### 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 pra cticable 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 minori ty populations and low

income 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 chang e risks to minority or low

- income populations, finding that certain parts of the population may be especiall y vulnerable based on their circumstances. These include the poor, the elderl y, the very yo ung, those alread y in poor health, the disabled, those li ving 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 climate

related health effects. Strong sci entific 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 Nat ional Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, summarized in the record for the Endangerment Finding. Their conclusions include that poor communities can be especiall y vulnerable to climate change impacts because they tend to have more limited ada ptive 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, particularl y those on established reservations that are restricted to reservation boundaries and therefore have limited relocation options. Tribal communities whose health, economic well

being, and cultural traditions depend upon the natural environment will likely be affected b y the degradation of ecos ys tem goods and services associated with climate change. Southwest native cultures are especially

vulnerable to water qualit y 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 frequentl y due to their relativel y 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 lowersocioeconomic status have been generally found to have a higher prevalence of pre

- existing diseases, limited access to medical treatment, and incr eased 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 becau se 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, th e state may

require an affected EGU to undertake a ph ys ical 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 an y 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 an y EGUs that make modifications that do trigger NSR permitting, the applicable local, state, or federal permitting program will e nsure 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 mod ified phy sicall y 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 y ear in which they operate and emit pollutants, including pollutants whose environmental eff ects if an y 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 E GUs 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 conce ntrations of PM 2.5, NOx, or ozone around such EGUs than is alread y occurring because peak hourly or daily emissions generall y 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 frequentl y than at present have very low emissions of primaryparticulate matter, SO 2 and HAP per unit of electrical output, such that local (or regional) air

quality for these pollutant s 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 do cumented in the utility RTC.” [350] Instudies 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. Man y are also very well controlled for emission of NOx through the application of after combustion controls such as selective catal yt ic reduction, although not all gas

- fired sources are so equipped. Depending on the specificit y of the state C AA section 111(d) plan, the state may be able to predict which EGUs and communities may

be in this ty

pe 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 an y case, existing tracking s ys tems will allow states and the EPA to be aware of the EGUs whose utilization has increased most significantl y, 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 likel y would also be some locations with more times during the ye ar of relativel y 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 earl y on in the rule making proce ss, 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 emiss ion guidelines. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer - reviewed studies and data that assess effects of exposure to the pollutants addressed b y this proposal.