Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2014/01/08/2013-31079.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 05:22:34
Document Index: 299362196

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 52', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'arts 70', 'arts 300', 'arts 70']

Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 1352-1354 [2013-31079] :: Environmental Protection Agency :: Regulation Tracker :: Justia
Justia Regulation Tracker Environmental Protection Agency Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 1352-1354 [2013-31079]
Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 1352-1354 [2013-31079]
Download as PDF 1352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 12, 2013. Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. 2013–31567 Filed 1–7–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:18 Jan 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660; FRL–9901–51– OAR] RIN 2060–AQ91 Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. AGENCY: The United States EPA (EPA) is withdrawing the proposal for new source performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which was published on April 13, 2012, for new affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs). The EPA received more than 2.5 million comments on that notice and has received new information, which together necessitates substantial changes in the proposed requirements. The changes not only affect determinations of potentially covered sources but could also result in substantial changes in what some sources must do to comply with the standards and could thereby cause them to alter planned facility designs or technological control systems. These changes concern the addition of a determination of the best system of emission reduction for fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units; an alternative compliance option for solid fuel-fired EGUs; the treatment of certain units that had received permits to construct but for which construction had not yet commenced; the limits for natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines; and the application of CO2 emission fees under the title V operating permit program. These changes are of substantial consequence and are sufficient to merit withdrawal (i.e., rescission) of that notice of proposed rulemaking. At the same time, in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking published in today’s Federal Register, the EPA is issuing new proposed requirements for new fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units, which are based on different analyses from the original proposal and would establish requirements that differ significantly from the original proposal. DATES: The proposed rule published on April 13, 2012 (78 FR 22392), is withdrawn as of January 8, 2014. ADDRESSES: Docket: A rulemaking docket for the April 13, 2012, notice of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 proposed rulemaking was established and identified as EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0660. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 1742. Visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ epahome/dockets.htm for additional information about the EPA’s public docket. In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541–4003, facsimile number (919) 541–5450; email address: fellner.christian@epa.gov or Dr. Nick Hutson, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243– 01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 2968, facsimile number (919) 541–5450; email address: hutson.nick@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Overview In 2009, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gas (GHG) air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger Americans’ public health and welfare, now and in the future, by contributing to climate change. In the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on April 13, 2012 (April 2012 document), the EPA proposed to limit E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM 08JAP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules GHG emissions from new fossil fuelfired power plants through standards for CO2 emissions.1 These power plants are the largest stationary sources of U.S. GHG emissions. The April 2012 document proposed federal standards of performance for new fossil fuel-fired power plants that the EPA concluded could be met with existing technology. Specifically, the EPA proposed a single electricityoutput-based emission standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of gross electrical output (1,000 lb CO2/ MWh) for all new affected fossil fuelfired power plants. This standard was based on the demonstrated performance of recently constructed, modern natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units, which the EPA concluded were in wide use throughout the country and were likely to be the predominant fossil fuelfired technology for new generation in the future. Indeed, modeling conducted in support of that proposal predicted no new coal-fired EGUs would be constructed at least until after 2020. However, the EPA recognized that a very small number of new fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units may be built, and if so, they could meet the proposed standard through the use of available carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. To assist such sources in complying with the standard, the EPA proposed an alternative 30-year averaging option that would be available only for affected coal- and petroleum coke-fired sources complying with the standard through the use of CCS. In addition, the EPA identified as ‘‘transitional’’ sources certain coal-fired power plants that had received approval of their PSD preconstruction permits as of the date of the April 2012 proposal (or that had approved PSD permits that expired and were in the process of being extended, if they were participating in a Department of Energy CCS funding program), and that commenced construction within one year of the date of the April proposal. For those sources, the EPA did not propose a standard of performance. The EPA also stated that it was not proposing standards of performance for simple cycle combustion turbines or for non-continental sources (i.e., those in Hawaii or the U.S. territories). In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking published in today’s Federal Register, the EPA has made several key changes to its original proposal. First, instead of proposing a 1 In the April 2012 document, we referred to these sources, interchangeably, as power plants, affected sources, fossil fuel-fired electric generating units, and electric generating units (EGUs). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:18 Jan 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 single limit covering all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the EPA is proposing three different limits: (1) A limit of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh for large natural gasfired stationary combustion turbines, (2) a limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for small natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, and (3) a limit of 1,100 lb CO2/ MWh for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units. Second, instead of proposing an alternative 30-year averaging compliance option for new solid fuel-fired EGUs, the EPA is proposing an alternative 7-year (84operating month) averaging option and is soliciting comment on a limit of 1,000 to 1,050 lb CO2/MWh. Third, the EPA is no longer excluding all previously identified transitional sources (but is considering a subcategory for one to three coal-fired projects that are still currently under development). Fourth, instead of proposing to exempt simple cycle combustion turbines, the EPA is proposing to exempt units that sell to the grid a relatively small portion of their potential electric output. These exempt units generate less than onethird of their potential electric output over a three year rolling averaging period. B. Why is the EPA withdrawing the proposed rule? In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received over 2.5 million public comments on all aspects of its proposal. Many commenters were supportive of the Agency’s proposed actions, other commenters opposed the proposed actions, and many commenters provided new information and/or recommended significant changes in the EPA’s proposed requirements. In addition, the EPA has obtained and analyzed new information that significantly alters its views on important assumptions and which counsel for major changes in some of the requirements proposed in the April 2012 document. We fully describe the actions we are proposing to take in response to the comments received and the results of our analyses of new information in a notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. The following is a description of the principal reasons why those changes warrant rescission of the April 2012 document and issuance of a new proposal. 1. Changes in Proposed Applicability Requirements Changes to the proposed rule’s applicability will impact which sources are potentially covered. By changing the proposed rule’s applicability, projects PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1353 based on NGCC technology that are intended to, and that do, generate less than one-third of their potential electric output on a three year rolling average, which would have been covered by the original proposal, are not covered by today’s proposal. Such projects could be beneficial because they are likely to be more efficient and lower emitting and could potentially cost less than natural gas-fired simple cycle combustion turbines in some instances. If we did not withdraw the original proposal, developers might not consider this technology because they may perceive a greater risk that we would finalize the applicability requirements of the original proposal. This could have the unintended effect of potentially stifling development of NGCC technology that can be used to meet peak energy demand. 2. Changes With Respect to Proposed Standards The Agency is also proposing significant substantive changes from the original proposal in today’s new proposal with respect to the standards themselves. a. Projected New Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Capacity In the April 2012 proposal, although the EPA acknowledged the possibility of a very small amount of construction of new coal-fired generating capacity, the EPA relied primarily on several modeling analyses, including analyses using the EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM), which projected that there would be no construction of new coalfired generation through the year 2030 without CCS even assuming the potential for higher future electric demand or with higher future natural gas prices. Comments received, along with new information, have brought more clearly into focus the possibility that, in fact, there could well be limited new coal-fired generating capacity being constructed within the planning timeframe covered by the proposed rule. This new capacity could be in response to the need for companies to establish or maintain fuel diversity in their generation portfolios or the ability of some companies to combine coal-fired generation of electricity with the profitable sale of by-products from gasification or combustion of coal. As a result, even though our baseline analysis does not project any new coal that would not meet the originally proposed standard, the EPA believes it is appropriate to develop separate standards for coal-fired capacity, which, as it turns out, differ from those for new natural gas-fired EGUs. E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM 08JAP1 1354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules b. Best System of Emission Reduction for Coal-Fired EGUs differentiation may be significant to projects under development. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The April 2012 proposal set a single standard of performance for all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, regardless of generation technology or fuel, based on our proposed findings that the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated (BSER) for fossil fuel-fired units is natural gas combined cycle technology. Thus, in the April 2012 proposal, we did not propose a separate BSER for coal- and other solid fossil fuel-fired EGUs, although we identified carbon capture and storage (or sequestration) (CCS) technology as a compliance alternative for those EGUs and we proposed a 30-year averaging compliance option for those EGUs that implemented CCS. We received significant public comments on this approach. Our evaluation of those comments has led us to modify significantly our conclusions regarding the BSER and the resulting emission limitations for fossil fuel-fired sources, and we no longer consider it appropriate to propose a single standard for all such units. Instead, we are proposing separate emission standards based on separate BSER determinations for (i) fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units and (ii) natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. For fossil fuelfired utility boilers and IGCC units, we are proposing partial-capture CCS as the BSER. Additionally, we now believe that a shorter compliance averaging option than the 30-year scheme proposed in the April 2012 notice may be more appropriate. These changes are significant. Moreover, they affect at least one unit in advanced stages of project development. As a result, the EPA believes it is important to withdraw the original document, in part to make it clear to the developer of this project—and any other projects in development—that their new source performance standards will be based on a BSER determination that is more closely aligned with technology appropriate to those projects. d. Treatment of Transitional Sources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS c. Emission Standards for Natural-Gas Fired Stationary Combustion Units As noted, in the new action, the EPA is proposing separate emission standards for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units and for natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. In the new proposal, the EPA also is proposing separate emission standards for smaller natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines and for larger natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. This VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:18 Jan 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 We received numerous comments objecting to our proposed treatment of transitional sources. In light of many of those comments and additional information we have obtained, we have reassessed this issue and are revisiting our proposed treatment of these types of units. e. Title V Permit Fees II. Impacts of This withdrawal The April 2012 document provided estimated air and energy impacts, as well as projected compliance costs, economic and employment impacts, and benefits associated with the proposed rule. This action withdraws the April 2012 proposal, and thus any projected impacts associated with it are being replaced with the results of a new assessment accompanying the notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. III. Statutory Authority Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator is determining that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 111, 301 and 307(d) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 and 7607(d)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control. Dated: September 20, 2013. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2013–31079 Filed 1–7–14; 12:45 pm] PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 [Docket No. 130708597–3999–01] RIN 0648–BD46 Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; U.S. Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort Limits National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed specifications; request for comments. AGENCY: When EPA finalizes CO2 emission requirements for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs, GHGs will, for the first time, fall within the definition of ‘‘regulated air pollutant’’ in parts 70 and 71, which implement the title V permitting program. This would trigger requirements related to the calculation of permit fees under federal and state title V operating permit programs. The April 2012 proposal did not address title V fee issues related to GHG emissions, but we recognize that it is important to do so. The reproposal addresses title V fees for GHG emissions and includes several options for calculating the reasonable costs associated with GHG permitting. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 50 CFR Parts 300 and 665 NMFS seeks public comment on two proposed actions. First, NMFS proposes to establish a management framework for specifying catch and fishing effort limits and accountability measures for pelagic fisheries in the U.S. Pacific territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). The framework would authorize the government of each territory to allocate a portion of its catch or fishing effort limit to a U.S. fishing vessel or vessels through a specified fishing agreement, and establish the criteria that an agreement would need to satisfy. The proposed framework also includes accountability measures for adhering to catch and fishing effort limits to ensure sustainability. Second, NMFS proposes an annual limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each territory, using the framework described in the proposed rule. NMFS would allow a territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of the 2,000 mt each year to a U.S. longline fishing vessel or vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets the established criteria. NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement, using the procedures and accountability measures described in the proposed rule. The longline bigeye tuna catch limit specifications would be effective in 2014. NMFS also proposes to make technical administrative changes to certain international fisheries requirements under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, to make them consistent with this proposed rule. NMFS intends the proposed rule and specifications to implement Section 113 of the Consolidated and Further SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM 08JAP1
[Pages 1352-1354]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31079]
Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
SUMMARY: The United States EPA (EPA) is withdrawing the proposal for
new source performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2), which was published on April 13, 2012, for new
affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs).
The EPA received more than 2.5 million comments on that notice and has
received new information, which together necessitates substantial
changes in the proposed requirements. The changes not only affect
determinations of potentially covered sources but could also result in
substantial changes in what some sources must do to comply with the
standards and could thereby cause them to alter planned facility
designs or technological control systems. These changes concern the
addition of a determination of the best system of emission reduction
for fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units; an alternative compliance
option for solid fuel-fired EGUs; the treatment of certain units that
had received permits to construct but for which construction had not
yet commenced; the limits for natural gas-fired stationary combustion
turbines; and the application of CO2 emission fees under the
title V operating permit program. These changes are of substantial
consequence and are sufficient to merit withdrawal (i.e., rescission)
of that notice of proposed rulemaking. At the same time, in a separate
notice of proposed rulemaking published in today's Federal Register,
the EPA is issuing new proposed requirements for new fossil-fuel-fired
electric generating units, which are based on different analyses from
the original proposal and would establish requirements that differ
significantly from the original proposal.
DATES: The proposed rule published on April 13, 2012 (78 FR 22392), is
withdrawn as of January 8, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Docket: A rulemaking docket for the April 13, 2012, notice
of proposed rulemaking was established and identified as EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0660. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. Visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for
additional information about the EPA's public docket.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
the action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-4003,
facsimile number (919) 541-5450; email address:
fellner.christian@epa.gov or Dr. Nick Hutson, Energy Strategies Group,
Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2968, facsimile
number (919) 541-5450; email address: hutson.nick@epa.gov.
In 2009, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gas (GHG) air
pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger Americans' public
health and welfare, now and in the future, by contributing to climate
change. In the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on
April 13, 2012 (April 2012 document), the EPA proposed to limit
GHG emissions from new fossil fuel-fired power plants through standards
for CO2 emissions.\1\ These power plants are the largest
stationary sources of U.S. GHG emissions.
\1\ In the April 2012 document, we referred to these sources,
interchangeably, as power plants, affected sources, fossil fuel-
fired electric generating units, and electric generating units
The April 2012 document proposed federal standards of performance
for new fossil fuel-fired power plants that the EPA concluded could be
met with existing technology. Specifically, the EPA proposed a single
electricity-output-based emission standard of 1,000 pounds of
CO2 per megawatt-hour of gross electrical output (1,000 lb
CO2/MWh) for all new affected fossil fuel-fired power
plants. This standard was based on the demonstrated performance of
recently constructed, modern natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units,
which the EPA concluded were in wide use throughout the country and
were likely to be the predominant fossil fuel-fired technology for new
generation in the future. Indeed, modeling conducted in support of that
proposal predicted no new coal-fired EGUs would be constructed at least
until after 2020. However, the EPA recognized that a very small number
of new fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units may be built,
and if so, they could meet the proposed standard through the use of
available carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. To assist such
sources in complying with the standard, the EPA proposed an alternative
30-year averaging option that would be available only for affected
coal- and petroleum coke-fired sources complying with the standard
through the use of CCS.
In addition, the EPA identified as ``transitional'' sources certain
coal-fired power plants that had received approval of their PSD
preconstruction permits as of the date of the April 2012 proposal (or
that had approved PSD permits that expired and were in the process of
being extended, if they were participating in a Department of Energy
CCS funding program), and that commenced construction within one year
of the date of the April proposal. For those sources, the EPA did not
propose a standard of performance.
The EPA also stated that it was not proposing standards of
performance for simple cycle combustion turbines or for non-continental
sources (i.e., those in Hawaii or the U.S. territories).
In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking published in today's
Federal Register, the EPA has made several key changes to its original
proposal. First, instead of proposing a single limit covering all
affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the EPA is proposing three different
limits: (1) A limit of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh for large natural
gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, (2) a limit of 1,100 lb
CO2/MWh for small natural gas-fired stationary combustion
turbines, and (3) a limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for fossil
fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units. Second, instead of proposing
an alternative 30-year averaging compliance option for new solid fuel-
fired EGUs, the EPA is proposing an alternative 7-year (84-operating
month) averaging option and is soliciting comment on a limit of 1,000
to 1,050 lb CO2/MWh. Third, the EPA is no longer excluding
all previously identified transitional sources (but is considering a
subcategory for one to three coal-fired projects that are still
currently under development). Fourth, instead of proposing to exempt
simple cycle combustion turbines, the EPA is proposing to exempt units
that sell to the grid a relatively small portion of their potential
electric output. These exempt units generate less than one-third of
their potential electric output over a three year rolling averaging
B. Why is the EPA withdrawing the proposed rule?
In response to the proposed rule, the EPA received over 2.5 million
public comments on all aspects of its proposal. Many commenters were
supportive of the Agency's proposed actions, other commenters opposed
the proposed actions, and many commenters provided new information and/
or recommended significant changes in the EPA's proposed requirements.
In addition, the EPA has obtained and analyzed new information that
significantly alters its views on important assumptions and which
counsel for major changes in some of the requirements proposed in the
April 2012 document.
We fully describe the actions we are proposing to take in response
to the comments received and the results of our analyses of new
information in a notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. The following is a description of the
principal reasons why those changes warrant rescission of the April
2012 document and issuance of a new proposal.
1. Changes in Proposed Applicability Requirements
Changes to the proposed rule's applicability will impact which
sources are potentially covered. By changing the proposed rule's
applicability, projects based on NGCC technology that are intended to,
and that do, generate less than one-third of their potential electric
output on a three year rolling average, which would have been covered
by the original proposal, are not covered by today's proposal. Such
projects could be beneficial because they are likely to be more
efficient and lower emitting and could potentially cost less than
natural gas-fired simple cycle combustion turbines in some instances.
If we did not withdraw the original proposal, developers might not
consider this technology because they may perceive a greater risk that
we would finalize the applicability requirements of the original
proposal. This could have the unintended effect of potentially stifling
development of NGCC technology that can be used to meet peak energy
2. Changes With Respect to Proposed Standards
The Agency is also proposing significant substantive changes from
the original proposal in today's new proposal with respect to the
standards themselves.
a. Projected New Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Capacity
In the April 2012 proposal, although the EPA acknowledged the
possibility of a very small amount of construction of new coal-fired
generating capacity, the EPA relied primarily on several modeling
analyses, including analyses using the EPA's Integrated Planning Model
(IPM), which projected that there would be no construction of new coal-
fired generation through the year 2030 without CCS even assuming the
potential for higher future electric demand or with higher future
natural gas prices. Comments received, along with new information, have
brought more clearly into focus the possibility that, in fact, there
could well be limited new coal-fired generating capacity being
constructed within the planning timeframe covered by the proposed rule.
This new capacity could be in response to the need for companies to
establish or maintain fuel diversity in their generation portfolios or
the ability of some companies to combine coal-fired generation of
electricity with the profitable sale of by-products from gasification
or combustion of coal. As a result, even though our baseline analysis
does not project any new coal that would not meet the originally
proposed standard, the EPA believes it is appropriate to develop
separate standards for coal-fired capacity, which, as it turns out,
differ from those for new natural gas-fired EGUs.
[[Page 1354]]
b. Best System of Emission Reduction for Coal-Fired EGUs
The April 2012 proposal set a single standard of performance for
all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, regardless of generation
technology or fuel, based on our proposed findings that the best system
of emission reduction adequately demonstrated (BSER) for fossil fuel-
fired units is natural gas combined cycle technology. Thus, in the
April 2012 proposal, we did not propose a separate BSER for coal- and
other solid fossil fuel-fired EGUs, although we identified carbon
capture and storage (or sequestration) (CCS) technology as a compliance
alternative for those EGUs and we proposed a 30-year averaging
compliance option for those EGUs that implemented CCS.
We received significant public comments on this approach. Our
evaluation of those comments has led us to modify significantly our
conclusions regarding the BSER and the resulting emission limitations
for fossil fuel-fired sources, and we no longer consider it appropriate
to propose a single standard for all such units.
Instead, we are proposing separate emission standards based on
separate BSER determinations for (i) fossil fuel-fired utility boilers
and IGCC units and (ii) natural gas-fired stationary combustion
turbines. For fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units, we are
proposing partial-capture CCS as the BSER. Additionally, we now believe
that a shorter compliance averaging option than the 30-year scheme
proposed in the April 2012 notice may be more appropriate.
These changes are significant. Moreover, they affect at least one
unit in advanced stages of project development. As a result, the EPA
believes it is important to withdraw the original document, in part to
make it clear to the developer of this project--and any other projects
in development--that their new source performance standards will be
based on a BSER determination that is more closely aligned with
technology appropriate to those projects.
c. Emission Standards for Natural-Gas Fired Stationary Combustion Units
As noted, in the new action, the EPA is proposing separate emission
standards for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units and for
natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. In the new proposal,
the EPA also is proposing separate emission standards for smaller
natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines and for larger natural
gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. This differentiation may be
significant to projects under development.
d. Treatment of Transitional Sources
We received numerous comments objecting to our proposed treatment
of transitional sources. In light of many of those comments and
additional information we have obtained, we have reassessed this issue
and are revisiting our proposed treatment of these types of units.
e. Title V Permit Fees
When EPA finalizes CO2 emission requirements for new
fossil fuel-fired EGUs, GHGs will, for the first time, fall within the
definition of ``regulated air pollutant'' in parts 70 and 71, which
implement the title V permitting program. This would trigger
requirements related to the calculation of permit fees under federal
and state title V operating permit programs. The April 2012 proposal
did not address title V fee issues related to GHG emissions, but we
recognize that it is important to do so. The reproposal addresses title
V fees for GHG emissions and includes several options for calculating
the reasonable costs associated with GHG permitting.
II. Impacts of This withdrawal
The April 2012 document provided estimated air and energy impacts,
as well as projected compliance costs, economic and employment impacts,
and benefits associated with the proposed rule. This action withdraws
the April 2012 proposal, and thus any projected impacts associated with
it are being replaced with the results of a new assessment accompanying
the notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in today's
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator is
determining that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA
section 307(d). The statutory authority for this action is provided by
sections 111, 301 and 307(d) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411,
7601 and 7607(d)).
[FR Doc. 2013-31079 Filed 1-7-14; 12:45 pm]