# Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Final Revisions to the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491



# Final June Revisions Rule State Budgets

and New Unit Set-Asides TSD

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

June 20122EPA finalized the Transport Rule in July of 2011.1EPA is now finalizing revisions to certain states’ emission budgets under the Transport Rule aswell as revisions to certain new unit set-asides (NUSAs) under the Transport Rule programs. This technical support document shows the underlying dataand calculations used to quantify the state budget revisions and new unit set-aside revisions made in the February revisions rule2, as well as those revisionsincluded in the June revisions rule.3Section A below summarizes the net impact of the revisions in each rule on each affected state budget and NUSA.Section B below provides a description of each revision and accompanying tables demonstrating the data and calculations associated with each revision asrelevant to the February revisions rule;Section C below makes the same demonstration for each revision relevant to the June revisions rule. Each revision toa state budget also entails corresponding revisions to the absolutenumber of allowances put into the relevant new unit set-aside4as well as to the absoluteassurance level5for the relevant pollutant in that state, as NUSAs and assurance levels are both calculated by applying percentage values to the relevant statebudget (using the methodologies described in the final Transport Rule).Section A: Summary of Revisions to States’ Emission Budgets and NUSAs.The February revisions rule affects state emission budgets and/or NUSAs for Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, NewJersey, New York, Texas and Wisconsin. The June revisions ruleaffects state emissions budgets and/or NUSAs for South Carolina, Nebraska, Indiana,Ohio, New York, Kansas, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. These revisions to certain input assumptionsat the unit level maintain a consistent application of the methodology described in the final Transport Rule to quantify and eliminate emissions thatsignificantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS assessed inthat rulemaking. The revisions to the Transport Rulestate budgets and NUSAs are summarized in Tables A.1. and A.2. below.1Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of FineParticulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals (76FR 48208).2See preamble to the “Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans toReduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone” rule published in February.3See preamble to the “Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter andOzone ” rule published in June.4The “Total NUSAs” presented for each state in sections B and Cof this document include allowances under both the State NUSA and the Indian Country NUSA (wherethe latter exists in the given state).5EPA finalized in the February revisions rule to amend the effective date of the assurance provisions in all states to start in2014 instead of in 2012.3Table A.1.: Final February Revisions toTransport Rule State Budgets and NUSAs2012 – 2013 State Budgets 2014 and beyond State Budgets NUSA*SO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeason NOXSO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeason NOXSO2Annual NOXOzone SeasonNOXMichigan 5,228 5,228 2%Nebraska 3,599 3,599 6%Texas 50,517 1,375 1,375 50,517 1,375 1,375 5% 4% 4%Florida8192%Arkansas 5%Wisconsin 2,473 7,757 2,473 4% 6%New York 3,527 3,485 1,911 3,527 3,485 1,911 2% 2% 2%New Jersey 2,096 952 746 679 349 2% 2% 2%Louisiana4,5944,594 3%Mississippi2,1542,154 2%* Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards ordownwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations4Table A.2.:Final June Revisions to Transport Rule State Budgets and NUSAs2012 – 2013 State Budgets 2014 and beyond State Budgets NUSA*SO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeason NOXSO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeason NOXSO2Annual NOXOzoneSeason NOXSouth Carolina 8,013 8,013 0 2% 2% 2%Nebraska 3,110 3,110 4% 6%Indiana 5,338 5,338 0 3% 3% 3%Ohio 5,163 2,765 1,221 5,163 2,765 1,221 2% 2% 2%New York 5,444 694 127 5,444 694 127 2% 2% 2%Kansas 452 640 452 5,794 2% 2%Georgia 40,334 13,198 5,762 2% 2% 2%Arkansas173 73 8%Louisiana 89 89 2%Missouri226 26 26 26 3% 6% 6%Mississippi 115 115 2%Texas 2,731 1,142 2,731 1,142 5% 4% 4%Oklahoma3859 859 2%1This NUSA level for Arkansas takes effect for the 2014 control period and beyond.2These NUSA levels for Missouri take effect for the 2013 control period and beyond.3Revision applies in 2013 and beyond.Section B: Technical Revisions to States’ Transport Rule (TR)Emission Budgets and NUSAs Relevant to February Revisions Rule.1)MichiganEPA is finalizing an increase to Michigan’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXbudgets as proposed to correct for the assumption that Selective CatalyticReduction (SCR) technology is currently installed at Monroe Unit 2.This SCR is planned for future installation but is not expected to be operating by 20125or by 2014. Therefore, EPA is revising the state’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXemission budgets6to reflect projected emissions without this unit operating anSCR. This results in a 5,228 ton increase to the state’s annual NOXbudgets in 2012 and 2014. EPA also recognizes that this revised input assumption isrelevant to the calculation of the state’s ozone-season NOXbudget; EPA already included this revised assumption in its quantification of that budget whenthe Agency issued the Transport Rule Supplemental Notice of Final Rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR 87060).Table B.1.a.: Calculation to Determine Michigan AnnualNOXBudget Revision - Assuming no SCR at Monroe Unit 2A B C D E FPlant UnitEmissions fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012 (1000tons)Heat Input fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissionsNet BudgetRevision(1000 tons)Calculation A*2/B D x B/2 E - AMonroe 2 1.540 44.437 0.0693 0.3046 6.768 5.228Columns A, B, and C show the NOXemissions, heat input, and emission rate from theTR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when an SCR is assumedto be present at Monroe Unit 2. Because no SCR is present,EPA modified the emission rate to reflect the “controlled NOXpolicy rate” in the NEEDSversion from the September 1, 2010 TR Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (column D).7This value reflects the NOXemission rate assumed in EPA’smodeling of the Transport Rule as originally proposed, when EPAdid not assume an SCR to be present at the unit. This value approximates the emissionrate expected at the unit at a costthreshold of $500/ton when no SCR is present at the unit. EPA multiplied this NOXrate by the remedy heat input shown incolumn B to obtain a revised emissions projection for the unit (column E). The difference between this revised emission projection (no SCR assumed) andthe final Transport Rule remedy analysis emission projection (SCR assumed) determines the amount of the increase to the state’sannual NOXbudget(column F).This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for annual NOXin Michigan remains at 2%. The originaland revised values for the state annual NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unitset-aside are described in the table below.6Throughout this TSD and throughout the preamble to this proposal, EPA refers to a state budget for 2012 and 2013 as a “2012”state budget and refers to a state budget for2014 and thereafter as a “2014” state budget. Therefore, any revision of a 2012 state budget would apply to the state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014state budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and thereafter.7SeeNational Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v4.10 available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html6Table B.1.b.: Impact of Michigan AnnualNOXBudget Revision - Assuming no SCR atMonroe Unit 2 (tons)Annual NOXBudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside *% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial 60,193 118% 71,028 2% 1,2042012 Revised65,421--2%1,3082014 Initial 57,812 118% 68,218 2% 1,1562014 Revised63,040118%74,3872%1,261*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations2)NebraskaEPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase to Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXbudgets to correct for the assumption that SCR technology iscurrently installed at Nebraska City Unit 1. There is no SCRexisting, planned, or under construction at the unit. There willlikely be no SCR available atthe time of the 2012 and 2014 compliance periods as originallyassumed in EPA’s determination of Nebraska’s annual NOXbudgets. Therefore, EPA isrevising the state’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXemission budgets to reflect this unit operating withoutan SCR. This results in a 3,599 ton increase to thestate’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXbudgets. The calculations to quantify thisrevision are shown in the table below.Table B.2.a.: Calculation to Determine Nebraska AnnualNOXBudget Revision – Assuming no SCR at Nebraska City Unit 1A B C D E FPlant UnitEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Input fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissions(1000tons)NetBudgetRevision(1000tons)Calculation A*2/B D x B/2 E - ANebraska City 1 1.602 45.765208 0.070 0.2273 5.201 3.5997Columns A, B, and C show the NOXemissions, heat input, and emission rate from theTR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when an SCR is assumedto be present. Because no SCR is present, EPA modified the emission rate to reflect the “controlled NOXpolicy rate” in the NEEDS version from theSeptember 1, 2010 TR Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (column D).8This value reflects the NOXemission rate assumed in EPA’s modeling of theTransport Rule as originally proposed, when EPA did not assume anSCR to be present at the unit. This value approximates the emission rate expected atthe unit at a cost threshold of $500/ton when no SCR is present at the unit. This NOXrate was multiplied by the final remedy heat input shown in column Bto obtain a revised emissions value for the unit (column E). The difference between this revised emission projection (no SCR assumed, column E) and theremedy emission projection (SCR assumed, column A) determines the amount of the increase to the state’s annual NOXbudget (column F).The change to the annual NOXemission budget in Nebraska will result in a small changeto the state’s new unit set-aside percentage for annual NOX.The reason for the change is that under the methodology established in the final Transport Rule, the state-specific portion ofthe NUSA is calculated as thepercentage equal to the projected emissions from “planned units” divided by the 2014 state budget for the relevant pollutant.In the case of Nebraska, theprojected emissions from planned units remain unchanged, but the budget is increasing. Because the numerator remains unchangedbut the denominator isincreasing, the total new unit set-aside percentage decreases. That is, a smaller percentage ofthe state emission budget is needed to cover emissions from“planned” new units, because the budget is larger. For Nebraska,the budget revision would decrease the NUSA percentage for annual NOXfrom 7% to 6%as a result. This is applying the same NUSA methodology thatis used for every state in thefinal Transport Rule, and the change in percentage is simply anoutgrowth of the state’s budget revision. This change in the NUSA percentage yields only a marginal change in the absolute number of allowances in theNebraska NUSA. The original and revised values for the state annual NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in the table below.Table B.2.b.: Impact of Nebraska AnnualNOXBudget Revision – Assuming no SCR atNebraska City Unit 1 (tons)Annual NOXBudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside *% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial 26,440 118% 31,199 7% 1,8512012 Revised30,039--6%1,8022014 Initial 26,440 118% 31,199 7% 1,8512014 Revised30,039118%35,4466%1,802*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations8SeeNational Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v4.10 available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html83)Texas (Removed FGDs)EPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase Texas’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the assumption that Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)technology will be installed by 2012 for W.A. Parish Unit 6, J.T.Deely Unit 1, and J.T. Deely Unit 2. Although the facility owners had previouslyannounced plans to install FGD technology at these facilities, those plans have since been modified.910There will likely be no FGD available at these unitsduring the 2012 and 2014 compliance periods under the Transport Ruleprograms. Therefore, EPA is revising the state’s 2012 and2014 SO2emissionbudgets to reflect these units operating without an FGD. Thisresults in a 26,359 ton increase to the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets. The calculations toquantify this revision are shown in the table below.Table B.3.: Calculation to Determine Texas SO2Budget Revision – Assuming no FGD at J.T. Deely or W A Parish unit 6A B C D E FPlant UnitEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Input fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmission Rate(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissions(1000 tons)Net BudgetRevision(1000 tons)CalculationA*2/B D x B/2 E - AJ T Deely 1 0.917 30.55183083 0.060 0.5800 8.860 7.943J T Deely 2 0.914 30.46546708 0.060 0.5800 8.835 7.921W A Parish 6 1.211 40.3658592 0.060 0.5800 11.706 10.495Total26.359Columns A, B, and C show the SO2emissions, heat input, and emission rate from the TR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when an FGD is assumedto be present at these three units. Because no FGD is present, EPAis recalculating projected emissions at these units using the emission rates shown forthese units in EPA’s analysis of the base case for the final Transport Rule, as found in the TR_Base_Case_Final for 2012 (column D). These SO2emissionrates reflect generation at these units without the operation of the assumed FGDs, which did not operate in the final TransportRule base case because theywere modeled as “dispatchable” controls that were not found to be economic to operate in that scenario.11The revised SO2emission rate in column D ismultiplied by the final remedy heat input shown in column B toobtain a revised emissions projection for the unit (column E).The difference between this9“Corporate Sustainability Report”, CPS Energy, 2010. P.57.Retrieved from http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/Sustainability_Report.pdf10Business Wire, (2006). NRG Announces Comprehensive Repowering Initiative [ Press release]. Retrieved from http://phx.corporateir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=874575&highlight11See"WebReady_ParsedFile_TR_Base_Case_Final_2012"in the Transport Rule docket or on EPA's CSAPR website9revised emission projection (no FGD assumed, column E) and the remedy emission projection (FGD assumed, column A) determines the amount of theincrease to the state’s SO2budget (column F).The impacts of all revisions to the Texas state budgets on thestate’s NUSAs and assurance levels are shown in Table B.13.e.4)Texas (FGD Capture)EPA is also finalizing an increase to the Texas 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the assumption that the existing FGD technology currentlyinstalled at five facilities in Texas (Monticello, Martin Lake,Sandow, Oklaunion, and W A Parish) is capable of treating 100%of the flue gas at those units.Although EPA originally assumed removal rates at those units thatthe facility operators have previously reported, those facility operators have clarified toEPA that those reported removal rates only applied to the fluegas treated at the unit. Because of design limitations, these facilities may be substantiallylimited in the amount of flue gas that can be passed throughthe existing FGD. These facilities report less than 100% pass-through of flue gas on their mostrecent Energy Information Administration (EIA) 860 form.12Consequently, at these facilities, the effective removal rate of the FGD as applied to total SO2emissions at the affected units would be lower than the reportedremoval rate would otherwise indicate. As explained in the final revisions rule preamble,EPA is finalizing this revision based on the SO2removal efficiency and flue gas treatment data most recently reported for these scrubbers by the facilityoperators to the EIA on form 860. The approach results in a final SO2budget increase of 24,158 tons.1312Unless otherwise indicated, EPA used data from EIA form 860 as submitted for the year 2008 to calculate the revisions presented in this document, as this is the sameyear for which EPA used EIA form 860 data to inform pollution control removal efficiencies at all units in the Transport Rule power sector modeling.13EPA originally proposed a related budget increase of 43,708 tons, based on the same calculations presented here but using datareported for 2008 on EIA form 923.10Table B.4.: Calculation to Determine Texas SO2Budget Revision - Assuming Design SO2Removal Rates at FGD and PercentFlue Gas Entering FGDABCDEFGTotal SO2Emissions from2012TR_Remedy_Final(1000 tons)EIA 860Removal Rate(used inbudgetdetermination)EIA 860Percent ofFlue GasEntering FGDCalculatedRemovalRate (usedfor budgetrevisionestimate)UncontrolledEmissions(assuming noFGD)(1000tons)RevisedEmissions(assumingFGD withrevisedremoval rate)(1000 tons)NetBudgetRevision(1000tons)B*C A/(1-B) E*(1-D) F-AMartin Lake 1 1.862841 0.95 0.95 0.903 37.2568208 3.63254 1.7696989Martin Lake 2 1.8540181 0.95 0.95 0.903 37.0803634 3.6153354 1.7613172Martin Lake 3 1.745038 0.95 0.95 0.903 34.9007605 3.4028241 1.6577861Monticello 3 2.548471 0.95 0.75 0.713 50.96942 14.6537082 12.105237Oklaunion 1 2.2321097 0.868 0.81 0.703 16.9099223 5.0208941 2.7887843Sandow 4 1.2522935 0.92 0.83 0.764 15.6536693 3.7005274 2.4482338W A Parish 8 1.5948385 0.85 0.82 0.697 10.6322566 3.2215737 1.6267352Total 13.090 6.438 6.060 5.586 203.403 37.247 24.158Column A shows the projected emissions at these units as originallymodeled in the final TransportRule remedy for 2012. Column B shows the SO2removal rate that those 2012 emission projections are based on.Column C shows the source reported percent of flue gas entering FGD. Column D showsthe emission rate based on multiplying the removal rate by the percent of flue gas entering FGD. Column E shows a calculationof projected emissions ateach unit if the previously assumed FGD removal hadn’t occurred at all; these “uncontrolled emissions” are calculated in orderto allow application of therevised FGD removal rate shown in column D to these uncontrolledemissions, which yields the revised emission projection for each unit in column F. Thedifference between this revised emission projection (lower FGD capture assumed, column F) and the remedy emission projection (higher FGD captureassumed, column A) determines the amountof the increase to the state’s SO2budget (column G). The impacts of all revisions to Texas state budgets on thestate’s NUSAs and assurance levels are shown in Tables B.13.d and B.13.e.115)FloridaEPA is finalizing, as proposed, a revision to Florida’s 2012 ozone-season NOXbudget to correct for the assumption that Crystal River Unit 3, anuclear unit with no NOXemissions, will be available for dispatch in 2012. This unit is not expected to operate in 2012 as it is undergoing an extendedoutage for repair work. EPA is finalizing an increase to the state’s 2012 ozone season NOXbudget by 819 tons to reflect projected emissions from increaseddispatch of fossil-fuel-fired capacity neededto substitute for the generation that EPA originally projected to come from Crystal River Unit 3. Thecalculations to quantify this revision are shown in the table below.Table B.5.a.: Calculation to Determine Florida Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions to Offset Crystal River 3 OutageA B CDPlant NameUnitIDOzone-SeasonGeneration fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(GWh)Average HeatRate ofReplacementGeneration(BTU/kWh)Average Ozone-SeasonNOXEmission Rate ofReplacementGeneration(lbs/MMBTU)Ozone-SeasonNOXEmissions fromReplacementGeneration (tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Crystal River 3 2,976 8,340 0.066 819Column A shows the ozone-season generation projected from the Crystal River Unit 3 under the final Transport Rule 2012 remedy modeling.Columns B and C show the capacity-weighted average heat rate and ozone-season NOXemission rate from combined cyclenatural gas units in Florida thatEPA assumes would be likely to increase their dispatch to replacethe generation that would otherwise be available from CrystalRiver Unit 3.14Tocharacterize the emissions of this replacement generation, EPAselected combined cycle units that reported higher utilization in 2010 (when Crystal RiverUnit 3 was also out of service for repair) compared to their projected utilization under the final Transport Rule 2012 remedy modeling (that assumed CrystalRiver Unit 3 would operate). Because the originally projected operation of Crystal RiverUnit 3 did not include any NOXemissions covered by the TransportRule, the emissions from likely replacementgeneration calculated in column D determine the amount of the increase to the state’s 2012 ozone-season NOXbudget.The change to the ozone-season NOXbudget for Florida does not impact the percentage ofthe budget set aside for new units in Florida, whichremains at 2%. The original and revised values for the state ozone-season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in the tablebelow.14These capacity-weighted average heat rates and emission ratesare derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).12Table B.5.b.: Impact of Florida Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revision – Assuming CrystalRiver Unit 3 Outage (tons)OzoneSeasonNOXBudgetAssurance LevelTotal Ozone Season NOXNew Unit Set-Aside*% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial 27,825 121% 33,668 2% 5572012 Revised28,644--2%573*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations6)ArkansasPlum Point Unit 1 in Arkansas commenced commercial operation on orafter January 1, 2010. Such a date qualifies Plum Point Unit 1 as a“planned” new unit by the definition of that category describedin the “Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD” for the TransportRule. However, in the finalTransport Rule, EPA did not recognize Plum Point Unit 1as a newunit and therefore omitted its projected emissions in the determination of the ozoneseason NOXnew unit set-aside for Arkansas. Because there were no otherunits identified as “planned” new units in Arkansas, that state’s NUSA was set atthe minimum value of 2%.15EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a revision to the calculation of the Arkansas ozone-season NOXnew unit set-aside to reflect the“new unit” status of Plum Point Unit 1. The calculationsto quantify this revision are shown in the table below.Table B.6.a.: Calculation for Arkansas's NUSAAProjected 2020 Ozone-Season NOXEmissions from Plum Point (tons) 478BArkansas Ozone Season NOXState Budget (tons) 15,037CPlum Point's Emissions as a % of Arkansas State Budget (A/B) 3%DBase percentage for new unit set-aside 2%ETotal New Unit Set-Aside (C + D) 5%15As explained in the final Transport Rule, the minimum size of any state’s new unit set-aside is this “base percentage” amount,to which “state-specific” percentages areadded if the given state has projected emissions from “planned” new units (76 FR 48291).13Because Plum Point was the only “planned” new unit for the state of Arkansas, EPA divided its projected emissions into the state budget to derivethe state-specific percentage for the new unit set-aside in Arkansas, which rounds to 3%. This value was added to the base percentage for new unit set-aside(2%). The resulting new unit set-aside percentage for ozone season NOXin Arkansas is 5%. This change does notimpact the state budget or assurance levelin any way. However, the new unit set-aside changes by the levels shown below.16Table B.6.b.: Impact of Ozone SeasonNOXNUSA revision for ArkansasInitial %Updated% Initial tonsRevised tons*New Unit Set-Aside 2%5% 301752Existing Unit Allocation 98%95% 14,73614,285Total 100%100% 15,03715,037*Approximate set-aside amounts, may beadjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations7)Texas (NUSA)The Oak Grove Unit 2 in Texas commenced commercial operation on orafter January 1, 2010. Such a date qualifies Oak Grove Unit2 as a“planned” new unit by the definition of that category described inthe “Allowance Allocation Final Rule TSD”. However, in thefinal Transport Rule, EPAdid not recognize Oak Grove Unit 2 as a new unit and therefore omitted its projected emissions inthe determination of the newunit set-asides for Texas,which EPA then calculated to be set at 5%, 3%, and 3% for SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX,respectively. EPA is finalizing, as proposed, arevision to the Texas new unit set-asides toreflect the “new unit” status of Oak GroveUnit 2. The calculations to quantify these revisions are shown in thetable below.16The increase to the new unit set-aside would necessarily changeexisting unit allowance allocations in order to maintain the state budget. To review the existing unitallowance allocations associated with this revision, please see the document entitled “Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” found in the docketto this rulemaking.14Table B.7.: Calculation for Texas's NUSAsSO2NOXOzoneSeason NOXAProjected 2020 Emissions from planned new fossil (tons)* 9,855 2,727 1,216BTX State Budget (tons) 294,471 134,970 64,418CPlanned new unit emissions as a % of Texas's State Budget (A/B) 3% 2% 2%DBase percentage for new unit set-aside 2% 2% 2%ETotal New Unit Set-Aside (C+D) 5% 4% 4%*Revised to include emissions from Oak Grove Unit 2The impact of all revisions to Texas state budgets (and these revisions to the NUSAs) on the state’s NUSAs and assurance levelsare shown inTables B.13.e.8)WisconsinEPA is finalizing, as proposed, a revision to Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2budget to correct for the assumption that FGD technology will be installed by2014 for Weston Unit 3. In the final Transport Rule analysis, this unit was not modeled to build an FGD purely in response tothe $2,300 per ton thresholdinforming Wisconsin’s 2014 state SO2budget; instead, its FGD was added as an input assumption inthe base case related to information suggesting that thiscontrol was already scheduled for installation. However, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has informed EPA that this assumption waserroneous. Therefore, EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a revision to the state’s SO2emission budget for 2014 to reflect this unit operating without an FGD.This results in a 5,605 ton increase to the state’s 2014 SO2budget. This unit was not originally assumed tohave an FGD by 2012, so EPA is not finalizingany revision related to this unit for the state’s 2012 SO2budget. The calculations to quantify thisrevision are shown in the table below.Table B.8.a.: Calculation to Determine Wisconsin's SO2Budget Revision – Assumingno FGD at Weston Unit 3 in 2014 (1000 tons)A B CPlant Name Unit IDEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2014EmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012 Net Budget RevisionCalculationB-AWeston 3 0.647 6.252 5.60515Columns A and B show Weston’s Unit 3 SO2remedy case emissions in 2014 and2012, respectively. In its modeling of the final Transport Ruleremedy, EPA projected the same total heat input for Weston Unit 3in both years. However, the total projected emissions are lower in 2014 because theFGD was assumed to be operating in that year. Because the projected heat input is constant at this unit between these years, EPA has calculated thedifference between the projected emissions at this unit in 2012 (noFGD assumed, column B) and in 2014 (FGD assumed, column A)to determine theamount of the increase to Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2budget related to this unit, shown in column C.EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, a revision to Wisconsin’s 2014 SO2budget related to scrubbers being installed at Columbia units 1 and 2. In thefinal Transport Rule analysis, EPA assumed these installations would be wet scrubbers; however, theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)has informed EPA that they have been planned and approved as dry scrubbers instead. In its analysis of the final Transport Rule, EPA assumed SO2removalrates of 96% for new wet scrubbers and 92%for new dry scrubbers. Therefore, the projected emissions from these units reflected a higher SO2removal rate(and consequently lower emissions) than these units would be assumed to achieve with dry scrubber technology. In accordance with this revision, EPA isfinalizing, as proposed, a 2,152 ton increase to the Wisconsin 2014 SO2emission budget. These units were not originally assumed to have FGD by 2012, soEPA is not finalizing any revision related to these units for the state’s 2012 SO2budget.Table B.8.b.: Calculation to Determine Wisconsin SO2Budget Revision - Assuming Dry FGD atColumbia in 2014 (1000 tons)A B C DPlant Name Unit IDEmissions fromTR_RemedyFinal_2014(assuming 96%removal)UncontrolledEmissions(assuming noFGD)RevisedEmissions(assuming92% removal)Net BudgetRevisionCalculation A/(1-0.96) B *(1-0.92) C-AColumbia 1 1.089 27.231 2.179 1.09Columbia 2 1.063 26.572 2.126 1.063Total2.152 53.804 4.3042.152**Total reflects rounding of calculation performed for both units togetherColumn A shows the Columbia units’ projected emissions assuming 96% removal characteristic of a new wet scrubber. Column B shows acalculation of projected emissions at each unit if the previously assumed FGD removal hadn’t occurred at all; these “uncontrolled emissions” are calculatedin order to allow application of the revised FGD removal rateof 92% to these uncontrolled emissions, which yields the revisedemission projection for each16unit in column C. The difference betweenthis revised emission projection (dry scrubbersassumed, column C) and the remedy emission projection (wetscrubbers assumed, column A) determines theamount of the increase to the state’s 2014 SO2budget (column D).EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, a revision to Wisconsin’s annual NOXbudget for 2012 and 2014 to correct for the assumption that an SCR willbe in place at John P. Madgett Unit 1 in 2012 and 2014. There arecurrently no plans to have an SCR in place by 2014 at the unit. Therefore, EPA isrevising the state’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXbudgets by 2,473 tons to reflect the operation of the unit without an SCR. The calculations to quantify thisrevision are shown in the table below. EPA also recognizes thatthis revised input assumption is relevant to the calculation of the state’s ozone-season NOXbudget; EPA already included this revised assumption in its quantification of that budget when the Agency issued the TransportRule SNFR (76 FR 87060).Table B.8.c.: Calculation to Determine Wisconsin AnnualNOXBudget Revision - Assuming no SCR at J P MadgettA B C D E FPlant NameUnitIDEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Input fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmissions(1000tons)Net Budget Revision(1000 tons)Calculation A*2/B D x B/2 E - AJ P Madgett B10.588922429 23.55689678 0.05 0.26 3.062 2.473Columns A, B, and C shows the emissions,heat input, and emission rate from the 2012 remedy modeling for the J P Madgett unit.Because no SCR ispresent, EPA is recalculating projected emissions at this unit using the emission rate shown for this units in EPA’s analysis of the base case for the finalTransport Rule, as found in the TR_Base_Case_Final for 2012 (column D). This annual NOXemission rate reflects generation at this unit without theoperation of the assumed SCR, which did not operate in the final Transport Rule base case because it was modeled as a “dispatchable” control that was notfound to be economic to operate in that scenario.17The J P Madgett emission rate without operating anSCR (column D) multiplied by the remedy heat input(column B) yields the projected emissions from the unit if no SCRwere assumed to be in place. The difference between the projected emissions when noSCR is in place (column E) and the projected emissions when anSCR is assumed (column A) determines the amount of the increaseto the state’s 2012 and2014 annual NOXbudgets (column F).The revisions to the SO2emission budget for Wisconsin results in a small changeto the state’s new unit set-aside percentage for SO2. The reason for thechange is that under the methodology established in the final Transport Rule, the state-specific portion of the NUSA is calculated as the percentage equal to17See"WebReady_ParsedFile_TR_Base_Case_Final_2012"in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4420)or on EPA's CSAPR website.17the projected emissions from “planned units” divided by the statebudget for the relevant pollutant. In the case of Wisconsin,the projected emissions fromplanned units remain unchanged, but the budget is increasing.18Because the numerator remains unchanged butthe denominator is increasing, the total newunit set-aside percentage for SO2decreases. That is, a smaller percentage of the state emission budget is needed to cover emissions from “planned” newunits, because the budget is larger. For Wisconsin, the budget revision decreases the NUSA percentage for SO2from 5% to 4% as a result. This is applyingthe same NUSA methodology that is used for every state in the final Transport Rule, and the changein percentage is simply an outgrowth of the state’sbudget revision. While this change in theNUSA percentage reduces the absolute number of allowances in the Wisconsin NUSA forSO2as compared to theamount under the final Transport Rule, the revised NUSA still contains more than enough allowances in 2012 and 2014 to cover projected emissions from“planned” new units in Wisconsin, with the remainder still available for “potential”new units to enter the programs during that time. The original andrevised values for the state SO2budget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in the table below.Table B.8.d.: Impact of Wisconsin Budget Revisions – Assuming no FGD at Weston Unit 3, noSCR at JP Madgett, and dry FGD at Columbia (tons)Program BudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside*% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial SO279,480 118% 93,786 5% 3,9742012 RevisedSO279,480--4%3,1792014 Initial SO240,126 118% 47,349 5% 2,0062014 RevisedSO247,883118%56,5024%1,9152012 Initial Annual NOX31,628 118% 37,321 6% 1,8982012 RevisedAnnual NOX34,101--6%2,0462014 Initial Annual NOX30,398 118% 35,870 6% 1,8242014 RevisedAnnual NOX32,871118%38,7886%1,972*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations18While this relationship is also true for annual NOX, the revisions to Wisconsin’s annual NOXbudget do not yield a different calculated NUSA percentage than theoriginally determined 6% under the final Transport Rule.189)New YorkEPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase to the New York state annual NOX, ozone-season NOX, and SO2budgets to reflect the assumption ofnear-term operational constraints affecting specific units in New York City and Long Island. These revisions are based on three types of local operatingconstraints that apply to certain generators in New York Cityand Long Island, which are referred to here as the N-1-1 Contingency, the Minimum Oil BurnRules, and local out-of-merit-order dispatchconditions. Each calculation of the near-term emission impact found to be associated with these constraints isdocumented below; the results are summarized in Table B.9.f.N-1-1 ContingencyCertain parts of the Con Edison system in New York City arerequired to be designed and operated for the occurrence of a secondcontingency, alsoknown as an N-1-1 contingency; these requirements are in additionto any requirements for the first (N-1) contingency on whichthe overall New York Statepower system is operated. The local rules that determine the operation and unit commitment for New York City are New York StateReliability Council(NYSRC) rules I-R1 through I-R4.19To meet the requirements of these rules, the NewYork Independent System Operator (NYISO) performs asupplemental commitment of units in the New York City zone.The rules require additional reserves from in-city combustion turbines (CTs), as well as unitcommitment of steam units where needed toensure sufficient locational reserves andto guard against a potential interruption in gas supply at any givenfacility that could disrupt its generation and perturb local gridstability. These rules are in effect throughout the year andare implemented by NYISO in adaily and hourly unit commitment process specific to New York City. Depending on the expected load level and the pattern of load during the day, NYISOwill commit steam units to meet intermediate load levels, whileplacing CTs in reserve to meet morning and afternoon peak requirements if needed. As theNYISO must meet multiple requirements for reserves and energy andcomply with the NYSRC rules, the exact pattern of dispatch that satisfies all of theseconstraints varies throughout the year. Because the steam units in the city have long startup times and 24-hour minimum run times, NYISO must committhese units in advance in order to preserve the ability to dispatchthe CTs during peak load or in response to grid disruptioncontingencies.The dispatch requirements apply throughout the year, but thereare also additional environmental requirements unique to ozone season operation.During the ozone season, the NYISO determines generator operationssubject to local environmental regulations that require NYISO to dispatch certainsteam units before seeking additional power from CTs when needed, to balance the need to meet energy and reserve requirements against daily localemissions for these units. NYISO implements these requirements through an operational procedure that requires commitment of oil/gas steam units atspecific plants that would otherwise not be economic to dispatch, in order to ensure these combustion turbines can be dispatched when needed. For the19See Rule I-R1, NYSRC Reliability Rules For Planning and Operating the New York State Power System, Version 29, New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC),January 7, 2011, p. 66.19steam units in New York City (Arthur Kill,Ravenswood and Astoria), these procedures meanthat one or more steam units must berunning for the entireozone season.20Minimum Oil Burn RulesIn order to ensure that units do not go offline if there is aloss of natural gas supply to New York City, the NYSRC rules incorporate specialprovisions that require natural gas units to be prepared to switch from natural gas to oil immediately upon notice of a loss ofnatural gas supply. Theseprovisions are implemented through utility applications to the NYISO for special summer and winter dispatch conditions designedto govern whengenerators must be prepared to burn oil in each season.21For certain oil/gas steam units that do not havethe ability to switch immediately from natural gasto oil, this provision means that they must already be burning oil at the times that they may be notified to switch. As a result, it is necessary for these units tooperate using oil at certain times of the year. For New York City, Con Edison applies to revisethis procedure twice each yearbased on expected conditionsfor the winter or summer season.22There is a separate and similar minimumoil burn rule affecting units in Long Island.23Since in the current outlook the price of oil is much higher than gas for the same heat input, EPA recognizes that these operations would not becaptured in projections of economic generating behavior. As such, EPA has calculated revised emission projections at the unitsaffected by the minimum oilburn rules based on the fraction of heat input each unit reported as oil in 2010 to the Energy Information Administration.24Local Out-of–Merit-Order DispatchLong Island’s ability to import electricity is limited to tie lineswithin the state between Con Ed and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), andinterstate cables connecting Long Island with the Independent System Operator for New England (ISO-NE) and the PJM Interconnection. Because the linesfrom ISO-NE and PJM are direct current (DC) lines that are not dispatched in real time and not controlled by the NYISO, the ability to serve Long Islandload from within New York State is subject to overall importlimitations. Local conditions limiting the immediate-term abilityof NYISO to move powerbetween southern New York state and Long Island lead NYISO todispatch more generation from units on Long Island than regionaleconomic dispatchmodeling, such as EPA’s IPM projections, would suggest. The NYISO Operating Study25shows that NYISO is limited to approximately 860 MW ofdispatchable import capacity into Long Island on a sustainable hourly basis. Even if this line were fully loaded for all hoursof the year, the maximumamount of imports into Long Island that NYISOcan dispatch would be 7.5 TWh; however,in EPA’s modeling of the final TransportRule, Long Island has20SeeAnalysis of New York City Averaging Plans for Compliance with NOx Emissions Limitations, New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 201121NYSRC Reliability Rules For Planning and Operating the New York State Power System, Version 29, New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), January 7, 2011, IR3 & I-R5 Reliability Rule Applications. Rule I-R3 governsNew York City operations, Rule I-R5 Long Island Operations.22See ConEd,Application for the Loss of Generator Gas Supply –New York City, OC Meeting – May 12, 2011, for the requirements for the summer 2011 procedures.23See the document,Long Island Gas Burn Procedures – 2011, in the docket for the TR Rule Revisions Proposal, Docket.24The EIA data used for this calculation is availableat: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html.25See NYISO Operating Study Summer 2011 and Appendices, New York Independent System Operator, July 14, 2011, page C-3.209.7 TWh of net imports from NYISO dispatch. Under these conditions, NYISO would have to increase local Long Island generationby 2.2 TWh to meetlocal load while respecting the 7.5 TWh limitation on imports from the rest of NYISO, notwithstanding the economic merit of that imported generation. Todetermine projected emissions associated with this local out-of-merit-order dispatch, EPA assumed that this generation would come from the Northportplant, on the basis that one unit at Northport is modeled tohave economic generation even without this local import limitationrepresented, and the remainingunits at Northport have heat rates that differ by less than onepercent from the Northport unit that was modeled to dispatch.Calculation of New York City Revised Generation and Emissions – Plant LevelTo reflect the requirements of the NYSRC rules as implemented bythe NYISO for New York City, EPA is assuming that additional commitment ofunits at three steam plants in New York City (Arthur Kill, Ravenswood, and Astoria) would occur in the form of two units at each facility dispatched at aminimum of 50% capacity at the times that the contingency conditions apply to necessitate non-economic operation of these steamunits. These calculationsestablish the assumed minimum generation at each facility that woulddispatch in the immediate term to meet the conditions of the NYSRC rulesindependent of the economic merit of that generation within thelarger region as originally modeled. Where EPA’s originally projected generation for theunit was less than this minimum, EPA has calculated here the difference in generation from the unit and, most importantly, theassociated emissions fromthat generation, in order to inform the revision to the New Yorkstate budgets under the TransportRule. Calculations were performed separately for ozoneseason and non-ozone season periods. During the ozone season, these dispatch conditions were assumed to apply 100% of the time; during the rest of theyear (non-ozone season), they were assumedto apply 40% of the time, reflecting historically observed seasonal differences in operation of these units. TheNOXemissions from this additional generation at these unitswere calculated using each unit’s heat rate and NOXemission rate from EPA’s assumptions inits IPM modeling. The results from these unit-levelcalculations are shown in Tables B.9.a and B.9.b.To account for the effects of the minimum oil burn rule in New York City, EPA calculated SO2emissions from the revised generation at each unit byassuming that the unit would burn oil for the same share of itsprojected heat input (including the revisions discussed above)as reported to EIA in 2010.These calculations for New York City units are shown in Table B.9.b. To estimate additional SO2emissions, the IPM emission rate of 1.04 lbs/MMBtu forresidual fuel oil was used. The IPM emission rate for NOXis the same for natural gas and oil, so no changes in NOXemissions were needed to represent theadditional use of oil.21Table B.9.a.: Ozone SeasonNOXRevised Unit-Level Emission Projections forNew York City for N-1-1 Contingency OperationAffected Facilities Operations as modeled for the Transport Rule in IPM Revisions to Generation and EmissionsA B C D E F G H I J K LUniqueID Plant NameCapacity(MW)CapacityFactorHeatRate(BTU/kWh)NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)HeatInput(TBtu)Generation(GWh)MinimumCapacityFactorRevisedGeneration(GWh)AdditionalGenerationbeyondIPM (GWh)AdditionalNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation(I-H)(E*J*F)/20002490_B_20 Arthur Kill 335 31.7% 10389 0.08 4.056 390 50.0% 615 225 90.52490_B_30 Arthur Kill 491 31.7% 10198 0.10 5.836 572 50.0% 901 329 165.62500_B_10 Ravenswood 356 0.0% 11714 0.07 0.000 0 50.0% 653 653 256.52500_B_30 Ravenswood 940 0.0% 11624 0.07 0.000 0 50.0% 1,726 1,726 697.78906_B_30 Astoria 366 44.4% 10123 0.06 6.039 597 50.0% 672 75 23.38906_B_40 Astoria 373 44.4% 10117 0.06 6.150 608 50.0% 685 77 23.822Table B.9.b.: AnnualNOXand SO2Revised Unit-Level Emission Projections for New York Cityfor N-1-1 Contingency Operation and Minimum Oil Burn RuleAffectedFacilities Operations as modeled for the Transport Rule in IPM Revisions to Generation and EmissionsA B C D E F G H I J K L M NUniqueIDPlantNameCapacity(MW)CapacityFactorHeatRate(BTU/kWh)NOXRate (lbs/MMBtu)HeatInput(TBtu)Generation(GWh)MinimumCapacityFactorRevisedGeneration(GWh)AdditionalGenerationbeyondIPM (GWh)AdditionalNOXEmissions(tons)2010 OilFractionAdditionalSO2Emissions(tons)*Calculation(I-H)(E*J*F)/2000M*J*1.04*E/20002490_B_20ArthurKill 335 13.3% 10389 0.08 4.056 390 32.6% 956 566 227.9 0.000 0.02490_B_30ArthurKill 491 13.3% 10198 0.10 5.836 57232.6% 1,401 829 416.9 0.000 0.02500_B_10Ravenswood 356 0.0% 11714 0.07 0.000 0 32.6% 1,015 1,015 398.7 0.039 243.12500_B_30Ravenswood 940 0.0% 11624 0.07 0.000 0 32.6% 2,682 2,682 1084.4 0.039 637.78906_B_30 Astoria 366 18.6% 10123 0.06 6.039597 32.6% 1,044 448 138.6 0.065 358.38906_B_40 Astoria 373 18.6% 10117 0.06 6.150608 32.6% 1,064 456 141.1 0.065 364.98906_B_50 Astoria 359 18.6% 10120 0.06 5.921 585 18.6% 585 0 0.0 0.065 200.7*Assumes the IPM v.4.10_FTransportSO2emission rate of 1.04 lbs/MMBTU for oil-fired generationCalculation of Long Island Revised Generation and Emissions – Plant LevelAs discussed above, EPA is assuming that an additional 2.2 TWh ofgeneration beyond the level projected in IPM modeling of theTransport Rulewill occur on Long Island in the immediate term to allow NYISO todispatch enough power to meet local load while respecting thelimited import capacityinto Long Island. EPA is assuming that this additional generation would occur at the Northport facility distributed across itsthree units. Since the threeunits have virtually identical heat rates, EPA assumes that theseunits would be operated at the same capacity factors; EPA therefore establishes a minimumcapacity factor at each unit in order to produce an additional 2.2TWh beyond the original IPM projection. In concert with these assumptions, EPAcalculated additional ozone-season NOX, annual NOX, and SO2emissions from these Long Island units in thesame way as for the New York City unitsshown above. These calculations are provided in Tables B.9.c and B.9.d below.23Table B.9.c.: Ozone SeasonNOXRevisions for Long Island for Import Limited GenerationAffected FacilitiesOperations as modeled for the Transport Rule in IPMRevisions to Generation and EmissionsA B C D E F G H I J K LUniqueIDPlantNameCapacity(MW)CapacityFactorHeatRate(BTU/kWh)NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)HeatInput(TBtu)Generation(GWh)MinimumCapacityFactorRequiredGeneration(GWh)AdditionalGeneration(GWh)AdditionalNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation(I-H)(E*J*F)/20002516_B_2 Northport 390 23.4% 10580 0.11 3.534 334 38.5% 551 217 129.62516_B_3 Northport 391 0.0% 10634 0.14 0.000 0 38.5% 552 552 399.02516_B_4 Northport 385 0.0% 10663 0.10 0.000 0 38.5% 544 544 292.2Table B.9.d.: AnnualNOXand SO2Revisions for Long Island for Import Limited Generation and Minimum Oil Burn RuleAffected Facilities Operations as modeled for the Transport Rule in IPMRevisions to Generation and EmissionsA B C D E F G H I J K L M NUniqueIDPlantNameCapacity(MW)CapacityFactorHeatRate(BTU/kWh)NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)HeatInput(TBtu)Generation(GWh)MinimumCapacityFactorRevisedGeneration(GWh)AdditionalGenerationbeyondIPM (GWh)AdditionalNOXEmissions(tons)2010 OilFractionAdditionalSO2Emissions(tons)*Calculation(I-H)(E*J*F)/2000M*J*1.04*E/20002516_B_2 Northport 390 9.8% 10580 0.11 3.534 334 25.1% 858 524 313.4 0.122 573.72516_B_3 Northport 391 0.0% 10634 0.14 0.000 0 25.1% 860 860 621.6 0.122 578.12516_B_4 Northport 385 0.0% 10663 0.10 0.000 0 25.1% 847 847 455.2 0.122 570.8Assumes the IPM v.4.10_FTransportSO2emission rate of 1.04 lbs/MMBTU for oil-fired generation24Calculation of Revisions to New York State BudgetsIn order to maintain the balance of electricity supply and demand as originally projected in the Transport Rule analysis, EPA is assuming thatincreased generation at the units shown above would offset the need for an equivalent amount of generation originally projectedin IPM to occur at moreefficient generators in the system. To calculate the net change in projected emissions for each pollutant relevant to establishing state budgets under theTransport Rule, EPA assumes that the increased generation at the units shown above displaces previously projected generation from a combined cycle unit inNew York City, as that unit is representative of more efficient generation that is preferred in IPM determinations of least-cost dispatch. These calculationsare shown in Table B.9.e.Table B.9.e.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at a Representative Combined Cycle Unit in NewYork*A B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Annual 8,227 7,600 0.01 313Ozone Season 4,397 7,600 0.01 167*Assumed heat rate and emission rates aretaken from the 500 CC unit in New York City, as shown in NEEDS v4.10_FTransport.To quantify the revisions to Transport Rule state budgets in New York, EPA has calculated the net emissions change associated with the revisions tounit-level generation presented in this section, including the displaced emissions shown in Table B.9.e. These calculations areshown in Table B.9.f.25Table B.9.f.: Calculation to Determine Net New York SO2, AnnualNOX, and OzoneSeasonNOXBudget RevisionsSO2AnnualNOXOzone SeasonNOXAAdditional Emissions Due toNew York City Revisions 1,805 2,408 1,257BAdditional Emissions Due toLong Island Revisions 1,723 1,390 821CDisplaced Emissions 0 313 167DNet Emissions Change ForNew York (A+B-C) 3,527 3,485 1,911The revisions to the annual and ozone season NOXemission budgets for New York result in small changes to the state’s new unit set-aside percentages forannual NOXand ozone season NOX. The reason for these changes is that under the methodology established in the final Transport Rule, the state-specificportion of the NUSA is calculated as the percentage equal to the projected emissions from “planned units” divided by the statebudget for the relevantpollutant. In the case of New York, the projected emissions from planned units remain unchanged,but the budgets are increasing.26Because the numeratorremains unchanged but the denominator is increasing, the total new unit set-aside percentage for annual NOXand ozone season NOXdecreases. That is, asmaller percentage of the state emissionbudgets is needed to cover emissions from“planned” new units, because the budgets arelarger. For New York, thebudget revisions decrease the NUSA percentages for both annual NOXand ozone season NOXfrom 3% to 2% as a result. This is applying the same NUSAmethodology that is used for every state in the final Transport Rule, and the change in percentages is simply an outgrowth of the state’s budget revisions.Despite the lower percentage value, the absolute number of allowances in the New York NUSAs rises in accordance with the budgetrevisions for NewYork. The original and revised values for the state’s emission budgets, assurance levels, and new unit set-asides are described in the Table B.9.g below.26While this relationship is also true for SO2, the revisions to New York’s SO2budget do not yield a different calculated NUSA percentage than the originally determined2% under the final Transport Rule.26Table B.9.g.: Impact of New York Budget Revisions – Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatchat New York City and Long Island Units (tons)Program BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Initial SO227,325 118% 32,244 2% 5472012 RevisedSO230,852--2%6172014 Initial SO218,585 118% 21,930 2% 3722014 RevisedSO222,112118%26,0922%4422012 Initial Annual NOX17,543 118% 20,701 3% 3512012 RevisedAnnual NOX21,028--2%4212014 Initial Annual NOX17,543 118% 20,701 3% 3512014 RevisedAnnual NOX21,028118%24,8132%4212012 InitialOzone-Season NOX8,331--3%1672012 RevisedOzone-Season NOX10,242121%12,3932%2052014 InitialOzone-Season NOX8,331121%10,0813%1672014 RevisedOzone-Season NOX10,242121%12,3932%205*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations10) New JerseyEPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase to New Jersey’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudgets to correct for the assumption thatscrubber and SCR technology would be installed by 2012 at BL England Unit 1. The scrubber and SCR had been planned to meet anAdministrativeConsent Order (AO) with New Jersey, but an agreement with thestate allowed for a delay in installation of the control technology until the end of 2013.Additionally, the AO requires that this unit only run during the ozone season.27Therefore, EPA is adjusting the state’s 2012 emission budgets to reflect this27Personal Correspondence from Bill O’Sullivan, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, to Sam Napolitano. September26, 2011.27unit operating only in the ozone season and without a scrubber or SCR. This results in a 2,096 ton increase to the state’s 2012 SO2budget; a 273 tonincrease to the state’s 2012 annual NOXbudget; and a 397 ton increase to the state’s 2012 ozone season NOXbudget. As discussed later in this section, EPAassumes that the generation previously projected at BL England Unit 1 outside of the ozone season(and thus inconsistent with the AO) would occur insteadat well-controlled combined cycle units within the state, and their associated emissions are factored into the revisions to NewJersey state budgets.The calculations of revised 2012 emissions from ozone-season operation of BL England Unit 1 are shown in Table B.10.a.Table B.10.a.: Calculation to Determine Revised Ozone Season Emissions at BL England Unit 1A B C D E FPollutantOzone SeasonEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Ozone Season HeatInput fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)RevisedEmission Rate(lbs/MMBtu)Revised OzoneSeasonEmissions(1000 tons)Net Changein OzoneSeasonEmissions(1000 tons)CalculationA*2/B D x B/2 E - ASO20.175 2.282 0.153 2.190 2.499 2.324NOX0.105 2.282 0.092 0.440 0.502 0.397Columns A, B, and C show the emissions, heat input, and emission rate from the TR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when the pollutioncontroldevices were originally assumed to be present at BL England Unit 1. Because neither a scrubber nor SCR is required by the AO in 2012, EPA modified theemission rates by removing the impact of the scrubber28and adopting the “controlled NOXpolicy rate” in the NEEDS version from the September 1, 2010TR Notice of Data Availability (NODA), which does not reflect operation of an SCR at that unit (column D).29These values approximate the emission ratesexpected at the unit at a cost threshold of $500/ton when no scrubber or SCR is present at the unit. These emission rates weremultiplied by the remedy heatinput shown in column B to obtain a revised emissions value for the unit (column E). The difference between these revised emission projections (noscrubber or SCR assumed, column E) and the remedy emission projections (scrubber and SCR assumed, column A) determines the netchange to this unit’sozone-season emissions (column F).28The SO2emission rate for BL England Unit 1 in TR_Remedy Final_2012 was 0.153 lbs/MMBtu. Removing the impact of that previously assumed scrubber’s SO2removal rate of 93% yields an uncontrolled SO2emission rate of 2.19 lbs/MMBtu.29SeeNational Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v4.10 available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html28Since the AO does not allow BL England Unit 1 to run outside ofthe ozone season, EPA has also determined the emissions impactfrom replacingthe previously projected generation for that unit occurring outside of the ozone season. EPA assumes that this decrease in previously projected generation atBL England Unit 1 would be offset by increasinggeneration at New Jersey combined cycle units,30represented in these calculations as a generic unit with aheat rate and emission rates equalto the generation-weighted averageof New Jersey combined cycle units.31The calculations of emissions from thisreplaced generation are shown in Table B.10.b. As discussed below, the heat and emission rates of the generic unit were revised from the proposal forconsistency across all revisions using a generation weighted average, instead of capacity weighted. Additionally, two cogeneration plants were removedfrom this average based on comments.Table B.10.b.: Calculation of Emissions atNew Jersey Combined Cycle Units fromReplacing BL England Unit 1’s Non-Ozone-Season GenerationA B C DPollutantBL England Unit 1Non-Ozone SeasonGeneration fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012 (GWh)AverageHeat Rate ofReplacementGeneration(Btu/kWh)EmissionRate ofReplacementGeneration(lbs/MMBtu)Emissions fromReplacementGeneration (1000tons)Calculation A*B*C/(2000*1000)SO2253.3 7413 0 0NOX253.3 7413 0.0136 0.013EPA calculated the SO2and NOXemissions in Table B.10.b by multiplying the replaced generation (column A) by the generic unit’s heat rate(column B) and relevantemission rate (column C).In order to calculate appropriaterevisions to New Jersey’s 2012 SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXstate budgets in accordance with therevisions to BL England Unit 1, EPA calculated the net change inprojected emissions of each pollutant as shown in Table B.10.cbelow.30Excluding cogeneration facilities, whose generation is not solely based on electricity demand.31These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Tranport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).29Table B.10.c.: Calculation to Determine New Jersey 2012 Budget Revisions Due to Changes atBL England Unit 1 (1000 tons)QuantityCalculationValueAAdditional SO2Emissions from BL England2.324BSO2Emissions from Replacement Generation0CBL England Unit 1 Non-Ozone Season SO2Emissions fromTR_Remedy Final_20120.228DNet SO2Emissions Due to Revisions of BL England Unit 1A+B-C2.096EAdditional Ozone Season NOXEmissions from BL England 0.397FAnnual NOXEmissions from Replacement Generation0.013GBL England Unit 1 Non-Ozone Season NOXEmissions fromTR_Remedy Final_20120.137HNet AnnualNOXEmissions Due to Revisions of BL England Unit1E+F-G0.273INet Ozone SeasonNOXEmissions Due to Revisions of BLEngland Unit 1=E0.397The revisions to New Jersey’s 2012 SO2and annual NOXbudgets are determined by combining the revised emissions from ozone season operationwithout FGD or SCR at BL England Unit 1 (rows A and E) with the net change in emissions fromreplacing BL England’s generationduring the rest of theyear (row B minus row C for SO2, row D minus row E for NOX). The revision to New Jersey’s 2012 ozone-season NOXbudget is equivalent to the changein ozone season NOXemissions at BL England due to removing the SCR (row E).EPA is also finalizing, as proposed,an increase to New Jersey’s annual NOXand ozone season NOXbudgets to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting six plants, based on information provided by the system operator demonstrating that northernNew Jersey is an out-of-meritorder dispatch area. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recently submitteddocumentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the unitsdisplayed below during the implementationof the Transport Ruleprograms. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will bedispatched at six plants (Bergen, Edison, Essex, Kearny,Linden, and SewarenGenerating Stations) based on the average capacity factor representing the frequency the unit has recently been called on to operate out of merit order,30calculated from dispatch logbook data provided by PSEG.32As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched fromthese six facilities would offset generation that would otherwisecome from combined cycle units within the state, and the revisions to New Jersey statebudgets are based on the net change to projected emissions takingthat offsetting factor into account. The net impact of thesechanges on the state’s 2012 and2014 budgets are a 679 ton increase in annual NOXand a 349 ton increase in ozone season NOX.The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXand annual NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at the six facilities are shown inTables B.10.d and B.10.e, respectively. For each unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heatrate, generation, and emission rate are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown in column H. The additionalgeneration for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated bymultiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacityfactor, and the number ofhours in either the ozone season or year (column I). The additional heat input required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generation by the unit’sheat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heatinput by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table B.10.d.: Calculation to Determine New Jersey Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Six PlantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIDCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)Ozone SeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)NOXEmissionRate fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(lbs/MMBtu)OzoneSeasonAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration(GWh)*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeason NOXEmissions(tons)CalculationC*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Bergen2398_G_1101 114 0.010 8841 55.18 0.04 20.1% 84.16 744,050 15.6Bergen2398_G_1201 114 0.010 8841 55.18 0.04 20.1% 84.16 744,050 15.6Bergen2398_G_1301 114 0.010 8841 55.18 0.04 20.1% 84.16 744,050 15.632See the spreadsheet“New Jersey Minimum Noneconomic Dispatch”provided by PSEG on September 26, 2011, in the docket for this rule making.31Bergen2398_G_1401 114 0.010 8841 55.18 0.04 20.1% 84.16 744,050 15.6Bergen2398_G_1501 219 0.020 8841 106.00 0.04 20.1% 161.67 1,429,359 30.0Bergen2398_G_2101 163 0.004 9241 78.89 0.01 22.0% 131.73 1,217,340 7.3Bergen2398_G_2201 163 0.004 9241 78.89 0.01 22.0% 131.73 1,217,340 7.3Bergen2398_G_2301 224 0.006 9241 108.42 0.01 22.0% 181.03 1,672,908 10.0PSEGEdison2400_G_11 42 0.003 16763 1.37 0.27 2.1% 3.29 55,100 7.4PSEGEdison2400_G_12 42 0.003 16862 1.37 0.27 2.1% 3.17 53,375 7.1PSEGEdison2400_G_13 42 0.003 16893 1.37 0.27 1.8% 2.79 47,161 6.3PSEGEdison2400_G_14 42 0.003 16947 1.37 0.26 1.7% 2.60 44,143 5.8PSEGEdison2400_G_21 42 0.003 17182 1.37 0.28 2.0% 3.04 52,261 7.2PSEGEdison2400_G_22 42 0.003 16846 1.37 0.27 2.0% 3.07 51,731 6.9PSEGEdison2400_G_23 42 0.003 16979 1.37 0.27 1.9% 2.87 48,679 6.6PSEGEdison2400_G_24 42 0.004 17184 1.37 0.30 1.6% 2.53 43,451 6.5PSEGEdison2400_G_31 42 0.003 16953 1.37 0.27 1.6% 2.52 42,653 5.7PSEGEdison2400_G_32 42 0.003 16984 1.37 0.27 1.8% 2.76 46,909 6.3PSEGEdison2400_G_33 42 0.003 17033 1.37 0.27 1.9% 2.87 48,964 6.6PSEGEdison2400_G_34 42 0.003 16950 1.37 0.26 1.7% 2.68 45,443 6.0PSEGEssex2401_G_101 42 0.003 16968 1.37 0.30 2.6% 4.00 67,800 10.232PSEGEssex2401_G_102 42 0.004 17066 1.37 0.30 2.4% 3.66 62,382 9.3PSEGEssex2401_G_103 42 0.004 17188 1.37 0.30 2.1% 3.31 56,950 8.5PSEGEssex2401_G_104 42 0.004 17167 1.37 0.30 2.2% 3.33 57,220 8.6PSEGEssex2401_G_111 46 0.004 16816 1.50 0.30 2.5% 4.16 69,880 10.5PSEGEssex2401_G_112 46 0.004 17154 1.50 0.30 2.6% 4.48 76,769 11.5PSEGEssex2401_G_113 46 0.004 16847 1.50 0.30 2.3% 3.92 66,007 9.9PSEGEssex2401_G_114 46 0.004 16726 1.50 0.30 2.3% 3.86 64,566 9.7PSEGEssex2401_G_121 46 0.004 16455 1.50 0.30 2.2% 3.80 62,517 9.4PSEGEssex2401_G_122 46 0.004 16889 1.50 0.30 2.2% 3.78 63,867 9.6PSEGEssex2401_G_123 46 0.004 16771 1.50 0.30 2.3% 3.83 64,166 9.6PSEGEssex2401_G_124 46 0.001 16758 1.50 0.08 2.2% 3.67 61,540 2.6PSEGEssex2401_G_9 81 0.022 10633 13.67 0.30 0.0% 0.00 0 0.0PSEGKearny2404_G_10 134 0.012 18700 4.45 0.30 0.5% 2.37 44,361 6.7PSEGKearny2404_G_11 134 0.012 18700 4.45 0.30 0.3% 1.47 27,572 4.1PSEGKearny2404_G_N121 43.8 0.003 9667 7.28 0.09 0.2% 0.26 2,534 0.1PSEGKearny2404_G_N122 43.7 0.003 9791 7.26 0.09 0.2% 0.27 2,670 0.1PSEGKearny2404_G_N123 43.8 0.003 10109 7.28 0.09 0.0% 0.02 201 0.0PSEGKearny2404_G_N124 43.7 0.003 9704 7.26 0.09 0.2% 0.26 2,475 0.133PSEGLinden2406_G_5 86 0.005 12110 14.51 0.06 2.1% 6.58 79,681 2.4PSEGLinden2406_G_6 86 0.005 12601 14.51 0.05 2.1% 6.60 83,206 2.1PSEGLinden2406_G_7 84 0.005 12155 14.17 0.06 2.5% 7.83 95,173 2.8PSEGLinden2406_G_8 84 0.006 13314 14.17 0.06 2.6% 8.03 106,922 3.4PSEGSewaren2411_B_1 104 - 12377 0.00 0.12 6.4% 24.28 300,531 17.6PSEGSewaren2411_B_2 118 - 13581 0.00 0.16 4.7% 20.31 275,884 22.1PSEGSewaren2411_B_3 107 - 14500 0.00 0.15 6.0% 23.73 344,085 26.1PSEGSewaren2411_B_4 124 - 14500 0.00 0.14 3.8% 17.38 251,965 17.6TOTAL1,14211,483,943410.2*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.34Table B.10.e.: Calculation to Determine New Jersey AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Six PlantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameNEEDSUniqueIDCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmission(1000 tons)fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012Heat RatefromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(Btu/kWh)GWh AnnualfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012NOXEmissionRate fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration(GWh)*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationC*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000Bergen2398_G_1101 1140.015 884178.98 0.04 36.3% 362.43 3,204,207 67.3Bergen2398_G_1201 1140.015 884178.98 0.04 36.3% 362.43 3,204,207 67.3Bergen2398_G_1301 1140.015 884178.98 0.04 36.3% 362.43 3,204,207 67.3Bergen2398_G_1401 1140.015 884178.98 0.04 36.3% 362.43 3,204,207 67.3Bergen2398_G_1501 2190.028 8841151.72 0.04 36.3% 696.24 6,155,451 129.3Bergen2398_G_2101 1630.005 924186.87 0.01 35.5% 507.55 4,690,299 28.1Bergen2398_G_2201 1630.005 924186.87 0.01 35.5% 507.55 4,690,299 28.1Bergen2398_G_2301 2240.007 9241119.38 0.01 35.5% 697.50 6,445,565 38.7PSEGEdison2400_G_11 420.003 167631.37 0.27 1.0% 3.76 63,093 8.5PSEGEdison2400_G_12 420.003 168621.37 0.27 1.0% 3.56 59,944 8.0PSEG 2400_ 42 16893 0.27 0.8% 2.85 48,155 6.535Edison G_13 0.003 1.37PSEGEdison2400_G_14 420.003 169471.37 0.26 0.7% 2.67 45,259 6.0PSEGEdison2400_G_21 420.003 171821.37 0.28 1.0% 3.59 61,750 8.5PSEGEdison2400_G_22 420.003 168461.37 0.27 1.0% 3.60 60,655 8.1PSEGEdison2400_G_23 420.003 169791.37 0.27 0.8% 3.02 51,338 7.0PSEGEdison2400_G_24 420.004 171841.37 0.30 0.7% 2.68 46,125 6.9PSEGEdison2400_G_31 420.003 169531.37 0.27 0.8% 2.88 48,831 6.5PSEGEdison2400_G_32 420.003 169841.37 0.27 0.8% 3.10 52,620 7.1PSEGEdison2400_G_33 420.003 170331.37 0.27 0.8% 2.94 50,000 6.7PSEGEdison2400_G_34 420.003 169501.37 0.26 0.7% 2.74 46,491 6.1PSEGEssex2401_G_101 420.003 169681.37 0.30 1.6% 6.07 102,945 15.4PSEGEssex2401_G_102 420.004 170661.37 0.30 1.5% 5.39 91,989 13.8PSEGEssex2401_G_103 420.004 171881.37 0.30 1.3% 4.79 82,370 12.3PSEGEssex2401_G_104 420.004 171671.37 0.30 1.4% 5.21 89,408 13.4PSEGEssex2401_G_111 460.004 168161.50 0.30 1.7% 6.70 112,614 16.9PSEGEssex2401_G_112 460.004 171541.50 0.30 1.8% 7.15 122,683 18.4PSEGEssex2401_G_113 460.004 168471.50 0.30 1.5% 6.20 104,513 15.7PSEGEssex2401_G_114 460.004 167261.50 0.30 1.6% 6.53 109,251 16.436PSEGEssex2401_G_121 460.004 164551.50 0.30 1.9% 7.49 123,289 18.5PSEGEssex2401_G_122 460.004 168891.50 0.30 2.0% 7.90 133,445 20.0PSEGEssex2401_G_123 460.004 167711.50 0.30 1.9% 7.60 127,493 19.1PSEGEssex2401_G_124 460.001 167581.50 0.08 1.8% 7.24 121,333 5.1PSEGEssex2401_G_9 810.022 1063313.67 0.30 0.1% 0.57 6,026 0.9PSEGKearny2404_G_10 1340.012 187004 0.30 0.3% 3.63 67,789 10.2PSEGKearny2404_G_11 1340.012 187004 0.30 0.2% 2.78 51,981 7.8PSEGKearny2404_G_N121 43.80.004 96679 0.09 0.3% 1.25 12,097 0.6PSEGKearny2404_G_N122 43.70.004 97919 0.09 0.3% 1.15 11,299 0.5PSEGKearny2404_G_N123 43.80.004 101099 0.09 0.3% 1.33 13,463 0.6PSEGKearny2404_G_N124 43.70.004 97049 0.09 0.4% 1.39 13,488 0.6PSEGLinden2406_G_5 860.005 1211015 0.06 1.2% 9.20 111,371 3.3PSEGLinden2406_G_6 860.005 1260115 0.05 1.3% 9.55 120,318 3.0PSEGLinden2406_G_7 840.005 1215514 0.06 1.9% 14.25 173,152 5.1PSEGLinden2406_G_8 840.006 1331414 0.06 1.6% 11.99 159,613 5.1PSEGSewaren2411_B_1 104- 12377 0 0.12 2.8% 25.71 318,163 18.6PSEGSewaren2411_B_2 118- 13581 0 0.16 1.9% 19.24 261,271 21.0PSEGSewaren2411_B_3 107- 14500 0 0.15 2.7% 25.45 368,953 28.037PSEGSewaren2411_B_4 124- 14500 0 0.14 1.6% 17.37 251,901 17.6TOTAL4,11938,694,923886.9*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8,760 hoursof possible operation in the year; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table B.10.f, EPA is assuming that the increasein generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at New Jersey combined cycle units, shown in thesecalculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B)and emission rate (columnC) equal to the generation-weighted average of New Jersey combined cycle units.33This is a change from the proposalwhere a capacity-weighted averagewas used to determine the characteristicsof the representative unit. The change wasmade for consistency across states where generation from arepresentative unit was used to offset increased generation due toout-of-merit order dispatch. Additionally, as explained in the preamble and based oncomments received, EPA excluded any identified cogeneration unitsfrom these calculations. Finally, separate annual and ozoneseason emission and heatrates were calculated and the applicable ones were usedas the situation warranted. The ozone season and annual NOXemissions associated with thedisplaced generation (column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by the average heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representativecombined cycle unit.Table B.10.f.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at New Jersey Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Annual 4,119 7,413 0.0136 208Ozone Season 1,142 7,454 0.0144 61The total revisions finalized to New Jersey’s state budgets dueto the revisions at BL England and accounting for the out-of-merit-order dispatch aredemonstrated in Table B.10.g. The increase in emissions due tothe changes at BL England Unit 1, which only impact the 2012 budgets, were added to theincrease in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation,which impact both the 2012 and 2014 budgets. The emissions associated with the generation33These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).38displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation was subtractedfrom the increase in emissions to determine the net emission budget changes for New Jersey(row D).Table B.10.g.: Calculation to Determine Net New Jersey SO2, AnnualNOX, and Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)2012 2014SO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXSO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXANet Emissions Increases Due to Changes at BL England Unit 1 2,096 273 397 0 0 0BAdditional Emissions Due to Out-Of-Merit-Order Generation 0 887 410 0 887 410CDisplaced Emissions from Out-Of-Merit-Order Generation 0 208 61 0 208 61DNet Budget Revisions for New Jersey (A+B-C) 2,096 952 746 0 679 349The original and revised values for the state SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudgets, assurance levels, and new unit set-asides aredescribed in Table B.10.h.39Table B.10.h.: Impact of New Jersey BudgetRevisions – Assuming No FGD or SCR at BLEngland Unit 1 in 2012 and Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Six Facilities (tons)Program BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Initial SO25,574 118% 6,577 2% 1112012 RevisedSO27,670--2%1532014 Initial SO25,574 118% 6,577 2% 1112014 RevisedSO25,574118%6,5772%1112012 Initial Annual NOX7,266 118% 8,574 2% 1452012 RevisedAnnual NOX8,218--2%1642014 Initial Annual NOX7,266 118% 8,574 2% 1452014 RevisedAnnual NOX7,945118%9,3752%1592012 InitialOzone-Season NOX3,382121%4,0922%682012 RevisedOzone-Season NOX4,128--2%832014 InitialOzone-Season NOX3,382121%4,0922%682014 RevisedOzone-Season NOX3,731121%4,5152%75*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations11)LouisianaEPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase to Louisiana’s ozone season NOXbudget for 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting units atfive plants, based on information provided by the system operator demonstrating thatthere are three out-of-meritorder dispatch areas in Louisiana: the Westof the Atchafalaya Basin (WOTAB), Down Stream of Gypsy (DSG), and Amite South regions. EPA's analysisin the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recently submitted documentation that appear likely tonecessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of the Transport Rule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming40additional generation will be dispatched at five plants (Nelson, Nine Mile Point, Michoud, Little Gypsy, and Waterford) based on the average capacity factorrepresenting the frequency the unit is projectedto be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived from immediate-term dispatch modeling projectionsprovided by Entergy.34As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched from these five facilities would offsetgeneration that would otherwise come from combined cycle unitswithin the state, and the revision to Louisiana’s state budget is based on the net change toprojected emissions taking that offsetting factor into account.The net impact of these changes on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is a 4,594 tonincrease.The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at the five facilities is shown in Table B.11.a. Foreach unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation fromTR_Remedy Final_2012,and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns Ato G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shownin column H. Theadditional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and thenumber of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heatinput required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generation by the unit’sheat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heatinput by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table B.11.a.: Calculation to Determine Louisiana Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Five PlantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Ozone SeasonNOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)OzoneSeasonAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeason HeatInput(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000R S Nelson1393_B_3 153 0 10476 0 0.151 16% 89.89 941,694 70.9R S Nelson1393_B_4 500 0 10419 0 0.128 23% 422.28 4,399,735 281.3Little Gypsy1402_B_1 244 0 9978 0 0.278 7% 62.72 625,798 86.834Correspondence from Entergy to EPA, September 29, 2011. Please see the document “Transmission System Considerations – Entergy”in the docket for this rule making.41Little Gypsy1402_B_2 415 0 10032 0 0.098 3% 45.72 458,627 22.5Little Gypsy1402_B_3 545 0 10179 0 0.311 24% 480.30 4,888,949 760.0Nine MilePoint1403_B_3 132 0 10264 0 0.149 11% 53.32 547,250 40.9Nine MilePoint1403_B_4 738 0 9955 0 0.337 31% 840.08 8,362,998 1,409.0Nine MilePoint1403_B_5 753 0 9841 0 0.298 34% 940.11 9,251,578 1,380.0Michoud1409_B_1 100 0 11427 0 0.042 0% 0.00 0 0.0Michoud1409_B_2 230 0 10997 0 0.207 30% 253.37 2,786,288 287.9Michoud1409_B_3 530 0 11288 0 0.105 45% 875.77 9,885,714 518.7Waterford 1& 28056_B_1 400 0 10238 0 0.123 3% 44.06 451,127 27.9Waterford 1& 28056_B_2 405 0 10137 0 0.116 7% 104.10 1,055,274 61.2Total 4,211.71 43,655,032 4,947.1*The formula used to calculate Column Iuses a multiplier of 3.672 because there are 3,672 hours of possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table B.11.b, EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Louisiana combined cycle units, shown in these calculations. Generation was first offset from Washington Parish,which commenters informedEPA that the plant was never completed and part were deconstructed,35with the remaining generation offset froma representative unit with a heat rate(column D) and emission rate (column E) equal to the generation-weighted average of Louisiana combined cycle units.36As explained in the preamble andbased on comments received, EPA excluded any identified cogeneration units fromthese calculations. Finally, separate annual and ozone season emissionand heat rates were calculated and the applicable oneswere used as the situation warranted. The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced35SeeDocket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4803.36These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).42generation (column G) were calculated by multiplying that generation by the average heatrate and the relevant emission rate atthe representative combinedcycle unit. The total displaced emissions (column H) were calculated by adding the emissions from the operation of Washington Parish in IPM (column F) toemissions displaced from the representative unit.Table B.11.b.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Louisiana Combined Cycle UnitsA B C D E F G HProgramPeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)GenerationDisplacedfromWashingtonParish(GWh)GenerationDisplacedfrom otherCombinedCycles(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmissionRate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedEmissionsfromWashingtonParish(tons)DisplacedEmissionsfrom otherCombinedCycles(tons)TotalDisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA-BC*D*E/2000 F+GOzoneSeason 4,212 1,806 2,405 7,480 0.031765081 67.7 286 353.4The total revision proposed to Louisiana’s state budget due tothe out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table B.11.c. The emissions associatedwith the generation displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation(row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-ordergeneration (row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Louisiana (row C).Table B.11.c.: Calculation toDetermine Net LouisianaOzone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 4,947BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 353CNet Emission budget ChangeFor Louisiana (A-B) 4,59443The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table B.11.d.Table B.11.d.: Impact of Louisiana Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions –Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Five Facilities (tons)BudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside*% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial13,432121%16,2533%4032012 Revised18,026--3%5412014 Initial13,432121%16,2533%4032014 Revised18,026121%21,8113%541*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations12) MississippiEPA is finalizing, as proposed, anincrease to Mississippi’s ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting units at three plants, based oninformation provided by the system operator demonstrating that the Mississippi Region is anout-of-merit-order dispatch area. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recentlysubmitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of the TransportRule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched atthree plants (Rex Brown, Gerald Andrus, and Baxter Wilson)based on the average capacity factor representing the frequency theunit is projected to be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived from immediate-termdispatch modeling projections provided by Entergy.37As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched from thesethree facilities would offset generation that would otherwise comefrom combined cycle units within the state, and the revisionto Mississippi’s state budgetis based on the net change to projected emissions taking thatoffsetting factor into account. The net impact of these changes on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is a 2,154 ton increase.37Correspondence from Entergy to EPA, September 29, 2011. Please see the document “Transmission System Considerations – Entergy”in the Transport Rule docket(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4729).44The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch atthe three facilities is shown in Table B.12.a.For each unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation from TR_RemedyFinal_2012, and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown incolumn H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacityfactor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heat input required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generationby the unit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additionalemissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying theadditional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table B.12.a.: Calculation to Determine Mississippi Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at three plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*(GWh)AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Rex Brown2053_B_4 200 0 14500 0 0.228 4% 29.38 425,952 48.6BaxterWilson2050_B_1 475 0 10655 0 0.318 7% 122.09 1,300,912 207.1BaxterWilson2050_B_2 771 0 10511 0 0.422 18% 509.60 5,356,407 1130.5GeraldAndrus8054_B_1 670 0 10748 0 0.209 33% 811.88 8,726,078 912.8Total 1472.9515,809,3482299.1*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table B.12.b, EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Mississippi combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)45equal to the generation-weighted average of Mississippi combined cycle units.38The emission and heat rates of this representative unit changed from theproposal because the proposal’s calculations used annual, rather than ozone-season, data; the calculations for this final ruleuse ozone-season data.Additionally, as explained in the preamble and based on comments received, EPA excluded any identified cogeneration units fromthese calculations. Theozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation (column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by the average heat rateand the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table B.12.b.: Calculation of Emissions from DisplacedGeneration at Mississippi Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season 1,473 7,570 0.026 145The total revision to Mississippi’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table B.12.c. The emissions associated withthe generation displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to theout-of-merit-ordergeneration (row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Mississippi (row C).Table B.12.c.: Calculation to Determine Net MississippiOzone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 2,299BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 145CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Mississippi (A-B) 2,15438These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).46The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table B.12.d.Table B.12.d.: Impact of Mississippi Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions –Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Three Facilities (tons)BudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside*% of Budget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Initial10,160121%12,2942%2032012 Revised12,314--2%2462014 Initial10,160121%12,2942%2032014 Revised12,314121%14,9002%246*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations13) Texas (Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch)EPA is finalizing, as proposed, an increase Texas’s annual NOXand ozone season NOXbudgets in 2012 and 2014 toreflect the assumption of nearterm operational constraints affecting unitsat two plants, based on information provided by the system operator demonstratingthat the Western and West ofthe Atchafalaya regions are out-of-merit-orderdispatch areas. EPA's analysis in thefinal Transport Rule did not incorporatethe immediate-term localconditions described in recently submitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the unitsdisplayed below during theimplementation of the Transport Rule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched at two plants (Lewis Creek andSabine) based on the average capacity factor representing the frequency the unit is projected to be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived fromimmediate-term dispatch projections provided by Entergy.39As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched fromthese two facilities would offset generation that would otherwise come from combined cycle units within the state, and the revisions to Texas’s state budgetsare based on the net change to projected emissions taking thatoffsetting factor into account. The net impact of these changeson the state’s annual NOXandozone season NOXbudgets is a 1,375 ton increase to each budget.The calculations of the increase in annual and ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatchat the two facilities is shown in TableB.13.a. For each unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissionsfrom TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation from TR_Remedy39Correspondence from Entergy to EPA, September 29, 2011. Please see the document “Transmission System Considerations – Entergy”in the Transport Rule docket(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4729).47Final_2012, and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown incolumn H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacityfactor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heat input required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generationby the unit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additionalemissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying theadditional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table B.13.a.: Calculation to Determine TexasNOX* Budget Revisions - Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Two PlantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIDCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)OzoneSeasonAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzone SeasonGeneration**(GWh)AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Lewis Creek3457_B_1 229 0 10325 0 0.020 47% 395.22 4,080,619 40.5Lewis Creek3457_B_2 230 0 10600 0 0.020 55% 464.51 4,923,785 48.5Sabine3459_B_1 230 0 11172 0 0.168 37% 312.49 3,491,107 293.8Sabine3459_B_2 230 0 10225 0 0.152 30% 253.37 2,590,688 197.2Sabine3459_B_3 420 0 10588 0 0.104 32% 493.52 5,225,356 271.7Sabine3459_B_4 530 0 9800 0 0.143 45% 875.77 8,582,566 613.5Sabine3459_B_5 480 0 10442 0 0.090 15% 264.38 2,760,698 124.8Total 3,059.25 31,654,818 1,589.848*Note: Since the increase in generation at these units is limited to the ozone season, the revised emissions calculated here apply equally to determination of the annual NOX and ozone-season NOX state budgets.**The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in theozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table B.13.b, EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Texas combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) andemission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Texas combined cycle units.40The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table B.13.b.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Texas Combined Cycle Units*A B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season 3,059 7,376 0.019 214*Note: Since the increase in generation at these units is limited to the ozone season, the revised emissions calculated here apply equally to determination of the annual NOX andozone-season NOX state budgets.The total revisions to the Texas state budgets due to out-of-merit-order dispatch are calculated in Table B.13.c. The emissionsassociated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Texas (row C).Table B.13.c.: Calculation to Determine Net Texas AnnualNOXand Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions*AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 1,590BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 214CNet Emission budget ChangeFor Texas (A-B) 1,375*Note: Since the increase in generation at these units is limited to the ozone season,the revised emissions calculated here apply equally to determination of the annual40These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Final Revisions Rule” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4945).49NOX and ozone-season NOX state budgets.In addition to the revisions summarized inTable B.13.c., the revisions to Texas state budgets outlined above in sections 3, 4,and 7 of this technicalsupport document are summarized in Table B.13.d. The cumulative impacts of all of the technical revisions to the Texas budgetsand NUSAs aresummarized in Table B.13.e.41Table B.13.d.: Summary of Texas SO2Budget RevisionsRemoved FGD Revision 26,359FGD Capture Revision 24,158Total SO2Budget Revision 50,51741The increase to the new unit set-aside would necessarily changeexisting unit allowance allocations in order to maintain the state budget. To review the existing unitallowance allocations associated with this revision, please see the document entitled “Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” found in the docketto this rulemaking.50Table B.13.e.: Impact of Texas Budget Revisions – Assuming Removed FGDs and Revised FGDCapture at Certain Units, Revised NUSAs forOak Grove 2, and Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch atTwo Facilities (tons)Program BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Initial SO2243,954 118% 287,866 5% 12,1982012 RevisedSO2294,471--5%14,7242014 Initial SO2243,954 118% 287,866 5% 12,1982014 RevisedSO2294,471118%347,4765%14,7242012 Initial Annual NOX133,595 118% 157,642 3% 4,0082012 RevisedAnnual NOX134,970--4%5,3992014 Initial Annual NOX133,595 118% 157,642 3% 4,0082014 RevisedAnnual NOX134,970118%159,2654%5,3992012 InitialOzone-Season NOX63,043121%76,2823%1,8912012 RevisedOzone-Season NOX64,418--4%2,5772014 InitialOzone-Season NOX63,043121%76,2823%1,8912014 RevisedOzone-Season NOX64,418121%77,9464%2,577*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations51Section C: Technical Revisions to States’ TR EmissionBudgets and NUSAs Relevant to June Revisions Rule1)South CarolinaEPA is finalizing, based on comments, anincrease to South Carolina’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the assumption that Flue GasDesulfurization (FGD) technology is currently installed at the WS Lee Power Plant. There is no FGD planned or under construction at the unit. Therefore,EPA is finalizing an increase to the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2emission budgets to reflect projected emissionswithout these units operating a FGD. Thisresults in a 8,013 ton increase to the state’s SO2budgets in 2012 and 2014.Table C.1.a.: Calculation to Determine South Carolina Budget Adjustment- Assuming no FGD at W S LeeA B C D E FPlant UnitEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)HI fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission Ratefrom fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissions(1000tons)BudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA*2/B D x B/2 E - AW S Lee 1 0.480468932 3.907141013 0.246 1.320 2.579 2.098W S Lee 2 0.477953387 3.886684777 0.246 1.320 2.565 2.087W S Lee 3 0.903656715 7.169244286 0.252 1.320 4.731 3.828Total8.013In Table C.1.a., columns A, B, and C show the SO2emissions, heat input, and emission rate from the TR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when aFGD is assumed to be present at W S Lee. Because no FGD is present, EPA modified the emission rate to reflect the TR Base CaseFinal 2012 Remedyanalysis where the FGD is assumed not to dispatch at the unit. This value approximates the emission rate expected at the unitat a costthreshold of $500/tonwhen no FGD is operating at the unit. EPA multiplied this SO2rate by the remedy heat input shown in column B to obtain a revised emissions projection forthe unit (column E). The difference between this revised emission projection (no FGD assumed) andthe final Transport Rule remedy analysis emissionprojection (FGD assumed) determines the amount of the increase to the state’s SO2budget (column F).This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for SO2in South Carolina remains at 2%. Theoriginal and revised values for the state SO2budget, assurance level, and new unit set-asideare described in the table below.52Table C.1.b.: Impact of South Carolina's SO2Budget Revision - Assuming no FGD at WS Lee(tons)SO2BudgetAssurance LevelTotal NewUnit Set-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 88,620 - - 2% 1,7722012 After June Revisions Rule96,633--2%1,9332014 Before June Revisions Rule 88,620 118% 104,572 2% 1,7722014 After June Revisions Rule96,633118%114,0272%1,933*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations2)NebraskaEPA is finalizing, based on comments,an increase to Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the assumption that FGD technology iscurrently installed at Whelan Energy CenterUnit 1. There is no FGD existing, planned,or under construction at the unit. There will likely be no FGDavailable at the time of the 2012 and 2014 compliance periods as originally assumed in EPA’s determination of Nebraska’s SO2budgets. Therefore, EPA isfinalizing a revision the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2emission budgets to reflect this unit operating without an FGD. This results in a 2,334 ton increase to thestate’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets. The calculations to quantify thisrevision are shown in the table below.53Table C.2.a.: Calculation to Determine Nebraska Budget Adjustment - Assuming no FGD at Whelan Energy Center Unit 1A B C D E FPlant UnitEmissions fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)HI fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission Ratefrom fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissionsBudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA*2/B D x B/2 E - AWhelanEnergyCenter 1 0.255767801 6.394195158 0.0800 0.81 2.5902.334EPA is also finalizing, based on comments, a revision to Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets related to FGD technology at Whelan EnergyCenter Unit 2 and Nebraska City Unit 2. In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA assumed these installations would be wet scrubbers; however, NebraskaPublic Power District has informed EPA through comment that they are dry scrubbers instead.42In its analysis of the final Transport Rule, EPA assumedSO2removal rates of 95.9% for the wet scrubbers.However, dry scrubbers generally have lower SO2removal rates. EPA revised its removal assumptionfor these two units to reflect the lower SO2removal rates as reported by the sources themselveson EIA form 860 (95% removal for Nebraska unit 2 and90.5% removal for Whelan unit 2). The revised projected SO2emissions from these units reflect the lower SO2removal rate (and consequently higheremissions) than these units would be assumed to achieve with wet scrubber technology. In accordance with this revision, EPA isfinalizing a 776 tonincrease to the Nebraska’s 2012 and 2014 SO2emission budget.42SeeDocket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4754.54Table C.2.b.: Calculation to Determine Nebraska's Annual SO2Budget Adjustment- Assuming dry FGD in place of Wet FGD (1000 tons)A B C DUnitEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(95.9%removal)Emissionsassuming noFGDEmissionsassumingEIA 860RatesEmissionAdjustmentCalculationA/.041B*.05 or.095 C-ANebraska City 2 1.142 27.854 1.393 0.251Whelan Energy Center 2 0.399 9.732 0.925 0.526Total1.541 37.585 2.3170.776Column A shows the units’ projected emissions assuming 95.9% removal characteristic of the assumed wet scrubber. Column B shows a calculationof projected emissions at each unit if the previously assumed FGD removal hadn’t occurred at all; these “uncontrolled emissions” are calculated in order toallow application of the revised FGD removal rates of 95% for Nebraska City Unit 2 and 90.5% for Whelan Energy Center Unit 2 tothe uncontrolledemissions, which yields the revised emission projection for each unit in column C. The difference between this revised emission projection (dry scrubbersassumed, column C) and the remedy emission projection (wet scrubbers assumed, column A) determines the amount of the increase to the state’s 2012 and2014 SO2budget (column D). The combined impact of these two budget adjustments is a 3,110 tons increase to the state’s 2012 and 2014SO2budgets.This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for SO2in Nebraska remains at 4%. The original and revised values for the state SO2budget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside aredescribed in the table below.55Table C.2.c.: Nebraska SO2Budget, Assurance Level, and NUSA Before and After 3,800SO2Budget AdjustmentSO2BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside *% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 65,052 - - 4% 2,6022012 After June Revisions Rule68,162--4%2,7262014 Before June Revisions Rule 65,052 118% 76,761 4% 2,6022014 After June Revisions Rule68,162118%80,4314%2,726*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations3)IndianaEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Indiana’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the assumption that FGD technology iscurrently installed at Gallagher Units 2 and 4. There is no FGDexisting, planned, or under construction at the units. Theseunits do, however, have DSItechnology installed with an SO2removal rate that achieves approximately 60% sulfur removal according to data reported by the sources on EIA form 860.Therefore, EPA is finalizing a revision to the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2emission budgets to reflect this unit operating with DSI instead of FGD. As notedby the commenter, the units are also subject to a NSR settlement agreement that imposes a .8 lbs/MMBtu limit for SO2at the units. Therefore, EPA revisedits assumption to ensure that with the adjustment from FGD toDSI, that the source still honored its emission rate limits. This results in a 3,465 ton increaseto the state’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets. The calculations to quantify this revision are shown in the table below.56Table C.3.a.: Calculation to Determine Indiana SO2Budget Adjustment -Assuming DSI in place of FGD in 2012 and 2014 (1000 tons)A B C DEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(86%removal)HI fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Emissionsassuming.8lbs/MMBtuEmissionRateEmissionAdjustmentCalculationB*.8C-AGallagher 2 1.066211595 6.957289314 2.783 1.717Gallagher41.086086737.086979392.8351.749Total 2.152 14.044 5.6183.465Column A shows the units’ projected emissions with the 86% removal rate assumed in the TR_Remedy_Final. Column B shows the heat inputprojected for each unit in the TR remedy. This heat input ismultiplied by the .8 lbs/mmbtu emission rate allowed under the settlement to arrive at theemissions value in column C – which reflects the DSI technology rather than FGD technology. The difference between this revised emission projection(DSI assumed, column C) and the remedy emission projection (FGDassumed, column A) determines the amount of the increase to thestate’s 2012 and 2014SO2budget (column D). The combined impact of these two budgetadjustments is a 3,465 tons increase to the state’s 2012 and 2014SO2budgets.EPA is also finalizing, based on comments, an adjustment to the 2012 and 2014 SO2budget for Indiana based on theamount of flue gas that passesthrough the FGD at Gibson Unit 5. The commenter noted thatbecause of this scrubber’s design limitation, the facility may be limited in the amount of fluegas that can be passed through the existing FGD. The Gibson unit in Indiana reports less than 100% pass-through of flue gas onEIA form 860.Consequently, at this unit, the effective removal rate of the FGD as applied to total SO2emissions would be lower thanthe reported removal rate wouldotherwise indicate. EPA is finalizing an adjustment to theIndiana budget to account for the inability of the Gibson unit to pass all of its flue gas through itsscrubber. Consistent with the approach EPA used to finalize similar revisions, EPA is finalizing this revision based on the SO2removal efficiency and fluegas treatment data reported for these scrubbers by the facility operators to the EIA on form 860. The approach results in a final 2012 and 2014 SO2budgetincrease of 1,873 tons.57Table C.3.b.: Calculation to Determine Indiana SO2Budget Adjustment – Assuming Revised SO2removal Rates atFGDA B C D E F GPlantNameUnitIDTotal SO2Emissions fromTR_Remedy_Final(1000 tons)EIA 860Removal Rate(used inbudgetdetermination)EIA 860Percentof FlueGasEnteringFGDCalculatedRemovalRate (usedfor budgetrevisionestimate)UncontrolledEmissions(assumingnoFGD)(1000tons)RevisedEmissions(assumingFGD withrevisedremovalrate) (1000tons)NetBudgetRevision(1000tons)CalculationB*C A/(1-B) E*(1-D) F-AGibson 5 4.928346201 0.95 98% 0.931 98.566924 6.80111781.873Column A shows the projected emissions at the unit as originally modeled in the final Transport Rule remedy for 2012. Column Bshows the SO2removal rate that the 2012 emission projections are based on.Column C shows the source reported percent of flue gas enteringFGD. Column D shows theeffective removal rate based on multiplying the removal rate by the percent of flue gas entering FGD. Column E shows a calculation of projected emissionsat each unit if the previously assumed FGD removal hadn’t occurred at all; these “uncontrolled emissions” are calculated in order to allow application of therevised FGD removal rate shown in column D to these uncontrolledemissions, which yields the revised emission projection for each unit in column F. Thedifference between this revised emission projection (lower FGD capture assumed, column F) and the remedy emission projection (higher FGD captureassumed, column A) determines the amountof the increase to the state’s SO2budget (column G).The combined impact of these two changes to Indiana’s 2012 and2014 budget is 5,338 tons. Thisbudget change will not result in any impact to thepercent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final Transport Rule, the NUSA for SO2in Indiana remains at 3%. The originaland revised values for the state SO2budget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in the table below.58Table C.3.c: Impact of Indiana's 2012 and 2014 SO2Budget RevisionSO2BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside *% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 285,424 - - 3% 8,5632012 After June Revisions Rule290,762--3%8,7232014 Before June Revisions Rule 161,111 118% 190,111 3% 4,8332014 After June Revisions Rule166,449118%196,4103%4,993*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations4)OhioEPA is finalizing, based on comments, anincrease to Ohio’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXand ozone-season NOXbudgets to correct for theassumption that Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology is currently installed at Bay Shore Unit 4 in 2012. There is noSCR planned or underconstruction at the unit. Therefore, EPA is finalizing an increase to the state’s 2012 and 2014 annual NOXand ozone-season NOXemission budgets to reflectprojected emissions without this unit operating a SCR. This results in a 2,218 ton increase to the state’s annual NOXbudgets in 2012 and 2014, and a 964ton increase in the state’s ozone-season NOXbudgets in 2012 and 2014.Table C.4.a.: Calculation to Determine Ohio Budget Adjustment - Assuming no SCR at Bay Shore 4A B C D E FPlant UnitEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)HI fromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(TBtu)Remedy Emission RatefromTR_Remedy_Final_2012(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissionRate(lbs/MMBtu)AdjustedEmissionsBudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA*2/B D x B/2 E - ABay Shore 4 0.468366563 13.4995095 0.069 0.398 2.6862.218Bay Shore 4 0.203626114 5.86901984 0.069 0.398 1.1680.96459Columns A, B, and C show the NOXemissions, heat input, and emission rate from theTR_Remedy_Final_2012 modeling when a SCR is assumedto be present the unit. Because no SCR is present, EPAmodified the emission rate to reflect the “controlled NOXpolicy rate” in the NEEDS version fromthe September 1, 2010 TR Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (column D).43This value reflects the NOXemission rate assumed in EPA’s modeling of theTransport Rule as originally proposed, when EPA did not assume aSCR to be present at the unit. This value approximates the emission rate expected at theunit at a costthreshold of $500/ton when no SCR is present at the unit. EPA multiplied this NOXrate by the remedy heat input shown in column B to obtaina revised emissions projection for the unit (column E). The difference between this revised emission projection (no SCR assumed) and the final TransportRule remedy analysis emission projection (SCR assumed) determines the amount of the increase to the state’s annual NOXand ozone-season NOXbudget(column F). The first row shows the calculation for the annual NOx budget adjustment and the second row shows the calculationfor ozone season NOxadjustment.This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSAs for annual NOXand ozone-season NOXin Ohio remain at 2%. Along with revisions accounting for out-of-merit order dispatch at units inOhio presented below, the original and revised values for the state budgets, assurance levels, and new unit set-asides are described in Table C.18.g.5)New YorkEPA is finalizing, based on comments, anincrease to New York’s 2012 and 2014 SO2budgets to correct for the removal rate assumption regardingDSI technology at the Dunkirk and Huntley facilities. As notedin the “Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD" for the finalTransport Rule, EPA had received comment during the rule proposal noting that thesefacilities had DSI in place of the FGD assumed in the modeling. EPAadjusted the state budgets before finalizing the Transport Ruleto reflect DSI technology. Because no verifiable removal ratewas submitted for thetechnologies in the comment at this time, EPA assumed the default70% removal rate used for new DSI. However, during the comment period for theRevisions Rule, a commenter noted that these units’ existing DSIsystems are not capable of achieving such a rate. The commenter’s claim is corroboratedby newly available 2010 EIA 860 data providing a reported SO2removal rate of 53% for the units. EPA hascalculated a budget adjustment to New York’sSO2budgets in 2012 and 2014 assuming an SO2removal rate of 53% as opposed to the 70% rate previously assumed in the final Transport Rule at theseunits.43See National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v4.10 available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html.60Table C.5.a.: Calculation to Determine New York Budget Adjustment - Correcting for DSI Removal RatesA B C D EUnitRemoval Rate AssumedinTR_Remedy_Final_2012Emissions fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012 (1000tons)Emissionsassuming 70%removal (1000tons)EmissionsAssuming 53%removal (1000tons)Net BudgetAdjustment (1000tons)CalculationB/(1-A)*.3 B/(1-A)*.47 D-CC R Huntley GeneratingStation 67 92.3% 0.340946408 1.328362629 2.081101451 0.752738823C R Huntley GeneratingStation 68 92.3% 0.340946408 1.328362629 2.081101451 0.752738823Dunkirk Generating Station 3 95.9% 0.383454384 2.805763788 4.3956966 1.589932813Dunkirk Generating Station 4 95.9% 0.38488252 2.81621356 4.41206791 1.59585435Dunkirk Generating Station 1 70.0% 0.623572839 0.623572839 0.976930781 0.353357942Dunkirk Generating Station 2 70.0% 0.55670215 0.55670215 0.872166702 0.315464552Total 2.63050471 9.458977594 14.8190649 5.360Column A and B show the removal rate and corresponding emissionsassumed in the initial TR_Final_Rule modeling. Column C showstheadjusted emissions assuming 70% removal efficiency that was assumed for the Final Transport Rule Budget determination. ColumnD shows the emissionfor these units assuming a 53% removal rate (as reported in the EIA 860 form for the units). Column E shows the net budget adjustment necessary to correctthe 70% removal efficiency with a 53% removal efficiency for the DSI present at the facilities. This results in a 5,360 ton increase to the state’s SO2budgetfor 2012 and 2014.This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for SO2in New York remains at 2%. Along with revisions accounting for out-of-merit order dispatch at units in New York presentedbelow, the original and revised values for the state budgets,assurance levels, and new unit set-asides are described in TableC.19.g.6)KansasEPA is finalizing, based on comment, an update to Kansas’s 2014 annual NOXbudget to correct for the assumption that particular Westar consentdecree emission rate and tonnage cap requirements begin in 2015,not 2014 as assumed in the final rule analysis. The final 2014 Transport Rule modelingapplied SCR retrofit technology to some capacity at the Jeffrey Energy Center to comply with the 0.1 lb/MMBtu rate requirementof the Westar consent61decree; however, because this rate requirement does not begin until 2015, EPA is assuming that the emission rate requirements of the consent decree do notresult in any new controls until 2015 at the Jeffrey Energy Center. This revised assumption would, if examined in isolation, yield an increase of 6,465 tonsin projected annual NOXemissions in Kansas in 2014, which would bring total projected NOXemissions from covered EGUs in Kansas to a level thatexceeds the state’s 2012 budget. However, as explained in the final Transport Rule, “for any covered state whose emissions ofa relevant pollutant areprojected to increase from 2012 to 2014 under the relevant costthresholds... EPA is finalizing that state’s 2014 emission budgetto maintain the same levelof the 2012 emission budget” (76 FR 48261). Therefore, EPA is increasing the 2014 Kansas NOXbudget by 5,154 tons so that it matches, not exceeds, thestate’s 2012 budget following the methodology and rationale laid out in the final Transport Rule.This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for annual NOX in Kansas remains at 2%. Along with revisions accounting for out-of-merit order dispatch at units in Kansas presentedbelow, the original and revised values for the state budgets,assurance levels, and new unit set-asides are described in TableC.14.f.7)GeorgiaEPA is finalizing, based on comment, an update to Georgia’s 2014 SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season NOXstate budgets to correct for theassumption in the final Transport Rule analysis that particularGeorgia Multi-Pollutant State Rule control deadlines for FGD/SCR retrofits at Branch,Scherer, and Yates facilities would deliveremission reductions in 2014, whereas those reductions are in fact not required to occur until 12/31/2014 or later.Because these controls are not required by that state rule to operate in 2014, EPA is adjustingthe 2014 budgets upwards to reflect the non-operation of thecontrols at these units.4444EPA based these revisions on the schedule of retrofit deadlines that is most consistent with comments provided, which generally reflected the requirements of the GeorgiaMulti-Pollutant State Rule as it existed when EPA finalized the Transport Rule in July of 2011.62Table C.7.a.: Calculation to Determine Georgia SO2Budget Adjustments - Assuming Revised Control StartDatesSO2A B C D E2012 Emission Rate fromTR_Remedy_Final(lbs/MMBtu)2014 HeatInput (TBtu)2014 RevisedEmissions(1000 tons)2014TR_Remedy_FinalEmissions (1000 tons)Net BudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA x B C - DBranch 1 0.92 16.50 7.60 1.85 5.74Branch 2 0.92 20.06 9.24 2.25 6.99Scherer 1 0.57 57.61 16.49 6.43 10.06Yates 6 0.91 21.23 9.70 0.86 8.84Yates 7 0.91 20.89 9.55 0.85 8.70Total 40.334Table C.7.b.: Calculation to Determine GeorgiaNOXBudget Adjustments - Assuming Revised Control StartDatesAnnual NOXA B C D E2012 Emission Rate fromTR_Remedy_Final(lbs/MMBtu)2014 HeatInput (TBtu)2014 RevisedEmissions(1000 tons)2014TR_Remedy_FinalEmissions (1000 tons)Net BudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA x B C - DBranch 1 0.45 16.50 3.75 0.60 3.15Branch 2 0.43 20.06 4.36 0.69 3.67Scherer 1 0.15 57.61 4.20 2.02 2.18Yates 6 0.26 21.23 2.80 0.73 2.07Yates 7 0.28 20.89 2.88 0.75 2.13Total 13.19863Table C.7.c.: Calculation to Determine Georgia Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Adjustments - Assuming RevisedControl Start DatesOzone-Season NOXA B C D E2012 Emission Rate fromTR_Remedy_Final(lbs/MMBtu)2014 HeatInput (TBtu)2014 RevisedEmissions(1000 tons)2014TR_Remedy_FinalEmissions (1000 tons)Net BudgetAdjustment(1000 tons)CalculationA x B C - DBranch 1 0.45 7.19 1.63 0.26 1.37Branch 2 0.43 8.74 1.90 0.30 1.60Scherer 1 0.15 25.29 1.84 0.89 0.96Yates 6 0.26 9.27 1.22 0.32 0.91Yates 7 0.28 9.12 1.26 0.33 0.93Total 5.762In each of the above tables, column A reflects the emission rateobserved for that unit in the2012 TR_Remedy_Final when no FGDor SCR ispresent. Column B reflects the heat input assumed in the 2014 TR_Remedy_Final analysis when a FGD or SCR was assumed to be present. Column Cmultiplies the heat input by the uncontrolled emission rate toget the uncontrolled emission rate assumption for 2014. The difference between thisuncontrolled emissions values (column C) and the controlled emissions value originally assumed (column D) results in the amountof the budget increase(column E).This budget change will not result in anyimpact to the percent of the budget set aside for new units. Under the methodology in the final TransportRule, the NUSA for SO2in Georgia remains at 2%. The original and revised values for the state budgets, assurance levels, and new unit set-asides aredescribed in the table below.64Table C.7.d.: Impact of Georgia's Budget Revisions - Assuming Revised Control Start DatesProgram BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside *% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 BeforeJuneRevisions RuleSO2158,527-- 2% 3,1712012 AfterJuneRevisions RuleSO2158,527--2%3,1712014 BeforeJuneRevisions RuleSO295,231118%112,373 2% 1,9052014 AfterJuneRevisions RuleSO2135,565118%159,9672%2,7112012 BeforeJuneRevisions Rule AnnualNOX62,010-- 2% 1,2402012 AfterJuneRevisions RuleAnnualNOX62,010--2%1,2402014 BeforeJuneRevisions Rule AnnualNOX40,540118%47,837 2% 8112014 AfterJuneRevisions RuleAnnualNOX53,738118%63,4112%1,0752012 BeforeJuneRevisions Rule Ozone-SeasonNOX27,944-- 2% 5592012 AfterJuneRevisions RuleOzone-SeasonNOX27,944--2%5592014 BeforeJuneRevisions Rule Ozone-SeasonNOX18,279121%22,118 2% 3662014 AfterJuneRevisions RuleOzone-SeasonNOX24,041121%29,0902%481*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations8) Arkansas (NUSA)Turk Unit 1 in Arkansas commences commercial operation on or afterJanuary 1, 2010. Such a date qualifies Turk Unit 1 as a “planned” new unitby the definition of that category describedin the “Allowance Allocation Final RuleTSD” for the final Transport Rule. However, in the final TransportRule, EPA did not recognize Turk Unit 1 as a new unit and therefore omitted its projected emissions in the determination of theozone-season NOXnew unitset-aside for Arkansas. Prior to this revision, in keeping witha revision demonstrated above and effected in the final revisions rule, that state’s NUSA wasset at 5%, including the minimum 2% NUSA percentage plus a 3%state-specific percentage toaccount for other planned units.45EPA is now revising thecalculation of the Arkansas ozone-season NOXnew unit set-aside to reflect the “new unit” status ofTurk Unit 1. Following the schedule established in the45As explained in the final Transport Rule, the minimum size of any state’s new unit set-aside is this “base percentage” amount,to which “state-specific” percentages areadded if the given state has projected emissions from “planned” new units (76 FR 48291).65final Transport Rule, EPA has already recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances under the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arkansas for 2012 and 2013.Therefore, this revision to the NUSA will be implemented beginning in 2014.The calculations to estimate 2020 ozone-season NOXEmissions from Turk Unit 1 are shown in the table below:Table C.8.a.: Calculation for Arkansas' Total Ozone-SeasonNOXEmissions from Turk Unit 146ACapacity (MW) 600BHeat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8980CNOXEmissions Rate (lbs/MMBtu) 0.05DCapacity Factor 85%EOzone-Season Hours 3672Total Ozone-Season NOXEmissions (tons)(A*D*B/1000*E*C/2000) 420The calculations to quantify this revision are shown in the table below:Table C.8.b.: Calculation for Arkansas' NUSAAProjected 2020 Ozone-Season NOXEmissions from Turk Unit1 (tons) 420BArkansas 2014 Ozone-Season NOXState Budget (tons) 15,110CTurk's Emissions as a % of Arkansas State Budget (A/B) 3%DPrevious Percentage for New Unit Set-Aside 5%ETotal New Unit Set-Aside (C + D) 8%EPA divided Turk Unit 1’s projected emissions into the state budget to derive the state-specific percentage increase for the new unit set-aside inArkansas, which rounds to 3%. This value was added to the new unit set-aside percentage previously calculated for the final revisions rule (5%) found46Projected 2020 ozone-season NOXemissions were estimated and the new unit set-aside was calculated using the method outlined in the final Transport Rule (76 FR48291) and the Technical Revisions to StateBudgets and New Unit Set-Asides associated with the Final Rule. EPA used data provided by the commenter and IPM modelplant assumptions.66earlier in this document. The resulting newunit set-aside percentage for ozone-season NOXin Arkansas is 8%. This change does not impact the state budgetor assurance level in any way. However, the new unit set-aside would change by the levels shown below.47Table C.8.c: Impact of 2014 Ozone SeasonNOXNUSA revision for ArkansasNew Unit SetAsideExistingUnitAllocation Total2014 As Finalized in February Revisions Rule% 5% 95% 100%2014 With June Rule Revision %8%92%100%2014 As Finalized in February Revisions Ruletons 752 14,285 15,0372014 With June Rule Revision tons*1,20913,90115,110*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations9)Louisiana (NUSA)Washington Parish Energy Center Units CTG1, CTG2 and ST1 wereincluded in the final Transport Rule NUSA calculations as plannedunits tocommence commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010. However, these units were never completed and will not be operating. Therefore, EPA isremoving their projected emissions from calculations for the Louisiana ozone-season NOXNUSA. Prior to this revision, that state’s NUSA was set at 3%,including the minimum 2% NUSA percentage plus a 1%state-specific percentage to account for planned units.48EPA is now revising the calculation of the47The increase to the new unit set-aside would necessarily changeexisting unit allowance allocations in order to maintain the state budget. To review the existing unitallowance allocations associated with this revision, please see the document entitled “Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” found in the docketto this rulemaking.48As explained in the final Transport Rule, the minimum size of any state’s new unit set-aside is this “base percentage” amount,to which “state-specific” percentages areadded if the given state has projected emissions from “planned” new units (76 FR 48291).67Louisiana ozone-season NOXnew unit set-aside to remove the projected emissions of these units that will not be commencing operation. This change willtake effect for Louisiana’s NUSA in 2012 and beyond.49EPA subtracted the Washington Parish units’ projected emissionsfrom the projected planned unit emissions for Louisiana. The remaining plannedemissions were divided into the state budget to derive the revised state-specific percentage for the new unit set-aside in Louisiana, which rounds to 0%.Therefore, the new unit set-aside percentage for ozone-season NOXin Louisiana is 2%, the base percentage for the new unit set-aside.Table C.9.a.: Calculation for Louisiana's NUSAAPreviously Calculated Total Planned Emissions (tons) 126BProjected 2020 Ozone-Season NOXEmissions from Washington Parish (tons) 68CRemaining Planned Emissions (A - B) 58DLouisiana Ozone Season NOXState Budget (tons) 18,136ERemaining Committed Emissions as a % of Arkansas State Budget (C/D) 0%FBase percentage for new unit set-aside 2%GTotal New Unit Set-Aside (E + F\) 2%This change does not impact the state budget or assurance level inany way. However, the new unit set-aside would change by the levels shownbelow.50EPA intends to record any additional 2012 and 2013 allocationsto existing units due to this revision once this rule, and theunderlying finalTransport Rule, are legally effective.49The originally projected emissions from Washington Parish Energy Center are no longer relevant to any of EPA’s emission projections for the state of Louisiana pertinentto the Transport Rule, as all of its projected generation was offset in the final revisions rule by revised assumptions of increased generation from other Louisiana units due tonear-term out-of-merit-order dispatch conditions.50The proposed decrease to the new unit set-aside would necessarily change existing unit allowance allocations in order to maintain the state budget.To review the existingunit allowance allocations associated with this revision, please see the document entitled “Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” found in thedocket to this rulemaking.68Table C.9.b: Impact of 2012 Ozone SeasonNOXNUSA revision for LouisianaNew Unit SetAsideExisting UnitAllocation Total2012 As Finalized in February Revisions Rule % 3% 97% 100%2012 With June Rule Revision %2%98%100%2012 As Finalized in February Revisions Ruletons 523 17,503 18,0262012 With June Rule Revision tons*34417,77118,1152014 As Finalized in February Revisions Rule % 3% 97% 100%2014 With June Rule Revision %2%98%100%2014 As Finalized in February Revisions Ruletons 523 17,503 18,0262014 With June Rule Revision tons*34417,77118,115*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations10)Missouri (NUSA)Iatan Unit 2 in Missouri commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010. Such a date qualifies Iatan Unit 2 as a “planned” new unitby the definition of that category describedin the “Allowance Allocation Final RuleTSD” for the final Transport Rule. However, in the final TransportRule, EPA did not recognize Iatan Unit 2 as a new unit and therefore omitted its projected emissions in the determination of the SO2, annual NOXand ozoneseason NOXnew unit set-asides for Missouri. For the final Transport Ruleand the Transport Rule Supplemental Notice of Final Rulemaking, the state’sNUSAs were set at 2% for SO2, 3% for annual NOXand 3% for ozone-season NOX, including the minimum 2% NUSA percentage plus a state-specificpercentage for each budget.51EPA is now revising the calculations of the Missouri new unit set-asides to reflect the “new unit” status of Iatan Unit 2.Following the schedule established in the final Transport Rule, EPA has already recorded (i.e., distributed) allowances under the FIPs for Missouri for 2012.Therefore, this revision to the NUSAswill be implementedbeginning in 2013.51As explained in the final Transport Rule, the minimum size of any state’s new unit set-aside is this “base percentage” amount,to which “state-specific” percentages areadded if the given state has projected emissions from “planned” new units (76 FR 48291).69The calculations to quantify Projected 2020 Emissionsfrom Turk Unit 1 are shown in the table below52:Table C.10.a.: Calculation for Missouri's NUSASO2NOXOzoneSeason NOXACapacity (MW) 850 850 850BHeat Rate (Btu/kWh) 9000 9000 9000CEmissions Rate (lbs/MMBtu) 0.06 0.05 0.05DCapacity Factor 85% 85% 85%EOzone Season Hours 8760 8760 3672Total Emissions (tons) (A*D*B/1000*E*C/2000) 1709 1424 598EPA divided Iatan Unit 2’s projected emissions into the state budgets to derive the increases tothe state-specific percentagesfor the new unit setasides in Missouri, which round to 1% for SO2, 3% for annual NOXand 3% for ozone-season NOX. These values were added to the existing percentages fornew unit set-asides from the final Transport Rule and the Transport Rule Supplemental Notice of Final Rulemaking . The resulting new unit set-asidepercentages in Missouri are 3% for SO2, 6% for annual NOXand 6% for ozone-season NOX. This change does not impact the state budget or assurance levelin any way. However, the NUSAs would change by the levels shown below.5352Projected 2020 ozone-season NOXemissions were calculated using the method outlined in the final Transport Rule (76 FR 48291) and the Technical Revisions to StateBudgets and New Unit Set-Asides associated with the Final Rule.EPA used data provided by the commenter, IPM model plant assumptions and plant data published in thefollowing: Robert Peltier, Plant of the Year: KCP&L’s Iatan 2 Earn’s POWER’s Highest Honor, Power Magazine, August 1, 2011, available on the internet at<http://www.powermag.com/environmental/3882.html>.53The increase to the new unit set-aside would necessarily changeexisting unit allowance allocations in order to maintain the state budget. To review the existing unitallowance allocations associated with this revision, please see the document entitled “Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs” found in the docketto this rulemaking.70Table C.10.b: Impact of 2013 NUSA revisions for Missouri (tons)SO2NewUnit SetAsideSO2ExistingUnitAllocationSO2TotalAnnual NOXNew UnitSet-AsideAnnual NOXExisting UnitAllocationAnnual NOXTotalOS NOXNewUnit Set-AsideOS NOXExisting UnitAllocationOS NOXTotal% As Finalized inFebruary Final RevisionsRule 2% 98% 100% 3% 97% 100% 3% 97% 100%% WithJuneFinal RuleRevision3%97%100%6%94%100%6%94%100%2013 As Finalized inFebruary Final RevisionsRule tons 4,149 203,317 207,466 1,571 50,803 52,374 683 22,079 22,7622013 WithJuneFinalRule Revision tons*6,224201,242207,4663,14449,25652,4001,36721,42122,7882014 As Finalized inFebruary Final RevisionsRule tons 3,319 162,622 165,941 1,462 47,255 48,717 632 20,441 21,0732014 WithJuneFinalRule Revision tons*4,978160,963165,9412,92545,81848,7431,26619,83321,099*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations11) MississippiEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Mississippi’s ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of nearterm operational constraints affecting a unit at the Moselle plant, based on information providedby the system operator demonstrating that the plant islocated in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area. EPA's analysisin the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions describedin recently submitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of theTransport Rule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additionalgeneration will be dispatched at Moselle based on the need to provide voltage supportand regulation in the load pocket and the minimum operating constraint of a unit at Moselle.54As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that theadditional generation dispatched from this facility would offsetgeneration that would otherwise come from combined cycle unitswithin the state, and the54See Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4763 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4746.71revision to Mississippi’s state budget is based on the net changeto projected emissions taking that offsetting factor into account. The net impact of thesechanges on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is a 115 ton increase.The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch atMoselle is shown in Table C.11.a. For the unit,the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation from TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission rate fromEPA’s NEEDSdatabase are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-meritorder dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season(column I). The additional heat input required was calculated bymultiplying the incremental generation by the unit’s heat rate(column J). Finally, theadditional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heat inputby the unit’s NOXemissionrate.Table C.11.a.: Calculation to Determine Mississippi Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at plantMoselleA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Moselle2070_B_259 0 12878 0 0.258 34% 73.66 948,598 122.5*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.11.b, EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Mississippi combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Mississippi combined cycle units.55The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.55These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).72Table C.11.b.: Calculation of Emissions from DisplacedGeneration at Mississippi Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season74 7,570 0.026054137 7The total revision to Mississippi’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.11.c. The emissions associated withthe generation displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to theout-of-merit-ordergeneration (row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Mississippi (row C).Table C.11.c.: Calculation to Determine Net MississippiOzone SeasonNOXBudget RevisionsAAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 123BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 7CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Mississippi (A-B) 11573The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.11.d.Table C.11.d.: Impact of Mississippi Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions – AssumingOut-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Three Facilities (tons)BudgetAssurance LevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 12,314 - - 2% 2462012 After June Revisions Rule12,429--2%2492014 Before June Revisions Rule 12,314 12,314 151,634,596 2% 2462014 After June Revisions Rule12,42912,429154,480,0412%249*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations12) ArkansasEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Arkansas’s ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting units atthe McClellan plant, based on informationprovided by the system operator demonstrating that the South ArkansasRegion is an out-of-merit-order dispatch area. EPA's analysis inthe final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions describedin recently submitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of theTransport Rule programs. Specifically, EPAis assuming additional generation will be dispatched the McClellan plant based on the average capacity factorrepresenting the frequency the unit is projectedto be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived from immediate-term dispatch modeling projectionsprovided by Entergy.56As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched from this facility would offset generationthat would otherwise come from combined cycle units within thestate, and the revision to Arkansas’s state budget is based on the net change to projectedemissions taking that offsetting factor into account. Thenet impact of these changes on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is a 73 ton increase.56See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4820 and Correspondence from Entergyto EPA, September 29, 2011. Please see the document “Transmission System Considerations –Entergy” in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4729).74The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch atMcClellan is shown in Table C.12.a. For theunit, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heatrate, generation from TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDSdatabase are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-meritorder dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season(column I). The additional heat input required was calculated bymultiplying the incremental generation by the unit’s heat rate(column J). Finally, theadditional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heat inputby the unit’s NOXemissionrate.Table C.12.a.: Calculation to Determine Arkansas Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at McClellanA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000McClellan203_B_01134 0 10901 0 0.20229893 16% 78.73 858,210 86.8*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.12.b., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Arkansas combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Arkansas combined cycle units.57The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.57These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).75Table C.12.b.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Arkansas Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season79 7,549 0.044891435 13The total revision to Arkansas’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculatedin Table C.12.c. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Arkansas (row C).Table C.12.c.: Calculation to Determine Net ArkansasOzone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 87BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 13CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Arkansas (A-B) 7376The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.12.d.Table C.12.d.: Impact of Arkansas Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions –Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at McClellan (tons)BudgetAssuranceLevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 15,037- - 5% 7522012 After June Revisions Rule15,110--5%7562014 Before June Revisions Rule 15,037121% 18,195 5% 7522014 After June Revisions Rule15,110121%18,2838%1,209*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations13) TexasEPA is finalizing, based on comments, anincrease to Texas’s annual and ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption ofnear-term operational constraints affecting units at seven plants, based on information provided by the system operator demonstrating these plants are in anout-of-merit-order dispatch area. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recentlysubmitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of the TransportRule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched atseven plants (Jones, Moore County, Nichols, Plant X, Wilkes,Lone Star, and Knox Lee) based on the average capacity factorrepresenting the frequency the unit is projected to be called tooperate out-of-merit-order,derived from immediate-term dispatchmodeling projections provided by SPS58and AEP.59As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the58See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4752 and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on the TR Revisions Rule by SPS” found in the Transport Rule docket(Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4868).77additional generation dispatched from these seven facilities wouldoffset generation that would otherwise come from combined cycle units within the state,and the revision to Texas’s state budget is based on the net changeto projected emissions taking that offsetting factor into account. The net impact of thesechanges on the state’s annual NOXand ozone season NOXbudgets are 2,731 and 1,142 ton increases, respectively.The calculations of the increase in annual NOXand ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at the seven plants is shown inTables C.13.a. and C.13.b. For each unit with out-of-merit-orderdispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generationfrom TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission ratefrom EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factoris shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculatedby multiplying the capacity, theaverage out-of-merit-ordercapacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (columnI). The additional heat input required was calculated by multiplying the incrementalgeneration by the unit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated bymultiplying the additional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table C.13.a.: Calculation to Determine Texas AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at seven plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Annual NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000Jones3482_B_151B243 0.17811372 11109 283.774892 0.11 41% 881.00 9,787,029 550.7Jones3482_B_152B243 0.119198228 10245 283.774892 0.08 50% 1069.0010,951,905449.5Moore 3483_B48 0 14075 0 0.12 20% 82.00 1,154,150 69.459See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4737, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4801, and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on theTR Revisions Rule by AEP”found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4867).78County _3Nichols3484_B_141B107 0.074400425 9983 125.737030 0.12 29% 276.00 2,755,308 162.8Nichols3484_B_142B106 0.07774879 10450 124.561917 0.12 32% 296.00 3,093,200 184.2Nichols3484_B_143B244 0 11682 0 0.16 27% 572.00 6,682,104 548.8Plant X3485_B_111B48 0 16243 0 0.32 23% 98.00 1,591,814 252.5Plant X3485_B_112B102 0 13226 0 0.08 18% 162.00 2,142,612 89.8Plant X3485_B_113B103 0 11484 0 0.17 20% 182.00 2,090,088 173.7Plant X3485_B_114B189 0 10841 0 0.10 53% 881.00 9,550,921 487.0Knox Lee3476_B_225.0 0 14500 0 0.102 2% 4.80 69,588 3.5Knox Lee3476_B_325.0 0 14500 0 0.123 3% 6.68 96,879 6.0Knox Lee3476_B_477.0 0 14933 0 0.311 1% 9.84 146,910 22.9Knox Lee3476_B_5343 0 11669 0 0.174 4% 105.53 1,231,465 107.279Wilkes3478_B_1 175 0 12904 0 0.136 11% 176.01 2,271,239 154.5Lone Star3477_B_1 50.0 0 14546 0 0.230 5% 22.70 330,223 37.9Total 4,824.5653,945,4353,300.56*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in year;that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.Table C.13.b.: Calculation to Determine Texas Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at seven plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Jones3482_B_151B 243 0.17811372 11109 283.774892 0.11 31% 273.00 3,032,757 170.6Jones3482_B_152B 243 0.119198228 10245 283.774892 0.08 26% 228.00 2,335,860 95.9MooreCounty3483_B_3 48 0 14075 0 0.12 47% 82.00 1,154,150 69.4Nichols3484_B_141B 107 0.074400425 9983 125.737030 0.12 17% 65.00 648,895 38.3Nichols3484_B_142B 106 0.07774879 10450 124.561918 0.12 17% 68.00 710,600 42.380Nichols3484_B_143B 244 0 11682 0 0.16 32% 288.00 3,364,416 276.3Plant X3485_B_111B 48 0 16243 0 0.32 30% 52.00 844,636 134.0Plant X3485_B_112B 102 0 13226 0 0.08 23% 85.00 1,124,210 47.1Plant X3485_B_113B 103 0 11484 0 0.17 30% 112.00 1,286,208 106.9Plant X3485_B_114B 189 0 10841 0 0.10 55% 384.00 4,162,944 212.3Knox Lee3476_B_2 25.0 0 14500 0 0.102 5% 4.80 69,589 3.5Knox Lee3476_B_3 25.0 0 14500 0 0.123 7% 6.68 96,879 6.0Knox Lee3476_B_4 77.0 0 14933 0 0.311 3% 7.73 115,448 18.0Knox Lee3476_B_5 343 0 11669 0 0.174 4% 46.31 540,447 47.1Wilkes3478_B_1 175 0 12904 0 0.136 10% 66.21 854,348 58.1Lone Star3477_B_1 50.0 0 14546 0 0.230 12% 22.70 330,223 37.9Total 1,791.4420,671,6111,363.7981*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.13.c., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Texas combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) andemission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Texas combined cycle units.60The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table C.13.c.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at TexasCombined Cycle UnitsA B C DProgram PeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmissionRate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Annual NOX4,8257,4050.031895983 570Ozone Season NOX1,791 7,464 0.033113058 221The total revision to Texas’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated inTable C.13.d. The emissionsassociated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Texas (row C).Table C.13.d.: Calculation to Determine Net Texas Annual and Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)Annual NOXOzone Season NOX60These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).82AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 3,301 1364BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 570 221CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Texas (A-B) 2,731 1,142The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.13.e.Table C.13.e.: Impact of Texas Budget Revisions –Assuming Removed FGDs and Revised FGD Capture atCertain Units, Revised NUSAs for Oak Grove 2, and Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Two Facilities (tons)Program BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule SO2294,471 - - 5% 14,7242012 After June Revisions RuleSO2294,471--5%14,7242014 Before June Revisions Rule SO2294,471 118% 347,476 5% 14,7242014 After June Revisions RuleSO2294,471118%347,4765%14,7242012 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX134,970 - - 4% 5,3992012 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX137,701--4%5,5082014 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX134,970 118% 159,265 4% 5,3992014 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX137,701118%162,4874%5,5082012 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX64,418- - 4% 2,5772012 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX65,560--4%2,6222014 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX64,418121% 77,946 4% 2,5772014 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX65,560121%79,3284%2,622*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations838414) KansasEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Kansas’s SO2and NOXbudgets in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting a unit at the Quindaro plant,based on information provided by the system operator demonstrating that the unit serves is anout-of-merit-order dispatch area. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recentlysubmitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of the TransportRule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched Quindaro unit 1 based on the annual minimum capacity factorrepresenting the frequency the unit is projectedto be called to operate out-of-merit-order, provided in comments from Kansas City Board of PublicUtilities.61In the model run TR_Remedy Final_2012, this unit ran at approximately a 55% annual capacity factor. KCBPU’s comments showed that the unitmust operate at an average annual capacity factor of 75% to serve its load. Therefore, the difference of 20% is being considered out-of-merit-order dispatchin this case. As discussed later in this section, EPA assumesthat the additional generation dispatched from this facility would offset generation that wouldotherwise come from similarly-positioned coal-fired units withinthe state, and the revision to Kansas’s state budget is basedon the net change to projectedemissions taking that offsetting factor into account. The net impact of these changes on the state’s SO2and annual NOXbudgets are 452 and 640 tonincreases, respectively.The calculations of the increase in SO2and annual NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatchat Quindaro unit 1 is shown in Tables C.14.a.and C.14.b. For the unit, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation from TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission ratefrom EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The averageout-of-merit-order capacity factor is shown in column H. Theadditional generationfor out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying thecapacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, andthe number of hours in theozone season (column I). The additional heat input required wascalculated by multiplying the incremental generation by the unit’s heat rate (column J).Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.61See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4779 and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on the TR Revisions Rule by KC BPU”found in the Transport Ruledocket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4871).85Table C.14.a.: Calculation to Determine Kansas SO2Budget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at Quindaro unit 1A B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualSO2EmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)AnnualSO2Rate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualSO2Emissions(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000Quindaro1295_B_1721.170152332 11673 345.6701925 0.579999983 33.8% 212.87 2,484,808 720.6*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in the year; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.Table C.14.b.: Calculation to Determine Kansas AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at Quindaro unit 1A B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Annual NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000Quindaro1295_B_1 72 1.355762723 11673 345.6701930.67182472 33.8% 212.87 2,484,808 834.7*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.14.c., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at other Kansas coal units, shown in these calculationsas a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C) equal tothe generation-weighted average of Kansas coal units.62The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation (column D) werecalculated by multiplying that generation bythe average heat rate and the relevantemission rate at the representative coal unit. EPA used representative62These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).86coal-fired generation to offset the additional generation assumed now to occur at Quindaro unit 1 because it is reasonable to assume that increased baseloadgeneration at Quindaro unit 1would displace similarly-positioned baseload coal-fired generation previously projected to meet electricity demand.63Table C.14.c.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Kansas Coal UnitsA B CDProgram PeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)DisplacedGenerationEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000SO2213 10,707 0.23598 269Annual NOX213 10,707 0.170752 195The total revision to Kansas’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.14.d. The emissionsassociated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Kansas (row C).Table C.14.d.: Calculation to Determine Net Kansas SO2and AnnualNOXNOXBudgetRevisions (tons)2012 2014SO2AnnualNOXSO2AnnualNOXAEmissions Due to Out-Of-MeritOrder Generation 721 835 721 835BDisplaced Emissions from Out-OfMerit-Order Generation at Quindaro 269 195 269 195CNet Budget Revisions for Kansas(A-B) 452 640 452 64063Inaddition,whereasEPAhasmadesimilarrevisionsaffectingoil/gassteamunitstootherstatebudgetsbyoffsettingpreviouslyprojectednaturalgas‐firedcombinedcyclegeneration,therearenogas‐firedcombinedcyclesinthestateofKansasthatcouldserveascandidatesforthiscalculation.EPAbelievesthecalculationasdemonstratedabove,usingrepresentativecoal‐firedgenerationasabroadmatchforthedispatchcharacteristicsoftheassumedincreaseinout‐of‐merit‐orderdispatchatQuindarounit1,maintainsaconsistentapproachwiththeotherrevisionsofthistypemadetoTransportRulestatebudgets.87The total budget revisions for Kansas are summarized below in Table C.14.e.Table C.14.e.: Total Budget Revisions for KansasBudget YearRevisions due toOut-of-MeritOrder DispatchRevisions due toUnit Controls Total ChangeSO22012 452 -- 452SO22014 452 -- 452Annual NOX2012 640 -- 640Annual NOX2014 640 5,154 5,794The original and revised values for thestate budgets, assurance levels, and new unitset-asides are described in Table C.14.f.Table C.14.f.: Impact of Kansas Budget Revisions – for Out-Of-Merit-Order Dispatch and UnitControlsProgram BudgetAssurance LevelTotal New UnitSet-Aside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule SO241,528 - - 2% 8312012 After June Revisions RuleSO241,980--2%8402014 Before June Revisions Rule SO241,528 118% 49,003 2% 8312014 After June Revisions RuleSO241,980118%49,5362%8402012 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX30,714 - - 2% 6142012 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX31,354--2%6272014 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX25,560 118% 30,161 2% 5112014 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX31,354118%36,9982%627*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations8815) MissouriEPA is finalizing, based on comments, anincrease to Missouri’s annual and ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of nearterm operational constraints affecting unitsat four plants, based on information provided by the system operator demonstratingthat these units are called todispatch out-of-merit-order to provide voltage support and regulation. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-termlocal conditions described in recently submitted documentation that appear likely tonecessitate non-economic generation at theunits displayed below duringthe implementation of the Transport Rule programs. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched at four plants (Hawthorn,Greenwood, Ralph Green, and South Harper) based on the average capacity factor representing the frequency the unit has recentlybeen called on to operateout of merit order, calculated from dispatch logbook data provided by KCPL.64As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additionalgeneration dispatched from these four facilities would offset generation that would otherwise come from combined cycle units within the state, and therevision to Missouri’s state budget is based on the net change toprojected emissions taking that offsetting factor into account. The net impact of thesechanges on the state’s annual and ozone season NOXbudget are 26 ton increases each.The calculations of the increase in annual and ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at the four facilities is shown inTables C.15.a. and C.15.b. For each unit with out-of-merit-orderdispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generationfrom TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission ratefrom EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factoris shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculatedby multiplying the capacity, theaverage out-of-merit-ordercapacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (columnI). The additional heat input required was calculated by multiplying the incrementalgeneration by the unit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated bymultiplying the additional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.64See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4826 and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on the TR Revisions Rule by KCPL” found in the Transport Ruledocket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4866).89Table C.15.a.: Calculation to Determine Missouri AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at four plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant Name Unique IdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Annual NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000Hawthorn2079_G_777 0 13180 0 0.03072543 0.06% 0.39 5,074 0.1Hawthorn2079_G_877 0 16770 0 0.03190992 0.14% 0.97 16,233 0.3Greenwood6074_G_158 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.31% 1.55 20,615 5.2Greenwood6074_G_258 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.23% 1.16 15,388 3.9Greenwood 6074_G_358 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.35% 1.77 23,541 5.9Greenwood6074_G_458 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.28% 1.40 18,673 4.7Ralph Green2092_G_371 0 14322 0 0.50105250 0.02% 0.14 2,048 0.5SouthHarper56151_G_GT1105 0 15250 0 0.05518069 0.54% 4.99 76,159 2.1SouthHarper56151_G_GT2105 0 15082 0 0.05490044 0.81% 7.47 112,632 3.1SouthHarper56151_G_GT3105 0 15250 0 0.05578315 0.48% 4.39 66,871 1.9Total 24.22 357,235 27.5*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in year;that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.90Table C.15.b.: Calculation to Determine Missouri Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at four plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant Name Unique IdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.762 E*I G*J/2000Hawthorn2079_G_777 0 13180 0 0.03072543 0.14% 0.39 5,074 0.1Hawthorn2079_G_877 0 16770 0 0.03190992 0.34% 0.97 16,233 0.3Greenwood6074_G_158 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.73% 1.55 20,615 5.2Greenwood6074_G_258 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.54% 1.16 15,388 3.9Greenwood6074_G_358 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.83% 1.77 23,541 5.9Greenwood6074_G_458 0 13300 0 0.50105250 0.66% 1.40 18,673 4.7Ralph Green2092_G_371 0 14322 0 0.50105250 0.05% 0.14 2,048 0.5SouthHarper56151_G_GT1105 0 15250 0 0.05518069 1.30% 4.99 76,159 2.1SouthHarper56151_G_GT2105 0 15082 0 0.05490044 1.94% 7.47 112,632 3.1SouthHarper56151_G_GT3105 0 15250 0 0.05578315 1.14% 4.39 66,871 1.9Total 24.22 357,235 27.5*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.15.c., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Missouri combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Missouri combined cycle units.65The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.65These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).91Table C.15.c.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation atMissouri Combined Cycle UnitsABCDProgram PeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmissionRate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Annual248,0490.0183305842Ozone Season248,0790.0183153872The total revision to Missouri’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.15.d. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Missouri (row C).Table C.15.d.: Calculation to Determine Net Missouri and Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)2012 2014AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXAnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXAEmissions Due to Out-Of-MeritOrder Generation 28 28 28 28BDisplaced Emissions from Out-OfMerit-Order Generation 2 2 2 2CNet Budget Revisions for Missouri(A-B) 26 26 26 2692The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.15.e.,whichincludes the adjustments to Missouri’s newunit set aside described in section 10.Table C.15.e.: Impact of Missouri Budget Revisionsfor Out-Of-Merit-Order Dispatch and New Unit Set-AsideProgram BudgetAssurance Level Total New Unit Set-Aside*% ofBudget Tons % of Budget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule SO2207,466 - - 2% 4,1492012 After June Revisions RuleSO2207,466--2%4,1492013 Before June Revisions Rule SO2207,466 - - 2% 4,1492013 After June Revisions RuleSO2207,466--3%6,2242014 Before June Revisions Rule SO2165,941 118% 195,810 2% 3,3192014 After June Revisions RuleSO2165,941118%195,8103%4,9782012 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX52,374 - - 3% 1,5712012 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX52,400--3%1,5722013 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX52,374 - - 3% 1,5712013 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX52,400--6%3,1442014 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX48,717 118% 57,486 3% 1,4622014 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX48,743118%57,5176%2,9252012 Before June Revisions Rule Ozone-Season NOX22,762 - - 3% 6832012 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX22,788--3%6842013 Before June Revisions Rule Ozone-Season NOX22,762 - - 3% 6832013 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX22,788--6%1,3672014 Before June Revisions Rule Ozone-Season NOX21,073 121% 25,498 3% 6322014 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX21,099121%25,5306%1,266*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations9316) OklahomaEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Oklahoma’s ozone season NOXbudget in 2013 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting units atfour plants, based on information providedby the system operator demonstrating these plants are in an out-of-meritorder dispatch area. These changes do not apply to Oklahoma’s2012 budget because similar changes were already made to the affected units’ operation in2012, as described in the Technical Support Document “Determination of State Budgets for the Final Ozone Supplemental of the Transport Rule.”66EPA'sanalysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate theimmediate-term local conditionsdescribed in recently submitted documentation that appear likelyto necessitate non-economic generation at theunits displayed below during the implementation of the Transport Rule programs.Specifically, EPA isassuming additional generation will be dispatched at four plants(Northeastern, Riverside , Southwestern, and Tulsa) based on the average capacity factorrepresenting the frequency the unit is projectedto be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived from immediate-term dispatch modeling projectionsprovided by AEP.67As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that theadditional generation dispatched from these facilities would offsetgenerationthat would otherwise come from combined cycle units within the state, and the revision to Oklahoma’s state budget is based on the net change to projectedemissions taking that offsetting factor into account. Thenet impact of these changes on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is an 859 ton increase.The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at these facilities is shown in Table C.16.a. Foreach unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation fromTR_Remedy Final_2012,and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns Ato G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shownin column H. Theadditional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and thenumber of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heatinput required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generation by the unit’sheat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heatinput by the unit’s NOXemission rate.66See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-485, pg 5-7.67See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4737, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4801, and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on theTR Revisions Rule by AEP”found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4867).94Table C.16.a.: Calculation to Determine Oklahoma Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming Out-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Four PlantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant Name Unique IdCapacity(MW)2012OzoneSeasonNOXEmissionsfrom TR_RemedyFinal_2012 (1000tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGeneration fromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Ozone Season NOXRate (lbs/MMBtu)OzoneSeasonAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzone SeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationC*H*3.672E*I G*J/2000Northeastern 2963_B_3302 480 0 10442 0 0.396 17.1% 301.003,143,054 622.6Riverside 4940_B_1502 459 0 11094 0 0.226 8.2% 137.75 1,528,240 172.8Southwestern2964_B_801N 40.0 0 20500 0 0.251 0.7% 1.02 20,862 2.6Southwestern 2964_B_801S 40.0 0 20500 0 0.206 0.7% 1.02 20,862 2.1Southwestern 2964_B_8002 80.0 0 11900 0 0.326 2.1% 6.26 74,476 12.1Southwestern 2964_B_8003 311 0 11611 0 0.436 1.6% 17.75 206,123 45.0Tulsa 2965_B_1402 165 0 14213 0 0.182 1.7% 10.33 146,755 13.4Tulsa 2965_B_1403 85.0 0 11163 0 0.276 1.6% 4.89 54,611 7.5Tulsa 2965_B_1404 165 0 13144 0 0.188 5.8% 35.06 460,825 43.3Total 515.08 5,655,808 921.42*The formula used to calculate Column Iuses a multiplier of 3.672 because there are 3,672 hours of possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.16.b., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Oklahoma combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)95equal to the generation-weighted average of Oklahoma combined cycle units.68The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table C.16.b.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Oklahoma Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season 515 7,713 0.031566434 63The total revision to Oklahoma’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.16.c. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Oklahoma (row C).Table C.16.c.: Calculation to Determine Net OklahomaOzone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 921BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 63CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Oklahoma (A-B) 85968These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).96The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.16.d.Table C.16.d.: Impact of Oklahoma Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions – AssumingOut-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Three Facilities (tons)BudgetAssuranceLevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 36,567 - - 2% 7312012 After June Revisions Rule36,567--2%7312013 Before June Revisions Rule 21,835 - - 2% 4372013 After June Revisions Rule22,694--2%4542014 Before June Revisions Rule 21,835 121% 26,420 2% 4372014 After June Revisions Rule22,694121%27,4602%454*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations17) LouisianaEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Louisiana’s ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect the assumption of near-termoperational constraints affecting units attwo plants, based on information provided bythe system operator demonstrating theseplants are in an out-of-meritorder dispatch area. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recently submitteddocumentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the unitsdisplayed below during the implementationof the Transport Ruleprograms. Specifically, EPA is assuming additional generation will bedispatched at two plants based on the average capacity factor representing thefrequency the unit is projected to be called to operate out-of-merit-order, derived from immediate-term dispatch modeling projections provided by AEP.69As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched from these facilities would offset generation that would otherwise69See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4737, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4801, and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on theTR Revisions Rule by AEP”found in the Transport Rule Docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4867).97come from combined cycle units within the state, and the revision to Louisiana’s state budget is based on the net change to projected emissions taking thatoffsetting factor into account. The net impactof these changes on the state’s ozone season NOXbudget is a 89 ton increase.The calculations of the increase in ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at these facilities is shown in Table C.17.a. Foreach unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate, generation fromTR_Remedy Final_2012,and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns Ato G). The average out-of-merit-order capacity factor is shownin column H. Theadditional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and thenumber of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heatinput required was calculated by multiplying the incremental generation by the unit’sheat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculated by multiplying the additional heatinput by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table C.17.a.: Calculation to Determine Louisiana Ozone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at two plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000J. LamarStall Unit atArsenal Hill1416_B_5A 110 0 15,702 0 0.092 3% 11.82 185,573 8.6Lieberman1417_B_1 25.0 0 14,983 0 0.420 5% 4.20 63,002 13.2Lieberman1417_B_2 25.0 0 14,546 0 0.420 6% 5.41 78,671 16.5Lieberman1417_B_3 111 0 12,334 0 0.124 11% 46.52 573,748 35.6Lieberman1417_B_4109012,79100.1328%32.14411,05127.1Total 100.09 1312044.7100.98*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.98As calculated in Table C.17.b., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Louisiana combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B)and emission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of Louisiana combined cycle units.70The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table C.17.b.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at Louisiana Combined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgramPeriodDisplaced Generation(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)NOXEmission Rate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000Ozone Season 100 7,480 0.031765081 12The total revision to Louisiana’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.17.c. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Louisiana (row C).Table C.17.c.: Calculation to Determine Net LouisianaOzone SeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)AAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 101BDisplaced Emissions FromOut-Of-Order-Merit Dispatch 12CNet Change in Emissionbudget For Louisiana (A-B) 8970These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).99The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.17.d.Table C.17.d.: Impact of Louisiana Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions – AssumingOut-of-Merit-Order Dispatch at Three Facilities (tons)BudgetAssuranceLevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule 18,026 - - 3% 5412012 After June Revisions Rule18,115--2%3622014 Before June Revisions Rule 18,026 121% 21,811 3% 5412014 After June Revisions Rule18,115121%21,9192%362*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwardsor downwards slightly following rounding of existing unitallocations18) OhioEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to Ohio’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect theassumption of near-term operational constraints affecting MuskingumRiver unit 1, based on information provided by the system operator demonstrating theplant operates out-of-merit-order. EPA's analysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate the immediate-term local conditions described in recentlysubmitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the units displayed below during the implementation of the TransportRule programs. EPA is assuming additional generation will be dispatched from Muskingum River unit 1 based on operational constraints provided byAEP.71As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatched from this facilities would offset generation that wouldotherwise come from combined cycle units within the state, andthe revision to Ohio’s state budget is based on the net change to projected emissions takingthat offsetting factor into account. The netimpact of these changes on the state’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudget are 5,163 ton, 528 ton,and 247 ton increases, respectively.71EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4737, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4801, and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on the TR Revisions Rule by AEP”found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4867).100The calculations of the increase in SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at this facility are shown inTables C.18.a., C.18.b., and C.18.c. For each unit with out-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions from TR_Remedy Final_2012, heat rate,generation from TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-merit-ordercapacity factor is shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, the average outof-merit-order capacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heat input required wascalculated by multiplying theincremental generation by the unit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generation was calculatedby multiplying the additional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.Table C.18.a.: Calculation to Determine Ohio SO2Budget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at Muskingum RiverA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualSO2EmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)AnnualSO2Rate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualSO2Emissions(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000MuskingumRiver2872_B_1 190 0 10416 0 4.36 14% 227.39 2,368,533 5163.4*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8,760 hoursof possible operation in the year; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.**SO2rates were derived assuming a similar grade of coal as was usedby comparable units in IPM inthat region of Ohio and theSO2content of coal in chapter 8 ofthe documentation for IPM. The resultingSO2rates are similar to historic rates at these units.101Table C.18.b.: Calculation to Determine Ohio AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at Muskingum River plantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Annual NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*I G*J/2000MuskingumRiver2872_B_1 190 0 10416 0 0.46 14% 227.39 2,368,533 547.1*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in the year; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.Table C.18.c.: Calculation to Determine Ohio Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at Muskingum RiverplantsA B C D E F G H I J KPlant NameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)Ozone SeasonAverage OutOf-MeritOrderCapacityFactorAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissions(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*I G*J/2000MuskingumRiver2872_B_1 190 0 10416 0 0.46 15% 106.71 1,111,521 256.8*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.18.d., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at Ohio combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C) equal102to the generation-weighted average of Ohio combined cycle units.72The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation (column D)were calculated by multiplying that generation by the average heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.Table C.18.d.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at OhioCombined Cycle UnitsA B CDProgram PeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)EmissionRate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000SO22277,1910 0Annual NOX227 7,191 0.023597394 19Ozone Season NOX107 7,265 0.026009641 10The total revision to Ohio’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.18.e. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for Ohio (row C).72These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).103Table C.18.e.: Calculation to Determine Net Ohio SO2, AnnualNOX, and OzoneSeasonNOXBudget Revisions (tons)2012 2014SO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXSO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXAAdditional EmissionsDue to Out-Of-MeritOrder Generation 5,163 547 257 5,163 547 257BDisplaced Emissionsfrom Out-Of-MeritOrder Generation 0 19 10 0 19 10CNet Budget Revisionsfor Ohio (A-B) 5,163 528 247 5,163 528 247The total revisions to Ohio’s budgets asa result of control and out-of-merit-order dispatch revisions are summarized below inTable C.18.f.Table C.18.f.: Total Budget Revisions for Ohio (tons)Budget YearRevisions due toOut-of-MeritOrder DispatchRevisions Due toUnit Controls Total ChangeSO22012 5,163 5,163SO22014 5,163 5,163Annual NOX 2012 547 2,218 2,765Annual NOX 2014 547 2,218 2,765Ozone Season NOX 2012 257 964 1,221Ozone Season NOX 2014 257 964 1,221104The original and revised values for the state SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudgets, assurance levels, and new unit set-asides aredescribed in Table C.18.g.Table C.18.g.: Impact of Ohio Budget Revisions for Out-Of-Merit-Order Dispatch and Control RevisionsProgram BudgetAssurance LevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule SO2310,230 - - 2% 6,2052012 After June Revisions RuleSO2315,393--2%6,3082014 Before June Revisions Rule SO2137,077 118% 161,751 2% 2,7422014 After June Revisions RuleSO2142,240118%167,8432%2,8452012 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX92,703 - - 2% 1,8542012 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX95,468--2%1,9092014 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX87,493 118% 103,242 2% 1,7502014 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX90,258118%106,5042%1,8052012 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX40,063- - 2% 8012012 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX41,284--2%8262014 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX37,792121% 45,728 2% 7562014 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX39,013121%47,2062%780*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations10519) New YorkEPA is finalizing, based on comments, an increase to New York’s SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXbudget in 2012 and 2014 to reflect theassumption of near-term operational constraints affecting units atthe East River plant, based oninformation provided by the facility operator demonstratingthat the plant is required to run for non-economic reasons. EPA'sanalysis in the final Transport Rule did not incorporate theimmediate-term localconditions described in recently submitted documentation that appear likely to necessitate non-economic generation at the unitsdisplayed below during theimplementation of the Transport Rule programs. EPA is assumingadditional generation will be dispatched from units at the EastRiver plant based onimmediate-term operational constraints provided by Con-Ed.73As discussed later in this section, EPA assumes that the additional generation dispatchedfrom East River would offset generation that would otherwise comefrom combined cycle units within the state, and the revisionto New York’s state budgetis based on the net change to projected emissions taking thatoffsetting factor into account. The net impact of these changes on the state’s SO2, annual NOX,and ozone season NOXbudget are 84 ton, 694 ton, and127 ton increases, respectively.The calculations of the increase in SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOXemissions due to out-of-merit-order dispatch at the East River plant isshown in Tables C.19.a., C.19.b., and C.19.c. For each unit without-of-merit-order dispatch, the capacity, 2012 emissions fromTR_Remedy Final_2012,heat rate, generation from TR_Remedy Final_2012, and emission rate from EPA’s NEEDS database are shown (columns A to G). The average out-of-meritorder capacity factor is shown in column H. The additional generation for out-of-merit-order dispatch was calculated by multiplying the capacity, theaverage out-of-merit-order capacity factor, and the number of hours in the ozone season (column I). The additional heat input required was calculated bymultiplying the incremental generation by theunit’s heat rate (column J). Finally, the additional emissions associated with the out-of-merit-order generationwere calculated by multiplying the additional heat input by the unit’s NOXemission rate.The East River units are part of the Manhattan District Heating System such that their emissions are driven by complex interactions of localelectricity and steam demand, and all of these emissions are relevant to the state’s Transport Rule budgets. The emissions adjustments calculated in thesetables affect the two steam units (Units 60 and 70) that did not operate in the EPA projections, but are required to run to support the district heating systemand also provide electricity. The remaining two units (Units 1and 2) did operate in the EPA projections at reasonable levelsand are not included in theadjustments. In addition, since Unit 70operates as a electricity-only unit duringin ozone season so that there is no ozone-season steam requirement for noneconomic operation, Unit 70 is not included in the revisions for the ozone season. In calculating the net impact on the statebudgets, only the increasedelectricity generation would affect EPA’s prior projected emissions, as such generation is assumed to offset generation at other units in the state in order tomaintain the balance between modeled electricity supply and demand. Therefore, the heat input for each output is displayed separately to make clear thegeneration that needs to be offset, which in this particularcase represents only a fraction of the revised incremental heat input.73See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4761 and the document “Clarification of comments originally filed on the TR Revisions Rule by Con-Ed”found in the Transport Ruledocket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4870).106Table C.19.a.: Calculation to Determine New York SO2Budget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at East RiverA B C D E F G H I J K L M NPlantNameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012AnnualSO2Emissionsfrom TR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)HeatRate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfrom TR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)AnnualSO2Rate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverageOut-OfMeritOrderCapacityFactor ForElectricityAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnual ElecHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualSteam HeatInput(MMBtu)Percentof HeatInputfromOil**AdditionalAnnualHeat Inputfrom OilAdditionalAnnualSO2EmissionsTotal(tons)CalculationC*H*8.760E*I (J+K)*LG*M/2000EastRiver2493_B_60134 012,83000.31 36.1% 423.8 5,436,793 499,577 5.3%316,408.549EastRiver2493_B_70180 011,98000.31 15.4% 242.8 2,909,070 1,372,350 5.3%228,199.735Total 666.6 8,345,862 1,871,927544,608.284.4*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.** Average percentage of oil btu input at East River units 60 and 70from 2010 EIA 923 data.107Table C.19.b.: Calculation to Determine New York AnnualNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at East RiverA B C D E F G H I J K LPlantNameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 AnnualNOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)AnnualGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)Annual NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)AnnualAverageOut-OfMerit-OrderCapacityFactor ForElectricityAdditionalAnnualGeneration*AdditionalAnnualElec HeatInput(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualSteamHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalAnnualNOXEmissionsTotal(tons)Calculation C*H*8.760 E*IG*(J+K)/2000EastRiver2493_B_60134 0 12,830 0 0.13 36.1% 423.8 5,436,793 499,577 394.1EastRiver2493_B_70180 0 11,980 0 0.15 15.4% 242.8 2,909,070 1,372,350 328.3Total 666.6 8,345,862 722.4*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of8.760 because there are 8.760 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.108Table C.19.c.: Calculation to Determine New York Ozone-SeasonNOXBudget Revisions - Assuming out-of-merit-order dispatch at East RiverA B C D E F G H I J K LPlantNameUniqueIdCapacity(MW)2012 OzoneSeason NOXEmissionsfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(1000 tons)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)OzoneSeasonGenerationfromTR_RemedyFinal_2012(GWh)OzoneSeason NOXRate(lbs/MMBtu)OzoneSeasonAverageOut-OfMerit-OrderCapacityFactor forElectricityAdditionalOzoneSeasonGeneration*AdditionalOzoneSeasonElec HeatInput(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonSteamHeat Input(MMBtu)AdditionalOzoneSeasonNOXEmissionsTotal(tons)Calculation C*H*3.672 E*IG*(J+K)/2000EastRiver 60 134 0 12,830 0 0.13 29.3% 144.2 1,849,702 160,106 133*The formula used to calculate Column I uses a multiplier of3.672 because there are 3,672 hoursof possible operation in the ozone season; that factor is divided by 1,000 to yield units in GWh.As calculated in Table C.19.d., EPA is assuming that the increase in generation reflecting out-of-merit-order dispatch would beoffset by decreasinggeneration at New York combined cycle units, shown in these calculations as a representative unit with a heat rate (column B) and emission rate (column C)equal to the generation-weighted average of New York combined cycle units.74The ozone season NOXemissions associated with the displaced generation(column D) were calculated by multiplying that generation by theaverage heat rate and the relevant emission rate at the representative combined cycle unit.74These generation-weighted average heat rates and emission rates are derived using calculations found in the Excel workbook titled “Calculation of heat rate and emissionrate averages used in Revisions Rule Part II” found in the Transport Rule docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4946).109Table C.19.d.: Calculation of Emissions from Displaced Generation at New York Combined Cycle UnitsA B C DProgram PeriodDisplacedGeneration(GWh)Heat Rate(BTU/kWh)EmissionRate(lbs/MMBTU)DisplacedNOXEmissions(tons)CalculationA*B*C/2000SO2667 7,236 0 0Annual NOX667 7,236 0.011824358 29Ozone Season NOX144 7,244 0.012305053 6The total revision to New York’s state budget due to the out-of-merit-order dispatch is calculated in Table C.19.e. The emissions associated with thegeneration displaced by the out-of-merit-order generation (row B) were subtracted from the increase in emissions due to the out-of-merit-order generation(row A) to determine the net emission budget changes for New York (row C).Table C.19.e.: Calculation to Determine Net New York SO2, AnnualNOXand Ozone SeasonNOXBudgetRevisions (tons)2012 2014SO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXSO2AnnualNOXOzoneSeasonNOXAAdditional Emissions Due toOut-Of-Merit-OrderGeneration 84 722 133 84 722 133BDisplaced Emissions fromOut-Of-Merit-OrderGeneration 0 29 6 0 29 6CNet Budget Revisions forNew York (A-B) 84 694 127 84 694 127110The total sum of changes to New York emission budgetsin these revisions are shown in Table C.19.f. below.Table C.19.f.: Total Budget Revisions for New York (tons)Budget YearRevisions due toOut-of-MeritOrder DispatchRevisions Due toUnit Controls Total ChangeSO22012 84 5,360 5,444SO22014 84 5,360 5,444Annual NOX 2012 694 -- 694Annual NOX 2014 694 -- 694Ozone Season NOX 2012 127 -- 127Ozone Season NOX 2014 127 -- 127111The original and revised values for the state ozone season NOXbudget, assurance level, and new unit set-aside are described in Table C.19.g.Table C.19.g.: Impact of New York Budget Revisions for Controls and Out-Of-Merit-Order DispatchRevisionsProgram BudgetAssuranceLevelTotal NewUnit SetAside*% ofBudget Tons% ofBudget Tons2012 Before June Revisions Rule SO230,852 - - 2% 6172012 After June Revisions RuleSO236,296--2%7262014 Before June Revisions Rule SO222,112 118% 26,092 2% 4422014 After June Revisions RuleSO227,556118%32,5162%5512012 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX21,028 - - 2% 4212012 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX21,722--2%4342014 Before June Revisions Rule Annual NOX21,028 118% 24,813 2% 4212014 After June Revisions RuleAnnual NOX21,722118%25,6322%4342012 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX10,242- - 2% 2052012 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX10,369--2%2072014 Before June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX10,242121% 12,393 2% 2052014 After June Revisions RuleOzone-Season NOX10,369121%12,5462%207*Approximate set-aside amounts, may be adjusted upwards or downwards slightly following rounding of existing unit allocations