Comments to the

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and

U. S. Small Business Administration (SBA)

Regarding Proposed EPA GHG Rules Affecting Small Entities or Small Businesses

Reflecting Regulatory Impacts for Public Power Electric Utilities for Regulating 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Including:

PROPOSED PSD TAILORING RULE (PUBLISHED OCTOBER 30, 2009)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PARTS 51, 52, 70, AND 71

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517]

RIN 2060-AP86

With References to:

 Proposed BACT Interpretative Guidance (i.e. ―Steve Johnson Memo‖) 

(Published October 7, 2009)

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0597

 Endangerment Question and Call for Comments (resubmittal of APPA‘s June 23, 2009 

comments)

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

 GHG Reporting Rule (Final Rule Published October 30, 2009)

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508

74 Fed. Reg. 16448 (April 10, 2009)

submitted December 1, 2009
1

What is APPA

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization 

representing the interests of the more than 2,000, not-for-profit municipal and other state 

and local community-owned electric utilities that collectively provide electricity to 

approximately 45 million Americans. These utilities, or ―public power‖ systems, are 

among the most diverse of the electric utility sectors, representing utilities in small, 

medium and large communities in 49 states (all but Hawaii). Seventy percent of public 

power systems are located in cities with populations of 10,000 or less. APPA was 

created in 1940 as a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Its purpose is to advance the 

public policy interests of its members and their consumers, and to provide member 

services to ensure adequate, reliable electricity at a reasonable price with the proper 

protection of the environment.

Overall, public power accounts for about 16 percent of all kilowatt-hour sales to retail 

electricity consumers. Approximately 46% of the megawatt hours of electricity 

produced by public power systems are generated using coal. In addition, the majority of 

communities operating public power utilities also manage water utilities that provide 

drinking water to residential, institutional, commercial and industrial customers. 

Moreover, more than 90% of public power systems meet the definition and qualify as 

small businesses under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 

Executive Summary

More than 90% of APPAs‘ members are small businesses as interpreted by the U. S. 

Small Business Administration. Ironically, while we commend the EPA for its general 

approach in the PSD tailoring proposal, we are surprised that the EPA did not take a more 

expansive view toward ―tailoring‖ to include the electric generation sector. APPA‘s 

comments to be submitted on December 28th will fully explain why the proposed 

comments on PSD ―Tailoring‖ have no direct benefits to our electric utilities. However, 

we believe that the U. S. EPA and U. S. SBA need to take a reasonable regulatory 

approach to the PSD and Title V operating permit issue that will, indirectly, provide 

benefits for APPA‘s member utilities by removing some of our electricity customers from 

the first phase of PSD/Title V permitting.

At the November 17, 2009 EPA/SBA SER small entity outreach panel meeting, the EPA 

offered a slide (Handout on slide 17) that suggests that 161 electric utilities or ―EGUs‖ in 

the United States will be positively affected by the proposed rule since the tailoring rule 

would raise the triggering PSD threshold to 25,000 tons. The slide also suggested that 25 

EGUs would not need PSD permits. While this is technically correct, APPA believes the 

―EGUs‖ referenced are actually standby or emergency generation, and are not 

representative of typical utilities with baseload generation – i.e., those that have 

generation that satisfies customer load under non-emergency or extraordinary 

circumstances. One example would be a small utility with approximately 1,000 

customers which has only a 2MW generating unit designed to operate in emergencies or 
2

other rare circumstances that was run less than 50 hours in each of the past few years. An 

analogy to this type of ―generation‖ would be a homeowner who owns a diesel 

emergency generator for their home. Typically, this type of emergency generator would

run it only a few times a year just to check to make sure it can start and that all systems 

are operating correctly – they don‘t use it to power their house except in the case of an 

emergency.

The proposed rule affected all our electric utilities with fossil fuel generation and delayed 

the PSD triggering date for some very small emitters. In fact, we believe that the EPA 

has inadvertently counted some cogeneration manufacturing facilities as ―EGUs‖ because 

we cannot see how there are any electric utilities with coal or natural gas generation that 

would be allowed to delay their PSD permitting requirements. However APPA would 

not oppose granting any electricity generator provider a regulatory delay in permitting 

(PSD or Title V) should such electric utilities with 25,000 tons given potential to emit 

definitions. 

The following chart indicated the number of hours that plants of varying size would need 

to operate prior to emitting 25,000 tons of CO2. These numbers are approximations as 

each plant is unique in terms of its efficiency.1

EPA’s Proposed 25,000 Ton Threshold Does Not Benefit Power 

Generation

An additional concern relates to the idea of ―Potential to Emit.‖ As is discussed later in 

the information about APPA‘s generation mix, the emissions from a fossil fuel generation 

unit are typically much lower than its theoretical ―potential‖ to emit as units cannot be 

operated 24 hours a day, 365 days per year over time. This difference is best described 

 

1 The emission factors used are based on EIA data from 1998 and 1999 contained on page 2 of a report 

available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/co2emiss00.pdf

476

238

119

758

379

189

50 MW 100 MW 200 MW

Hours to Trigger 25,000 Tons of CO2

Coal Natural Gas
3

by the ―capacity factor‖. The capacity factor is the ratio of the actual output of a power 

plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the 

entire time. For example, if a plant operated 24 hours a day, 365 days per year at its full 

potential, it would have a capacity factor of 100%. This is never the case. Baseload coal 

plants typically have capacity factors of between 70-90%.

There are two main reasons why a plant would have a capacity factor lower than 100%. 

The first reason is that it was out of service or operating at reduced output for part of the 

time due to routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. This accounts for most of the 

unused capacity of base load power plants. Baseload plants have the lowest costs per unit 

of electricity because they are designed for maximum efficiency and are operated 

continuously at high output. Coal plants are generally operated as baseload plants.

The second reason that a plant would have a capacity factor lower than 100% is that 

output is curtailed because the electricity is not needed or because the market price of 

electricity is too low at that time to make production from this particular plant 

economical. This accounts for most of the unused capacity of peaking power plants. 

Peaking plants may operate for only a few hours per year or up to several hours per day; 

intermediate generation plants may operate more frequently, but are not baseload plants. 

Most of the natural gas plants operated by public power are either peaker or intermediate 

plants and practically all of the diesel and fuel-oil plants are peakers. Peaker plants 

generally operate only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, 

for electricity. This often occurs in the afternoon, especially during the summer months 

when the air conditioning load is high (though in cold parts of the country, the peak can 

occur on winter days). The peak power load generally occurs between 4pm and 5pm 

when people return home from work, start cooking dinner, and turn up the air 

conditioning.

Therefore, a rule based on potential to emit would cover many more units than would 

ever approach emitting the threshold. For example, a 25MW diesel unit has the potential

to emit in excess of 25,000 tons of CO2. In reality, it probably will operate only a few 

hours a day during a few weeks of summer peak, thus emitting far less than 25,000 tons 

of CO2. (see illustration on page 2) For this reason, APPA believes it would be wise to 

―tailor‖ units that are used only as ―emergency generators2‖ which would be consistent 

with the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions Rule which exempts ―emergency 

generators‖ from reporting their GHG emissions.

 

2 As defined in the Mandatory GHG Reporting Final Rule, ―Emergency generator” means a stationary 

combustion device, such as a reciprocating internal combustion engine or turbine that serves solely as a 

secondary source of mechanical or electrical power whenever the primary energy supply is disrupted or 

discontinued during power outages or natural disasters that are beyond the control of the owner or operator 

of a facility. An emergency generator operates only during emergency situations, for training of personnel 

under simulated emergency conditions, as part of emergency demand response procedures, or for standard 

performance testing procedures as required by law or by the generator manufacturer. A generator that 

serves as a back-up power source under conditions of load shedding, peak shaving, power interruptions 

pursuant to an interruptible power service agreement, or scheduled facility maintenance shall not be 

considered an emergency generator. (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 209, p. 56387)
4

In addition to the issues with potential to emit for generation, APPA‘s transmission and 

distribution utilities would also have concerns and impacts. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is 

used in the electrical industry as a gaseous dielectric medium for high-voltage (35 kV and 

above) circuit breakers, switchgear, and other electrical equipment, often replacing oil 

filled circuit breakers (OCBs). SF6 gas under pressure is used as an insulator in gas 

insulated switchgear (GIS) because it has a much higher dielectric strength than air or dry 

nitrogen. This property makes it possible to significantly reduce the size of electrical 

gear. This makes GIS more suitable for certain purposes such as indoor placement, as 

opposed to air-insulated electrical gear, which takes up considerably more room. 

Gas-insulated electrical gear is also more resistant to the effects of pollution and climate, 

as well as being more reliable in long-term operation because of its controlled operating 

environment. SF6 is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential of 22,800

times that of CO2. Therefore, only approximately 1 ton (2,000 pounds) of SF6 in a 

utility‘s distribution system would give it the potential to emit in excess of 25,000 tons of 

CO2 equivalent. As all of our systems with generation also have transmission and 

distribution systems, this is an even greater impact to generators.

APPA also notes that the presence of SF6 is not the same as potential to emit. While CO2

is emitted under normal conditions SF6 emissions occur primarily from leaks in electrical 

transmission system equipment in which SF6 is used as an electrical insulator. EPA does 

not count ―potential‖ emissions from coal piles, gas pipelines, etc. for PSD and Title V 

purposes.

APPA believes that even where the proposed tailoring rule falls short of benefitting the 

public power electric utility sector the proposed rule is generally positive. APPA‘s 

member utilities will clearly still be caught up in future PSD/Title V operating permit 

requirements under far tighter thresholds. The proposed tailoring rule does not eliminate 

or delay our regulatory obligations. However, we believe that the EPA has honorable and 

commendable intentions to reduce the regulatory burden, costs, and administrative 

―nightmare‖ for processing permits for millions of parties under a revised PSD/Title V 

operating permit threshold of 100-250 tons of CO2. Because this proposal generally 

helps the commercial and very small manufacturing community we must support 

the rule because these parties are our electric utility sector’s customers. If we cannot 

help the general small business community in this tailoring or streamlined 

permitting process then we cannot even help ourselves since confusion over 

increased emissions at a small business may contribute to more economic 

disruptions and the additional reduction of the sale of electricity.

While these comments are primarily focused on the proposed GHG tailoring rule, APPA 

will reference some positions on the other proposed rules since, ultimately, all the 

proposed rules and the EPA final rule on GHG reporting do affect power plants. APPA 

refers in this set of comments on PSD Tailoring/Title V permits to comments submitted 

earlier on the GHG Reporting Rule (attached in Appendix) and Endangerment (see in 

Appendix).
5

APPA presumes that by the time these comments are received by the EPA and SBA that 

a final endangerment will be made. However, that does not mean that a decision should 

be made on how best to regulate the electric power sector. APPA believes that the 

comments offered today should help get the EPA to think about ―next steps‖ in regulating 

electric utilities in the most reasonable manner. 

Our prior comments and new comments (offered on Dec. 28th) on PSD Permitting are 

relevant since they refer to the best way to avoid an administrative problem in 

implementing CO2 controls under the existing Clean Air Act. APPA re-submits the 

comments on endangerment and points out, in this set of preliminary GHG regulation 

comments regarding SBREFA, that any regulations on CO2 will have a tremendous 

economic impact on our community owned, not for profit, electric utilities. 

APPA’s Generation Mix:

In the public power community, approximately 550 utilities generate some or all of their 

own power; the remaining 1,450 are Transmission & Distribution utilities which purchase 

all of their power and re-sell it to their residential, commercial, and industrial customers. 

Of the 550 utilities that generate some or all of their power, approximately 120 utilities

own coal generation, particularly in the Midwest and Southeastern parts of the United 

States, approximately 265 utilities own natural gas generation, and 250 utilities own 

diesel or fuel-oil generation (note, these numbers do not add to 550 as some utilities own 

multiple generation sources). While this may be a small number which own coal 

generation, this amounts to over 192 million MWh of electricity; the amount generated 

from natural gas is only 65 million MWh, and the amount generated from diesel or 

fuel-oil is less than 0.35 million MWh.

Please see Attachments 1 and 2 which provide a map which illustrates public power‘s 

generating capacity mix by fuel and region and graphs which indicate APPA member 

electric generation by fuel type, both nationally and by region. It is important, again, to 

note the difference between the two figures. The bar and pie charts (Attachment 1) 

illustrate the actual generation by fuel source – this is different from the map (Attachment 

2) which illustrates the generation capacity. As is clear, while there is a higher capacity 

of natural gas, most of these units are peaking units that operate only a limited number of 

hours per year, thus contributing a smaller percentage of the actual number of megawatt 

hours generated. Coal plants, on the other hand, are baseload generation which is 

operated almost continuously, therefore making a larger percentage of the actual number 

of megawatt hours generated. In addition to the fossil fuel generation, public power 

members generate power from methane from municipal landfills, hydroelectric, nuclear, 

wind, and other sources.

APPA’s General Observations about SBREFA and UMFRA Impacts:

More than 90% of the APPA member utilities are SBREFA utilities. All 100% of our 

electric utility members are units of state or local government and have Unfunded 

Mandates impacts resulting from any CO2 regulations. If all states air agencies had to 
6

manage the permitting requirements for all commercial and industrial enterprises with the 

lower PSD threshold at the same time, the presumption would be that the permitting costs 

would increase—perhaps to necessitate a Title V operating permit fee since the states 

would likely have to hire additional personnel to manage the permit process. Whether due 

to the simple costs of a PSD and Title V permit process or the risk of a Title V operating 

permit fee for CO2 and other GHG emissions, APPA expects that the costs of a Title V 

operating permit fee will only increase. Currently most states charge $43 per ton of 

regulated pollutant for Title V permits. 

APPA believes that this is an example of how poorly the EPA conducted an 

economic analysis on the impacts of the proposed rule and “business as usual” if the 

millions of regulated parties needed PSD and Title V permits. If Title V permits and 

PSD permits necessitated the hiring of state employees, it would be a logical assumption 

that there would be some cost to permittees – perhaps through a fee on GHGs.

APPA presumes that the costs of obtaining permits will increase from current 

permitting costs. Those costs will likely reduce the payment in lieu of taxes that the 

APPA member utilities provide to their local governmental agencies. It is a surprise to 

APPA that the EPA did not do a more thorough UMRA analysis. APPA believes that 

the EPA did a very poor job in its assessment of costs to state governmental agencies –

including those electric utilities in APPA‘s membership.

APPA believes that the U. S. EPA grossly underestimated the impacts to both 

governmental entities including not-for-profit electric utilities with unfunded 

mandates and small business regulatory costs and obligations that drive up the costs 

of electricity. Often the hardest hit customers for higher electricity rates are small 

businesses with less  ̳elasticity‘ in their energy usage 

While the costs of electricity are passed onto the local consumers (ratepayers) and other 

small business parties, the reduced funds for PILOT or Payment in Lieu of Taxes3are 

significant. The reduction in PILOT fees are especially significant during this time of 

economic distress in many communities and states. In most public power communities, 

approximately 6% of the electric utility‘s revenues are sent back to the municipal 

government‘s general fund. The general fund contribution from the electric utility is used 

to fund firemen, police and emergency response personnel (EMT) in ambulances etc. In 

some public power communities, the PILOT fees may also provide revenue to the school 

system to pay for teachers. The primary purpose of public power PILOT contributions to 

the municipal general fund is to pay for fire, police and EMT—always essential 

personnel. In many public power towns, this general revenue payment is especially 

critical since the downturn in the fall, 2008. Since that time there has been an additional 

loss to municipal government for local sales tax, property tax payment, commercial real 

estate payments, and losses in residential real estate payments due to home foreclosure. 

All these pressures on the municipal/state electric utility come at the same time when 

 

3

Payments and Contributions by Public Power Distribution Systems to State and Local Governments, 2006 

Data, American Public Power Association, Published March 2008
7

industrial and commercial load has dropped by as much as 20% due to manufacturing 

losses, plant closures, cessation of second and third manufacturing shifts at factories, and 

milder winter 2008-fall 2009 climate in most parts of the United States. (The 2008 year 

study on PILOT fees and public power is provided in Attachment). 

This graph shows the reduction in retail sales of electricity that has been occurring.4 

While not indicated on the graph, year-to-date electricity sales as of August 2009 have 

experienced a 4.7-percent decrease from the same period in 2008. APPA believes that 

at this time of economic uncertainty that the U.S. EPA should fully use the 

discretionary powers it has to “tailor” or phase in regulatory impacts on smaller 

commercial enterprises. While APPA realized many industries will still be “in the 

permitting mess,” we have an obligation to minimize the permitting problems to 

businesses needing permits and state regulatory agencies often facing budget cuts 

and staff shortages or layoffs.

Trends in Retail Sales of Electricity, 1995 - 2008

EIA‘s Annual Energy Outlook (2009) predicts that the general trend of reduction in 

demand growth will continue, as illustrated in the following graph5:

 

4

Source: DOE/EIA-0226 (2009/11)

5

Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 2009. Figure 54.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

19951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Million KWh

Retail Sales of Electricity

Residential

Commercial

Industrial
8

Impact Resulting From the Proposed Tailoring Rule to APPA’s SBREFA Qualified 

Member Utilities:

APPA believes that more than 350 electric utilities will be affected by the PSD/Title V 

Operating Permit requirements once the triggering date commences. Approximately 46% 

of the APPA‘s member utilities electricity generate electricity using coal, and another 

19% generate using natural gas, including peaking or backup generation.6 

APPA’s Preliminary Comments/Recommendations on the EPA Proposed Tailoring 

Rule: APPA will file further comments on December 28, 2009. However, following are 

some preliminary comments in advance. 

1. The EPA has significantly more discretionary authority than the EPA described in 

the proposed tailoring rule. In fact, the EPA could use that discretionary authority 

in making regulatory determinations as to the actual triggering date and what 

happens to various sources after the triggering date. The EPA should also make 

the triggering threshold higher than 25,000 tons. APPA is not advocating for 

categorical exemptions for PSD or Title V permitting. APPA is describing the use 

of discretionary authority in phasing, sequencing or ―tailoring‖ the regulatory 

impacts based upon the emissions from various industrial and commercial parties 

(including municipal electric generation using fossil fuels).

APPA‘s December 28th comments will more fully describe the discretionary 

measures and decisions made by the EPA that were not referenced in the EPA 

request for comments in addition to the addressing the legal premise of 

 

6

Source: Ventyx (formerly Energy Velocity) Database, March 2009 (based on 2007 data).
9

―Administrative necessity‖ and ―absurdity doctrine‖. APPA will make other 

suggestions that the EPA did not propose for small electric utilities.

2. APPA is worried about the commercial and light manufacturing customers of

public power electric utilities – especially during this economic downturn. If 

there is great doubt as to the future of the PSD/Title V operating permitting 

program in the states and at the U. S. EPA then this permitting “juggernaut” 

is not going to be helpful to the customers of the electric power sector or to 

our economy. 

APPA assumes that the U. S. EPA did intend to not regulate mobile sources of 

emissions from electric utilities (i.e. fleet vehicles, customer service vehicles, 

service vehicles, and emergency or outage management vehicles) or from the 

office buildings of Transmission and Distribution (―T&D‖) utilities which do not 

burn fossil fuels (coal or gas) directly. APPA supports this postponement of

regulation of these parties and outright exemption of emergency generation. 

While the EPA may have believed that all trucks merely act as transportation 

vehicles, there are circumstances where small diesel generators are placed on 

utility trucks to operate as emergency generation for a school, small medical 

clinic or rural hospital, nursing home, and dialysis treatment centers etc. This 

usually takes place during storms. (APPA realizes that all motor vehicles will 

ultimately be regulated under the Section 202 rules and APPA is not questioning 

this decision). We are merely reminding the EPA that electric utility trucks should 

be exempt from PSD permitting and Title V permits. The PSD program and Title 

V operating permit conditions should only apply to true stationary sources—not 

trucks with emergency generation. APPA believes that the EPA has considerable 

discretion in postponing or delaying PSD/Title V operating permit requirements 

for office buildings—including the office buildings or auxiliary business centers

for electric utilities (such as bill paying centers) for electric utilities with no fossil 

fuel generation. The EPA final rule on GHG gas reporting did not cover fleet 

vehicles or T& D facilities with no generation. APPA commends the EPA for this 

pragmatic decision and believes that this should be the same decision in the 

―tailoring rule‖. EPA‘s proposal did not call for comments on non-generation 

operations at electric power utilities but did call for comments on office buildings

Collectively the emissions from emergency generation is very small since often 

those emergency generators only run for 2-3 days due to a storm Occasionally the 

emergency generator might run a week in the event of a very serious storm. 

These emergency generation units are not to be confused with peaking units. In 

particular, APPA believes that emergency generation (often referred to as 

“reserve generation”) required by North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC)’s reliability standards should be exempt. This should 

include those generating units that meet the “black start” definition except 

where those units run more than 1,000 hours.

3. APPA believes that the EPA has discretion in increasing the 25,000 TPY in 

emissions threshold when that threshold is increased primarily due to the 
10

installation of pollution control devices, renewable energy technology (including 

those installed as a result of state, county, city or other Federal renewables laws 

and regulations). This should also include public power or municipal decisions 

made in response to Federal, state or municipal purchasing requirements where 

some percentage of the energy produced must come from renewables or be made 

in conjunction with Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).

4. APPA believes that biomass used for Federal, state, county or other renewables 

purposes should not be counted toward the 25,000 PTE threshold. In this 

rulemaking, APPA believes that renewables should be considered, consistent with 

international agreements on climate, that the biomass used is CO2 neutral. To do 

otherwise, places the EPA in the position of creating disincentives to investing in 

the capital improvements necessary to utilize renewables.

5. APPA believes that the use of general permits or permits by rule is generally 

a good idea and will provide further comment on this later in the Dec. 28, 

2009 comments. This support for permit by rule does not extend to the 

implementation of BACT by Rule. APPA believes that once the PSD/Title V 

operating permit triggering date has come that the use of general permits or 

permits by rule will minimize the regulatory burden on business (especially 

smaller businesses), local and state government and the U. S. EPA. 

6. Although the EPA has not yet called for comments on ―what‖ or ―how‖ to 

regulate smaller businesses under either NSPS or other regulatory mechanisms, 

APPA firmly believes that any technology selected must be commercially 

demonstrated and deployed before setting BACT standards. At this time, there is 

no commercially demonstrated and deployable technology for CO2 other than 

energy efficiency. APPA has repeatedly commented on the hopes for CCS 

technologies to reduce CO2 in the future. (See White Papers on CCS in the 

appendix). APPA does not believe that CCS is a commercially demonstrated 

technology and it should not be presumed to be BACT.

7. EPA‘s proposal has asked for questions about BACT and presumptive BACT. 

Energy Efficiency is the only demonstrated and commercially available 

technology to reduce CO2 emissions on a wide scale basis. When referring to 

―energy efficiency,‖ APPA means end-use energy efficiency, i.e., energy 

efficiency and conservation measures undertaken by the customer, whether 

residential, commercial, or industrial, or the municipality itself. While there are 

certainly utility specific factors that must be considered and there cannot be a 

―one-size-fits-all‖ approach, many national studies show the potential for energy 

efficiency as a cost-effective method of reducing CO2 emissions, including 

EPRI‘s PRISM analysis and reports by McKinsey & Company. The National 

Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, a private-public initiative begun in the fall of 

2005 by the EPA and DOE, has created a September 2009 resource document 

titled ―Energy Efficiency as a Low-Cost Resource for Achieving Carbon 

Emissions Reductions‖ which addressed the potential of energy efficiency to 
11

reduce CO2 emissions. APPA will expand on this later during the EPA‘s call for 

comments under NSPS.

8. APPA urges the EPA to not make any presumptive BACT decisions that 

switching to natural gas should be required for existing or newly constructed 

power plants. While the nation may indeed have enormous supplies of natural 

gas (especially shale gas) we do not have sufficient natural gas storage or natural 

gas pipelines to service the 1,000 power plants all across the United States. (see 

map in Appendix) Further, natural gas plants will have more difficult CO2

capture circumstances due to increased parasitic power required to capture the 

CO2 which is less concentrated in natural gas plant emissions than coal plant 

emissions. The Agency should make no change in its practice of defining 

BACT on a case-by-case basis, using the same established criteria that have 

been used in their successful regulation of other emissions. BACT should 

only be based upon currently demonstrated and commercially deployed 

technology. For the power sector, this means energy efficiency with the 

ultimate consumer of electricity—not just at the power plants.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Maps showing APPA‘s Generating Capacity by Region and Fuel Type

Attachment 2: Public Power‘s 2007 Generation by Region and Fuel Type

Attachment 3: Maps showing Natural Gas pipelines and storage

APPENDIX (under separate email file)

APPA White Papers on Carbon Capture and Storage (6)

Carbon Capture and Storage: Analysis of Potential Liabilities Associated with 

Groundwater Contamination Due to Geological Sequestration Operations 

September 10, 2008

Retrofitting Carbon Capture Systems on Existing Coal-fired Power Plants

A White Paper for the American Public Power Association (APPA)

L.D. Carter, November 2007

Geological CO2 Sequestration Issue Spotting and Analysis white 

Timothy R Gablehouse, July 22, 2009

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Legal and Environmental Challenges Ahead, August, 2007
12

Carbon Capture and Storage From Coal-based Power Plants:

A White Paper on Technology, L.D. Carter, May 22, 2007

Will Water Issues/Regulatory Capacity Allow or Prevent Geologic Sequestration for New 

Power Plants? A Review of the Underground Injection Control Program and Carbon 

Capture and Storage

November 3 EPA CCS Meeting Notes from EPA Contractor 

APPA Presentation to EPA on November 3 (contained in Appendix C of EPA CCS 

November 3 Meeting Notes from EPA Contractor)
13

Attachment 1
14

Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite, March 2009

Attachment 2
15

Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite, March 2009

Public Power Generation Mix by Region

and Energy Source, 2007

Attachment 2
16

Attachment 3 Natural Gas Pipeline Map, 2009
17

Attachment 3

Natural Gas Storage Map Illustrating the 

Small Number of Storage Locations 
18

APPA Contacts

Theresa Pugh

Director, Environmental Services

American Public Power Association (APPA)

1875 Connecticut Ave, NW

12th Floor

Washington, D. C. 20009

202 467 2943

tpugh@appanet.org