presented 

at the consultation and the Navajo Nation’s position on the 

supplemental proposal. One issue raised by tribal officials was 

the potential impacts of the June 18, 2014 proposal and the 

supplemental proposal on tribes with budgets that are dependent 

on revenue from coal mines and power plants, as well as 

employment at the mines and power plants. The tribes noted the 

high unemployment rates and lack of access to basic services on 

their lands. Tribal officials also asked whether the rules will 

have any impact on a tribe’s ability to seek TAS. Tribal 

officials also expressed interest in agency actions with regard 

to facilitating power plant compliance with regulatory 

requirements. The Navajo Nation made the following 

recommendations in their letter of September 18, 2014: the 

Navajo Nation supports a mass-based CO2 emission standard based 

on the highest historical CO2 emissions since 1996; the Navajo 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1431 of 1546

Nation requests that the EPA grant the Navajo Nation carbon 

credits and that the Navajo Nation retains ownership and control 

of such credits; building block 2 is not appropriate for the 

Navajo Nation because there are no NGCC plants located on the 

Navajo Nation; building block 3 is not appropriate for the 

Navajo Nation because the Navajo people already receive 

virtually all of their electricity from carbon-free sources 

(mostly hydroelectric power) and their use of electricity is 

negligible compared to the generation at the power plants; 

building block 4 is not appropriate for the Navajo Nation 

because of the inadequate access to electricity, and the goal 

should allow for an increase in energy consumption on the Navajo 

Nation; the supplemental proposal should consider the useful 

life of the power plants located on the Navajo Nation; and the 

supplemental proposal should clarify that RE projects located 

within the Navajo Nation that provide electricity outside the 

Navajo Nation should be counted toward meeting the relevant 

state’s RE goals under the Clean Power Plan. 

After issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA held 

additional consultation with tribes. On November 18, 2014, the 

EPA held consultations with the following tribes: Fort McDowell 

Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, 

and Ak-Chin Indian Community. A consultation with the Ute Indian 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1432 of 1546

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation was held on December 

16, 2014 and with the Gila River Indian Community on January 15, 

2015. The Navajo Nation reiterated the concerns raised during 

the previous consultation. Several tribes also again indicated 

that they wanted to ensure they would be included in the 

development of any tribal or federal plans for areas of Indian 

country. The Fort Mojave Tribe and the Navajo Nation expressed 

concern with using data from 2012 as the basis for the goal for 

their areas of Indian country; in their view, that year was not 

representative for the affected EGU. On April 28, 2015, the EPA 

held an additional consultation with the Navajo Nation. The 

issues raised by the Navajo Nation during the consultation 

included whether the EPA has the authority to set less stringent 

standards on a case-by-case basis, and a suggested “parity glide 

path” that would account and adjust for the very low electricity 

usage by the Navajo Nation and promote Navajo Nation economic 

growth and demand. Furthermore, on July 7, 2015 the EPA 

conducted an additional consultation with the Navajo Nation. One 

of the goals of the consultation was for the new government of 

the Navajo Nation to deepen their understanding of the 

rulemaking. The questions raised by the nation had to do with 

goal setting and carbon credits, the timing of the rulemaking, 

and the proposed federal plan. Additionally, on July 14, 2015 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1433 of 1546

the EPA conducted an additional consultation with the Fort 

Mojave Tribe. The Fort Mojave tribes expressed concerns that 

2012 is not a representative year, that natural gas-fired 

combined cycle power plants should be treated differently from 

coal-fired power plants, and that the proposed goal for Fort 

Mojave was not appropriate. Additionally, they also expressed 

interest in being engaged in the federal plan process. Responses 

to these comments and others received are available in the 

Response to Comment Document that is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. As required by section 7(a), the EPA’s Tribal 

Consultation Official has certified that the requirements of the 

executive order have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. 

A copy of the certification is included in the docket for this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economically significant 

regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the 

EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on 

children. Accordingly, the agency has evaluated the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1434 of 1546

environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on 

children. 

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate 

change and is emitted in significant quantities by fossil fuelfired power plants. The EPA believes that the CO2 emission 

reductions resulting from implementation of these final 

guidelines, as well as substantial ozone and PM2.5 emission 

reductions as a co-benefit, will further improve children’s 

health. 

The assessment literature cited in the EPA’s 2009 

Endangerment Finding concluded that certain populations and 

lifestages, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are 

most vulnerable to climate-related health effects. The 

assessment literature since 2009 strengthens these conclusions 

by providing more detailed findings regarding these groups’ 

vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience. 

These assessments describe how children’s unique 

physiological and developmental factors contribute to making 

them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Impacts to 

children are expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious 

and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects resulting 

from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among 

those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1435 of 1546

as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and 

floods. Additional health concerns may arise in low income 

households, especially those with children, if climate change 

reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food 

insecurity within households. 

More detailed information on the impacts of climate change 

to human health and welfare is provided in section II.A of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action, which is a significant regulatory action under 

EO 12866, is likely to have a significant effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a Statement 

of Energy Effects for this action as follows. We estimate a 1 to 

2 percent change in retail electricity prices on average across 

the contiguous U.S. in 2025, and a 22 to 23 percent reduction in 

coal-fired electricity generation as a result of this rule. The 

EPA projects that utility power sector delivered natural gas 

prices will increase by up to 2.5 percent in 2030. For more 

information on the estimated energy effects, please refer to the 

economic impact analysis for this proposal. The analysis is 

available in the RIA, which is in the public docket. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1436 of 1546

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the U.S. The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA has this goal for all 

communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved 

when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from 

environmental and health hazards and equal access to the 

decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which 

to live, learn, and work. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1437 of 1546

Leading up to this rulemaking the EPA summarized the public 

health and welfare effects of GHG emissions in its 2009 

Endangerment Finding. See, section VIII.A of this preamble where 

the EPA summarizes the public health and welfare impacts from 

GHG emissions that were detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).1019 As part of the 

Endangerment Finding, the Administrator considered climate 

change risks to minority populations and low-income populations, 

finding that certain parts of the population may be especially 

vulnerable based on their characteristics or circumstances. 

Populations that were found to be particularly vulnerable to 

climate change risks include the poor, the elderly, the very 

young, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living 

alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few 

resources. See sections XII.F and XII.G, above, where the EPA 

discusses Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments 

and Protection of Children. The Administrator placed weight on 

the fact that certain groups, including children, the elderly, 

and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-related health 

effects. 

 

1019 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Fed. Reg. 

66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (“Endangerment Finding”). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1438 of 1546

The record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding summarizes the 

strong scientific evidence in the major assessment reports by 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the 

National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies that 

the potential impacts of climate change raise environmental 

justice issues. These reports concluded that poor communities 

can be especially vulnerable to climate change impacts because 

they tend to have more limited adaptive capacities and are more 

dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and 

food supplies. In addition, Native American tribal communities 

possess unique vulnerabilities to climate change, particularly 

those impacted by degradation of natural and cultural resources 

within established reservation boundaries and threats to 

traditional subsistence lifestyles. Tribal communities whose 

health, economic well-being, and cultural traditions that depend 

upon the natural environment will likely be affected by the 

degradation of ecosystem goods and services associated with 

climate change. The 2009 Endangerment Finding record also 

specifically noted that Southwest native cultures are especially 

vulnerable to water quality and availability impacts. Native 

Alaskan communities are already experiencing disruptive impacts, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1439 of 1546

including coastal erosion and shifts in the range or abundance 

of wild species crucial to their livelihoods and well-being. 

The most recent assessments continue to strengthen 

scientific understanding of climate change risks to minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States.1020

The new assessment literature provides more detailed findings 

regarding these populations’ vulnerabilities and projected 

impacts they may experience. In addition, the most recent 

assessment reports provide new information on how some 

communities of color (more specifically, populations defined 

jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic 

 

1020 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, 

Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, 841 pp. 

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. 

Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. 

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. 

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp. 

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, 

M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. 

Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. 

Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, 688 pp.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1440 of 1546

location) may be uniquely vulnerable to climate change health 

impacts in the United States. These reports find that certain 

climate change related impacts—including heat waves, degraded 

air quality, and extreme weather events—have disproportionate 

effects on low-income populations and some communities of color, 

raising environmental justice concerns. Existing health 

disparities and other inequities in these communities increase 

their vulnerability to the health effects of climate change. In 

addition, assessment reports also find that climate change poses 

particular threats to health, well-being, and ways of life of 

indigenous peoples in the United States. 

As the scientific literature presented above and as the 

2009 Endangerment Finding illustrates, low income populations 

and some communities of color are especially vulnerable to the 

health and other adverse impacts of climate change. The EPA 

believes that communities will benefit from this final 

rulemaking because this action directly addresses the impacts of 

climate change by limiting GHG emissions through the 

establishment of CO2 emission guidelines for existing affected 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 

In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, the guidelines 

finalized in this rulemaking would reduce other emissions from 

affected EGUs that reduce generation due to higher adoption of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1441 of 1546

energy efficiency and renewable energy. These emission 

reductions will include SO2 and NOx, which form ambient PM2.5 and 

ozone in the atmosphere, and hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

such as mercury and hydrochloric acid. In the final rule 

revising the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,1021 the EPA identified low-income 

populations as being a vulnerable population for experiencing 

adverse health effects related to PM exposures. Low-income 

populations have been generally found to have a higher 

prevalence of pre-existing diseases, limited access to medical 

treatment, and increased nutritional deficiencies, which can 

increase this population’s susceptibility to PM-related 

effects.1022 In areas where this rulemaking reduces exposure to 

PM2.5, ozone, and methylmercury, low-income populations will also 

benefit from such emissions reductions. The RIA for this 

rulemaking, included in the docket for this rulemaking, provides 

additional information regarding the health and ecosystem 

effects associated with these emission reductions. 

Additionally, as outlined in the community and 

environmental justice considerations section IX of this 

 

1021 “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter, Final Rule,” 78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013). 

1022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet 

at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1442 of 1546

preamble, the EPA has taken a number of actions to help ensure 

that this action will not have potential disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

overburdened communities. The EPA consulted its May 2015, 

Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of Regulatory Actions, when determining what actions 

to take.1023 As described in the community and environmental 

justice considerations section of this preamble the EPA also 

conducted a proximity analysis, which is available in the docket 

of this rulemaking and is discussed in section IX. Additionally, 

as outlined in sections I and IX of this preamble, the EPA has 

engaged with communities throughout this rulemaking and has 

devised a robust outreach strategy for continual engagement 

throughout the implementation phase of this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

 This final action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United States. This action is a 

“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

XIII. Statutory Authority 

 

1023 Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of Regulatory Actions. 

http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering

-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf. May 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Page 1443 of 1546

The statutory authority for this action is provided by 

sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d)(1)(C) of the CAA as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d)(1)(C)). This action is also 

subject to section 307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

Carbon Pollution 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units 

Page 1444 of 1546

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

___________________ 

Dated: 

____________________ 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

 
Page 1445 of 1546

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, 

part 60 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 

1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Add subpart UUUU to read as follows:

Subpart--UUUU Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units 

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.5700 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5705 What pollutants are regulated by this subpart? 

60.5710 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5715 What is the review and approval process for my state 

plan? 

60.5720 What if I do not submit a plan or my plan is not 

approvable? 

60.5725 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d) obligations? 

60.5730 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

60.5735 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5736 Will the EPA impose any sanctions? 

60.5737 What is the Clean Energy Incentive Program and how do 

I participate? 

State and Multi-state Plan Requirements 

60.5740 What must I include in my federally enforceable state 

or multi-state plan? 

60.5745 What must I include in my final plan submittal? 

60.5750 Can I work with other states to develop a multi-state 
Page 1446 of 1546

plan? 

60.5755 Can I include existing requirements, programs, and 

measures in my plan? 

60.5760 What are the timing requirements for submitting my 

plan? 

60.5765 What must I include in an initial plan submittal in 

lieu of a final plan submittal? 

60.5770 What schedules, performance periods, and compliance 

periods must I include in my plan? 

60.5775 What emission standards must I include in my plan? 

60.5780 What state measures may I include in support of my 

plan? 

60.5785 What is the procedure for revising my plan? 

60.5790 What must I do to meet my plan obligations? 

Emission Rate Credit Requirements 

60.5795 What affected EGUs qualify for generation of ERCs? 

60.5800 What ERC resources qualify for generation of ERCs in 

addition to affected EGUs? 

60.5805 What is the process for the issuance of ERCs? 

60.5810 What applicable requirements are there for an ERC 

tracking system? 

Mass Allocations Requirements 

60.5811 What are the requirements for state allocation of 

allowances in a mass based program? 

60.5812 What are my allowance tracking requirements? 

60.5813 What is the process for affected EGUs to demonstrate 

compliance in a mass based program? 

Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plans and Monitoring and 

Verification Reports 

60.5820 What are the requirements for EM&V plans for qualified 

ERC resources? 

60.5825 What are the requirements for M&V reports for 

qualified ERC resources? 

Applicability of Plans to Affected EGUs

60.5835 Does this subpart directly affect EGU owners and 

operators in my state? 

60.5840 What affected EGUs must I address in my state plan? 

60.5845 What affected EGUs are exempt from my state plan? 

60.5850 What are the CO2 emission performance rates for 

affected EGUs? 

60.5855 What applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements do I need to include in my 

state plan for affected EGUs? 
Page 1447 of 1546

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

60.5860 What are my state recordkeeping requirements? 

60.5865 What are my state reporting and notification 

requirements? 

60.5870 How do I submit information required by these Emission 

Guidelines to the EPA? 

Definitions 

60.5875 What definitions apply to this subpart? 

Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—CO2 Emission Performance Rates 

(Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh) 

Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—Statewide Rate-based CO2

Emission Goals (Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh) 

Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—Statewide Mass-based CO2

Emission Goals (Tons of CO2) 

Introduction 

§60.5700 What is the purpose of this subpart?

 This subpart establishes emission guidelines and approval 

criteria for state or multi-state plans that establish emission 

standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from an affected 

steam generating unit, integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC), or stationary combustion turbine. An affected steam 

generating unit, IGCC, or stationary combustion turbine shall, 

for the purposes of this subpart, be referred to as an affected 

EGU. These emission guidelines are developed in accordance with 

sections 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. 

To the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 
Page 1448 of 1546

with the requirements of subparts A or B of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.5705 What pollutants are regulated by this subpart? 

 (a) The pollutants regulated by this subpart are greenhouse 

gases. 

(b) The greenhouse gas regulated by this subpart is carbon 

dioxide (CO2). 

§60.5710 Am I affected by this subpart? 

 If you are the Governor of a state in the contiguous United 

States with one or more affected EGUs that commenced 

construction on or before January 8, 2014, you must submit a 

state or multi-state plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) that implements the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. You must submit a negative declaration letter 

in place of the state plan if there are no affected EGUs for 

which construction commenced on or before January 8, 2014 in 

your state. 

§60.5715 What is the review and approval process for my plan? 

The EPA will review your plan according to §60.27 except 

that under §60.27(b) the Administrator will have 12 months after 

the date the final plan or plan revision (as allowed under 

§60.5795) is submitted, to approve or disapprove such plan or 

revision or each portion thereof. If you submit an initial plan 
Page 1449 of 1546

submittal under §60.5765(a) in lieu of a final plan submittal 

the EPA will follow the procedure in §60.5765(b). 

§60.5720 What if I do not submit a plan or my plan is not 

approvable? 

(a) If you do not submit an approvable plan the EPA will 

develop a Federal plan for your state according to §60.27 except 

that under §60.27(d) the EPA will have one year to promulgate a 

Federal plan for your state from the date EPA finds you failed 

to submit a plan or EPA disapproves your plan. The Federal plan 

will implement the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. Owners and operators of affected EGUs not covered by an 

approved plan must comply with a Federal plan implemented by the 

EPA for the state. 

(b) After a Federal plan has been implemented in your 

state, it will be withdrawn upon the effective date of a plan, 

submitted by your state, that EPA has approved. 

§60.5725 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its CAA section 111(d) 

obligations? 

 A state may meet its CAA section 111(d) obligations only by 

submitting a final state or multi-state plan submittal or a 

negative declaration letter (if applicable). 

§60.5730 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

Deleted: when

Commented [A81]: edit 

Deleted: your state submits, and the EPA 

approves, a final plan
Page 1450 of 1546

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter has 

been received, the EPA will place a copy in the public docket 

and publish a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. If, at a later date, 

an affected EGU for which construction commenced on or before 

January 8, 2014 is found in your state, you will have been found 

to have failed to submit a final plan as required, and a Federal 

plan implementing the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart will apply to that affected EGU until you submit, and 

EPA approves, a final state plan. 

§60.5735 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, 

or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives, not already approved by this 

subpart, to the CO2 emissions performance rates in Table 1 to 

this subpart established under §60.5850. 

(b) Approval of alternatives, not already approved by this 

subpart, to the CO2 emissions goals in Tables 2 and 3 to this 

subpart established under §60.5850. 

§60.5736 Will the EPA impose any sanctions? 

The EPA will not withhold any existing federal funds from a 

state on account of a state’s failure to submit, implement, or 

Commented [A82]: edit 
Page 1451 of 1546

enforce an approvable plan or plan revision, or to meet any 

other requirements under this subpart or subpart B of this part. 

§60.5737 What is the Clean Energy Incentive Program and how do 

I participate? 

(a) This subpart establishes the Clean Energy Incentive 

Program. Participation in this program is optional. The program 

enables states to award early action emission rate credits 

(ERCs) and allowances for generation and savings achieved in 

2020 and 2021 that result from the following types of renewable 

energy and demand-side EE projects implemented from the 

effective date of these EGs until December 31, 2021: 

(1) Wind; 

(2) Solar; or 

(3) Demand-side EE. 

(b) The EPA will award matching ERCs or allowances to 

states that award early action ERCs or allowances, up to a limit 

equivalent to 300 million tons of CO2 emissions. For qualifying 

projects that benefit low-income communities, the EPA, rather 

than a combination of the state and EPA, will provide the 

entirety of the award. 

(c) You may participate in this program upon demonstration 

in the plan that the state has a mechanism in place that enables 

issuance of early action ERCs or allowances by the state to 

parties effectuating reductions in the calendar years 2020 and 

Commented [A83]: will want to make consistent with final 

structure 
Page 1452 of 1546

2021 in a manner that would have no impact on the emission 

performance of affected EGUs required to meet rate-based or 

mass-based emission standards during the performance periods. 

This demonstration is not required to account for matching ERCs 

or allowances that may be issued to the state by the EPA. 

(d) You must indicate in your final plan submittal or 

initial plan submittal, whichever you elect to submit by 

September 6, 2016, your intent to participate in this program. 

In the case that a state submits a final plan submittal by 

September 6, 2016, you may indicate your intent in supporting or 

supplemental documentation. Such a state will have the 

opportunity to include the requirements for this program in a 

plan revision that would follow the future EPA action that will 

codify all requirements for the Clean Energy Incentive Program. 

State and Multi-state Plan Requirements 

§60.5740 What must my federally enforceable state or multi 

state plan include? 

(a) You must include the components described in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section in your plan submittal. These 

components of your plan submittal will be codified as part of 

the federally enforceable plan upon approval by EPA. The final 

plan submittal must meet the requirements and include the 

information required under §60.5745. 
Page 1453 of 1546

(1) Identification of affected EGUs. Consistent with 

§60.25(a), you must identify the affected EGUs covered by your 

plan and all affected EGUs in your state that meet the 

applicability criteria in §60.5840. In addition you must include 

an inventory of CO2 emissions from the affected EGUs during the 

most recent calendar year for which data is available prior to 

the submission of the plan. 

(2) Emission Standards. You must include an identification 

of all emission standards for each affected EGU according to 

§60.5775, compliance periods for each emission standard 

according to §60.5770, and a demonstration that the emission 

standards are, when taken together, sufficiently protective to 

meet the applicable CO2 emission performance rates described in 

§60.5850. Allowance systems are an acceptable form of emission 

standards under this subpart. State emission standards and 

other plan components may be more protective than is required by 

these regulations.

(i) If your plan does not require emission standards for 

all affected EGUs equal to or less than the CO2 emission 

performance rates or rate-based emission goals, as applicable, 

that assure achievement of such performance rates or emission 

goals your plan must include the requirement for corrective 

measures to be implemented. These corrective measures upon 

triggering, if not already included in your approved state plan, 

Commented [A84]: edit 
Page 1454 of 1546

must be submitted to EPA for approval as a plan revision, and 

must ensure that the interim period and final period CO2 emission 

performance rates or CO2 emission goals are achieved by your 

affected EGUs, as applicable. Your plan must include the 

requirement for corrective measures to be triggered and 

implemented if: 

(A) there is an exceedance of an interim step 1 or interim 

step 2 CO2 emission performance rate or CO2 emission goal by 10 

percent or greater, either on average or cumulatively as 

applicable; or 

(B) if there is a failure to meet the interim period or any 

final step CO2 emission performance rates or CO2 emission goals 

either on average or cumulatively, as applicable. 

(ii) If your plan relies upon state measures, in addition 

to or in lieu of emission standards on your affected EGUs, then 

the final state plan must include the information in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section and the submittal must include the 

information listed in §60.5745(a)(6). 

(iii) If your plan requires emission standards in addition 

to relying upon state measures then you must demonstrate that 

the emission standards and state measures are, when taken 

together, sufficiently protective to meet the applicable massbased CO2 emission goal described in §60.5850. 
Page 1455 of 1546

(3) State Measures Backstop. If your plan relies upon state 

measures, you must submit, as part of the plan, a federally 

enforceable backstop that includes emission standards for 

affected EGUs that will be put into place, if there is a 

triggering event listed in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, 

within 18 months of the report required under §60.5865(c). The 

emission standards on the affected EGUs as part of the backstop 

must be able to meet either the CO2 emission performance rates or 

CO2 emission goal required to be achieved by your plan for both 

the interim period and final periods. You must either submit, 

along with the backstop emission standards, provisions to adjust 

the emission standards to account for the prior emission 

performance shortfall, such that no modification of the emission 

standards is necessary in order to address the emission 

performance shortfall, or you must submit, as part of the final 

plan, backstop emission standards that assure affected EGUs 

would achieve your state’s mass-based interim and final CO2 goals 

for affected EGUs, and then later submit appropriate revisions 

to the backstop emission standards adjusting for the shortfall 

through the state plan revision process described in §60.5785. 

The backstop must also include the following: 

(i) A trigger for the backstop to go into effect upon: 

(A) a failure to meet a programmatic milestone, 
Page 1456 of 1546

(B) an exceedance of 10 percent or greater of an interim 

step 1 goal or interim step 2 goal, 

(C) a failure to meet an interim period goal, 

(D) or a failure to meet any final step in the final 

period. 

(ii) You may include in your plan any additional triggers 

so long as they do not affect the stringency of the two triggers 

required under this paragraph. 

(iii) A schedule for implementation of the backstop once 

triggered, and you must identify all necessary state 

administrative and technical procedures for implementing the 

backstop. 

(4) Identification of applicable monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for each affected EGU. You must 

include in your plan an identification of all applicable 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for each 

affected EGU and the requirements must be consistent with or no 

less stringent than the requirements specified in §60.5855.

(5) State Reporting. You must include in your plan a 

description of the process, contents, and schedule for state 

reporting to the EPA about plan implementation and progress 

including information required under §60.5865. 

(i) You must include in your plan a requirement for a 

report to be submitted by July 1, 2021, that demonstrates that 
Page 1457 of 1546

the state has met, or is on track to meet, the programmatic 

milestone steps indicated in the timeline required in (cross 

reference to timeline requirement once numbering is settled). 

(b) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of this 

part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for Designated 

Facilities) and demonstrate that they were met in your state 

plan. However, the provisions of §60.24(f) shall not apply. 

§60.5745 What must I include in my final plan submittal? 

(a) In addition to the components of the plan listed in 

§60.5740 a final plan submittal to the EPA must include the 

information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (14) of this section. 

This information must be submitted to the EPA as part of your 

final plan submittal but will not be codified as part of the 

federally enforceable plan upon approval by EPA. 

(1) You must include a description of your plan approach 

and the geographic scope of the plan (i.e., state or multistate, geographic boundaries related to the plan elements), 

including, if applicable, identification of multi-state plan 

participants. 

(2) You must identify CO2 emission performance rates or 

equivalent statewide emission goals that your affected EGUs will 

achieve through the implementation of your plan. If the 

geography scope of your plan is a single-state then you must 

include CO2 emission performance rates or emission goals 
Page 1458 of 1546

according to §60.5850. If your plan includes multiple states and 

you elect to set CO2 emission performance goals, you must include 

CO2 emission goals calculated according to §60.5750. 

(i) You must specify in the plan submittal the CO2 emission 

performance rates or emission goals that affected EGUs will meet 

for the interim period, each interim step, the final period, and 

each final step, pursuant to §60.5770. 

(3) You must include a demonstration that the affected EGUs 

covered by the plan are projected to achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or CO2 emission goals described in §60.5850. 

(4) You must include a demonstration that each affected 

EGU’s emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, verifiable, and enforceable according to §60.5775. 

(5) If your plan includes emission standards on your 

affected EGUs sufficient to meet either the CO2 emission 

performance rates or CO2 emision goals you must include in your 

plan submittal the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section as applicable. 

(i) If the emission standards in your plan applies separate 

rate-based CO2 emission standards for affected EGUs (in lbs 

CO2/MWh) that are equal to or lower than the CO2 emission 

performance rates listed in table 1 then no additional 

demonstration is required beyond inclusion of the emission 

standards in the plan. 
Page 1459 of 1546

(ii) If a plan applies rate-based emission standards to 

individual affected EGUs at a lb CO2/MWh rate that differs from 

the CO2 emission performance rates in table 1 of this subpart or 

the state’s rate-based CO2 emission goal in table 2 of this 

subpart, then a further demonstration is required that the 

application of the CO2 emission standards will achieve the CO2

emission performance rates or state rate-based CO2 goal. You must 

demonstrate through a projection that the weighted average CO2

emission rate of affected EGUs, when weighted by generation (in 

MWh), will be equal to or less than the CO2 emission performance 

rates or the rate-based CO2 emission goal. This projection must 

address the interim period, each interim step, the final period, 

and each final step. The projection in the plan submittal must 

include the following: 

(A) A summary of each affected EGU’s anticipated future 

operation characteristics, including annual generation, CO2

emissions, capacity and capacity factors; 

(B) Planned affected EGU retirements; 

(C) Anticipated adjustments based on use of ERCs in 

compliance demonstrations by affected EGUs, and details about 

the specific anticipated ERCs, including but not limited to, 

anticipated quantities (in MWh) of specific technology-types 

(e.g., wind, solar, nuclear), the physical location of the 

resources providing ERCs, and any other relevant information 

Commented [A85]: we would like to discuss these projections 
Page 1460 of 1546

(e.g., power purchase agreements (PPAs) and other long-term 

power contracts); and an explanation, with calculation, of how 

these measures are being used in the projection to adjust the CO2

emission rate of affected EGUs; 

(D) Anticipated electricity demand growth at the state or 

regional level, including the source and basis for these 

estimates; 

(E) Anticipated fuel switching at affected EGUs; 

(F) Heat rate improvements at affected EGUs; 

(G) Demonstration that each emission standard included in 

your plan meets the requirements of §60.5775; and 

(H) Any other applicable assumptions used in the 

projection. 

(iii) If a plan applies mass-based emission standards to 

individual affected EGUs you must include a demonstration that 

your mass-based emission program will be designed such that 

compliance by affected EGUs would achieve the state mass-based 

CO2 emission goals. This demonstration includes emission budgets 

for affected EGUs during the interim period and final periods 

that are equal to or lower than the applicable state mass-based 

CO2 goals specified in table 3 of this subpart. The compliance 

periods in your plan for affected EGUs must align with each 

interim step and final step in your plan. 
Page 1461 of 1546

(6) If your plan relies upon state measures, in addition to 

or in lieu of the emission standards required by paragraph 

§60.5740(a)(2), the final state plan submittal must include the 

information under paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

(i) You must include a description of all the state 

measures the state will rely upon to achieve the applicable CO2

emission goals required under §60.5850(e), the applicable state 

laws or regulations related to such measures, and identification 

of parties or entities implementing such state measures. 

(ii) You must include the schedule and milestones for the 

implementation of the state measures. If the state measures in 

your plan submittal rely upon measures that do not have a direct 

effect on the emissions measured at an affected EGUs stack 

emissions, you must also demonstrate how the minimum emission, 

monitoring and verification (EM&V) requirements listed under 

§60.5795 that apply to those programs and projects will be met. 

(iii) You must demonstrate that the federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs, if included in the plan, 

and state measures, are sufficient to attain the CO2 emission 

goal for the interim period, each interim step in that interim 

period, the final period, and each final step in that final 

period. In addition, you must demonstrate that each emission 

standard included in your plan meets the requirements of 
Page 1462 of 1546

§60.5775, and each state measure included in your plan submittal 

meets the requirements of §60.5780. 

(iv) You must include a CO2 performance projection of your 

state measure that shows how the measures will achieve the 

future CO2 performance at affected EGUs. Elements of this 

projection must include the following for the interim period and 

the final period: 

(A) A baseline demand and supply forecast as well as the 

underlying assumptions and data sources of each forecast, with 

appropriate consideration of the portion of demand growth 

accommodated by the state’s mass-based CO2 goal; 

(B) The magnitude of energy and emission impacts from all 

measures included in the plan and applicable assumptions; 

(C) An explanation of the tools and emission quantification 

approaches used in the projection; and 

(D) Underlying emission quantification assumptions. 

(v) A state must demonstrate that the combined stateenforceable measures, in conjunction with any federally 

enforceable CO2 emission standards for affected EGUs, if 

included, will result in the achievement by the affected EGUs of 

the state’s mass-based CO2 emission goals for the interim period, 

interim step, and final steps during the final period. In 

addition, you must demonstrate that each state measure included 

in your plan submittal meets the requirements of §60.5780 

Commented [A86]: edit 
Page 1463 of 1546

(7) Your plan must demonstrate that regional 

characteristics of the electrical grid were considered in 

developing assumptions for your plan. Multi-state plans or plans 

sharing common elements should use regional assumptions or 

demonstrate reconciliation of any inconsistencies between statelevel assumptions. 

(8) Your plan submittal must include a demonstration that 

the reliability of the electrical grid has been considered. 

(9) Your plan submittal must include a timeline with all 

the programmatic milestone steps the state will take between the 

time of the state plan submittal and January 1, 2022 to ensure 

the plan is effective as of January 1, 2022. 

(10) Your plan submittal must adequately demonstrate that 

your state has the legal authority (e.g. through regulations or 

legislation) and funding to implement and enforce each component 

of the state plan submittal, including federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs or state measures as 

applicable. 

(11) Your state plan submittal must demonstrate each 

interim step goal, required under §60.5850(c), will be met and 

include in its supporting documentation a description of the 

analytic process, tools, methods, and assumptions used to make 

this demonstration. 
Page 1464 of 1546

(12) Certification that a hearing required under 

§60.23(c)(1) on the state plan was held, a list of witnesses and 

their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or 

written submission. 

(13) Your plan submittal must include documentation of any 

community outreach or community involvement. 

(14) Supporting material for your plan including: 

(i) Materials demonstrating the state's legal authority to 

carry out each component of its plan, including emissions 

standards or state measures; 

(ii) Materials supporting that the CO2 emission performance 

rates or CO2 emission goals will be achieved by affected EGUs 

under the plan, according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section; 

(iii) Materials supporting any calculations for CO2 emission 

goals calculated according to §60.5850, if applicable; and 

(iv) Materials necessary to support evaluation of the plan 

by the EPA. 

(v) Materials supporting each hearing held including the 

list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, 

appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each 

presentation or written submission pursuant to the requirements 

of §60.23(f) 
Page 1465 of 1546

 (b) You must submit your final plan to the EPA 

electronically according to §60.5870. 

§60.5750 Can I work with other states to develop a multi-state 

plan? 

 A multi-state plan may be submitted on behalf of multiple 

states, provided it is formally signed by the Governor or the 

Governor’s designee for each of the states participating in the 

multi-state plan. In this instance, the joint submittal will 

have the same legal effect as an individual submittal for each 

participating state. A multi-state plan must include all the 

required elements for a plan specified in §60.5740(a). A multistate plan must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) The multi-state plan must demonstrate that all affected 

EGUs in all participating states will meet the CO2 emission 

performance rates listed in table 1 or an equivalent CO2 emission 

goal according to paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section. 

States may only follow the procedures in (a)(1) or (2) if they 

have functionally equivalent requirements meeting §60.5775 and 

§60.5790 included in their plans. 

(1) For states electing to demonstrate performance with a 

CO2 emission rate-based goal, the CO2 emission goals identified 

in the plan according to §60.5850 will be a weighted (by net 

energy output) average lb CO2/MWh emission rate to be achieved by 
Page 1466 of 1546

all affected EGUs in the multi-state area during the plan 

periods; or 

(2) For states electing to demonstrate performance with a 

CO2 emission mass-based goal, the CO2 emission goals identified 

in the multi-state plan according to §60.5850 will be total CO2

emissions by all affected EGUs in the multi-state area during 

the plan periods. 

(b) Options for submitting a multi-state plan include the 

following: 

(1) States participating in a multi-state plan may submit 

one multi-state plan submittal on behalf of all participating 

states. The joint submittal must be signed by authorized 

officials for each of the states participating in the multistate plan. The joint submittal must address plan components 

that apply jointly for all participating states and components 

that apply for each individual state in the multi-state plan, 

including necessary state legal authority to implement the plan, 

such as state regulations and statutes. 

(2) States participating in a multi-state plan may submit a 

single plan submittal, signed by authorized officials from each 

participating state, which addresses common plan elements. Each 

participatin states must, in addition, provide individual plan 

submittals that address state-specific elements of the multistate plan. 
Page 1467 of 1546

(3) States participating in a multi-state plan may 

separately make individual submittals that address all elements 

of the multi-state plan. The plan submittals must be materially 

consistent for all common plan elements that apply to all 

participating states, and also must address individual statespecific aspects of the multi-state plan. Each individual state 

plan submittal must address all required plan components in 

§60.5740. 

(c) A state may elect to participate in more than one 

multi-state plan. If a state elects to particicpate in more that 

one multi-state plan then you must identify in the state plan 

submittal, required under §60.5745, the subset of affected EGUs 

that are subject to the specific multi-state plan or your 

state’s individual plan. An affected EGU can only be subject to 

one plan. 

§60.5755 Can I include existing requirements, programs, and 

measures in my plan? 

 (a) Existing state programs, requirements, and measures, 

meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section may 

qualify for use in projecting and demonstrating that a plan 

achieves the CO2 emission performance rates or emission goals 

specified in a plan, according to §60.5850. 

 (b) Emission impacts of existing programs, requirements, 

and measures that occur during a plan performance period must 
Page 1468 of 1546

meet the following requirements to qualify for use in projecting 

and demonstrating that a plan results in achievement of the CO2

emission performance rates or emission goals specified in a plan 

by the affected EGUs, according to §60.5850: 

 (1) Actions taken pursuant to an existing state program, 

requirement, or measure, such as compliance with a regulatory 

obligation or initiation of an action related to a program or 

measure, must occur after December 31, 2012; and 

(2) The existing state program, requirement, or measure, 

and any related actions taken pursuant to such program, 

requirement, or measure, meet the applicable requirements 

pursuant to §60.5740(a), §60.5780 and §60.5785. 

§60.5760 What are the timing requirements for submitting my 

plan? 

(a) You must submit a final plan with the information 

required under §60.5745 by September 6, 2016 unless you are 

submitting an initial plan submittal, allowed under §60.5765, in 

lieu of a final state plan submittal according to paragraphs (b) 

of this section. 

(b) For states seeking an extension of up to two years for 

a final plan submittal you must include the information in 

§60.5765(a) in an initial plan submittal by September 6, 2016 to 

receive an extension to submit your final state plan submittal 

by September 6, 2018. 

Commented [A87]: edit 

Deleted: extension 
Page 1469 of 1546

(c) You must submit all information required under 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section according to the 

electronic reporting requirements in §60.5870. 

§60.5765 What must I include in an initial plan submittal if 

requesting an extension for a final state plan submittal? 

(a) You must address the following required components in 

an initial plan submittal by September 6, 2016, if requesting an 

extension for a final plan submittal: 

(1) An identification of final plan approaches under 

consideration and description of progress made on each of the 

required components of a final plan; 

(2) An explanation of why the state requires additional 

time to submit a final plan and the additional time required 

(which may not exceed submission by September 6, 2018); 

(3) Demonstration or description of opportunity for public 

comment on the initial plan submittal and meaningful engagement 

with stakeholders, including overburdened communities, during 

both the time in preparation for the initial plan submittal and 

the time in development of the final plan. 

(b) You must submit an initial plan submittal allowed in 

paragraph (a) of this section, information required under 

paragraph (c) of this section (only if a state elects to submit 

an initial submittal to request an extension for a final plan 

submittal), and a final state plan submittal according to 

Commented [A88]: edit

Deleted: appropriate justification explaining

Deleted: by 

Commented [A89]: should the early action program opt-in be 

included here? 
Page 1470 of 1546

§60.5865. If a state submits an initial plan submittal, an 

extension for a final state plan submittal is considered granted 

and a final state plan submittal is due according to §60.5760(b) 

unless a state is notified within 90 days of the EPA receiving 

the initial plan submittal that the EPA finds the initial plan 

submittal does not meet the requirements listed in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(c) If an extension for submission of a final plan has been 

granted, you must submit a progress report by September 6, 2017

unless a final plan has already been submitted. The 2017 report 

must include the following: 

(1) A summary of the status of each component of the final 

plan, including an update from the 2016 initial plan submittal 

and a list of which final plan components are not complete. 

(2) A commitment to a plan approach (e.g., single or multistate, rate-based or mass-based emission performance level, 

rate-based or mass-based emission standards), including draft or 

proposed legislation and/or regulations. 

(3) An updated comprehensive roadmap with a schedule and 

milestones for completing the final plan. 

§60.5770 What schedules, performance periods, and compliance 

periods must I include in my state plan? 

(a) The affected EGUs covered by your plan must meet the CO2

emission requirements required under §60.5850 for the interim 

Commented [A90]: edit 
Page 1471 of 1546

period, interim steps, the final period, and each final steps 

according to paragraph (b) of this section. You must also 

include in your plan compliance periods for each affected EGU 

regulated under the plan according to paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section. 

(b) Your plan must require your affected EGUs to achieve 

each CO2 emission performance rate or CO2 emissions goal, as 

applicable, required under §60.5850 over the periods according 

to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section: 

(1) The interim period. 

(2) Each interim step. 

(3) The final period. 

(4) Each final step. 

(c) The emission standards for affected EGUs regulated 

under the plan must include the following compliance periods: 

(1) For the interim period, affected EGUs must have 

emission standards that have compliance periods that are no 

longer than each interim step. 

(2) For the final period, EGUs must have emission standards 

that have compliance periods that are no longer than each final 

step. 

(3) Compliance periods for each interim step and each final 

step may take forms shorter than specified in this regulation, 
Page 1472 of 1546

provided the schedules of compliance collectively end on the 

same schedule as each interim step and final step. 

(d) If your plan relies upon state measures in lieu of or 

in addition to emission standards for affected EGUs regulated 

under the plan then the period for achievement of each state 

measure must be identical to the compliance periods for affected 

EGUs listed in (c)(1) through (3). 

§60.5775 What emission standards must I include in my plan? 

(a) Emission standard(s) for affected EGUs under your state 

plan must be quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, and enforceable with respect to each affected EGU. 

The plan must include the methods by which each emission 

standard meets each of the following requirements in paragraphs 

(b) through (f) of this section. 

(b) An affected EGU’s emission standard is quantifiable if 

it can be reliably measured, in a manner that can be replicated. 

(c) An affected EGU’s emission standard is verifiable if 

adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

are in place to enable the state and the Administrator to 

independently evaluate, measure, and verify compliance with the 

emission standard. 

(d) An affected EGU’s emission standard is non-duplicative 

with respect to a state plan if it is not already incorporated 
Page 1473 of 1546

as an emission standard in another state plan unless 

incorporated in multi-state plan.

(e) An affected EGU’s emission standard is permanent if the 

emission standard must be met for each compliance period, or 

unless it is replaced by another emission standard in an 

approved plan revision, or the state demonstrates in an 

approvable plan revision that the emission reductions from the 

emission standard are no longer necessary for the state to meet 

its state level of performance. 

(f) An affected EGU’s emission standard is enforceable if: 

(1) A technically accurate limitation or requirement and 

the time period for the limitation or requirement is specified; 

(2) Compliance requirements are clearly defined; 

(3) The affected EGUs responsible for compliance and liable 

for violations can be identified; 

(4) Each compliance activity or measure is enforceable as a 

practical matter; and 

(5) The Administrator, the state, and third parties, 

maintain the ability to enforce against violations (including if 

an affected EGU does not meet its emission standard based on its 

emissions, its allowances if it is subject to a mass-based 

emission standard, or its ERCs if it is subject to a rate-based 

emission standard) and secure appropriate corrective actions, in 

the case of the Administrator pursuant to CAA sections 113(a)–
Page 1474 of 1546

(h), in the case of a state, pursuant to its plan, state law or 

CAA section 304, as applicable, and in the case of third 

parties, pursuant to CAA section 304. 

§60.5780 What state measures may I include in support of my 

plan? 

 (a) You may include state measures in support of your plan 

that are not emission standard(s) on affected EGUs, provided 

those state measures meet the following requirements:

(1) Each state measure is quantifiable, verifiable, nonduplicative, permanent, and enforceable with respect to each 

affected entity (entities other than affected EGUs with no 

federally enforceable obligations under a state plan), and your 

plan supporting materials includes the methods by which each 

state measure meets each of the following requirements in 

paragraphs (i) through (v) of this subpart. 

(i) A state measure is quantifiable with respect to an 

affected entity if it can be reliably measured, in a manner that 

can be replicated. 

(ii) A state measure is verifiable with respect to an 

affected entity if adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are in place to enable the state to 

independently evaluate, measure, and verify compliance with the 

state measure. 

(iii) A state measure is non-duplicative with respect to an 
Page 1475 of 1546

affected entity if it is not already incorporated as a state 

measure or an emission standard in another state plan or state 

plan supporting material unless incorporated in multi-state 

plan. 

(iv) A state measure is permanent with respect to an 

affected entity if the state measure must be met for at least 

each compliance period, or unless it is replaced by another 

state measure in an approved plan revision, or the state 

demonstrates in an approved plan revision that the emission 

reductions from the state measure are no longer necessary for 

the state’s affected EGUs to meet their CO2 emission performance 

rates. 

(v) A state measure is enforceable against an affected 

entity if: 

(A) A technically accurate limitation or requirement and 

the time period for the limitation or requirement is specified; 

(B) Compliance requirements are clearly defined; 

(C) The affected entities responsible for compliance and 

liable for violations can be identified; 

(D) Each compliance activity or measure is enforceable as a 

practical matter; and 

(E) The state maintains the ability to enforce violations 

and secure appropriate corrective actions. 

§60.5785 What is the procedure for revising my plan? 
Page 1476 of 1546

(a) Plans can only be revised with approval by the 

Administrator. The Administrator will approve a plan revision if 

it is satisfactory with respect to the applicable requirements 

of this subpart and any applicable requirements of subpart B of 

this part, including the requirement in §60.5745(a)(3) to 

demonstrate achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates in 

§60.5850. If one (or more) of the elements of the plan set in 

§60.5740 require revision with respect to achieving the CO2

emission performance rates in §60.5850, a request must be 

submitted to the Administrator indicating the proposed revisions 

to the plan to ensure the CO2 emission performance rates are met. 

In addition, the following provisions in (b) through (d) may 

apply. 

(b) You may submit revisions to a plan to adjust CO2

emission goals under the following instances: 

(1) Addressing the addition of an affected EGU required to 

be included in a plan under §60.5740(a)(1). 

(2) Addressing EGUs that become subject to subpart TTTT of 

this Part and are no longer considered affected EGUs for 

incorporation in a plan. 

(c) If your state submits a notification according to 

section §60.5865(d) indicating an exceedance of 10 percent or 

greater of a CO2 emission performance rate or CO2 emission goal 

for the periods listed in §60.5740(a)(2)(i) and your plan does 

Commented [A91]: does this enable a state to revise its plan due 

to changing circumstances beyond those listed here? 
Page 1477 of 1546

not already include corrective measures to be implemented if 

triggered, you must revise your state plan to include corrective 

measures to be implemented. The corrective measures must ensure 

future achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates or state 

CO2 emission goal and achieve additional emission reductions to 

offset any emission performance shortfall that occurred during 

an exceeded interim step or final step. The state plan revision 

submission must explain how the corrective measures both make up 

for the shortfall and address the state plan deficiency that 

caused the shortfall. The state must submit the revised plan and 

explanation to the EPA within 24 months after submitting the 

state report required in section §60.5865(a) indicating the 

exceedance in lieu of the requirements of §60.28(a). The state 

must implement corrective measures within 6 months of the EPA’s 

approval of a plan revision adding them. The shortfall must be 

made up as expeditiously as practicable. 

(d) If your plan relies upon state measures and you submit 

a notification according to section §60.5865(e) indicating an 

exceedance of 10 percent or greater of a CO2 emission goal 

required under §60.5850(e), and your state measures plan 

backstop does not include a mechanism to make up the shortfall, 

you must revise your backstop emission standards to make up the 

shortfall. 

(e) Reliability Safety Valve 

Deleted: s

Deleted: 
Page 1478 of 1546

(1) In order to trigger a reliability safety valve, you 

must notify the EPA within 48 hours of an unforeseen, emergency 

situation that threatens reliability and that your state will 

need a short–term modification of emission standards under a 

state plan for a specified affected EGU or EGUs. The EPA will 

consider the notification in §60.5865(g)(1) to be an approved 

short-term modification to the state plan without needing to go 

through the full state plan revision process if the state 

provides a second notification to the EPA within seven days of 

the first notification. The short-term modification under a 

reliability safety valve allows modification to emission 

standards under the state plan for an affected EGU or EGUs for 

an initial period of up to 90 days. During that period of time, 

the EGU or EGUs will need to comply with the modified emissions 

standards identified in the initial notification required under 

60.5865(g)(1) or amended in the second notification required 

under 60.5865(g)(2). For the duration of the up to 90 day shortterm modification, the emissions of the affected EGU or EGUs 

that exceed their obligations under the approved state plan will 

not be counted against the state’s CO2 emission performance rate 

or goal. The EPA reserves the right to review any such 

notification required under 60.5865(g), and, in the event that 

the EPA finds such notification is improper, the EPA may 

disallow the short-term modification and affected EGUs must 

Commented [A92]: edit 
Page 1479 of 1546

continue to operate under the approved state plan emission 

standards. As described more fully below in 60.5865(g)(3), at 

least seven days before the end of the initial 90 day 

reliability safety valve period, the state must notify the 

appropriate EPA regional office whether the reliability concern 

has been addressed and that the EGU or EGUs can resume meeting 

the original emission standards established in the state plan 

prior to the short-term modification or if a serious, ongoing 

reliability issue necessitates the EGU or EGUs to emit beyond 

the amount allowed under the state plan. 

 (2) Plan revisions submitted pursuant to 60.5865(g) (3) 

must meet the requirements for state plan revisions under sec 

60.5785(a) 

 

§60.5790 What must I do to meet my plan obligations? 

(a) To meet your plan obligations, you must demonstrate 

that your affected EGUs are complying with their emission 

standards as specified in §60.5740, and you must demonstrate 

that the emission standards on affected EGUs in conjunction with 

any state measures are resulting in achievement of the CO2

emission performance rates or state specific CO2 emission goals 

using the procedures in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this 

section. If your plan requires the use of Emission Rate Credits 

(ERCs) for your affected EGUs to comply with their emission 

Deleted: 
Page 1480 of 1546

standards you must follow the requirements under paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section. 

(b) If you submit a plan that sets a mass-based emission 

trading program for your affected EGUs, the state plan must 

include emission standards and requirements that specify the 

emission budget and related compliance requirements and 

mechanisms. These requirements must include: 

(1) CO2 emission monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for affected EGUs; 

(2) Provisions for state allocation of allowances 

consistent with §60.5811; 

(3) Provisions for tracking of allowances, from issuance 

through submission for compliance, consistant with §60.5812; 

(4) The process for affected EGUs to demonstrate compliance 

(allowance “true-up” with reported CO2 emissions) consistent with 

§60.5813; and 

(5) Either provisions to account for emissions from EGUs 

covered by subpart TTTT of this part or provisions for inclusion 

of set-asides allowances for renewable energy and demand-side 

EE. 

(c) If you submit a plan that sets rate-based emission 

standards on your affected EGUs, to meet the requirements of 

§60.5775, you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3). 

Deleted: n

Deleted: a

Deleted: a

Commented [A93]: is this intended to include the leakage 

requirement? It does not reference the 3 options—inclusion of new, 

updated generation-based allocation, or an equivalent method. If 

this is not the leakage requirement, it appears to be missing from the 

reg text? 
Page 1481 of 1546

(1) You must require the owner or operator for each 

affected EGU covered by your plan to demonstrate compliance with 

its emission standard by factoring stack emissions and any ERCs 

into the following equation: 

ைଶ஼ܯ ∑ 	 ൌ ݁ݐܽݎ	݊݋݅ݏݏ݁݉݅ଶܱܥ	

஼ாோ	ܹ݄ܯ	 ∑ ൅	 ௣௢ܹ݄ܯ ∑

Where: 

CO2 emission rate = An affected EGUs calculated CO2 emission 

rate that will be used to determine compliance 

with the applicable CO2 emission standard. 

MCO2 = Measured CO2 mass in units of pounds (lbs) summed 

over the compliance period for an affected EGU. 

MWhop = Total net energy output over the compliance 

period for an affected EGU in units of MWh. 

MWhERC = ERC replacement generation for an affected EGU in 

units of MWh (ERCs are denominated in whole 

integers as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section). 

(2) Your plan must specify that an ERC qualifies for the 

compliance demonstration specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section if it: 

(i) has a unique serial number; 

(ii) represents one MWh of actual energy generated or saved 

with zero associated carbon dioxide emissions; 
Page 1482 of 1546

(iii) was issued to an ERC resource that meets the 

requirements of §60.5795 or to an affected EGU that meets the 

requirements of §60.5800, by a state or its state agent through 

an EPA approvedERC tracking system that meets the requirements 

of §60.5810, or by the EPA through an EPA-administered tracking 

system; and 

(iv) was surrendered and retired only once for purpose of 

compliance with this regulation through an EPA approved ERC 

tracking system that meets the requirements of §60.5810, or by 

the EPA through an EPA-administered tracking system.

(3) Your plan must specify that an ERC does not qualify for 

the compliance demonstration specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section or if any state has used that same ERC 

for purposes of demonstrating achievement of its state measures. 

(d) If you want an affected EGU subject to a rate-based 

emission standard (whether under an emission standard plan or as 

a part of the federally enforceable backstop in a state measures 

plan) to be able to use ERCs issued pursuant to your state 

measures to demonstrate compliance with its emission standard, 

to meet the requirements of §60.5775, such ERCs must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (c) of this section. 

(e) If a state plan only requires state measures for 

affected EGUs to meet the mass-based emission performance goals, 

Commented [A94]: The limits on trading of ERCs between 

states of the same plan-type are not reflected here, as far as we can 

tell. In addition, it seems important to specify that states must use 

the same method to generate BB2 ERCs in order to trade them. 
Page 1483 of 1546

your measures must include the requirements for eligible 

resources listed in §60.5820 and §60.5825. 

Emission Rate Credit Requirements 

§60.5795 What affected EGUs qualify for generation of ERCs? 

(a) For issuance of ERCs to affected EGUs, the state plan 

submittal must specify the accounting method and process for ERC 

issuance listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must include the calculation method for determining 

the number of ERCs, denominated in MWh, that may to be issued to 

an affected EGU that is in compliance with its emission 

standard, based on the difference between its emission standard 

and its CO2 emission rate for the compliance period; and 

(2) You must include the calculation method for determining 

the number of ERCs, denominated in MWh, that may be issued to an 

affected stationary combustion turbine based on the displaced 

emissions from affected EGUs not meeting the definition of a 

stationary combustion turbine, resulting from the difference 

between its annualized net energy output in MWh for the calendar 

year(s) in the compliance period and its net energy output in 

MWh for the 2012 calendar year(January 1, 2012 through December 

31, 2012). 

(b) Any ERCs generated through the method described as 

required by paragraph (a)(2) must not be used by any affected 

EGUs other than steam generating units or IGCCs to demonstrate 
Page 1484 of 1546

compliance as prescribed under §60.5790(c)(1). 

§60.5800 What other resources qualify for issuance of ERCs?

(a) ERCs may only be issued to an eligible resource that 

meets each of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 

of this section. 

 (1) Resources qualifying for eligibility only include 

resources which increased new installed electrical generation 

nameplate capacity, or new electrical savings measures installed 

or implemented after January 1, 2013. If a resource had a 

nameplate capacity uprate, ERCs may be issued only for the 

difference in generation between the uprated nameplate capacity 

and its nameplate capacity prior to the uprate. ERCs must not be 

issued for generation for an uprate that followed a derate that 

occurred on after January 1, 2013. A resource that is relicensed 

or receives a license extension is considered existing capacity 

and is not an eligible resources, unless it receives a capacity 

uprate as a result of the relicensing process that is reflected 

in its relicensed permit. In such a case, only difference in 

nameplate capacity between its relicensed permit and its prior 

permit is eligible to be issued ERCs. 

(2) The resource must be connected to, and delivers energy 

to or saves electricity, on the electric grid in the contiguous 

United States. 

 (3) The resource is located in a state whose affected EGUs 

Commented [A95]: Should this clarify that these are for other 

resources so that it can’t be read to preclude ERC issuance toexisting 

NGCCs? 
Page 1485 of 1546

are subject to rate-based emission standards pursuant to this 

regulation, unless the resource is located in a state with massbased emission standards and the resource can demonstrate (e.g., 

through a power purchase agreement or contract for delivery) 

transmission of its generation into a state whose affected EGUs 

are subject to rate-based emission standards pursuant to this 

regulation. 

(4) The resource falls into one of the following categories 

of resources: 

(i) Renewable electric generating technologies using one of 

the following renewable energy resources: wind, solar, 

geothermal, hydro, wave, tidal, 

(ii) Qualifying biomass, 

 (iii) Waste-to energy, 

(iv) Nuclear power, 

(v) A non-affected combined heat and power unit, including 

waste heat power, 

 (v) A demand-side energy efficiency (EE) or demand-side 

management measure that saves electricity and is calculated on 

the basis of quantified ex poste savings, not “projected” or 

“claimed” savings, or 

 (vi) It falls into a category identified in a state plan 

and approved by the EPA to generate ERCs. 

(b) Any resource that does not meet the requirements of 
Page 1486 of 1546

this subpart or an approved state plan cannot be issued ERCs for 

use by an affected EGU with its compliance demonstration 

required under §60.5790(c). 

(c) ERCs may not be issued to any of the following: 

(1) New, modified, or reconstructed EGUs that are subject 

to subpart TTTT of this part, except CHP units that meet the 

requirements of a CHP unit under paragraph (a); 

(2) EGUs that do not meet the applicability requirements of 

60.5840 and 60.5845, except CHP units that meet the requirements 

of a CHP unit under paragraph (a); 

(3) Measures that reduce CO2 emissions outside the electric 

power sector, including GHG offset projects representing 

emission reductions that occur in the forestry and agriculture 

sectors, direct air capture, and crediting of CO2 emission 

reductions that occur in the transportation sector as a result 

of vehicle electrification; and 

(4) Any measure not approved by the EPA for issuance of 

ERCs in connection with a specific state plan. 

§60.5805 What is the process for the issuance of ERCs? 

 Your plan must include the process and requirements for 

issuance of ERCs to affected EGUs and eligible resources set 

forth in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. 

 (a) Eligibility application. Your plan must require that, 

to receive ERCs, the owner or operator must submit an 
Page 1487 of 1546

eligibility application to you that demonstrates that the 

requirements of your state plan as approved by the EPA as 

meeting §60.5792 (for an affected EGU) or §60.5800 (for an 

eligible resource) are met, and, in the case of an eligible 

resource, includes at a minimum: 

 (1) Documentation that the eligibility application has only 

been submitted to you, or pursuant to an EPA-approved multistate collaborative approach; 

 (2) An EM&V plan that meets the requirements of the state 

plan as approved by the EPA of meeting §60.5795; and 

(3) A verification report from an independent verifier that 

verifies the eligibility of the eligible resource to be issued 

ERCs and that the EM&V plan that meets the requirements of the 

state plan as approved by the EPA of meeting §60.5795. 

 (b) Registration of eligible resources. Your plan must 

require that any affected EGU or eligible resource register with 

an ERC tracking system that meets the requirements of §60.5810 

prior to the issuance, and your plan must specify that you will 

only register an affected EGU or eligible resource after you 

approve its eligibility application and determine that the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met. 

(c) M&V reports. For an eligible resource registered 

pursuant to paragraph (b) above, your plan must require that, 

prior to issuance of ERCs by you, the owner or operator must 
Page 1488 of 1546

submit the following: 

(1) an M&V report that meets the requirements of your state 

plan as approved by the EPA as meeting §60.5825; and 

 (2) a verification report from an independent verifier that 

verifies that the requirements of the M&V report are met. 

 (e) Issuance of ERCs. Your plan must specify your procedure 

for issuance of ERCs based on your review of an M&V report and 

verification report, and must require that ERCs be issued only 

on the basis of energy actually generated or saved, and that 

only one ERC is issued for each verified MWh. 

 (f) Tracking system. Your plan must require that ERCs may 

only be issued through an ERC tracking system approved as part 

of the state plan. 

(g) Error Adjustment. Your plan must include a mechanism to 

adjust the number of ERCs issued based on error (clerical, 

formula input error, etc.). 

(h) Qualification status of an eligible resource. Your plan 

must include a mechanism to temporarily or permanently revoke 

the qualification status of an eligible resource, such that it 

can no longer be issued ERCs for at least the duration it does 

not meet the requirements for being issued ERCs in your state 

plan. 

(i) Qualification status of an independent verifier. 

(1) Eligability. A person must be approved by the state as 
Page 1489 of 1546

an independent verifier, as defined by this regulation, as 

eligible to verify EM&V plans or M&V reports per the 

requirements of the state plan as approved by the EPA of meeting 

(cite for the EM&V plan criteria reg and the M&V reports reg) 

respectively. 

(2) Revokation of qualification. Your plan must include a 

mechanism to temporarily or permanently revoke the qualification 

status of an independent verifier, such that it can no longer 

verify EM&V plans or M&V reports for at least the duration it 

does not meet the requirements of your state plan. 

§60.5810 What applicable requirements are there for an ERC 

tracking system? 

(a) Your plan must include provisions for an ERC tracking 

system, if applicable, that meets the following requirements: 

(1) it electronically records the issuance of ERCs, 

transfers of ERCs among accounts, surrender of ERCs by affected 

EGUs as part of a compliance demonstration, and retirement of 

ERCs; and 

(2) it documents and provides electronic, internet-based 

public access to all information that supports the eligibility 

of eligible resources and issuance of ERCs and functionality to 

generate reports based on such information, which must include, 

for each ERC, an eligibility application, EM&V plan, M&V 

reports, and independent verifier verification reports. 
Page 1490 of 1546

(b) Interactions with other ERC tracking systems. If 

approved in a state plan, an ERC tracking system may provide for 

transfers of ERCs to/from another ERC tracking system approved 

in a state plan, or provide for transfers of ERCs to/from an 

EPA-administered ERC tracking system used to administer a 

federal plan. 

§60.5811 What are the requirements for state allocation of 

allowances in a mass based program? 

(a) For a mass based trading program a state plan must 

include requirements for CO2 allowance allocations according to 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. 

(b) Provisions for allocation of allowances for each 

compliance period for each affected EGU prior to the beginning 

of the compliance period. 

(c) Provisions for allocation of set-aside allowance, if 

applicable, must be established to ensure that the eligible 

resources must meet the requirements of §60.5800, and the state 

must include eligibility application and verification provisions 

equivalent to those for ERCs in §60.5805 and EM&V plan and M&V 

report provisions that meet the requirements of §60.5820 and 

§60.5825. 

(d) Provisions for adjusting allocations if the affected 

EGUs or eligible resources are incorrectly allocated CO2

allowances. 
Page 1491 of 1546

(e) Provisions allowing for or restricting banking of 

allowances between compliance periods for affected EGUs. 

(f) Provisions not allowing any borrowing of emissions from 

future compliance periods by affected EGUs. 

§60.5812 What are my allowance tracking requirements? 

(a) Your plan must include provisions for an allowance 

tracking system, if applicable, that meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) it electronically records the issuance of allowances, 

transfers of allowances among accounts, surrender of allowances 

by affected EGUs as part of a compliance demonstration, and 

retirement of allowances; and 

(2) it documents and provides electronic, internet-based 

public access to all information that supports the eligibility 

of eligible resources and issuance of set aside allowances and 

functionality to generate reports based on such information, 

which must include, for each set aside allowance, an eligibility 

application, EM&V plan, M&V reports, and independent verifier 

verification reports. 

(b) Interactions with other allowance tracking systems. If 

approved in a state plan, an allowance tracking system may 

provide for transfers of allowances to/from another ERC tracking 

system approved in a state plan, or provide for transfers of 

allowances to/from an EPA-administered allowance tracking system 
Page 1492 of 1546

used to administer a federal plan. 

§60.5813 What is the process for affected EGUs to demonstrate 

compliance in a mass based program? 

 (a) A plan must require affected EGUs owners and operators 

to demonstrate compliance with emission standards in a mass 

based program by holding an amount not less than the tons of 

total CO2 emissions for such compliance period from all affected 

EGUs at the facility in the account for the affected EGU’s 

emissions in the allowance tracking system required under 

60.5812 during the applicable compliance period.

 (b) In a mass-based trading program a plan may allow 

multipe affected EGUs co-located at the same facility to 

demonstrate that they are meeting the applicable emission 

standards on a facility wide basis by the owner or operator 

holding enough allowances to cover all the affected EGUs at the 

facility. 

 (1) If there are not enough allowances to cover the 

facility’s affected EGU’s emissions than there must be 

provisions for determining the compliance status of each 

affected EGU located at that facility. 

Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plans and Monitoring and 

Verification Reports 

§60.5820 What are the requirements for EM&V plans for eligible 

resources? 
Page 1493 of 1546

(a) If your plan requires your affected EGUs to meet their 

emission standards in accordance with §60.5790, your plan must 

include requirements that any EM&V plan that is submitted in 

accordance with the requirements of §60.5805, in support of the 

issuance of an ERC or set-aside allowance that can be used in 

accordance with §60.5790, must meet the EM&V criteria approved 

as part of your state plan. 

(b) General EM&V plan criteria. Your plan must require each 

EM&V plan to include identification of the eligible resource and 

its applicable approved eligibility application. 

(c) Specific EM&V plan criteria. Your plan must require 

that an EM&V plan must contain specific criteria, as applicable 

to the specific eligible resource. For example, for renewable 

energy resources, requirements discussing how the generation 

data will be physically measured on a continuous basis using a 

revenue-quality meter. For demand-side EE your state plan must 

require that each EM&V plan quantify and verify electricity 

savings on a retrospective basis using industry best-practice 

EM&V protocols and methods that yield accurate and reliable 

measurements of electricity savings based on an assessment of 

factors that influence the electricity savings, the life of the 

savings (in years), and a baseline that considers the effect of 

the EE intervention in generating savings. Your plan must 

require that each EM&V plan include a demonstration of how the 
Page 1494 of 1546

industry best practices protocol and methods were applied to the 

specific activity, project, measure, or program covered in the 

EM&V plan, and an explanation of why these protocols or methods 

were selected. 

(d) For EM&V plans to be acceptable, eligible resources 

must clearly demonstrate how all such best-practice approaches 

will be applied for the purposes of quantifying and verifying 

results. Subsequent reporting of demand-side EE savings values 

must confirm and explain how the EM&V plan was followed. 

§60.5825 What are the requirements for M&V reports for ERC 

resources?

(a) If your plan requires your affected EGUs to meet their 

emission standards in accordance with §60.5790, your plan must 

include requirements that any M&V report that is submitted in 

accordance with the requirements of §60.5805, in support of the 

issuance of an ERC or set-aside allocation that can be used in 

accordance with §60.5790, must meet the requirements of this 

section. 

(b) General M&V report criteria. Your plan must require 

that each M&V report include the following: 

(i) For the first M&V report submitted, documentation that 

the energy-generating resources, energy-saving measures, or 

practices were installed or implemented consistent with the 

description in the approved eligibility application required in 
Page 1495 of 1546

§60.5805(a). 

(ii) Each M&V report submitted must include the following: 

(A) identification of the time period covered by the M&V 

report; 

(B) a description of how relevant quantification methods, 

protocols, guidelines, and guidance specified in the EM&V plan 

were applied during the reporting period to generate the 

quantified MWh of generation or MWh of energy savings; 

(C) documentation (including data) of the energy generation 

and/or energy savings from any activity, project, measure, 

resource, or program addressed in the EM&V report, quantified 

and verified in MWh for the period covered by the M&V report, in 

accordance with its EM&V plan, and based on ex-post energy 

generation or savings; and 

(D) documentation of any change in the energy generation or 

savings capability of the eligible resource from the description 

of the resource in the approved eligibility application during 

the period covered by the M&V report and the date on which the 

change occurred, and/or demonstration that the eligible resource 

continued to meet the requirements of §60.5800. 

Applicability of Plans to Affected EGUs

§60.5835 Does this subpart directly affect EGU owners or 

operators in my state? 
Page 1496 of 1546

(a) This subpart does not directly affect EGU owners or 

operators in your state. However, affected EGU owners or 

operators must comply with the plan that a state or states 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(b) If a state does not submit, or EPA disapproves, a final 

plan or initial plan submittal to implement and enforce the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart by September 6, 

2016, the EPA will implement and enforce a Federal plan, as 

provided in §60.5720, to ensure that each affected EGU within 

the state that commenced construction on or before January 8, 

2014 complies with all the provisions of this subpart. 

§60.5840 What affected EGUs must I address in my state plan?

 (a) The EGUs that must be addressed by your plan are any 

affected steam generating unit, IGCC, or stationary combustion 

turbine that commences construction on or before January 8, 

2014. 

(b) An affected EGU is a steam generating unit, integrated 

gasification combined cycle (IGCC), or stationary combustion 

turbine that meets the relevant applicability conditions 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Serves a generator connected to a utility power 

distribution system with a nameplate capacity of 25 MW-net or 
Page 1497 of 1546

greater (i.e., capable of selling greater than 25 MW of 

electricity); 

(2) Has a base load rating (i.e., design heat input 

capacity) greater than 260 GJ/hr (250 MMBtu/hr) heat input of 

fossil fuel (either alone or in combination with any other 

fuel); and 

(3) Stationary combustion turbines that meet the definition 

of either a combined cycle or combined heat and power combustion 

turbine. 

§60.5845 What affected EGUs are exempt from my state plan? 

 (a) Affected EGUs that are exempt from your plan include: 

(1) EGUs that are subject to subpart TTTT as a result of 

commencing construction after the subpart TTTT applicability 

date; and those subject to subpart TTTT as a result of 

commencing modification or reconstruction; 

 (2) Steam generating units and IGCC units that are currently 

and always have been subject to a federally enforceable permit 

limiting annual net-electric sales to one-third or less of its 

potential electric output or 219,000 MWh or less; 

(3) Non-fossil units (i.e., units that are capable of 

combusting 50 percent or more non-fossil fuel) that have always 

historically limited the use of fossil fuels to 10 percent or 

less of the annual capacity factor or are subject to a federally 
Page 1498 of 1546

enforceable permit limiting fossil fuel use to 10 percent or 

less of the annual capacity factor. 

(4) Stationary combustion turbines not capable of 

combusting natural gas (e.g., not connected to a natural gas 

pipeline) 

(5) EGUs that are a combined heat and power unit that have 

always historically limited or are subject to a federally 

enforceable permit currently limiting and always have been 

limited annual net-electric sales to a utility distribution 

system to the design efficiency times the potential electric 

output or 219,000 MWh (whichever is greater) or less; 

(6) EGUs that serve a generator along with other steam 

generating unit(s), IGCC(s), or stationary combustion turbine(s) 

where the effective generation capacity (determined based on a 

prorated output of the base load rating of each steam generating 

unit, IGCC, or stationary combustion turbine) is 25 MW or less; 

(7) EGUs that are a municipal waste combustor unit that is 

subject to subpart Eb of this part; and 

(8) EGUs that are a commercial or industrial solid waste 

incineration unit that is subject to subpart CCCC of this part. 

§60.5850 What are the CO2 emissions performance rates for 

affected EGUs? 

(a) You must require, in your plan, affected EGUs to meet 

emission standards equal to the CO2 emission performance rates 
Page 1499 of 1546

listed in table 1 of this subpart except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. In addition your must set CO2

emission performance rates for the interim steps accorging to 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(1) You must set CO2 emission performance rates for your 

affected EGUs to meet during the interim step periods on average 

and as applicable for the two subcategories. 

(b) You may elect to require your affected EGUs to meet 

emission standards that differ from the CO2 emission performance 

rates listed in table 1 of this subpart, provided that you 

demonstrate that the affected EGUs in your state will 

collectively meet their CO2 emission performance rate by 

achieving statewide emission goals which are equivalent and no 

less stringent than the CO2 emission performance rates listed in 

table 1, and provided that your equivalent statewide CO2 emission 

goals take one of the following forms: 

(1) Average statewide rate-based CO2 emission goals listed 

in table 2 of this subpart, except as provided in paragraph (c) 

and (d); or 

(2) Cumulative statewide mass-based CO2 emission goals 

listed in table 3 of this subpart, except as provided in 

paragraph (c) and (d). 

(c) If your plan incorporates CO2 emission goals listed in 

paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section you must develop your 
Page 1500 of 1546

own interim step goals and final step goal for your affected 

EGUs to meet either on average or cummulatively. Additionally 

the following applies if you elect to develop your own goals: 

(1) The interim period and interim steps CO2 emission goals 

must be in the same form, either both rate (in units of pounds 

per net MWh) or both mass (in tons); and 

(2) You must set interim step goals that will either on 

average or cumulatively meet the state’s interim period goal, as 

applicable to a rate-based or mass-based goal. 

(d) Your plans interim period and final period CO2 emission 

goals included in a plan that your state or states elects to 

achieve may be changed in the plan only according to situations 

listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. If a 

situation requires a plan revision you must follow the 

procedures in §60.5785 to submit a plan revision. 

(1) If your plan implements CO2 emission goals, you may 

submit a plan or plan revision, allowed in §60.5785, to make 

corrections to them, as a result in a changes in the inventory 

of affected EGUs; and 

(2) You may address EGUs that become subject to subpart 

TTTT of this Part and are no longer considered affected EGUs for 

incorporation in a plan. 

(3) If you elect to require your affected EGUs to meet 

emission standards or state measures, in addition to or in lieu 

Commented [A96]: Wrong word? 
Page 1501 of 1546

of emission standards, to meet mass-based CO2 emission goals in 

your plan you may elect to incorporate the mass emissions from 

EGUs that are subject to subpart TTTT of this part that are 

considered new affected EGUs under subpart TTTT of this part. 

(e) If your plan submittal requires your affected EGUs to 

meet state measures in addition to or in lieu of emission 

standards you must only use the mass-based goals allowed for in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section to demonstrate that your 

affected EGUs are meeting the required emissions performance. 

(f) Nothing in this subpart precludes an affected EGU from 

complying with its emission standard or you from meeting your 

state measures. 

§60.5855 What applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements do I need to include in my plan for 

affected EGUs? 

(a) Your plan must include monitoring for affected EGUs 

that is no less stringent that what is described in (a)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

(1) The owner of operator of an affected EGU (or group of 

affected EGUs that share a monitored common stack) that is 

required to meet rate based or mass based emission standards 

must prepare a monitoring plan in accordance with the applicable 

provisions in §75.53(g) and (h) of this chapter, unless such a 

plan is already in place under another program that requires CO2
Page 1502 of 1546

mass emissions to be monitored and reported according to part 75 

of this chapter. 

(2) For rate-based emission standards, each compliance 

period shall include only “valid operating hours” in the 

compliance period, i.e., full or partial unit (or stack) 

operating hours for which: 

(i) “Valid data” (as defined in §60.5875) are obtained for 

all of the parameters used to determine the hourly CO2 mass 

emissions (lbs). For the purposes of this subpart, substitute 

data recorded under part 75 of this chapter are not considered 

to be valid data; and 

(ii) The corresponding hourly net energy output value is 

also valid data (Note: for operating hours with no useful 

output, zero is considered to be a valid value). 

(3) For rate-based emission standards, the owner or 

operator of an affected EGU must measure and report the hourly 

CO2 mass emissions (lbs) from each affected unit using the 

procedures in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vii) of this 

section, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(i) The owner or operator of an affected EGU must install, 

certify, operate, maintain, and calibrate a CO2 continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to directly measure and 

record CO2 concentrations in the affected EGU exhaust gases 
Page 1503 of 1546

emitted to the atmosphere and an exhaust gas flow rate 

monitoring system according to §75.10(a)(3)(i) of this chapter. 

However, when an O2 monitor is used this way, it only quantifies 

the combustion CO2; therefore, if the EGU is equipped with 

emission controls that produce non-combustion CO2 (e.g., from 

sorbent injection), this additional CO2 must be accounted for, in 

accordance with section 3 of appendix G to part 75 of this 

chapter. As an alternative to direct measurement of CO2

concentration, provided that the affected EGU does not use 

carbon separation (e.g., carbon capture and storage), the owner 

or operator of an affected EGU may use data from a certified 

oxygen (O2) monitor to calculate hourly average CO2

concentrations, in accordance with §75.10(a)(3)(iii) of this 

chapter. If CO2 concentration is measured on a dry basis, the 

owner or operator of the affected EGU must also install, 

certify, operate, maintain, and calibrate a continuous moisture 

monitoring system, according to §75.11(b) of this chapter. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator of an affected EGU may 

either use an appropriate fuel-specific default moisture value 

from §75.11(b) or submit a petition to the Administrator under 

§75.66 of this chapter for a site-specific default moisture 

value 

(ii) For each “valid operating hour” (as defined in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section), calculate the hourly CO2 mass 
Page 1504 of 1546

emission rate (tons/hr), either from Equation F-11 in Appendix F 

to part 75 of this chapter (if CO2 concentration is measured on a 

wet basis), or by following the procedure in section 4.2 of 

Appendix F to part 75 of this chapter (if CO2 concentration is 

measured on a dry basis). 

(iii) Next, multiply each hourly CO2 mass emission rate by 

the EGU or stack operating time in hours (as defined in §72.2 of 

this chapter), to convert it to tons of CO2. Multiply the result 

by 2000 lb/ton to convert it to lb. 

(iv) The hourly CO2 tons/hr values and EGU (or stack) 

operating times used to calculate CO2 mass emissions are required 

to be recorded under §75.57(e) of this chapter and must be 

reported electronically under §75.64(a)(6), if required by a 

plan. The owner or operator must use these data, or equivalent 

data, to calculate the hourly CO2 mass emissions. 

(v) Sum all of the hourly CO2 mass emissions values from 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section over the entire compliance 

period. 

(vi) For each continuous monitoring system used to 

determine the CO2 mass emissions from an affected EGU uses, the 

monitoring system must meet the applicable certification and 

quality assurance procedures in §75.20 of this chapter and 

Appendices A and B to part 75 of this chapter. 

 (4) The owner or operator of an affected EGU that 
Page 1505 of 1546

exclusively combusts liquid fuel and/or gaseous fuel may, as an 

alternative to complying with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 

determine the hourly CO2 mass emissions according to paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(vi) of this section. 

(i) Implement the applicable procedures in appendix D to 

part 75 of this chapter to determine hourly EGU heat input rates 

(MMBtu/h), based on hourly measurements of fuel flow rate and 

periodic determinations of the gross calorific value (GCV) of 

each fuel combusted. The fuel flow meter(s) used to measure the 

hourly fuel flow rates must meet the applicable certification 

and quality-assurance requirements in sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 

of appendix D (except for qualifying commercial billing meters). 

The fuel GCV must be determined in accordance with section 2.2 

or 2.3 of appendix D, as applicable. 

(ii) For each measured hourly heat input rate, use Equation 

G-4 in Appendix G to part 75 of this chapter to calculate the 

hourly CO2 mass emission rate (tons/hr). 

(iii) For each “valid operating hour” (as defined in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section), multiply the hourly tons/hr 

CO2 mass emission rate from paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section 

by the EGU or stack operating time in hours (as defined in §72.2 

of this chapter), to convert it to it to tons of CO2. Then, 

multiply the result by 2000 lb/ton to convert it to lb. 

(iv) The hourly CO2 tons/hr values and EGU (or stack) 
Page 1506 of 1546

operating times used to calculate CO2 mass emissions are required 

to be recorded under §75.57(e) of this chapter and must be 

reported electronically under §75.64(a)(6), if required by a 

plan. You must use these data, or equivalent data, to calculate 

the hourly CO2 mass emissions. 

(v) Sum all of the hourly CO2 mass emissions values (lb) 

from paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section over the entire 

compliance period. 

(vi) The owner or operator of an affected EGU may determine 

site-specific carbon-based F-factors (Fc) using Equation F-7b in 

section 3.3.6 of appendix F to part 75 of this chapter, and may 

use these Fc values in the emissions calculations instead of 

using the default Fc values in the Equation G-4 nomenclature. 

(5) For both rate-based and mass-based standards, the owner 

or operator of an affected EGU (or group of affected units that 

share a monitored common stack) must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a sufficient number of watt meters to 

continuously measure and record on an hourly basis net electric 

output. Measurements must be performed using 0.2 accuracy class 

electricity metering instrumentation and calibration procedures 

as specified under ANSI Standards No. C12.20. Further, the owner 

or operator of an affected EGU that is a combined heat and power 

facility must install, calibrate, maintain and operate equipment 

to continuously measure and record on an hourly basis useful 
Page 1507 of 1546

thermal output and, if applicable, mechanical output, which are 

used with net electric output to determine net energy output. 

The owner or operator must use the following proceedures to 

calculate net energy output, as appropriate for the type of 

affected EGU(s). 

(i) Determine Pnet the hourly net energy output in MWh. For 

rate-based standards, perform this calculation only for valid 

operating hours (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section). For mass-based standards, perform this calculation for 

all unit (or stack) operating hours, i.e., full or partial hours 

in which any fuel is combusted. 

(ii) If there is no net electrical output, but there is 

mechanical or useful thermal output, either for a particular 

valid operating hour (for rate-based applications), or for a 

particular operating hour (for mass-based applications), the 

owner or operator of the affected EGU must still determine the 

net energy output for that hour. 

(iii) For rate-based applications, if there is no (i.e., 

zero) gross electrical, mechanical, or useful thermal output for 

a particular valid operating hour, that hour must be used in the 

compliance determination. For hours or partial hours where the 

gross electric output is equal to or less than the auxiliary 

loads, net electric output shall be counted as zero for this 

calculation. 
Page 1508 of 1546

(iv) Calculate Pnet for your affected EGU (or group of 

affected EGUs that share a monitored common stack) using the 

following equation. All terms in the equation must be expressed 

in units of megawatt-hours (MWh). To convert each hourly net 

energy output (Consistent with §60.5520) value reported under 

part 75 of this chapter to MWh, multiply by the corresponding 

EGU or stack operating time. 

ܲ௡௘௧ = ሺܲ݁ሻௌ் ൅ 	 ሺܲ݁ሻ஼் 	൅	 ሺܲ݁ሻூா െ ሺܲ݁ሻிௐ

TDF 	൅	ሾ ሺܲݐሻ௉ௌ 	൅	 ሺܲݐሻுோ 	൅	 ሺܲݐሻூா ሿ

Where: 

Pgross/net = In accordance with §60.5520, net energy output of 

your affected EGU for each valid operating hour 

(as defined in 60.5540(a)(1)) in MWh. 

(Pe)ST = Electric energy output plus mechanical energy 

output (if any) of steam turbines in MWh. 

(Pe)CT = Electric energy output plus mechanical energy 

output (if any) of stationary combustion 

turbine(s) in MWh. 

(Pe)IE = Electric energy output plus mechanical energy 

output (if any) of your affected EGU’s integrated 

equipment that provides electricity or mechanical 

energy to the affected EGU or auxiliary equipment 

in MWh. 

(Pe)FW = Electric energy used to power boiler feedwater 
Page 1509 of 1546

pumps at steam generating units in MWh. Not 

applicable to stationary combustion turbines, 

IGCC EGUs, or EGUs complying with a net energy 

output based standard. 

(Pt)PS = Useful thermal output of steam (measured relative 

to SATP conditions, as applicable) that is used 

for applications that do not generate additional 

electricity, produce mechanical energy output, or 

enhance the performance of the affected EGU. This 

is calculated using the equation specified in 

paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section in MWh. 

(Pt)HR = Non steam useful thermal output (measured 

relative to SATP conditions, as applicable) from 

heat recovery that is used for applications other 

than steam generation or performance enhancement 

of the affected EGU in MWh. 

(Pt)IE = Useful thermal output (relative to SATP 

conditions, as applicable) from any integrated 

equipment is used for applications that do not 

generate additional steam, electricity, produce 

mechanical energy output, or enhance the 

performance of the affected EGU in MWh. 

TDF = Electric Transmission and Distribution Factor of 

0.95 for a combined heat and power affected EGU 
Page 1510 of 1546

where at least on an annual basis 20.0 percent of 

the total gross or net energy output consists of 

electric or direct mechanical output and 20.0 

percent of the total gross or net energy output 

consists of useful thermal output on a 12-

operating month rolling average basis, or 1.0 for 

all other affected EGUs. 

(v) If applicable to your affected EGU (for example, for 

combined heat and power), you must calculate (Pt)PS using the 

following equation: 

ሺܲݐሻ௉ௌ 	ൌ	ܳ௠ 	ൈ	ܪ

ܨܥ

Where: 

Qm = Measured steam flow in kilograms (kg) (or pounds 

(lb)) for the operating hour. 

H = Enthalpy of the steam at measured temperature and 

pressure (relative to SATP conditions or the 

energy in the condensate return line, as 

applicable) in Joules per kilogram (J/kg) (or 

Btu/lb). 

CF = Conversion factor of 3.6 x 109 J/MWh or 3.413 x 

106 Btu/MWh. 

(v) For rate-based standards, sum all of the values of Pnet 

for the valid operating hours (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of 
Page 1511 of 1546

this section), over the entire compliance period. Then, divide 

the total CO2 mass emissions for the valid operating hours from 

paragraph (a)(3)(v) or (a)(4)(v) of this section, as applicable, 

by the sum of the Pnet values for the valid operating hours plus 

any ERC replacement generation (as shown in §60.5790(c)), to 

determine the CO2 emissions rate (lb/net MWh) for the compliance 

period. 

(vi) For mass-based standards, sum all of the values of 

Pnet for all operating hours, over the entire compliance period. 

(6) In accordance with §60.13(g), if two or more affected 

EGUs implementing the continuous emissions monitoring provisions 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section share a common exhaust gas 

stack and are subject to the same emissions standard, the owner 

or operator may monitor the hourly CO2 mass emissions at the 

common stack in lieu of monitoring each EGU separately. If an 

owner or operator of an affected EGU chooses this option, the 

hourly net electric output for the common stack must be the sum 

of the hourly net electric output of the individual affected 

EGUs and the operating time must be expressed as “stack 

operating hours” (as defined in §72.2 of this chapter). 

(7) In accordance with §60.13(g), if the exhaust gases from 

an affected EGU implementing the continuous emissions monitoring 

provisions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are emitted to 

the atmosphere through multiple stacks (or if the exhaust gases 
Page 1512 of 1546

are routed to a common stack through multiple ducts and you 

elect to monitor in the ducts), the hourly CO2 mass emissions and 

the “stack operating time” (as defined in §72.2 of this chapter) 

at each stack or duct must be monitored separately. In this 

case, the owner or operator of an affected EGU must determine 

compliance with an applicable emissions standard by summing the 

CO2 mass emissions measured at the individual stacks or ducts and 

dividing by the net energy output for the affected EGU. 

(8) Consistent with §60.5775 or §60.5780, if two or more 

affected EGUs serve a common electric generator, you must 

apportion the combined hourly net energy output to the 

individual affected EGUs according to the fraction of the total 

steam load contributed by each EGU. Alternatively, if the EGUs 

are identical, you may apportion the combined hourly net 

electrical load to the individual EGUs according to the fraction 

of the total heat input contributed by each EGU. 

(b) For mass-based standards, the owner or operator of an 

affected EGU must determine the CO2 mass emissions (tons) for the 

compliance period as follows: 

(1) For each operating hour, calculate the hourly CO2 mass 

(tons) according to paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section, 

except that a complete data record is required, i.e., CO2 mass 

emissions must be reported for each operating hour. Therefore, 

substitute data values recorded under part 75 of this chapter 
Page 1513 of 1546

for CO2 concentration, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture 

content, fuel flow rate and/or GCV shall be used in the 

calculations; and 

(2) Sum all of the hourly CO2 mass emissions values over the 

entire compliance period. 

(3) The owner or operator of an affected EGU must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a sufficient number of watt 

meters to continuously measure and record on an hourly basis net 

electric output. Measurements must be performed using 0.2 

accuracy class electricity metering instrumentation and 

calibration procedures as specified under ANSI Standards No. 

C12.20. Further, the owner or operator of an affected EGU that 

is a combined heat and power facility must install, calibrate, 

maintain and operate equipment to continuously measure and 

record on an hourly basis useful thermal output and, if 

applicable, mechanical output, which are used with net electric 

output to determine net energy output (Pnet). The owner or 

operator must calculate net energy output according to 

paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(c) Your plan must require the owner or operator of each 

affected EGU covered by your plan to maintain the records, as 

described in (b)(1) through (2) of this subpart, for at least 5 

years following the date of each compliance period, occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. 
Page 1514 of 1546

(1) The owner or operator of an affected EGU must maintain 

each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each 

compliance period, compliance true-up period, occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, 

whichever is latest, according to §60.7. The owner or operator 

of an affected EGU may maintain the records off site and 

electronically for the remaining year(s). 

(2) The owner or operator of an affected EGU must keep all 

of the following records: 

(i) All documents, data files, and calculations and methods 

used to demonstrate compliance with an affected EGU’s emission 

standard under §60.5775. 

(ii) Copies of all reports submitted to the state under 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(iii) Data that is required to be recorded by 40 CFR Part 

75 Subpart F. 

(iv) Data with respect to any ERCs generated by the 

affected EGU or used by the affected EGU in its compliance 

demonstration including the information in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) All documents related to any ERCs used in a compliance 

demonstration, including each eligibility application, EM&V 

plan, M&V report, and independent verifier verification report 

associated with the issuance of each specific ERC. 
Page 1515 of 1546

(B) All records and reports relating to the surrender and 

retirement of ERCs for compliance with this regulation, 

including the date each individual ERC with a unique serial 

identification number was surrendered and/or retired. 

(d) Your plan must require the owner or operator of an 

affected EGU covered by your plan to include in a report 

submitted to you at the end of each compliance period the 

nformation in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Owners or operators of an affected EGU must include in 

the report all hourly CO2, for each affected EGU (or group of 

affected EGUs that share a monitored common stack). 

(2) For rate-based standards, each report must include: 

(i) The hourly CO2 mass emission rate values (tons/hr) and 

unit (or stack) operating times, (as monitored and reported 

according to part 75 of this chapter), for each valid operating 

hour in the compliance period; 

(ii) The net electric output and the net energy output 

(Pnet) values for each valid operating hour in the compliance 

period,; 

(iii) The calculated CO2 mass emissions (lb) for each valid 

operating hour in the compliance period; 

(iv) The sum of the hourly net energy output values and the 

sum of the hourly CO2 mass emissions values, for all of the valid 

operating hours in the compliance period; 
Page 1516 of 1546

(v) ERC replacement generation (if any), properly justified 

(see paragraph (c)(5) of this section); and 

(vi) The calculated CO2 mass emission rate for the 

compliance period (lb/net MWh). 

(3) For mass-based standards, each report must include: 

(i) The hourly CO2 mass emission rate value (tons/hr) and 

unit (or stack) operating time, as monitored and reported 

according to part 75 of this chapter, for each unit or stack 

operating hour in the compliance period; 

(ii) The calculated CO2 mass emissions (tons) for each unit 

or stack operating hour in the compliance period; 

(iii) The sum of the CO2 mass emissions (tons) for all of 

the unit or stack operating hours in the compliance period; 

(iv) The net electric output and the net energy output 

(Pnet) values for each unit or stack operating hour in the 

compliance period; and 

 (v) The sum of the hourly net energy output values for all 

of the unit or stack operating hours in the compliance period. 

(vi) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) of this section, if the compliance 

period is a discrete number of calendar years (e.g., one year, 

three years), in lieu of reporting the information specified in 

those paragraphs, the owner or operator may report: 
Page 1517 of 1546

(A) The cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions (tons) for each 

year of the compliance period, derived from the electronic 

emissions report for the fourth calendar quarter of that year, 

submitted to EPA under §75.64(a) of this chapter; and 

(B) The sum of the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions 

values from paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A) of this section, if the 

compliance period includes multiple years. 

(4) For each affected EGU’s compliance period, the report 

must also include the applicable emission standard and 

demonstration that they met the emission standard. An owner or 

operator must also include in the report the affected EGUs 

calculated emission performance as a CO2 emission rate or 

cumulative mass in units of the emission standard required in 

§60.5850 and §60.5790(b)-(e). 

(5) If the owner or operator of an affected EGU is 

complying with an emission standard by using ERCs they must 

include in the report a list of all unique ERC serial numbers 

that were retired in the compliance period, and, for each ERC, 

the date an ERC was surrendered and retired and eligible 

resource identification information sufficient to demonstrates 

that it meets the requirements of §60.5800 and qualifies to be 

issued ERCs (including location, type of qualifying generation 

or savings, date commenced generating or saving, and date of 

generation or savings for which the ERC was issued). 
Page 1518 of 1546

(6) If the owner or operator of an affected EGU is 

complying with an emission standard or state measures by using 

allowances they must include in the report a list of all unique 

allowance serial numbers that were retired in the compliance 

period, and, for each allowance, the date an allowance was 

surrendered and retired and if the allowance was a set aside 

allowance the eligible resource identification information 

sufficient to demonstrates that it meets the requirements of 

§60.5811(c) and qualifies to be issued set aside allowances 

(including location, type of qualifying generation or savings, 

date commenced generating or saving, and date of generation or 

savings for which the allowance was issued). 

(e) The owner or operator of an affected EGU must follow 

any additional requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting in a plan that are required under §60.5785, if 

applicable. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

§60.5860 What are my state recordkeeping requirements? 

(a) States must keep records of all information relied upon 

in support of any demonstration of plan components, plan 

requirements, supporting documentation, and the status of 

meeting the plan requirements defined in the plan for each 

interim step and the interim period. After 2029 states must keep 

records of all information relied upon in support of any 
Page 1519 of 1546

continued demonstration that the final emissions goals are being 

achieved. 

(b) States must keep records of all data submitted by the 

owner or operator of each affected EGU that is used to determine 

compliance with each affected EGU emissions standard or 

requirements in an approved state plan, consistant with the 

affected EGU requirements listed in §60.5855. 

(c) If a state has a requirement for all hourly CO2

emissions and net generation information to be used to calculate 

compliance with an annual emissions standard or state measure 

for affected EGUs, any information that is submitted by the 

owners or operators of affected EGUs to the EPA electronically 

pursuant to requirements in Part 75 meets the recordkeeping 

requirement of this section and a state is not required to keep 

records of information that would be in duplicate of paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(d) A state must keep records at a minimum for 10 years, 

for the interim period, and 5 years, for the final period, from 

the date the record is used to determine compliance with an 

emissions standard, plan requirement, CO2 emission performance 

rate or CO2 emissions goal. Each record must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for expeditious review. 

§60.5865 What are my state reporting and notification 

requirements? 
Page 1520 of 1546

(a) In lieu of the annual report required under §60.25 (e) 

and (f) you must report the information in paragraphs (b) 

through (f) of this section. 

(b) You must submit a report covering each interim step 

within the interim period and each of the final 2-calendar year 

periods due no later than July 1 of the year following the end 

of the period. The interim period reporting starts with a 

reporting covering interim step 1 due no later than July 1, 

2025. The final period reports start with a bi-annual report 

covering the first final step (which is due by July 1, 2032), a 

2-calendar year average of emissions or cumulative sum of 

emissions used to determine compliance with the final CO2

emission performance rate or CO2 emission goal (as applicable). 

The report must include the following: 

(1) The emissions performance achieved by all affected EGUs 

during the reporting period, consistent with the plan approach 

according to §60.5745(a), and identification of whether each 

affected EGU is in compliance with its emission standard and 

whether the collective of all affected EGUs covered by the state 

are on schedule to meet the applicable CO2 emission performance 

rate or emission goal during the performance periods and 

compliance periods, as specified in the plan. 

(2) A comparison of the CO2 emission performance rate or CO2

emission goal identified in the state plan for the applicable 
Page 1521 of 1546

interim step period versus the actual average or cumulative CO2

emission performance (as applicable) achieved by all affected 

EGUs. 

(i) For interim step 3 you do not need to include a 

comparison between the applicable interim step 3 CO2 emission 

performance rate or emission goal, you must only submit the 

average or cumulative CO2 emission performance of your affected 

EGUs during that period in units of your applicable CO2 

emissions performance rate or emission goal. 

 (3) All other required information, as specified in your 

state plan according to §60.5740(a)(5). 

(c) If your plan relies upon state measures, in lieu of or 

in addition to emission standards, than you must submit an 

annual report to the EPA in addition to the reports required 

under paragraph (b) for the interim period. In the final periods 

you must submit bi-annual reports consistent with those required 

under paragraph (b). The annual reports in the interim period 

must be submitted no later than July 1 following the end of each 

calendar year starting with the annual year 2022 (January 1, 

2022 to December 31, 2022). The annual and bi-annual reports 

must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 
Page 1522 of 1546

(1) You must include in your report the status of 

implementation of federally enforceable emission standards (if 

applicable) and state measures 

(2) You must include information regarding the status of 

the periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program 

implementation. The programmatic milestones with specific dates 

for achievement must be consistent with the state measures 

included in the state plan submittal. 

(d) If your plan includes the requirement for emission 

standards on your affected EGUs than you must submit a 

notification in the report required under paragraph (b) of this 

section to the EPA if your affected EGUs exceed a CO2 emission 

performance rate or CO2 emission goal (on average for rate or 

cumulatively for mass) by 10 percent or greater thus triggering 

corrective measures required under your plan. If corrective 

measures are required you must follow the requirements in 

60.5785 for revising your plan to implement the corrective 

measures. 

 (e) If your plan relies upon state measures, in lieu of or 

in addition to emission standards, than you must submit a 

notification as required under paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) or this 

section. 

(1) You must submit a notification in the report required 

under paragraph (c) of this section to the EPA if at the end of 
Page 1523 of 1546

the calendar year your state did not meet a programmatic 

milestone included in your plan submittal. This notification 

must detail the implementation of the backstop required in your 

plan to be fully in place within 18 months of the due date of 

the report required in paragraph (b) of this section. In 

addition, the notification must describe the steps taken by the 

state to inform the affected EGUs in its state that the backstop 

has been triggered. 

(2) You must submit a notification in the report required 

under paragraph (b) of this section to the EPA if your affected 

EGUs, at the end of any interim step or final step, exceed a CO2

emission performance rate or CO2 emission goal (on average for 

rate or cumulatively for mass) by 10 percent or greater, thus 

triggering the implementation of the backstop required in your 

plan. This notification must detail the steps that will be taken 

by you to implement the backstop so that it is fully in place 

within 18 months of the due date of the report required in 

paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the notification 

must describe the steps taken by the state to inform the 

affected EGUs that the backstop has been triggered. 

 (f) You must include in your 2029 report (which is due by 

July 1, 2030) the calculation of average emissions or cumulative 

sum of emissions over the interim period used to determine 

compliance with your interim CO2 emission performance rate or 
Page 1524 of 1546

emission goal. The calculated value must be in units consistent 

with the approach you set in your plan for the interim period. 

(g) The notifications listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(3) of this section are required for the reliability safety 

valve allowed in 60.5785(e). 

(1) As required under 60.5785(e), you must submit an 

initial notification to the appropriate EPA regional office 

within 48 hours of an unforeseen, emergency situation. The 

initial notification must: 

(i) include a full description of the emergency situation 

that is being addressed; 

(ii) identify the affected EGU or EGUs that are required to 

run to assure reliability; and 

(iii) specify the modified emission standards at which the 

identified EGU or EGUs will operate. 

(2) Within 7 days of the initial notification in 

60.5865(g)(1), the state must submit a second notification to 

the appropriate EPA regional office that documents the initial 

notification. If the state fails to submit this documentation on 

a timely basis, the EPA will notify the state, which must then 

notify the affected EGU(s) that they must operate or resume 

operations under the original approved state plan emissions 

standards. This notification must include the following: 

(i) a full description of the reliability concern and why 
Page 1525 of 1546

an unforeseen, emergency situation that threatens reliability 

requires the affected EGU or EGUs to operate under modified 

emission standards from those originally required in the state 

plan (including discussion of why the compliance flexibilities 

provided in the state plan are insufficient); 

(ii) a description of how the state is coordinating or will 

coordinate with relevant reliability coordinators and planning 

authorities to alleviate the problem in an expedited manner; 

(iii) an indication of the maximum time that the state 

anticipates the affected EGU or EGUs will need to operate in a 

manner inconsistent with its or their obligations under the 

state’s approved plan; 

(iv) a written concurrence from the relevant reliability 

coordinator and/or planning authority confirming the existence 

of the imminent reliability threat and supporting the temporary 

modification request or an explanation of why this kind of 

concurrence cannot be provided; 

(v) the modified emission standards or levels that the 

affected EGU or EGU will be operating at for the remaining 90 

day period if it has changed from the initial notification; and 

(vi) information regarding any system-wide or other 

analysis of the reliability concern conducted by the relevant 

planning authority, if there is any. 

(3) At least 7 days before the end of the 90-day 

Commented [A97]: edit 
Page 1526 of 1546

reliability safety valve period, the state must notify the 

appropriate EPA regional office: 

(i) whether the reliability concern has been addressed and 

that the affected EGU or EGUs can resume meeting the original 

emissions standards in the state plan approved prior to the 

short-term modification; or 

 (ii) if there still is a serious, ongoing reliability 

issue that necessitates the EGU or EGUs to emit beyond the 

amount allowed under the state plan, the state must provide a 

notification to the EPA that it will be submitting a state plan 

revision according to paragraph §60.5785(a) of this section to 

address the reliability issue. The notification must provide the 

date by which a revised state plan will be submitted to EPA and 

documentation of the ongoing emergency with a second written 

concurrence from the relevant reliability coordinator and/or 

planning authority confirming the continuing urgent need for the 

EGU or EGUs to operate beyond the requirements of the state plan 

and that there is no other reasonable way of addressing the 

ongoing reliability emergency but for the EGU or EGUs to operate 

under an alterative emission standard than originally approved 

under the state plan. After the initial 90 day period, any 

excess emissions beyond what is authorized in the original 

approved state plan will count against the state’s overall goal 

or emission performance rate. 
Page 1527 of 1546

§60.5870 How do I submit information required by these 

Emission Guidelines to the EPA?

(a) You must submit to the EPA the information required by 

these emission guidelines following the procedures in paragraphs 

(b) through (e) of this section. 

(b) All negative declarations, state plan submittals, 

supporting materials that are part of a state plan submittal, 

any plan revisions, and all state reports required to be 

submitted to the EPA by a the state plan must be reported 

through EPA’s State Plan Electronic Collection System (SPeCS). 

States who claim that a state plan submittal of supporting 

documentation includes confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit that information on a compact disc, flash drive, or 

other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: State and Local 

Programs Group, MD C539-01, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

(c) Only a submittal by the Governor’s or the Governor’s 

designee by an electronic submission through SPeCS shall be 

considered an official submittal to the EPA under this subpart. 

If the Governor wishes to designate another responsible official 

the authority to submit a state plan, the EPA must be notified 

via letter from the Governor prior to the Sptember 6, 2016, 

deadline for plan submittal so that they have the ability to 
Page 1528 of 1546

submit the initial or final plan submittal in the SPeCS. If the 

Governor has previously delegated authority to make CAA 

submittals on the Governor’s behalf, a state may submit 

documentation of the delegation in lieu of a letter from the 

Governor. The letter or documentation must identify the designee 

to whom authority is being designated and must include the name 

and contact information for the designee and also identify the 

state plan preparers who will need access to SPeCS. A state may 

also submit the names of the state plan preparers via a separate 

letter prior to the designation letter from the Governor in 

order to expedite the state plan administrative process. 

Required contact information for the designee and preparers 

includes the person’s title, organization and email address. 

(d) The submission of the information by the authorized 

official must be in a non-editable format. In addition to the 

non-editable version all plan components designated as federally 

enforceable must also be submitted in an editable version. 

Following initial plan approval, states must provide the EPA 

with an editable copy of any submitted revision to existing 

approved federally enforceable plan components, including state 

plan backstop measures. The editable copy of any such submitted 

plan revision must indicate the changes made at the state level, 

if any, to the existing approved federally enforceable plan 

components, using a mechanism such as redline/strikethrough. 
Page 1529 of 1546

These changes are not part of the state plan until formal 

approval by EPA. 

(e) You must provide the EPA with a non-editable and 

editable copy of any submitted revision to existing approved 

federally enforceable plan components, including state plan 

backstop measures. The editable copy of any such submitted plan 

revision must indicate the changes made at the state level, if 

any, to the existing approved federally enforceable plan 

components, using a mechanism such as redline/strikethrough. 

These changes are not part of the state plan until formal 

approval by EPA. 

Definitions 

§60.5875 What definitions apply to this subpart? 

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein will 

have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in subparts 

A (General Provisions) and B of this part. 

Affected electric generating unit or Affected EGU means a 

steam generating unit, integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC), or stationary combustion turbine that meets the relevant 

applicability conditions in section §60.5840. 

Allowance means an authorization for each specified unit of 

actual carbon dioxide emitted from an affected EGU or a facility 

during a specified period. 
Page 1530 of 1546

Allowance system means a control program under which the 

owner or operator of each affected EGU is required to hold an 

authorization for each specified unit of carbon dioxide emitted 

from that facility during a specified period and which limits 

the total amount of such authorizations available to be held for 

carbon dioxide for a specified period and allows the transfer of 

such authorizations not used to meet the authorization-holding 

requirement. 

Annual capacity factor means the ratio between the actual 

heat input to an EGU during a calendar year and the potential 

heat input to the EGU had it been operated for 8,760 hours 

during a calendar year at the base load rating. 

Base load rating means the maximum amount of heat input 

(fuel) that an EGU can combust on a steady state basis, as 

determined by the physical design and characteristics of the EGU 

at ISO conditions. For a stationary combustion turbine, base 

load rating includes the heat input from duct burners.

Biomass means biologically based material that is living or 

dead (e.g., trees, crops, grasses, tree litter, roots) above and 

belowground, and available on a renewable or recurring basis. 

Materials that are biologically based include non-fossilized, 

biodegradable organic material originating from modern or 

contemporarily grown plants, animals, or microorganisms 

(including plants, products, byproducts and residues from 
Page 1531 of 1546

agriculture, forestry, and related activities and industries, as 

well as the non-fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions 

of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids 

recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic material). 

CO2 emission goal means a statewide rate-based CO2 emission 

goal or mass-based CO2 emission goal specified in §60.5850. 

Coal means all solid fuels classified as anthracite, 

bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by the American Society of 

Testing and Materials in ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17), coal refuse, and petroleum coke. Synthetic fuels 

derived from coal for the purpose of creating useful heat, 

including but not limited to solvent-refined coal, gasified coal 

(not meeting the definition of natural gas), coal-oil mixtures, 

and coal-water mixtures are included in this definition for the 

purposes of this subpart. 

Combined cycle unit means an electric generating unit that 

uses a stationary combustion turbine from which the heat from 

the turbine exhaust gases is recovered by a heat recovery steam 

generating unit to generate additional electricity.

Combined heat and power unit or CHP unit, (also known as 

“cogeneration”) means an electric generating unit that use a 

steam-generating unit or stationary combustion turbine to 

simultaneously produce both electric (or mechanical) and useful 
Page 1532 of 1546

thermal output from the same primary energy source. 

Common practice baseline or CPB means a baseline derived 

based on a default technology or condition that would have been 

in place at the time of implementation of an EE measure in the 

absence of the EE measure (for example, the standard or marketaverage or pre-existing equipment that a typical 

consumer/building owner would have continued to use or would 

have installed at the time of project implementation in a given 

circumstance, such as a given building type, EE program type or 

delivery mechanism, and geographic region). 

Compliance Period means 

Control area operator means an electric system or systems, 

bounded by interconnection metering and telemetry, capable of 

controlling generation to maintain its interchange schedule with 

other control areas and contributing to frequency regulation of 

the interconnection.

Demand-side energy efficiency means

Derate means a decrease in the available capacity of an 

electric generating unit, due to a system or equipment 

modification or to discounting a portion of a generating units 

capacity for planning purposes. 

Design efficiency means the rated overall net efficiency 

(e.g., electric plus thermal output) on a higher heating value 

basis of the EGU at the base load rating and ISO conditions. 

Commented [A98]: ? 

Deleted: a 
Page 1533 of 1546

Distillate oil means fuel oils that comply with the 

specifications for fuel oil numbers 1 and 2, as defined by the 

American Society of Testing and Materials in ASTM D396 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17); diesel fuel oil numbers 

1 and 2, as defined by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17); 

kerosene, as defined by the American Society of Testing and 

Materials in ASTM D3699 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17); 

biodiesel as defined by the American Society of Testing and 

Materials in ASTM D6751 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17); 

or biodiesel blends as defined by the American Society of 

Testing and Materials in ASTM D7467 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17). 

Eligibile resource means a resource that meets the 

requirements of §60.5800(a). 

Emission Rate Credit or ERC means a tradable compliance 

instrument that meets the requirements of 60.5790(d).

EM&V plan means a plan that meets the requirements of

§60.5820. 

ERC resource means a resource that meets the requirements 

of §60.5805(a) and has been registered with an ERC tracking 

system that meets the requirements of §60.5810 or an EPAadministered tracking system.
Page 1534 of 1546

ERC tracking system means a system for the issuance, 

surrender and retirement of ERCs that meets the requirements of 

§60.5810. 

Essential generating characteristics means any 

characteristic that affects the eligibility of an elgibile 

resource for generating ERCs pursuant to this regulation, 

including the type of resource.

Existing state program, requirement, or measure means, in 

the context of a state plan, a regulation, requirement, program, 

or measure administered by a state, utility, or other entity 

that is currently established. This may include a regulation or 

other legal requirement that includes past, current, and future 

obligations, or current programs and measures that are in place 

and are anticipated to be continued or expanded in the future, 

in accordance with established plans. An existing state program, 

requirement, or measure may have past, current, and future 

impacts on EGU CO2 emissions. 

Final period means the period that begins on January 1, 

2030 and continues thereafter. The final period is comprised of 

final steps, each of which may be no longer then two calendar 

years (with a calendar year beginning on January 1 and ending on 

December 31).

Final step means an increment of plan performance within 

the final period, with each final step being no longer then two 
Page 1535 of 1546

calendar years (with a calendar year beginning on January 1 and 

ending on December 31), with the first step in the final period 

beginning on January 1, 2030 and ending no later than December 

31, 2031. 

Fossil fuel means natural gas, petroleum, coal, and any 

form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such 

material for the purpose of creating useful heat. 

Gaseous fuel means any fuel that is present as a gas at ISO 

conditions and includes, but is not limited to, natural gas, 

refinery fuel gas, process gas, coke-oven gas, synthetic gas, 

and gasified coal. 

 Heat recovery steam generating unit (HRSG) means a unit in 

which hot exhaust gases from the combustion turbine engine are 

routed in order to extract heat from the gases and generate 

useful output. Heat recovery steam generating units can be used 

with or without duct burners. 

Independent verifier means a person (including any company, 

any corporate parent or subsidiary, any contractors or 

subcontractors, and the actual person) who has the appropriate 

technical and other qualifications to provide verification 

reports. The independent verifier must not have any direct or 

indirect financial or other interest in the subject of its 

verification report or ERCs that could impact its impartiality 

in performing verification services. 
Page 1536 of 1546

 Integrated gasification combined cycle facility or IGCC 

facility means a combined cycle facility that is designed to 

burn fuels containing 50 percent (by heat input) or more solidderived fuel not meeting the definition of natural gas plus any 

integrated equipment that provides electricity or useful thermal 

output to either the affected facility or auxiliary equipment. 

The Administrator may waive the 50 percent solid-derived fuel 

requirement during periods of the gasification system 

construction, startup and commissioning, shutdown, or repair. No 

solid fuel is directly burned in the unit during operation. 

Interim period means the period of eight calendar years 

from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2029. The interim period is 

comprised of at least three interim steps, interim step 1, 

interim step 2, and interim step 3, and may be comprised of more 

than three interim steps at your discretion, provided your first 

and second interim steps and no single interim step is longer 

than three calendar years each (with a calendar year beginning 

on January 1 and ending on December 31), and your last interim 

step is no longer than two calendar years (with a calendar year 

beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31).

Interim step means an increment of plan performance within 

the interim period. You must have at least three interim steps 

within the interim period. You may have more than three interim 

steps at your discretion, provided your first and second interim 
Page 1537 of 1546

steps and no single interim step is longer than three calendar 

years each (with a calendar year beginning on January 1 and 

ending on December 31), and your last interim step is no longer 

than two calendar years (with a calendar year beginning on 

January 1 and ending on December 31).

Interim step 1 means the period of three calendar years 

from January 1 2022 to December 31, 2024.

Interim step 2 means the period of three calendar years 

from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2027.

Interim step 3 means the period of two calendar years from 

January 1, 2028 to December 31, 2029.

ISO conditions means 288 Kelvin (15o C), 60 percent relative 

humidity and 101.3 kilopascals pressure. 

Liquid fuel means any fuel that is present as a liquid at 

ISO conditions and includes, but is not limited to, distillate 

oil and residual oil. 

M&V report means a report that meets the requirements of 

§60.5825]. 

Mechanical output means the useful mechanical energy that 

is not used to operate the affected facility, generate 

electricity and/or thermal output, or to enhance the performance 

of the affected facility. Mechanical energy measured in 

horsepower hour should be converted into MWh by multiplying it 

by 745.7 then dividing by 1,000,000. 
Page 1538 of 1546

Nameplate capacity means, starting from the initial 

installation of a generator, the maximum electrical generating 

output (in MWe, rounded to the nearest tenth) that the generator 

is capable of producing on a steady state basis and during 

continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other 

deratings) as of such installation as specified by the 

manufacturer of the generator or, starting from the completion 

of any subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in 

an increase in the maximum electrical generating output that the 

generator is capable of producing on a steady state basis and 

during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or 

other deratings), such increased maximum amount (in MWe, rounded 

to the nearest tenth) as of such completion as specified by the 

person conducting the physical change. 

Natural gas means a fluid mixture of hydrocarbons (e.g., 

methane, ethane, or propane), composed of at least 70 percent 

methane by volume or that has a gross calorific value between 35 

and 41 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard cubic meter (950 and 

1,100 Btu per dry standard cubic foot), that maintains a gaseous 

state under ISO conditions. In addition, natural gas contains 

20.0 grains or less of total sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet. 

Finally, natural gas does not include the following gaseous 

fuels: landfill gas, digester gas, refinery gas, sour gas, blast 

furnace gas, coal-derived gas, producer gas, coke oven gas, or 
Page 1539 of 1546

any gaseous fuel produced in a process which might result in 

highly variable sulfur content or heating value. 

Net-electric output means the amount of gross generation 

the generator(s) produce (including, but not limited to, output 

from steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas 

expander(s)), as measured at the generator terminals, less the 

electricity used to operate the plant (i.e., auxiliary loads); 

such uses include fuel handling equipment, pumps, fans, 

pollution control equipment, other electricity needs, and 

transformer losses as measured at the transmission side of the 

step up transformer (e.g., the point of sale). 

Net energy output means: 

(1) The net electric or mechanical output from the affected 

facility, plus 100 percent of the useful thermal output measured 

relative to SATP conditions that is not used to generate 

additional electric or mechanical output or to enhance the 

performance of the unit (e.g., steam delivered to an industrial 

process for a heating application). 

(2) For combined heat and power facilities where at least 

20.0 percent of the total gross or net energy output consists of 

electric or direct mechanical output and at least 20.0 percent 

of the total gross or net energy output consists of useful 

thermal output on a 12-operating month rolling average basis, 

the net electric or mechanical output from the affected EGU 
Page 1540 of 1546

divided by 0.95, plus 100 percent of the useful thermal output; 

(e.g., steam delivered to an industrial process for a heating 

application). 

Petroleum means crude oil or a fuel derived from crude oil, 

including, but not limited to, distillate and

Qualifying biomass means a biomass feedstock that is 

demonstrated as a method to control increases of CO2 levels 

in the atmosphere.

Solid fuel means any fuel that has a definite shape and 

volume, has no tendency to flow or disperse under moderate 

stress, and is not liquid or gaseous at ISO conditions. This 

includes, but is not limited to, coal, biomass, and pulverized 

solid fuels. 

Standard ambient temperature and pressure (SATP) 

conditions means 298.15 Kelvin (25o C, 77 oF)) and 100.0 

kilopascals (14.504 psi, 0.987 atm) pressure. The enthalpy 

of water at SATP conditions is 50 Btu/lb. 

State agent means an entity acting on behalf of the state, 

with the legal authority of the state 

State measures means measures that the state adopts and 

implements as a matter of state law. Such measures are 

enforceable only per state law, and are not included in and 

codified as part of the federally enforceable state plan. 

Stationary combustion turbine means all equipment, 

Commented [A99]: Does this definition need to be constrained 

through reference to the processes detailed in the preamble? 

Deleted: .
Page 1541 of 1546

including but not limited to the turbine engine, the fuel, air, 

lubrication and exhaust gas systems, control systems (except 

emissions control equipment), heat recovery system, fuel 

compressor, heater, and/or pump, post-combustion emissions 

control technology, and any ancillary components and subcomponents comprising any simple cycle stationary combustion 

turbine, any combined cycle combustion turbine, and any combined 

heat and power combustion turbine based system plus any 

integrated equipment that provides electricity or useful thermal 

output to the combustion turbine engine, heat recovery system or 

auxiliary equipment. Stationary means that the combustion 

turbine is not self-propelled or intended to be propelled while 

performing its function. It may, however, be mounted on a 

vehicle for portability. If a stationary combustion turbine 

burns any solid fuel directly it is considered a steam 

generating unit. 

Steam generating unit means any furnace, boiler, or other 

device used for combusting fuel and producing steam (nuclear 

steam generators are not included) plus any integrated equipment 

that provides electricity or useful thermal output to the 

affected facility or auxiliary equipment. 

Uprate means an increase in available electric generating 

unit power capacity due to a system or equipment modification. 

Useful thermal output means the thermal energy made 
Page 1542 of 1546

available for use in any heating application (e.g., steam 

delivered to an industrial process for a heating application, 

including thermal cooling applications) that is not used for 

electric generation, mechanical output at the affected EGU, to 

directly enhance the performance of the affected EGU (e.g., 

economizer output is not useful thermal output, but thermal 

energy used to reduce fuel moisture is considered useful thermal 

output), or to supply energy to a pollution control device at 

the affected EGU. Useful thermal output for affected EGU(s) with 

no condensate return (or other thermal energy input to the 

affected EGU(s)) or where measuring the energy in the condensate 

(or other thermal energy input to the affected EGU(s)) would not 

meaningfully impact the emission rate calculation is measured 

against the energy in the thermal output at SATP conditions. 

Affected EGU(s) with meaningful energy in the condensate return 

(or other thermal energy input to the affected EGU) must measure 

the energy in the condensate and subtract that energy relative 

to SATP conditions from the measured thermal output. 

Valid data means quality-assured data generated by 

continuous monitoring systems that are installed, operated, and 

maintained according to part 75 of this chapter. For CEMS, the 

initial certification requirements in §75.20 of this chapter and 

appendix A to part 75 of this chapter must be met before 

quality-assured data are reported under this subpart; for on-
Page 1543 of 1546

going quality assurance, the daily, quarterly, and 

semiannual/annual test requirements in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 

2.3 of appendix B to part 75 of this chapter must be met and the 

data validation criteria in sections 2.1.5, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2 of 

appendix B to part 75 of this chapter apply. For fuel flow 

meters, the initial certification requirements in section 2.1.5 

of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter must be met before 

quality-assured data are reported under this subpart (except for 

qualifying commercial billing meters under section 2.1.4.2 of 

appendix D), and for on-going quality assurance, the provisions 

in section 2.1.6 of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter apply 

(except for qualifying commercial billing meters). 

Waste to Energy or WTE means a process that burns the 

biogenic fraction of municipal solid waste (which is considered 

a qualifying biomass feedstock) to generate electricity.

Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—CO2 Emission Performance Rates 

(Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh) 

Affected EGU Interim Rate Final Rate

Steam generating 

unit or integrated 

gasification 

combined cycle 

(IGCC) 

1,534 1,305 

Stationary 

combustion turbine 

832 771 
Page 1544 of 1546

Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—Statewide Rate-based CO2

Emission Goals (Pounds of CO2 Per Net MWh) 

State Interim Emission 

Goal Final Emission Goal 

Alabama 1,157 1,018 

Arizona 1,173 1,031 

Arkansas 1,304 1,130 

California 907 828 

Colorado 1,362 1,174 

Connecticut 852 786 

Delaware 1,023 916 

Florida 1,026 919 

Georgia 1,198 1,049 

Idaho 832 771 

Illinois 1,456 1,245 

Indiana 1,451 1,242 

Iowa 1,505 1,283 

Kansas 1,519 1,293 

Kentucky 1,509 1,286 

Lands of the Fort 

Mojave Tribe 832 771 

Lands of the Navajo 

Nation 1,534 1,305 

Lands of the Uintah 

and Ouray 

Reservation 

1,534 1,305 

Louisiana 1,293 1,121 

Maine 842 779 

Maryland 1,510 1,287 

Massachusetts 902 824 

Michigan 1,355 1,169 

Minnesota 1,414 1,213 

Mississippi 1,061 945 

Missouri 1,490 1,272 

Montana 1,534 1,305 

Nebraska 1,522 1,296 

Nevada 942 855 

New Hampshire 947 858 

New Jersey 885 812 

New Mexico 1,325 1,146 

New York 1,025 918 

North Carolina 1,311 1,136 
Page 1545 of 1546

North Dakota 1,534 1,305 

Ohio 1,383 1,190 

Oklahoma 1,223 1,068 

Oregon 964 871 

Pennsylvania 1,258 1,095 

Rhode Island 832 771 

South Carolina 1,338 1,156 

South Dakota 1,352 1,167 

Tennessee 1,411 1,211 

Texas 1,188 1,042 

Utah 1,368 1,179 

Virginia 1,047 934 

Washington 1,111 983 

West Virginia 1,534 1,305 

Wisconsin 1,364 1,176 

Wyoming 1,526 1,299 

Table 3 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60—Statewide Mass-based CO2

Emission Goals (Short Tons of CO2)

State Interim Emission 

Goal 

Final Emission Goal

Alabama 62,210,288 56,880,474 

Arizona 33,683,258 30,322,632 

Arkansas 33,061,997 30,170,750 

California 51,027,075 48,410,120 

Colorado 33,387,883 29,900,397 

Connecticut 7,237,865 6,941,523 

Delaware 5,062,869 4,711,825 

Florida 112,984,729 105,094,704 

Georgia 611,103 588,519 

Idaho 50,926,084 46,346,846 

Illinois 28,254,411 25,018,136 

Indiana 1,550,142 1,492,856 

Iowa 74,800,876 66,477,157 

Kansas 85,617,065 76,113,835 

Kentucky 24,859,333 21,990,826 

Lands of the Fort 

Mojave Tribe 

 71,312,802 63,126,121 

Lands of the Navajo 

Nation 

 39,310,314 35,427,023 
Page 1546 of 1546

Lands of the Uintah 

and Ouray 

Reservation 

 12,747,677 12,104,747 

Louisiana 16,209,396 14,347,628 

Maine 2,158,184 2,073,942 

Maryland 53,057,150 47,544,064 

Massachusetts 25,433,592 22,678,368 

Michigan 62,569,433 55,462,884 

Minnesota 27,338,313 25,304,337 

Mississippi 12,791,330 11,303,107 

Missouri 24,557,793 21,700,587 

Montana 56,986,025 51,266,234 

Nebraska 23,632,821 20,883,232 

Nevada 20,661,516 18,272,739 

New Hampshire 4,243,492 3,997,579 

New Jersey 17,426,381 16,599,745 

New Mexico 13,815,561 12,412,602 

New York 14,344,092 13,523,584 

North Carolina 33,595,329 31,257,429 

North Dakota 82,526,513 73,769,806 

Ohio 44,610,332 40,488,199 

Oklahoma 8,643,164 8,118,654 

Oregon 99,330,827 89,822,308 

Pennsylvania 3,657,385 3,522,225 

Rhode Island 28,969,623 25,998,968 

South Carolina 3,948,950 3,539,481 

South Dakota 31,784,860 28,348,396 

Tennessee 208,090,841 189,588,842 

Texas 2,561,445 2,263,431 

Utah 26,566,380 23,778,193 

Virginia 29,580,072 27,433,111 

Washington 11,679,707 10,739,172 

West Virginia 31,258,356 27,986,988 

Wisconsin 58,083,089 51,325,342 

Wyoming 35,780,052 31,634,412