J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the U.S.

Section II.A of this preamble summarizes the public health and welfare impacts from GHG 

emissions that were detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).

[347] As part of the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator considered climate change risks to 

minority or low-income populations, finding that certain parts of the population may be 

especially vulnerable based on their circumstances. These include the poor, the elderly, the very

young, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or indigenous 

populations dependent on one or a few resources. The Administrator placed weight on the fact 

that certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climaterelated health effects.

Strong scientific evidence that the potential impacts of climate change raise environmental 

justice issues is found in the major assessment reports by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National 

Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, summarized in the record for the 

Endangerment Finding. Their conclusions include that poor communities can be especially 

vulnerable to climate change impacts because they tend to have more limited adaptive capacities 

and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. In 

addition, Native American tribal communities possess unique vulnerabilities to climate change, 

particularly those on established reservations that are restricted to reservation boundaries and 

therefore have limited relocation options. Tribal communities whose health, economic wellbeing, and cultural traditions depend upon the natural environment will likely be affected by the 

degradation of ecosystem goods and services associated with climate change. Southwest native 

cultures are especially vulnerable to water quality and availability impacts. Native Alaskan 

communities are likely to experience disruptive impacts, including shifts in the range or

abundance of wild species crucial to their livelihoods and well-being. The most recent 

assessments continue to strengthen scientific understanding of climate change risks to minority

and low-income populations.

This proposed rule would limit GHG emissions by establishing CO 2 emission guidelines for 

existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. In addition to reducing CO 2 emissions, implementing the 

proposed rule would reduce other emissions from EGUs that become dispatched less frequently 

due to their relatively low energy efficiency. These emission reductions will include SO 2 and 

NOx, which form ambient PM 2.5 and ozone in the atmosphere, and hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP), such as mercury and hydrochloric acid. In the final rule revising the annual PM 2.5

NAAQS, [348] the EPA identified persons with lower socioeconomic status as an at-risk 

population for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM exposures. Persons with lower 
socioeconomic status have been generally found to have a higher prevalence of pre-existing 

diseases, limited access to medical treatment, and increased nutritional deficiencies, which can 

increase this population's risk to PM-related and ozone-related effects. [349] Therefore, in areas 

where this rulemaking reduces exposure to PM 2.5, ozone, and methylmercury, persons with low 

socioeconomic status would also benefit. The RIA for this rulemaking, included in the docket for 

this rulemaking, provides additional information regarding the health and ecosystem effects 

associated with these emission reductions.

While there will be many locations with improved air quality for PM 2.5, ozone, and HAP, there 

may also be EGUs whose emissions of one or more of these pollutants or their precursors 

increase as a result of the proposed emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. This 

may occur at EGUs that become dispatched more intensively than in the past because they

become more energy efficient. The EPA has considered the potential for such increases and the 

environmental justice implications of such increases.

As we noted in the NSR discussion in this preamble, as part of a state's CAA section 111(d) plan, 

the state may require an affected EGU to undertake a physical or operational changes to improve 

the unit's efficiency that result in an increase in the unit's dispatch and an increase in the unit's 

annual emissions of GHGs and/or other regulated pollutants. A state can take steps to avoid 

increased utilization of particular EGUs and thus avoid any significant increases in emissions 

including emissions of other regulated pollutants whose environmental effects would be more 

localized around the affected EGU. To the extent that states take this path, there would be no 

new environmental justice concerns in the areas near such EGUs. For any EGUs that make 

modifications that do trigger NSR permitting, the applicable local, state, or federal permitting 

program will ensure that there are no new NAAQS violations and that no existing NAAQS 

violations are made worse. For those EGUs in a permitting situation for which the EPA is the 

permit reviewing authority, the EPA will consider environmental justice issues as required by

Executive Order 12898.

In addition to some EGUs possibly being required by a state to make modifications for increased 

energy efficiency, another effect of the proposed CO 2 emission guidelines for existing fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs would be increased utilization of other, unmodified EGUs with relatively low 

GHG emissions per unit of electrical output, in particular high efficiency gas-fired EGUs. 

Because such EGUs would not have been modified physically nor changed their method of 

operation, they would not be subject to review in the NSR permitting program. Such plants 

would have more hours in the year in which they operate and emit pollutants, including 

pollutants whose environmental effects if any would be localized rather than global as is the case 

with GHG emissions. Changes in utilization already occur now as demands for and sources of 

electrical energy evolve, but the proposed CO 2 emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs can be expected to cause more such changes. Because gas-fired EGUs emit essentially no 

mercury, increased utilization would not increase methylmercury concentrations in their 

vicinities. Increased utilization generally would not cause higher peak concentrations of PM 2.5,

NOx, or ozone around such EGUs than is already occurring because peak hourly or daily

emissions generally would not change, but increased utilization may make periods of relatively

high concentrations more frequent. It should be noted that the gas-fired sources that are likely to 

become dispatched more frequently than at present have very low emissions of primary 
particulate matter, SO 2 and HAP per unit of electrical output, such that local (or regional) air 

quality for these pollutants is likely to be affected very little. For natural gas-fired EGUS, the 

EPA found that regulation of HAP emissions “is not appropriate or necessary because the 

impacts due to HAP emissions from such units are negligible based on the results of the study

documented in the utility RTC.”[350] In studies done by DOE/NETL comparing cost and 

performance of coal- and NG-fired generation, they assumed SO 2, PM (and Hg) emissions to be 

“negligible.” Their studies predict NOx emissions from a NGCC unit to be approximately 10 

times lower than a subcritical or supercritical coal-fired boiler. Many are also very well 

controlled for emission of NOx through the application of after combustion controls such as 

selective catalytic reduction, although not all gas-fired sources are so equipped. Depending on 

the specificity of the state CAA section 111(d) plan, the state may be able to predict which EGUs 

and communities may be in this type of situation and to address any concerns about localized NO 

2 concentrations in the design of the CAA section 111(d) program, or separately from the CAA

section 111(d) program but before its implementation. In any case, existing tracking systems will 

allow states and the EPA to be aware of the EGUs whose utilization has increased most 

significantly, and thus to be able to prioritize our efforts to assess whether air quality has 

changed in the communities in the vicinity of such EGUs. There are multiple mechanisms in the 

CAA to address situations in which air quality has degraded significantly. In conclusion, this 

proposed rule would result in regional and national pollutant reductions; however, there likely 

would also be some locations with more times during the year of relatively higher concentrations 

of pollutants with potential for effects on localized communities than would be experienced in 

the absence of the proposed rule. The EPA cannot exactly predict how emissions from specific 

EGUs would change as an outcome of the proposed rule due to the state-led implementation. 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there would be 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations from this proposed rule.

In order to provide opportunities for meaningful involvement early on in the rule making 

process, the EPA has hosted webinars and conference calls on August 27, 2013, and September 

9, 2013, on the proposed rule specifically for environmental justice communities and has taken 

all comments and suggestions into consideration in the design of the emission guidelines.

The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of exposure to the pollutants addressed by this proposal.