EPA Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

STATE OF INDIANA,
STATE OF ALABAMA,
STATE OF ALASKA,
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
STATE OF FLORIDA,
STATE OF GEORGIA, No. 24-______
STATE OF IDAHO,
STATE OF IOWA,
COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY,
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
STATE OF MISSOURI,
STATE OF MONTANA,
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
STATE OF TEXAS,
STATE OF UTAH,
COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA,
STATE OF WYOMING,
Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
MICHAEL S. REGAN,
Administrator, United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Under Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702
and 706, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), and D.C. Circuit Local
Rule 15, the States of West Virginia, Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming
petition this Court for review of the final agency action taken by Respondents
United States Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan,
Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled
“New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing
Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable
Clean Energy Rule,” 89 Fed. Reg. 39,798 (May 9, 2024). Petitioners have
attached a copy of that final rule.

Petitioners will show that the final rule exceeds the agency’s statutory
authority and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and
not in accordance with law. Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare
unlawful and vacate Respondents’ final action.
Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK MORRISEY THEODORE E. ROKITA

ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Michael R. Williams /s/ James A. Barta

Lindsay S. See James A. Barta
Solicitor General Solicitor General
Michael R. Williams
Principal Deputy Solicitor Office of the
General Attorney General of Indiana
302 W. Washington St.
Office of the Attorney General of Indianapolis, IN 46204
West Virginia (317) 232-0709
State Capitol Complex James.Barta@atg.in.gov
Building 1, Room E-26
Charleston, WV 25301 Counsel for State of Indiana
(304) 558-2021
lindsay.s.see@wvago.gov
michael.r.williams@wvago.gov
Counsel for State of West Virginia

STEVE MARSHALL TREG TAYLOR
/s/ Edmund G. LaCour Jr. /s/ Garrison Todd

Edmund G. LaCour Jr. Garrison Todd
Solicitor General Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General Alaska Department of Law

State of Alabama 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200
501 Washington Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501
P.O. Box 300152 (907) 269-5100
Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 garrison.todd@alaska.gov
(334) 242-7300
Edmund.LaCour@AlabamaAG.gov Counsel for State of Alaska
Counsel for State of Alabama
TIM GRIFFIN ASHLEY MOODY

/s/ Nicholas J. Bronni /s Henry C. Whitaker

Nicholas J. Bronni Henry C. Whitaker
Dylan Jacobs James H. Percival
Deputy Solicitor General Chief of Staff
Office of the Arkansas Attorney Office of the Attorney General

General The Capitol, Pl-01
323 Center Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Little Rock, AR 72201 (850) 414-3300
(501) 682-2007 (main) (850) 410-2672 (fax)
Nicholas.Bronni@ArkansasAG.gov henry.whitaker@myfloridalegal.com
Dylan.Jacobs@ArkansasAG.gov james.percival@myfloridalegal.com
Counsel for State of Arkansas Counsel for State of Florida

CHRISTOPHER M. CARR RAÚL R. LABRADOR
/s/ Stephen J. Petrany /s/ Joshua N. Turner

Stephen J. Petrany Joshua N. Turner
Solicitor General Chief of Constitutional Litigation
and Policy
Office of the Attorney General of Alan M. Hurst
Georgia Solicitor General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334 Office of the Idaho Attorney
(404) 458-3408 General
spetrany@law.ga.gov P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0010
Counsel for State of Georgia Tel: (208) 334-2400
Josh.Turner@ag.idaho.gov
Alan.hurst@ag.idaho.gov
Counsel for State of Idaho

BRENNA BIRD RUSSELL COLEMAN
/s/ Eric H. Wessan /s/ Matthew F. Kuhn

Eric H. Wessan Matthew F. Kuhn
Jacob M. Abrahamson
Office of the Attorney General of Counsel for Special Litigation
Iowa
1305 E. Walnut Street Office of Kentucky Attorney
Des Moines, IA 50319 General
(515) 823-9117 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
(515) 281-4209 (fax) Frankfort, KY 40601
eric.wessan@ag.iowa.gov (502) 696-5300
Matt.Kuhn@ky.gov
Counsel for State of Iowa Jacob.Abrahamson@ky.gov
Counsel for the Commonwealth of

Kentucky
LIZ MURRILL LYNN FITCH

/s/ J. Benjamin Aguiñaga /s/ Justin L. Matheny

J. Benjamin Aguiñaga Justin L. Matheny
Solicitor General Deputy Solicitor General
Tracy Short
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Mississippi Attorney
General
Louisiana Department of Justice P.O. Box 220
1885 N. Third Street Jackson, MS 39205-0220
Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (601) 359-3825
(225) 326-6766 justin.matheny@ago.ms.gov
aguinagaj@ag.louisiana.gov
shortt@ag.louisiana.gov Counsel for State of Mississippi
Counsel for State of Louisiana

ANDREW BAILEY AUSTIN KNUDSEN
/s/ Joshua M. Divine /s/ Christian B. Corrigan

Joshua M. Divine Christian B. Corrigan
Peter M. Torstensen, Jr.
Missouri Attorney General’s Office Deputy Solicitor General
Post Office Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102 Montana Department of Justice
Tel. (573) 751-1800 215 North Sanders
Fax. (573) 751-0774 P.O. Box 201401
josh.divine@ago.mo.gov Helena, MT 59620-1401
(406) 444-2026
Counsel for State of Missouri christian.corrigan@mt.gov
peter.torstensen@mt.gov
Counsel for State of Montana
MICHAEL T. HILGERS JOHN FORMELLA

/s/ Zachary A. Viglianco /s/ Mark W. Dell’Orfano

Zachary A. Viglianco Mark W. Dell’Orfano
Deputy Solicitor General Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New Hampshire Department of

Nebraska Justice
2115 State Capitol 33 Capitol Street
Lincoln, NE 68509 Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(531) 739-7645 (603) 271-3643
zachary.viglianco@nebraska.gov Mark.W.Dell’Orfano@doj.nh.gov
Counsel for State of Nebraska Counsel for State of New

Hampshire
DREW H. WRIGLEY GENTNER DRUMMOND
/s/ Philip Axt /s/ Garry M. Gaskins, II

Philip Axt Garry M. Gaskins, II
Jennifer L. Lewis
Office of Attorney General of Deputy Attorney General
North Dakota
600 E. Boulevard Ave., Dept. 125 Office of the Attorney General of
Bismarck, ND 58505 Oklahoma
(701) 328-2210 313 NE Twenty-First St.
pjaxt@nd.gov Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-3921
Counsel for State of North Dakota garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov
Counsel for State of Oklahoma

ALAN WILSON MARTY J. JACKLEY
Robert D. Cook /s/ Steven Blair

Solicitor General Steven Blair
Deputy Attorney General
/s/ J. Emory Smith, Jr.
J. Emory Smith, Jr. South Dakota Attorney General’s
Deputy Solicitor General Office
Thomas T. Hydrick 1302 E. Highway 14, Suite 1
Assistant Deputy Solicitor Pierre, SD 57501
General (605) 773-3215
Joseph D. Spate atgservice@state.sd.us
Assistant Deputy Solicitor
General Counsel for State of South Dakota
Office of the Attorney General of

South Carolina
1000 Assembly Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-3371
josephspate@scag.gov
Counsel for State of South Carolina

JONATHAN SKRMETTI KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
REPORTER
Brent Webster
/s/ J. Matthew Rice First Assistant Attorney General
J. Matthew Rice
Solicitor General Grant Dorfman
Whitney Hermandorfer Deputy First Assistant Attorney
Director of Strategic Litigation General
Office of the Attorney General and James Lloyd

Reporter of Tennessee Deputy Attorney General for Civil
P.O. Box 20207 Litigation
Nashville, TN 37202-0207
(615) 741-7403 Kellie E. Billings-Ray
Matt.Rice@ag.tn.gov Chief, Environmental Protection
Whitney.Hermandorfer@ag.tn.gov Division
Counsel for State of Tennessee /s/ Wesley S. Williams

Wesley S. Williams
Assistant Attorney General

Texas
Environmental Protection Division
P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2012 | Fax: (512) 320-0911
Wesley.Williams@oag.texas.gov
Counsel for State of Texas

SEAN REYES JASON MIYARES
/s/ Stanford E. Purser /s/ Erika L. Maley

Stanford E. Purser Erika L. Maley
Kevin M. Gallagher
Office of the Utah Attorney General Principal Deputy Solicitor
160 E. 300 S., 5th Floor General
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Brendan T. Chestnut
385-382-4334 Deputy Solicitor General
spurser@agutah.gov
Virginia Attorney General’s Office
Counsel for State of Utah 202 North 9th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-2071
emaley@oag.state.va.us
kgallagher@oag.state.va.us
bchestnut@oag.state.va.us
BRIDGET HILL Counsel for Commonwealth of

ATTORNEY GENERAL Virginia
/s/ D. David DeWald

D. David DeWald
Deputy Attorney General

Wyoming
109 State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7895
david.dewald@wyo.gov
Counsel for State of Wyoming
Dated: May 9, 2024

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have caused a true and correct copy of this Petition to be
served on the following Respondents by U.S. Mail on May 9, 2024:
Hon. Michael S. Regan

Office of the Administrator (1101A)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Correspondence Control Unit

Office of General Counsel (2311)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Hon. Merrick Garland

Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Todd Kim
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Washington, DC 20530-00001
/s/ Michael R. Williams

Michael R. Williams
39798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a IRC Internal Revenue Code
AGENCY docket for these actions under Docket ID kg kilogram
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072. All kWh kilowatt-hour
40 CFR Part 60 documents in the docket are listed on LCOE levelized cost of electricity
LNG liquefied natural gas
the https://www.regulations.gov
MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072; FRL–8536–01– website. Although listed, some MMBtu/h million British thermal units per
OAR] information is not publicly available, hour
e.g., Confidential Business Information MMT CO2e million metric tons of carbon
RIN 2060–AV09 (CBI) or other information whose dioxide equivalent
disclosure is restricted by statute. MW megawatt
New Source Performance Standards Certain other material, such as MWh megawatt-hour
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From copyrighted material, is not placed on NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
New, Modified, and Reconstructed the internet and will be publicly Standards
Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating available only in hard copy form. NESHAP National Emission Standards for
Units; Emission Guidelines for Publicly available docket materials are Hazardous Air Pollutants
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From NGCC natural gas combined cycle
available electronically through https:// NOX nitrogen oxides
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric www.regulations.gov.
Generating Units; and Repeal of the NSPS new source performance standards
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa NSR New Source Review
Affordable Clean Energy Rule
Thompson (she/her), Sector Policies and PM particulate matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Programs Division (D243–02), Office of PM2.5 fine particulate matter
Agency (EPA). Air Quality Planning and Standards, RIA regulatory impact analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TSD technical support document
ACTION: Final rule.
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box U.S. United States
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Organization of this document. The
Agency (EPA) is finalizing multiple Carolina 27711; telephone number: information in this preamble is
actions under section 111 of the Clean (919) 541–5158; and email address: organized as follows:
Air Act (CAA) addressing greenhouse thompson.lisa@epa.gov.
gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel- I. Executive Summary
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
fired electric generating units (EGUs). A. Climate Change and Fossil Fuel-Fired
Preamble acronyms and
EGUs
First, the EPA is finalizing the repeal of abbreviations. Throughout this B. Recent Developments in Emissions
the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or Controls and the Electric Power Sector
Second, the EPA is finalizing emission ‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. C. Summary of the Principal Provisions of
guidelines for GHG emissions from The EPA uses multiple acronyms and These Regulatory Actions
existing fossil fuel-fired steam terms in this preamble. While this list D. Grid Reliability Considerations
generating EGUs, which include both may not be exhaustive, to ease the E. Environmental Justice Considerations
coal-fired and oil/gas-fired steam reading of this preamble and for F. Energy Workers and Communities
generating EGUs. Third, the EPA is reference purposes, the EPA defines the G. Key Changes From Proposal
finalizing revisions to the New Source following terms and acronyms here: II. General Information
Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG A. Action Applicability
ACE Affordable Clean Energy rule B. Where To Get a Copy of This Document
emissions from new and reconstructed BSER best system of emissions reduction and Other Related Information
fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion Btu British thermal unit III. Climate Change Impacts
turbine EGUs. Fourth, the EPA is CAA Clean Air Act IV. Recent Developments in Emissions
finalizing revisions to the NSPS for GHG CBI Confidential Business Information Controls and the Electric Power Sector
emissions from fossil fuel-fired steam CCS carbon capture and sequestration/ A. Background
generating units that undertake a large storage B. GHG Emissions From Fossil Fuel-Fired
CCUS carbon capture, utilization, and
modification, based upon the 8-year EGUs
sequestration/storage
review required by the CAA. The EPA C. Recent Developments in Emissions
CO2 carbon dioxide
is not finalizing emission guidelines for Control
DER distributed energy resources
GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel- DOE Department of Energy D. The Electric Power Sector: Trends and
EEA energy emergency alert Current Structure
fired stationary combustion turbines at E. The Legislative, Market, and State Law
this time; instead, the EPA intends to EGU electric generating unit
EIA Energy Information Administration Context
take further action on the proposed F. Future Projections of Power Sector
EJ environmental justice
emission guidelines at a later date. E.O. Executive Order Trends
DATES: This final rule is effective on July EPA Environmental Protection Agency V. Statutory Background and Regulatory
8, 2024. The incorporation by reference FEED front-end engineering and design History for CAA Section 111
of certain publications listed in the rules FGD flue gas desulfurization A. Statutory Authority To Regulate GHGs
FR Federal Register From EGUs Under CAA Section 111
is approved by the Director of the
GHG greenhouse gas B. History of EPA Regulation of
Federal Register as of July 8, 2024. The Greenhouse Gases From Electricity
GW gigawatt
incorporation by reference of certain GWh gigawatt-hour Generating Units Under CAA Section
other materials listed in the rule was HAP hazardous air pollutant 111 and Caselaw
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
approved by the Director of the Federal HRSG heat recovery steam generator C. Detailed Discussion of CAA Section 111
Register as of October 23, 2015. IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:13 May 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09MYR3.SGM 09MYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 39799
VI. ACE Rule Repeal A. Air Quality Impacts and more efficient generation. Congress
A. Summary of Selected Features of the B. Compliance Cost Impacts has also acted to provide funding and
ACE Rule C. Economic and Energy Impacts other incentives to encourage the
B. Developments Undermining ACE Rule’s D. Benefits
deployment of various technologies,
Projected Emission Reductions E. Net Benefits
C. Developments Showing That Other F. Environmental Justice Analytical including CCS, to achieve reductions in
Technologies Are the BSER for This Considerations and Stakeholder GHG emissions from the power sector.
Source Category Outreach and Engagement In this notice, the EPA is finalizing
D. Insufficiently Precise Degree of G. Grid Reliability Considerations and several actions under section 111 of the
Emission Limitation Achievable From Reliability-Related Mechanisms Clean Air Act (CAA) to reduce the
Application of the BSER XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews significant quantity of GHG emissions
E. Withdrawal of Proposed NSR Revisions A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory from fossil fuel-fired EGUs by
VII. Regulatory Approach for Existing Fossil Planning and Review and Executive establishing emission guidelines and
Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory new source performance standards
A. Overview Review
B. Applicability Requirements and Fossil B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
(NSPS) that are based on available and
Fuel-Type Definitions for Subcategories C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) cost-effective technologies that directly
of Steam Generating Units D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 reduce GHG emissions from these
C. Rationale for the BSER for Coal-Fired (UMRA) sources. Consistent with the statutory
Steam Generating Units E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism command of CAA section 111, the final
D. Rationale for the BSER for Natural Gas- F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation NSPS and emission guidelines reflect
Fired and Oil-Fired Steam Generating and Coordination With Indian Tribal the application of the best system of
Units Governments emission reduction (BSER) that, taking
E. Additional Comments Received on the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of into account costs, energy requirements,
Emission Guidelines for Existing Steam Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks Populations and
and other statutory factors, is adequately
Generating Units and Responses
F. Regulatory Requirement To Review Low-Income Populations demonstrated.
Emission Guidelines for Coal-Fired Units H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Specifically, the EPA is first finalizing
VIII. Requirements for New and Concerning Regulations That the repeal of the Affordable Clean
Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Energy (ACE) Rule. Second, the EPA is
Turbine EGUs and Rationale for Distribution, or Use finalizing emission guidelines for GHG
Requirements I. National Technology Transfer and emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired
A. Overview Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR steam generating EGUs, which include
B. Combustion Turbine Technology Part 51 both coal-fired and oil/gas-fired steam
C. Overview of Regulation of Stationary J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
generating EGUs. Third, the EPA is
Combustion Turbines for GHGs To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income finalizing revisions to the NSPS for GHG
D. Eight-Year Review of NSPS
Populations and Executive Order 14096: emissions from new and reconstructed
E. Applicability Requirements and
Subcategorization Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion
F. Determination of the Best System of to Environmental Justice for All turbine EGUs. Fourth, the EPA is
Emission Reduction (BSER) for New and K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) finalizing revisions to the NSPS for GHG
Reconstructed Stationary Combustion XIV. Statutory Authority emissions from fossil fuel-fired steam
Turbines generating units that undertake a large
I. Executive Summary
G. Standards of Performance modification, based upon the 8-year
H. Reconstructed Stationary Combustion In 2009, the EPA concluded that GHG review required by the CAA. The EPA
Turbines emissions endanger our nation’s public is not finalizing emission guidelines for
I. Modified Stationary Combustion health and welfare.1 Since that time, the GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel-
Turbines evidence of the harms posed by GHG fired combustion turbines at this time
J. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction emissions has only grown, and
K. Testing and Monitoring Requirements and plans to expeditiously issue an
L. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Americans experience the destructive additional proposal that more
Requirements and worsening effects of climate change comprehensively addresses GHG
M. Compliance Dates every day.2 Fossil fuel-fired EGUs are emissions from this portion of the fleet.
N. Compliance Date Extension the nation’s largest stationary source of The EPA acknowledges that the share of
IX. Requirements for New, Modified, and GHG emissions, representing 25 percent GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel-
Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam of the United States’ total GHG fired combustion turbines has been
Generating Units emissions in 2021.3 At the same time, a growing and is projected to continue to
A. 2018 NSPS Proposal Withdrawal range of cost-effective technologies and do so, particularly as emissions from
B. Additional Amendments approaches to reduce GHG emissions other portions of the fleet decline, and
C. Eight-Year Review of NSPS for Fossil
Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units
from these sources is available to the that it is vital to regulate the GHG
D. Projects Under Development power sector—including carbon capture emissions from these sources consistent
X. State Plans for Emission Guidelines for and sequestration/storage (CCS), co- with CAA section 111.
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs firing with less GHG-intensive fuels, These final actions ensure that the
A. Overview new and existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs
B. Requirement for State Plans To Maintain 1 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). that are subject to these rules reduce
Stringency of the EPA’s BSER 2 The 5th National Climate Assessment (NCA5) their GHG emissions in a manner that is
Determination states that the effects of human-caused climate cost-effective and improves the
C. Establishing Standards of Performance change are already far-reaching and worsening

across every region of the United States and that emissions performance of the sources,
D. Compliance Flexibilities
climate change affects all aspects of the energy consistent with the applicable CAA
E. State Plan Components and Submission
XI. Implications for Other CAA Programs
system-supply, delivery, and demand-through the requirements and caselaw. These
increased frequency, intensity, and duration of standards and emission guidelines will
A. New Source Review Program extreme events and through changing climate
B. Title V Program trends. significantly decrease GHG emissions
XII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 3 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources- from fossil fuel-fired EGUs and the
Economic Impacts greenhouse-gas-emissions. associated harms to human health and
welfare. Further, the EPA has designed reducing GHG emissions from these fossil fuel-fired generating fleet are
these standards and emission guidelines affected sources can also help reduce collectively leading to, in most cases,
in a way that is compatible with the power sector pollution that might decreased use of the fossil fuel-fired
nation’s overall need for a reliable otherwise result from the electrification units that are the subjects of these final
supply of affordable electricity. of other sectors of the economy. actions. From 2010 through 2022, fossil
A. Climate Change and Fossil Fuel-Fired B. Recent Developments in Emissions fuel-fired generation declined from
EGUs Controls and the Electric Power Sector approximately 72 percent of total net
generation to approximately 60 percent,
These final actions reduce the Several recent developments with generation from coal-fired sources
emissions of GHGs from new and concerning emissions controls are dropping from 49 percent to 20 percent
existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The relevant for the EPA’s determination of of net generation during this period.5
increasing concentrations of GHGs in the BSER for existing coal-fired steam These trends are expected to continue
the atmosphere are, and have been, generating EGUs and new natural gas- and are relevant to determining where
warming the planet, resulting in serious fired stationary combustion turbines. capital-intensive technologies, like CCS,
and life-threatening environmental and These include lower costs and may be feasibly and cost-reasonably
human health impacts. The increased continued improvements in CCS deployed to reduce emissions.
concentrations of GHGs in the technology, alongside Federal tax
Congress has taken other recent
atmosphere and the resulting warming incentives that allow companies to
largely offset the cost of CCS. Well- actions to drive the reduction of GHG
have led to more frequent and more
established trends in the sector further emissions from the power sector. As
intense heat waves and extreme weather
inform where using such technologies is noted earlier, Congress enacted IRC
events, rising sea levels, and retreating
cost effective and feasible, and form part section 45Q in section 115 of the Energy
snow and ice, all of which are occurring
of the basis for the EPA’s determination Improvement and Extension Act of 2008
at a pace and scale that threaten human
of the BSER. to provide a tax credit for the
health and welfare.
Fossil fuel-fired EGUs that are In recent years, the cost of CCS has sequestration of CO2. Congress
uncontrolled for GHGs are one of the declined in part because of process significantly amended IRC section 45Q
biggest domestic sources of GHG improvements learned from earlier in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,
emissions. At the same time, there are deployments and other advances in the and more recently in the IRA, to make
technologies available (including technology. In addition, the Inflation this tax incentive more generous and
technologies that can be applied to Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in 2022, effective in spurring long-term
fossil fuel-fired power plants) to extended and significantly increased the deployment of CCS. In addition, the IIJA
significantly reduce emissions of GHGs tax credit for carbon dioxide (CO2) provided more than $65 billion for
from the power sector. Low- and zero- sequestration under Internal Revenue infrastructure investments and upgrades
GHG electricity are also key enabling Code (IRC) section 45Q. The provision for transmission capacity, pipelines, and
technologies to significantly reduce of tax credits in the IRA, combined with low-carbon fuels.6 Further, the Creating
GHG emissions in almost every other the funding included in the Helpful Incentives to Produce
sector of the economy. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Semiconductors and Science Act
In 2021, the power sector was the (IIJA), enacted in 2021, incentivize and (CHIPS Act) authorized billions more in
largest stationary source of GHGs in the facilitate the deployment of CCS and funding for development of low- and
United States, emitting 25 percent of other GHG emission control non-GHG emitting energy technologies
overall domestic emissions.4 In 2021, technologies. As explained later in this that could provide additional low-cost
existing fossil fuel-fired steam preamble, these developments support options for power companies to reduce
generating units accounted for 65 the EPA’s conclusion that CCS is the overall GHG emissions.7 As discussed
percent of the GHG emissions from the BSER for certain subcategories of new in greater detail in section IV.E.1 of this
sector, but only accounted for 23 and existing EGUs because it is an preamble, the IRA, the IIJA, and CHIPS
percent of the total electricity adequately demonstrated and available contain numerous other provisions
generation. control technology that significantly encouraging companies to reduce their
Because of its outsized contributions reduces emissions of dangerous GHGs.
to overall emissions, reducing emissions pollution and because the costs of its C. Summary of the Principal Provisions
from the power sector is essential to installation and operation are of These Regulatory Actions
addressing the challenge of climate reasonable. Some companies have
change—and sources in the power already made plans to install CCS on These final actions include the repeal
sector also have many available options their units independent of the EPA’s of the ACE Rule, BSER determinations
for reducing their climate-destabilizing regulations. and emission guidelines for existing
emissions. Particularly relevant to these Well documented trends in the power fossil fuel-fired steam generating units,
actions are several key technologies sector also influence the EPA’s and BSER determinations and
(CCS and co-firing of lower-GHG fuels) determination of the BSER. In accompanying standards of performance
that allow fossil fuel-fired steam particular, CCS entails significant for GHG emissions from new and
generating EGUs and stationary capital expenditures and is only cost- reconstructed fossil fuel-fired stationary
combustion turbines to provide power reasonable for units that will operate combustion turbines and modified fossil
while emitting significantly lower GHG enough to defray those capital costs. At fuel-fired steam generating units.
the same time, many utilities and power
emissions. Moreover, with the increased

electrification of other GHG-emitting generating companies have recently 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
sectors of the economy, such as personal announced plans to accelerate changing Electric Power Annual. 2010 and 2022. https://
the mix of their generating assets. The www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_01_
vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and the a.html.
heating and cooling of buildings, IIJA and IRA, state legislation, 6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/
technology advancements, market house-bill/3684.
4 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources- forces, consumer demand, and the 7 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/
greenhouse-gas-emissions. advanced age of much of the existing house-bill/4346.
The EPA is taking these actions commercial use, and, further, that the fired steam generating units that
consistent with its authority under CAA EPA may reasonably project the demonstrate that they plan to
section 111. Under CAA section 111, development of a control system at a permanently cease operation before
once the EPA has identified a source future time and establish requirements January 1, 2039. The BSER for this
category that contributes significantly to that take effect at that time. Further, the subcategory is co-firing with natural gas,
dangerous air pollution, it proceeds to most relevant costs under CAA section at a level of 40 percent of the unit’s
regulate new sources and, for GHGs and 111 are the costs to the regulated annual heat input. These units have a
certain other air pollutants, existing facility. The actions that the EPA is presumptive standard of 16 percent
sources. The central requirement is that finalizing are consistent with the reduction in annual emission rate
the EPA must determine the ‘‘best requirements of CAA section 111 and its corresponding to this BSER, with a
system of emission reduction . . . regulatory history and caselaw, which is compliance deadline of January 1, 2030.
adequately demonstrated,’’ taking into discussed in further detail in section V The EPA is finalizing an applicability
account the cost of the reductions, non- of this preamble. exemption for existing coal-fired steam
air quality health and environmental EGUs demonstrating that they plan to
1. Repeal of ACE Rule permanently cease operation prior to
impacts, and energy requirements.8 The
EPA may determine that different sets of The EPA is finalizing its proposed January 1, 2032, based on the Agency’s
sources have different characteristics repeal of the existing ACE Rule determination that units retiring before
relevant for determining the BSER and emission guidelines. First, as a policy this date generally do not have cost-
may subcategorize sources accordingly. matter, the EPA concludes that the suite reasonable options for improving their
Once it identifies the BSER, the EPA of heat rate improvements (HRI) that GHG emissions performance. Sources
must determine the ‘‘degree of emission was identified in the ACE Rule as the that demonstrate they will permanently
limitation’’ achievable by application of BSER is not an appropriate BSER for cease operation before this applicability
the BSER. For new sources, the EPA existing coal-fired EGUs. Second, the deadline will not be subject to these
establishes the standard of performance ACE Rule rejected CCS and natural gas emission guidelines. Further, the EPA is
with which the sources must comply, co-firing as the BSER for reasons that no not finalizing the proposed imminent-
which is a standard for emissions that longer apply. Third, the EPA concludes term or near-term subcategories.
reflects the degree of emission that the ACE Rule conflicted with CAA The EPA is finalizing the proposed
limitation. For existing sources, the EPA section 111 and the EPA’s implementing structure of the subcategory definitions
includes the information it has regulations because it did not provide for natural gas- and oil-fired steam
developed concerning the BSER and sufficient specificity as to the BSER the generating units. The EPA is also
associated degree of emission limitation EPA had identified or the ‘‘degree of finalizing routine methods of operation
in emission guidelines and directs the emission limitation achievable though and maintenance as the BSER for
states to adopt state plans that contain application of the [BSER].’’ intermediate load and base load natural
standards of performance that are Also, the EPA is withdrawing the gas- and oil-fired steam generating units.
consistent with the emission guidelines. proposed revisions to the New Source Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing
Since the early 1970s, the EPA has Review (NSR) regulations that were presumptive standards for natural gas-
promulgated regulations under CAA included the ACE Rule proposal (83 FR and oil-fired steam generating units that
section 111 for more than 60 source 44773–83; August 31, 2018). are slightly higher than at proposal: base
categories, which has established a load sources (those with annual
robust set of regulatory precedents that 2. Emission Guidelines for Existing capacity factors greater than 45 percent)
has informed the development of these Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generating have a presumptive standard of 1,400 lb
final actions. During this period, the Units CO2/MWh-gross, and intermediate load
courts, primarily the U.S. Court of The EPA is finalizing CCS with 90 sources (those with annual capacity
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the percent capture as BSER for existing factors greater than 8 percent and less
Supreme Court, have developed a body coal-fired steam generating units. These than or equal to 45 percent) have a
of caselaw interpreting CAA section units have a presumptive standard 9 of presumptive standard of 1,600 lb CO2/
111. As the Supreme Court has an 88.4 percent reduction in annual MWh-gross. For low load (those with
recognized, the EPA has typically (and emission rate, with a compliance annual capacity factors less than 8
does so in these actions) determined the deadline of January 1, 2032. As percent), the EPA is finalizing a uniform
BSER to be ‘‘measures that improve the explained in detail below, CCS is an fuels BSER and a presumptive input-
pollution performance of individual adequately demonstrated technology based standard of 170 lb CO2/MMBtu
sources,’’ such as add-on controls and that achieves significant emissions for oil-fired sources and a presumptive
clean fuels. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 reduction and is cost-reasonable, taking standard of 130 lb CO2/MMBtu for
U.S. 697, 734 (2022). For present into account the declining costs of the natural gas-fired sources.
purposes, several of a BSER’s key technology and a substantial tax credit
features include that it must reduce 3. Standards of Performance for New
available to sources. In recognition of and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired
emissions, be based on ‘‘adequately the significant capital expenditures
demonstrated’’ technology, and have a Combustion Turbines
involved in deploying CCS technology
reasonable cost of control. The case law and the fact that 45 percent of regulated The EPA is finalizing emission
interpreting section 111 has also units already have announced standards for three subcategories of
recognized that the BSER can be retirement dates, the EPA is finalizing a combustion turbines—base load,
intermediate load, and low load. The
forward-looking in nature and take into separate subcategory for existing coal-
account anticipated improvements in BSER for base load combustion turbines
control technologies. For example, the 9 Presumptive standards of performance are includes two components to be
EPA may determine a control to be discussed in detail in section X of the preamble. implemented initially in two phases.
‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ even if it is While states establish standards of performance for The first component of the BSER for
sources, the EPA provides presumptively
new and not yet in widespread approvable standards of performance based on the
base load combustion turbines is highly
degree of emission limitation achievable through efficient generation (based on the
8 CAA section 111(a)(1). application of the BSER for each subcategory. emission rates that the best performing
units are achieving) and the second coal-fired power plant is under that were available for these units. That
component for base load combustion consideration in Alaska. Accordingly, analysis can stand alone and apart from
turbines is utilization of CCS with 90 the EPA is not, at this time, finalizing the EPA’s separate analysis for existing
percent capture. Recognizing the lead its proposal not to review the 2015 fossil fuel-fired steam generating units.
time that is necessary for new base load NSPS, and, instead, will continue to Though the record evidence (including,
combustion turbines to plan for and consider whether to review the 2015 for example, modeling results) often
install the second component of the NSPS. As developments warrant, the addresses the availability, performance,
BSER (i.e., 90 percent CCS), including EPA will determine either to conduct a and expected implementation of the
the time that is needed to deploy the review, and propose revised standards technologies at both existing fossil fuel-
associated infrastructure (CO2 pipelines, of performance, or not conduct a review. fired steam generating units and new
storage sites, etc.), the EPA is finalizing Also, in this final action, the EPA is fossil fuel-fired combustion turbines in
a second phase compliance deadline of withdrawing the 2018 proposed the same record documents, the
January 1, 2032, for this second amendments 10 to the NSPS for GHG evidence for each evaluation stands on
component of the standard. emissions from coal-fired EGUs. its own, and is independently sufficient
The EPA has identified highly to support each of the final BSERs.
5. Severability
efficient simple cycle generation as the In addition, within section I.C.1, the
BSER for intermediate load combustion This final action is composed of four
independent rules: the repeal of the final action to repeal the ACE Rule is
turbines. For low load combustion severable from the withdrawal of the
turbines, the EPA is finalizing its ACE rule; GHG emission guidelines for
existing fossil fuel-fired steam NSR revisions that were proposed in
proposed determination that the BSER
generating units; NSPS for GHG parallel with the ACE Rule proposal.
is the use of lower-emitting fuels.
emissions from new and reconstructed Within the group of actions for existing
4. New, Modified, and Reconstructed fossil fuel-fired combustion turbines; fossil fuel-fired steam generating units
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generating and revisions to the standards of in section I.C.2, the requirements for
Units performance for new, modified, and each subcategory of existing sources are
The EPA is finalizing revisions of the reconstructed fossil fuel-fired steam severable from the requirements for
standards of performance for coal-fired generating units. The EPA could have each other subcategory of existing
steam generating units that undertake a finalized each of these rules in separate sources. For example, if a court were to
large modification (i.e., a modification Federal Register notices as separate invalidate the BSER and associated
that increases its hourly emission rate final actions. The Agency decided to emission standard for units in the
by more than 10 percent) to mirror the include these four independent rules in medium-term subcategory, the BSER
emission guidelines for existing coal- a single Federal Register notice for and associated emission standard for
fired steam generators. This reflects the administrative ease because they all units in the long-term subcategory could
EPA’s determination that such modified relate to climate pollution from the function sensibly because the
sources are capable of meeting the same fossil fuel-fired electric generating units effectiveness of the BSER for each
presumptive standards that the EPA is source category. Accordingly, despite subcategory is not dependent on the
finalizing for existing steam EGUs. grouping these rules into one single effectiveness of the BSER for other
Further, this revised standard for Federal Register notice, the EPA subcategories. Within the group of
modified coal-fired steam EGUs will intends that each of these rules actions for new and reconstructed fossil
avoid creating an unjustified disparity described in sections I.C.1 through I.C.4 fuel-fired combustion turbines in
between emission control obligations for is severable from the other. section I.C.3, the following actions are
modified and existing coal-fired steam In addition, each rule is severable as severable: the requirements for each
EGUs. a practical matter. For example, the EPA subcategory of new and reconstructed
The EPA did not propose, and we are would repeal the ACE Rule separate and turbines are severable from the
not finalizing, any review or revision of apart from finalizing new standards for requirements for each other subcategory;
the 2015 standard for large these sources as explained herein. and within the subcategory for base load
modifications of oil- or gas-fired steam Moreover, the BSER and associated turbines, the requirements for each of
generating units because we are not emission guidelines for existing fossil the two components are severable from
aware of any existing oil- or gas-fired fuel-fired steam generating units are the requirements for the other
steam generating EGUs that have independent of and would have been component. Each of these standards can
undertaken such modifications or have the same regardless of whether the EPA function sensibly without the others.
plans to do so, and, unlike an existing finalized the other parts of this rule. In For example, the BSER for low load,
coal-fired steam generating EGUs, determining the BSER for existing fossil intermediate load, and base load
existing oil- or gas-fired steam units fuel-fired steam generating units, the subcategories is based on the
have no incentive to undertake such a EPA considered only the technologies technologies the EPA determined met
modification to avoid the requirements available to reduce GHG emissions at the statutory standards for those
we are including in this final rule for those sources and did not take into subcategories and are independent from
existing oil- or gas-fired steam consideration the technologies or each other. And in the base load
generating units. standards of performance for new fossil subcategory units may practically be
As discussed in the proposal fuel-fired combustion turbines. The constructed using the most efficient
preamble, the EPA is not revising the same is true for the Agency’s evaluation technology without then installing CCS
NSPS for newly constructed or and likewise may install CCS on a
and determination of the BSER and

reconstructed fossil fuel-fired steam associated standards of performance for turbine system that was not constructed
electric generating units (EGU) at this new fossil fuel-fired combustion with the most efficient technology.
time because the EPA anticipates that turbines. The EPA identified the BSER Within the group of actions for new,
few, if any, such units will be and established the standards of modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-
constructed or reconstructed in the performance by examining the controls fired steam generating units in section
foreseeable future. However, the EPA I.C.4, the revisions of the standards of
has recently become aware that a new 10 See 83 FR 65424, December 20, 2018. performance for coal-fired steam
generators that undertake a large These final actions respond to this of other sensitivity analyses looking at
modification are severable from the input and feedback in multiple ways, higher electricity demand (load growth)
withdrawal of the 2018 proposal to including through changes to the and impact of the EPA’s additional
revise the NSPS for emissions of GHG universe of affected sources, longer regulatory actions affecting the power
from EGUs. Each of the actions in these compliance timeframes for CCS sector. These sensitivity analyses
final rules that the EPA has identified as implementation, and other compliance indicate that, in the context of higher
severable is functionally independent— flexibilities, as well as articulation of demand and other pending power sector
i.e., may operate in practice the appropriate use of RULOF to rules, the industry has available
independently of the other actions. address reliability issues during state pathways to comply with this rule that
In addition, while the EPA is plan development and in subsequent respect NERC reliability considerations
finalizing this rule at the same time as state plan revisions. In addition to these and constraints.
other final rules regulating different adjustments, the EPA is finalizing In addition, the EPA notes that
types of pollution from EGUs— several programmatic mechanisms significant planning and regulatory
specifically the Supplemental Effluent specifically designed to address mechanisms exist to ensure that
Limitations Guidelines and Standards reliability concerns raised by sufficient generation resources are
for the Steam Electric Power Generating commenters. For existing fossil fuel- available to maintain reliability. The
Point Source Category (FR 2024–09815, fired EGUs, a short-term reliability EPA’s consideration of reliability in this
EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–8794– emergency mechanism is available for rulemaking has also been informed by
02–OW); National Emission Standards states to provide more flexibility by consultation with the DOE under the
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal and using an alternative emission limitation auspices of the March 9, 2023,
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam during acute operational emergencies memorandum of understanding
Generating Units Review of the Residual when the grid might be temporarily (MOU) 11 signed by the EPA
Risk and Technology Review (FR 2024– under heavy strain. A similar short-term Administrator and the Secretary of
09148, EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794; reliability emergency mechanism is also Energy, as well as by consultation with
FRL–6716.3–02–OAR); Hazardous and available to new sources. In addition, FERC expert staff. In these final actions,
Solid Waste Management System: the EPA is creating an option for states the EPA has included various
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals to provide for a compliance date flexibilities that allow power companies
From Electric Utilities; Legacy CCR extension for existing sources of up to and grid operators to plan for achieving
Surface Impoundments (FR 2024– 1 year under certain circumstances for feasible and necessary reductions of
09157, EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0107; sources that are installing control GHGs from affected sources consistent
FRL–7814–04–OLEM)—and has technologies to comply with their with the EPA’s statutory charge while
considered the interactions between and standards of performance. Lastly, states ensuring that the rule will not interfere
cumulative effects of these rules, each may also provide, by inclusion in their with systems operators’ ability to ensure
rule is based on different statutory state plans, a reliability assurance grid reliability.
authority, a different record, and is mechanism of up to 1 year that under A thorough description of how
completely independent of the other limited circumstances would allow adjustments in the final rules address
rules. existing units that had planned to cease reliability issues, the EPA’s outreach to
operating by a certain date to balancing authorities, EPA’s
D. Grid Reliability Considerations temporarily remain available to support supplemental notice, as well as the
The EPA is finalizing multiple reliability. Any extensions exceeding 1 introduction of mechanisms to address
adjustments to the proposed rules that year must be addressed through a state short- and long-term reliability needs is
ensure the requirements in these final plan revision. In order to utilize this presented in section XII.F of this
actions can be implemented without reliability pathway, there must be an preamble.
compromising the ability of power adequate demonstration of need and
E. Environmental Justice Considerations
companies, grid operators, and state and certification by a reliability authority,
Federal energy regulators to maintain and approval by the appropriate EPA Consistent with Executive Order
resource adequacy and grid reliability. Regional Administrator. The EPA plans (E.O.) 14096, and the EPA’s
In response to the May 2023 proposed to seek the advice of FERC for extension commitment to upholding
rule, the EPA received extensive requests exceeding 6 months. Similarly, environmental justice (EJ) across its
comments from balancing authorities, for new fossil fuel-fired combustion policies and programs, the EPA
independent system operators and turbines, the EPA is creating a carefully considered the impacts of
regional transmission organizations, mechanism whereby baseload units may these actions on communities with
state regulators, power companies, and request a 1-year extension of their CCS environmental justice concerns. As part
other stakeholders on the need for the compliance deadline under certain of the regulatory development process
final rule to accommodate resource circumstances. for these rulemakings, and consistent
adequacy and grid reliability needs. The The EPA has evaluated the resource with directives set forth in multiple
EPA also engaged with the balancing adequacy implications of these actions Executive Orders, the EPA conducted
authorities that submitted comments to in the final technical support document extensive outreach with interested
the docket, the staff and Commissioners (TSD), Resource Adequacy Analysis, parties including Tribal nations and
of the Federal Energy Regulatory and conducted capacity expansion communities with environmental justice
Commission (FERC), the Department of modeling of the final rules in a manner concerns. These opportunities gave the
Energy (DOE), the North American that takes into account resource EPA a chance to hear directly from the
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), adequacy needs. The EPA finds that public, including from communities
and other expert entities during the resource adequacy can be maintained potentially impacted by these final
course of this rulemaking. Finally, at the with the final rules. The EPA modeled 11 Joint Memorandum of Understanding on
invitation of FERC, the EPA participated a scenario that complies with the final Interagency Communication and Consultation on
in FERC’s Annual Reliability Technical rules and that meets resource adequacy Electric Reliability (March 9, 2023). https://
Conference on November 9, 2023. needs. The EPA also performed a variety www.epa.gov/power-sector/electric-reliability-mou.
actions. The EPA took this feedback into Furthermore, the EPA plans to review country may experience slower or faster
account in its development of these and update as needed its guidance on rates of decline in ozone and PM2.5
final actions.12 The EPA’s analysis of NSR permitting, specifically with pollution over time due to the changes
environmental justice in these final respect to BACT determinations for in generation and utilization resulting
actions is briefly summarized here and GHG emissions and consideration of co- from these rules. Additionally, our
discussed in further detail in sections pollutant increases from sources comparison of future air quality
XII.E and XIII.J of the preamble and installing CCS. For the reasons conditions with and without these rules
section 6 of the regulatory impact explained in section VII.C, the EPA is suggests that while these actions are
analysis (RIA). finalizing the determination that CCS is anticipated to lead to modest but
Several environmental justice the BSER for certain subcategories of widespread reductions in ambient levels
organizations and community new and existing EGUs based on its of PM2.5 and ozone for a large majority
representatives raised significant consideration of all of the statutory of the nation’s population, there is
concerns about the potential health, criteria for BSER, including emission potential for some geographic areas and
environmental, and safety impacts of reductions, cost, energy requirements, demographic groups to experience small
CCS. The EPA takes these concerns and non-air health and environmental increases in ozone concentrations
seriously, agrees that any impacts to considerations. At the same time, the relative to the baseline levels which are
historically disadvantaged and EPA recognizes the critical importance projected to be substantially lower than
overburdened communities are of ensuring that the regulatory today’s levels.
important to consider, and has carefully framework performs as intended to It is important to recognize that while
considered these concerns as it finalized protect communities. these projections of emissions changes
its determinations of the BSERs for These actions are focused on and resulting air quality changes under
these rules. The Agency acknowledges establishing NSPS and emission various illustrative compliance
that while these final actions will result guidelines for GHGs that states will scenarios are based upon the best
in large reductions of both GHGs and implement to significantly reduce GHGs information available to the EPA at this
other emissions that will have and move us a step closer to avoiding time, with regard to existing sources,
significant positive benefits, there is the the worst impacts of climate change, each state will ultimately be responsible
potential for localized increases in which is already having a for determining the future operation of
emissions, particularly if units installing disproportionate impact on fossil fuel-fired steam generating units
CCS operate for more hours during the communities with environmental justice located within its jurisdiction. The EPA
year and/or for more years than they concerns. The EPA analyzed several expects that, in making these
would have otherwise. However, as illustrative scenarios representing determinations, states will consider a
discussed in section VII.C.1.a.iii(B), a potential compliance outcomes and number of factors and weigh input from
robust regulatory framework exists to evaluated the potential impacts that the wide range of potentially affected
reduce the risks of localized emissions these actions may have on emissions of stakeholders. The meaningful
increases in a manner that is protective GHG and other health-harming air engagement requirements discussed in
of public health, safety, and the pollutants from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, section X.E.1.b.i of this preamble will
environment. The Council on as well as how these changes in ensure that all interested stakeholders—
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) February emissions might affect air quality and including community members
2022 Carbon Capture, Utilization, and public health, particularly for adversely impacted by pollution, energy
Sequestration Guidance and the EPA’s communities with EJ concerns. workers affected by construction and/or
evaluation of BSER recognize that The EPA’s national-level analysis of other changes in operation at fossil-fuel-
multiple Federal agencies have emission reduction and public health fired power plants, consumers and other
responsibility for regulating and impacts, which is documented in interested parties—will have an
permitting CCS projects, along with section 6 of the RIA and summarized in opportunity to have their concerns
state and tribal governments. As the greater detail in section XII.A and XII.D heard as states make decisions
CEQ has noted, Federal agencies have of this preamble, finds that these actions balancing a multitude of factors
‘‘taken actions in the past decade to achieve nationwide reductions in EGU including appropriate standards of
develop a robust carbon capture, emissions of multiple health-harming performance, compliance strategies, and
utilization, and sequestration/storage air pollutants including nitrogen oxides compliance flexibilities for existing
(CCUS) regulatory framework to protect (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine EGUs, as well as public health and
the environment and public health particulate matter (PM2.5), resulting in environmental considerations. The EPA
across multiple statutes.’’ 13 14 public health benefits. The EPA also believes that these provisions, together
evaluated how the air quality impacts with the protections referenced above,
12 Specifically, the EPA has relied on, and is
associated with these final actions are can reduce the risks of localized
incorporating as a basis for this rulemaking,
distributed, with particular focus on emissions increases in a manner that is
analyses regarding possible adverse environmental protective of public health, safety, and
effects from CCS, including those highlighted by communities with EJ concerns. As
commenters. Consideration of these effects is discussed in the RIA, our analysis the environment.
permissible under CAA section 111(a)(1). Although indicates that baseline ozone and PM2.5 F. Energy Workers and Communities
the EPA also conducted analyses of
disproportionate impacts pursuant to E.O. 14096, concentration will decline substantially These final actions include
see section XII.E, the EPA did not consider or rely relative to today’s levels. Relative to requirements for meaningful
on these analyses as a basis for these rules. these low baseline levels, ozone and engagement in development of state
13 87 FR 8808, 8809 (February 16, 2022).

PM2.5 concentrations will decrease plans, including with energy workers
14 This framework includes, among other things,
further in virtually all areas of the and communities. These communities,
the EPA regulation of geologic sequestration wells
under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) country, although some areas of the including energy workers employed at
program of the Safe Drinking Water Act; required affected EGUs, workers who may
reporting and public disclosure of geologic Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP); and safety
sequestration activity, as well as implementation of regulations for CO2 pipelines administered by the
construct and install pollution control
rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials and Safety technology, workers employed by fuel
geologic sequestration under the EPA’s Greenhouse Administration (PHMSA). extraction and delivery, organizations
representing these workers, and section VII.B of this preamble for further The addition of two reliability-related
communities living near affected EGUs, discussion. instruments: Commenters expressed
are impacted by power sector trends on The extension of the compliance date concerns that these rules, in
an ongoing basis and by these final for existing coal-fired steam generating combination with other factors, may
actions, and the EPA expects that states units to meet a standard of performance affect the reliability of the bulk power
will include these stakeholders as part based on implementation of CCS. The system. In response to these comments
of their constructive engagement under EPA proposed a compliance date for the EPA engaged extensively with
the requirements in this rule. implementation of CCS for long-term balancing authorities, power companies,
The EPA consulted with the Federal coal-fired steam generating units of reliability experts, and regulatory
Interagency Working Group on Coal and January 1, 2030. The EPA received authorities responsible for reliability to
Power Plant Communities and comments asserting that this deadline inform its decisions in these final rules.
Economic Revitalization (Energy did not provide adequate lead time. In As described later in this preamble, the
Communities IWG) in development of consideration of those comments, and EPA has made adjustments in these
these rules and the meaningful the record as a whole, the EPA is final rules that will support power
engagement requirements. The EPA finalizing a CCS compliance date of companies, grid operators, and states in
notes that the Energy Communities IWG January 1, 2032 for these sources. maintaining the reliability of the electric
has provided resources to help energy The removal of low-GHG hydrogen co- grid during the implementation of these
communities access the expanded firing as a BSER pathway and only use final rules. In addition, the EPA has
federal resources made available by the of low-GHG hydrogen as a compliance undertaken an analysis of the reliability
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS option: The EPA is not finalizing its and resource adequacy implications of
and Science Act, and Inflation proposed BSER pathway of low-GHG these final rules that supports the
Reduction Act, many of which are hydrogen co-firing for new and Agency’s conclusion that these final
relevant to the development of state reconstructed base load and rules can be implemented without
plans. intermediate load combustion turbines adverse consequences for grid
G. Key Changes From Proposal in accordance with CAA section reliability. Further, the EPA is finalizing
111(a)(1). The EPA is also not finalizing two reliability-related instruments as an
The key changes from proposal in additional layer of safeguards for
these final actions are: (1) the reduction its proposed requirement that only low-
GHG hydrogen may be co-fired in a reliability. These instruments include a
in number of subcategories for existing reliability mechanism for short-term
coal-fired steam generating units, (2) the combustion turbine for the purpose of
compliance with the standards of emergency issues, and a reliability
extension of the compliance date for assurance mechanism, or compliance
existing coal-fired steam generating performance. These decisions are based
on uncertainties identified for specific flexibility, for units that have chosen
units to meet a standard of performance compliance pathways with enforceable
based on implementation of CCS, (3) the criteria used to evaluate low-GHG
hydrogen co-firing as a potential BSER, retirement dates, provided there is a
removal of low-GHG hydrogen co-firing documented and verified reliability
as a BSER pathway, and (4) the addition and after further analysis in response to
public comments, the EPA has concern. In addition, the EPA is
of two reliability-related instruments. In finalizing compliance extensions for
addition, (5), the EPA is not finalizing determined that these uncertainties
prevent the EPA from concluding that unanticipated delays with control
proposed requirements for existing technology implementation.
fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion low-GHG hydrogen co-firing is a
component of the ‘‘best’’ system of Specifically, as described in greater
turbines at this time. detail in section XII.F of this preamble,
The reduction in number of emission reduction at this time. Under
CAA section 111, the EPA establishes the EPA is finalizing the following
subcategories for existing coal-fired
standards of performance but does not features and changes from the proposal
steam generating units: The EPA
mandate use of any particular that will provide even greater certainty
proposed four subcategories for existing
technology to meet those standards. that these final rules are sensitive to
coal-fired steam generating units, which
Therefore, certain sources may elect to reliability-related issues and
would have distinguished these units by
co-fire hydrogen for compliance with constructed in a manner that does not
operating horizon and by load level.
These included subcategories for the final standards of performance, even interfere with grid operators’
existing coal-fired EGUs planning to absent the technology being a BSER responsibility to deliver reliable power:
pathway.15 See section VIII.F.5 of this (1) longer compliance timelines for
cease operations in the imminent-term
preamble for further discussion. existing coal-fired steam generating
(i.e., prior to January 1, 2032) and those
units;
planning to cease operations in the near- (2) a mechanism to extend
15 The EPA is not placing qualifications on the
term (i.e., prior to January 1, 2035). compliance timelines by up to 1 year in
type of hydrogen a source may elect to co-fire at this
While commenters were generally time (see section VIII.F.6.a of this preamble for the case of unforeseen circumstances,
supportive of the proposed further discussion). The Agency continues to outside of an owner/operator’s control,
subcategorization approach, some recognize that even though the combustion of
that delay the ability to apply controls
requested that the cease-operation-by hydrogen is zero-GHG emitting, its production can
entail a range of GHG emissions, from low to high, (e.g., supply chain challenges or
date for the imminent-term subcategory depending on the production method. Thus, even permitting delays);
be extended and the utilization limit for though the EPA is not finalizing the low-GHG (3) transparent unit-specific
the near-term subcategory be relaxed. hydrogen co-firing as a BSER, as proposed, it compliance information for EGUs that
The EPA is not finalizing the imminent- maintains that the overall GHG profile of a
particular method of hydrogen production should will allow grid operators to plan for
term and near-term subcategories of be a primary consideration for any source that system changes with greater certainty
coal-fired steam generating units. decides to co-fire hydrogen to ensure that overall and precision;
Rather, the EPA is finalizing an GHG reductions and important climate benefits are (4) a short-term reliability mechanism
applicability exemption for coal-fired achieved. The EPA also notes the anticipated final
rule from the U.S. Department of the Treasury to allow affected EGUs to operate at
steam generating units demonstrating pertaining to clean hydrogen production tax and
that they plan to permanently cease energy credits, which in its proposed form contains administered by the U.S. Department of Energy,
operation before January 1, 2032. See certain eligibility parameters, as well as programs such as the recent H2Hubs selections.
baseline emission rates during incentives in the Inflation Reduction existing sources. Section 111(a)(6) of the
documented reliability emergencies; Act (IRA) (i.e., a 75 percent reduction in CAA defines an ‘‘existing source’’ as
and emissions from the power sector from ‘‘any stationary source other than a new
(5) a reliability assurance mechanism 2022 levels), the average capacity factor source.’’ Therefore, the emission
to allow states to delay cease operation for existing natural gas-fired stationary guidelines would not apply to any EGUs
dates by up to 1 year in cases where the combustion turbines decreases. that are new after January 8, 2014, or
planned cease operation date is forecast Therefore, the EPA’s proposal to focus reconstructed after June 18, 2014, the
to disrupt system reliability. only on the largest units with the applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60,
Not finalizing proposed requirements highest capacity factors may not be the subpart TTTT. Under the Tribal
for existing fossil fuel-fired stationary most effective policy design for Authority Rule (TAR), eligible tribes
combustion turbines at this time: The reducing GHG emissions from these may seek approval to implement a plan
EPA proposed emission guidelines for sources. under CAA section 111(d) in a manner
large (i.e., greater than 300 MW), Recognizing the importance of similar to a state. See 40 CFR part 49,
frequently operated (i.e., with an annual reducing emissions from all fossil fuel- subpart A. Tribes may, but are not
capacity factor of greater than 50 fired EGUs, the EPA is not finalizing the required to, seek approval for treatment
percent), existing fossil fuel-fired proposed emission guidelines for in a manner similar to a state for
stationary combustion turbines. The certain existing fossil fuel-fired purposes of developing a tribal
EPA received a wide range of comments stationary combustion turbines at this implementation plan (TIP)
on the proposed guidelines. Multiple time. Instead, the EPA intends to issue implementing the emission guidelines
commenters suggested that the proposed a new, more comprehensive proposal to codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
provisions would largely result in regulate GHGs from existing sources. UUUUb. The TAR authorizes tribes to
shifting of generation away from the The new proposal will focus on develop and implement their own air
most efficient natural gas-fired turbines achieving greater emission reductions quality programs, or portions thereof,
to less efficient natural gas-fired from existing stationary combustion under the CAA. However, it does not
turbines. Commenters stated that, as turbines—which will soon be the largest require tribes to develop a CAA
emissions from coal-fired steam stationary sources of GHG emissions— program. Tribes may implement
generating units decreased, existing while taking into account other factors programs that are most relevant to their
natural gas-fired EGUs were poised to including the local non-GHG impacts of air quality needs. If a tribe does not seek
become the largest source of GHG gas turbine generation and the need for and obtain the authority from the EPA
emissions in the power sector. reliable, affordable electricity. to establish a TIP, the EPA has the
Commenters noted that these units play authority to establish a Federal CAA
an important role in grid reliability, II. General Information section 111(d) plan for designated
particularly as aging coal-fired EGUs A. Action Applicability facilities that are located in areas of
retire. Commenters further noted that Indian country.16 A Federal plan would
the existing fossil fuel-fired stationary The source category that is the subject apply to all designated facilities located
combustion turbines that were not of these actions is composed of fossil in the areas of Indian country covered
covered by the proposal (i.e., the smaller fuel-fired electric utility generating by the Federal plan unless and until the
and less frequently operating units) are units. The North American Industry EPA approves a TIP applicable to those
often less efficient, less well controlled Classification System (NAICS) codes for facilities.
for other pollutants such as NOX, and the source category are 221112 and
are more likely to be located near 921150. The list of categories and B. Where To Get a Copy of This
population centers and communities NAICS codes is not intended to be Document and Other Related
with environmental justice concerns. exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Information
The EPA agrees with commenters for readers regarding the entities that In addition to being available in the
who observed that GHG emissions from these final actions are likely to affect. docket, an electronic copy of these final
existing natural gas-fired stationary Final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, rulemakings is available on the internet
combustion turbines are a growing subpart TTTT, are directly applicable to at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-
portion of the emissions from the power affected facilities that began sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-
sector. This is consistent with EPA construction after January 8, 2014, but standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-
modeling that shows that by 2030 these before May 23, 2023, and affected fired-power. Following signature by the
units will represent the largest portion facilities that began reconstruction or EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
of GHG emissions from the power modification after June 18, 2014, but copy of these final rulemakings at this
sector. The EPA agrees that it is vital to before May 23, 2023. The NSPS codified same website. Following publication in
promulgate emission guidelines to in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, is the Federal Register, the EPA will post
address GHG emissions from these directly applicable to affected facilities the Federal Register version of the final
sources, and that the EPA has a that begin construction, reconstruction, rules and key technical documents at
responsibility to do so under section or modification on or after May 23, this same website.
111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA 2023. Federal, state, local, and tribal
also agrees with commenters who noted government entities that own and/or C. Judicial Review and Administrative
that focusing only on the largest and operate EGUs subject to 40 CFR part 60, Review
most frequently operating units, without subpart TTTT or TTTTa, are affected by Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
also addressing emissions from other these amendments and standards. review of these final actions is available
units, as the May 2023 proposed rule The emission guidelines codified in only by filing a petition for review in
provided, may not be the most effective 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, are for
way to address emissions from this states to follow in developing, 16 See the EPA’s website, https://www.epa.gov/
sector. The EPA’s modeling shows that submitting, and implementing state tribal/tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas, for
information on those tribes that have treatment as
over time as the power sector comes plans to establish performance a state for specific environmental regulatory
closer to reaching the phase-out standards to reduce emissions of GHGs programs, administrative functions, and grant
threshold of the clean electricity from designated facilities that are programs.
the United States Court of Appeals for assessments and the EPA documents climate change touches nearly every
the District of Columbia Circuit by July that are briefly described in this section, aspect of public welfare 17 in the U.S.,
8, 2024. These final actions are as well as in the technical and scientific including the following: changes in
‘‘standard[s] of performance or information supporting them. One of water supply and quality due to changes
requirement[s] under section 111,’’ and, those documents is the EPA’s 2009 in drought and extreme rainfall events;
in addition, are ‘‘nationally applicable ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute increased risk of storm surge and
regulations promulgated, or final action Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under flooding in coastal areas and land loss
taken, by the Administrator under [the Section 202(a) of the CAA’’ (74 FR due to inundation; increases in peak
CAA],’’ CAA section 307(b)(1). Under 66496, December 15, 2009) (‘‘2009 electricity demand and risks to
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements Endangerment Finding’’). In the 2009 electricity infrastructure; and the
established by this final rule may not be Endangerment Finding, the potential for significant agricultural
challenged separately in any civil or Administrator found under section disruptions and crop failures (though
criminal proceedings brought by the 202(a) of the CAA that elevated offset to some extent by carbon
EPA to enforce the requirements. atmospheric concentrations of six key
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA fertilization). These impacts are also
well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane (CH4), global and may exacerbate problems
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs,
objection to a rule or procedure which outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian,
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
was raised with reasonable specificity trade, and national security issues for
hexafluoride (SF6)—‘‘may reasonably be
during the period for public comment the U.S. (74 FR 66530, December 15,
anticipated to endanger the public
(including any public hearing) may be 2009).
health and welfare of current and future
raised during judicial review.’’ This generations’’ (74 FR 66523, December In 2016, the Administrator issued a
section also provides a mechanism for 15, 2009). The 2009 Endangerment similar finding for GHG emissions from
the EPA to convene a proceeding for Finding, together with the extensive aircraft under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising scientific and technical evidence in the CAA.18 In the 2016 Endangerment
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA supporting record, documented that Finding, the Administrator found that
that it was impracticable to raise such climate change caused by human the body of scientific evidence amassed
objection within [the period for public emissions of GHGs threatens the public in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
comment] or if the grounds for such health of the U.S. population. It Finding compellingly supported a
objection arose after the period for explained that by raising average similar endangerment finding under
public comment, (but within the time temperatures, climate change increases CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) and also found
specified for judicial review) and if such the likelihood of heat waves, which are that the science assessments released
objection is of central relevance to the associated with increased deaths and
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person between the 2009 and 2016 Findings
illnesses (74 FR 66497, December 15, ‘‘strengthen and further support the
seeking to make such a demonstration to 2009). While climate change also
us should submit a Petition for judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere
increases the likelihood of reductions in may reasonably be anticipated to
Reconsideration to the Office of the cold-related mortality, evidence
Administrator, U.S. Environmental endanger the public health and welfare
indicates that the increases in heat of current and future generations’’ (81
Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC mortality will be larger than the
West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. FR 54424, August 15, 2016).
decreases in cold mortality in the U.S.
NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a Since the 2016 Endangerment
(74 FR 66525, December 15, 2009). The
copy to both the person(s) listed in the Finding, the climate has continued to
2009 Endangerment Finding further
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION change, with new observational records
explained that compared with a future
CONTACT section, and the Associate being set for several climate indicators
without climate change, climate change
General Counsel for the Air and such as global average surface
is expected to increase tropospheric
Radiation Law Office, Office of General temperatures, GHG concentrations, and
ozone pollution over broad areas of the
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. sea level rise. Additionally, major
U.S., including in the largest
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 scientific assessments continue to be
metropolitan areas with the worst
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC released that further advance our
tropospheric ozone problems, and
20460. understanding of the climate system and
thereby increase the risk of adverse
III. Climate Change Impacts effects on public health (74 FR 66525, the impacts that GHGs have on public
Elevated concentrations of GHGs have December 15, 2009). Climate change is health and welfare for both current and
been warming the planet, leading to also expected to cause more intense future generations. These updated
changes in the Earth’s climate that are hurricanes and more frequent and observations and projections document
occurring at a pace and in a way that intense storms of other types and heavy the rapid rate of current and future
threatens human health, society, and the precipitation, with impacts on other
natural environment. While the EPA is areas of public health, such as the 17 The CAA states in section 302(h) that ‘‘[a]ll
not making any new scientific or factual potential for increased deaths, injuries, language referring to effects on welfare includes,
infectious and waterborne diseases, and but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops,
findings with regard to the well- vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife,
documented impact of GHG emissions stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525 weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and
on public health and welfare in support December 15, 2009). Children, the deterioration of property, and hazards to
elderly, and the poor are among the transportation, as well as effects on economic
of these rules, the EPA is providing in values and on personal comfort and well-being,
this section a brief scientific background most vulnerable to these climate-related
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or
on climate change to offer additional health effects (74 FR 66498, December combination with other air pollutants.’’ 42 U.S.C.
context for these rulemakings and to 15, 2009). 7602(h).
18 Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
help the public understand the The 2009 Endangerment Finding also
Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That
environmental impacts of GHGs. documented, together with the May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public
Extensive information on climate extensive scientific and technical Health and Welfare. 81 FR 54422, August 15, 2016
change is available in the scientific evidence in the supporting record, that (‘‘2016 Endangerment Finding’’).
climate change both globally and in the The most recent information of the 1901 to 2018 period.37 The rate
U.S.19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 demonstrates that the climate is of sea level rise over the 20th century
continuing to change in response to the was higher than in any other century in
19 USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special
human-induced buildup of GHGs in the at least the last 2,800 years.38 Higher
Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, atmosphere. These recent assessments CO2 concentrations have led to
Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A.
Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. show that atmospheric concentrations of acidification of the surface ocean in
Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research GHGs have risen to a level that has no recent decades to an extent unusual in
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: precedent in human history and that the past 65 million years, with negative
10.7930/J0J964J6. they continue to climb, primarily
20 USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change
impacts on marine organisms that use
because of both historical and current calcium carbonate to build shells or
on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific
Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, anthropogenic emissions, and that these skeletons.39 Arctic sea ice extent
C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, elevated concentrations endanger our continues to decline in all months of the
M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. health by affecting our food and water year; the most rapid reductions occur in
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. sources, the air we breathe, the weather
21 USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation September (very likely almost a 13
in the United States: Fourth National Climate
we experience, and our interactions percent decrease per decade between
Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. with the natural and built 1979 and 2018) and are unprecedented
Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, environments. For example, in at least 1,000 years.40 Human-
T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global atmospheric concentrations of one of induced climate change has led to
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, these GHGs, CO2, measured at Mauna
1515 pp. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018. heatwaves and heavy precipitation
22 IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Loa in Hawaii and at other sites around becoming more frequent and more
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of the world reached 419 parts per million intense, along with increases in
1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global (ppm) in 2022 (nearly 50 percent higher
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context
agricultural and ecological droughts 41
than preindustrial levels) 32 and have in many regions.42
of strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and
continued to rise at a rapid rate. Global
average temperature has increased by The assessment literature
efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P.
Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) in the 2011–2020 demonstrates that modest additional
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, decade relative to 1850–1900.33 The amounts of warming may lead to a
S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. years 2015–2021 were the warmest 7 climate different from anything humans
Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)]. years in the 1880–2021 record, have ever experienced. The 2022 CO2
23 IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC contributing to the warmest decade on concentration of 419 ppm is already
special report on climate change, desertification, record with a decadal temperature of higher than at any time in the last 2
land degradation, sustainable land management, 0.82 °C (1.48 °F) above the 20th million years.43 If concentrations exceed
food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in 450 ppm, they would likely be higher
terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo
century.34 35 The Intergovernmental
Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) than any time in the past 23 million
Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van determined (with medium confidence) years: 44 at the current rate of increase of
Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. that this past decade was warmer than more than 2 ppm per year, this would
Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. any multi-century period in at least the
Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
occur in about 15 years. While GHGs are
24 IPCC, 2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean past 100,000 years.36 Global average sea not the only factor that controls climate,
and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. level has risen by about 8 inches (about it is illustrative that 3 million years ago
Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, 21 centimeters (cm)) from 1901 to 2018, (the last time CO2 concentrations were
M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. with the rate from 2006 to 2018 (0.15 above 400 ppm) Greenland was not yet
Alegriı́a, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama,
N.M. Weyer (eds.)].
inches/year or 3.7 millimeters (mm)/ completely covered by ice and still
25 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, year) almost twice the rate over the 1971 supported forests, while 23 million
and Medicine. 2016. Attribution of Extreme to 2006 period, and three times the rate years ago (the last time concentrations
Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. were above 450 ppm) the West Antarctic
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 31 IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers. In:
https://dio.org/10.17226/21852. ice sheet was not yet developed,
Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
26 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the indicating the possibility that high GHG
and Medicine. 2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental concentrations could lead to a world
Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. that looks very different from today and
Dioxide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Lee and J. Romero (eds.)].
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24651. 32 https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/
from the conditions in which human
27 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
co2_annmean_mlo.txt. civilization has developed. If the
and Medicine. 2019. Climate Change and 33 IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were
Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25504. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth 37 IPCC,
28 Blunden, J. and T. Boyer, Eds., 2022: ‘‘State of
2021.
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 38 USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
the Climate in 2021.’’ Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103 on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai,
in the United States: Fourth National Climate
(8), Si–S465, https://doi.org/10.1175/ A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud,
Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W.
2022BAMSStateoftheClimate.1. Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K.
Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis,
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock,
T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global
Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA,
United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. EPA 430– (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3– 1515 pp. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.
R–21–003. 39 IPCC, 2018.
30 Jay, A.K., A.R. Crimmins, C.W. Avery, T.A. 32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.
34 NOAA National Centers for Environmental 40 IPCC, 2021.

Dahl, R.S. Dodder, B.D. Hamlington, A. Lustig, K. 41 These are drought measures based on soil
Marvel, P.A. Méndez-Lazaro, M.S. Osler, A. Information, State of the Climate 2021 retrieved on
Terando, E.S. Weeks, and A. Zycherman, 2023: Ch. August 3, 2023, from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/ moisture.
1. Overview: Understanding risks, impacts, and bams-state-of-climate. 42 IPCC, 2021.
35 Blunden, J. and T. Boyer, Eds., 2022: ‘‘State of 43 Annual Mauna Loa CO concentration data
responses. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. 2
Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. the Climate in 2021.’’ Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103 from https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/
Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. (8), Si–S465, https://doi.org/10.1175/ co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt, accessed September 9,
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 2022BAMSStateoftheClimate1. 2023.
USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH1. 36 IPCC, 2021. 44 IPCC, 2013.
to melt substantially, sea levels would vector-borne diseases (for example, security, both through direct impacts on
rise dramatically. expanding the range of the mosquitoes military infrastructure and by affecting
The NCA4 found that it is very likely which carry dengue fever, chikungunya, factors such as food and water
(greater than 90 percent likelihood) that yellow fever, and the Zika virus or the availability that can exacerbate conflict
by mid-century, the Arctic Ocean will ticks which carry Lyme, babesiosis, or outside U.S. borders. Droughts, floods,
be almost entirely free of sea ice by late Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever).47 storm surges, wildfires, and other
summer for the first time in about 2 Moreover, every additional increment in extreme events stress nations and
million years.45 Coral reefs will be at warming leads to larger changes in people through loss of life,
risk for almost complete (99 percent) extremes, including the potential for displacement of populations, and
losses with 1 °C (1.8 °F) of additional events unprecedented in the impacts on livelihoods.51 The NCA5
warming from today (2 °C or 3.6 °F since observational record. Every additional further reinforces the science showing
preindustrial). At this temperature, degree will intensify extreme that climate change will have many
between 8 and 18 percent of animal, precipitation events by about 7 percent. impacts on the U.S., as described above
plant, and insect species could lose over The peak winds of the most intense in the preamble. Particularly relevant
half of the geographic area with suitable tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are for these rules, the NCA5 states that
climate for their survival, and 7 to 10 projected to increase with warming. In climate change affects all aspects of the
percent of rangeland livestock would be addition to a higher intensity, the IPCC energy system-supply, delivery, and
projected to be lost.46 The IPCC found that precipitation and frequency demand-through the increased
similarly found that climate change has of rapid intensification of these storms frequency, intensity, and duration of
caused substantial damages and has already increased, the movement extreme events and through changing
increasingly irreversible losses in speed has decreased, and elevated sea climate trends.’’ 52
terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal and levels have increased coastal flooding, EPA modeling efforts can further
open ocean marine ecosystems. all of which make these tropical illustrate how these impacts from
Every additional increment of cyclones more damaging.48 climate change may be experienced
temperature comes with consequences. The NCA4 also evaluated a number of across the U.S. EPA’s Framework for
For example, the half degree of warming impacts specific to the U.S. Severe Evaluating Damages and Impacts
from 1.5 to 2 °C (0.9 °F of warming from drought and outbreaks of insects like the (FrEDI) 53 uses information from over 30
2.7 °F to 3.6 °F) above preindustrial mountain pine beetle have killed peer-reviewed climate change impact
temperatures is projected on a global hundreds of millions of trees in the studies to project the physical and
scale to expose 420 million more people western U.S. Wildfires have burned economic impacts of climate change to
to frequent extreme heatwaves at least more than 3.7 million acres in 14 of the the U.S. resulting from future
every five years, and 62 million more 17 years between 2000 and 2016, and temperature changes. These impacts are
people to frequent exceptional Federal wildfire suppression costs were projected for specific regions within the
heatwaves at least every five years about a billion dollars annually.49 The U.S. and for more than 20 impact
(where heatwaves are defined based on National Interagency Fire Center has categories, which span a large number
a heat wave magnitude index which documented U.S. wildfires since 1983, of sectors of the U.S. economy.54 Using
takes into account duration and and the 10 years with the largest acreage
intensity—using this index, the 2003 burned have all occurred since 2004.50 51 USGCRP, 2018.
French heat wave that led to almost Wildfire smoke degrades air quality, 52 Jay, A.K., A.R. Crimmins, C.W. Avery, T.A.
15,000 deaths would be classified as an increasing health risks, and more Dahl, R.S. Dodder, B.D. Hamlington, A. Lustig, K.
Marvel, P.A. Méndez-Lazaro, M.S. Osler, A.
‘‘extreme heatwave’’ and the 2010 frequent and severe wildfires due to Terando, E.S. Weeks, and A. Zycherman, 2023: Ch.
Russian heatwave which led to climate change would further diminish 1. Overview: Understanding risks, impacts, and
thousands of deaths and extensive air quality, increase incidences of responses. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment.
wildfires would be classified as respiratory illness, impair visibility, and Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E.
Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S.
‘‘exceptional’’). It would increase the disrupt outdoor activities, sometimes Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC,
frequency of sea-ice-free Arctic thousands of miles from the location of USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH1.
summers from once in 100 years to once the fire. Meanwhile, sea level rise has 53 (1) Hartin, C., et al. (2023). Advancing the
in a decade. It could lead to 4 inches of amplified coastal flooding and erosion estimation of future climate impacts within the
additional sea level rise by the end of United States. Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1015–1037,
impacts, requiring the installation of https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1015-2023. (2)
the century, exposing an additional 10 costly pump stations, flooding streets, Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact
million people to risks of inundation as and increasing storm surge damages. Analysis for the Final Rulemaking, Standards of
well as increasing the probability of Tens of billions of dollars of U.S. real Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
triggering instabilities in either the estate could be below sea level by 2050 Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets. under some scenarios. Increased Review, ‘‘Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Between half a million and a million frequency and duration of drought will Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific
additional square miles of permafrost reduce agricultural productivity in some Advances,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
would thaw over several centuries. regions, accelerate depletion of water 0317, November 2023, (3) The Long-Term Strategy
of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero
Risks to food security would increase supplies for irrigation, and expand the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050. Published by
from medium to high for several lower- distribution and incidence of pests and the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Executive
income regions in the Sahel, southern diseases for crops and livestock. The Office of the President, Washington DC. November
Africa, the Mediterranean, central NCA4 also recognized that climate 2021, (4) Climate Risk Exposure: An Assessment of
the Federal Government’s Financial Risks to
Europe, and the Amazon. In addition to change can increase risks to national Climate Change, White Paper, Office of
food security issues, this temperature Management and Budget, April 2022.
increase would have implications for 47 IPCC, 2018. 54 EPA (2021). Technical Documentation on the
48 IPCC, 2021.
human health in terms of increasing Framework for Evaluating Damages and Impacts
49 USGCRP, 2018. (FrEDI). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
ozone concentrations, heatwaves, and 50 NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2021. EPA 430–R–21–004, https://www.epa.gov/cira/
Total wildland fires and acres (1983–2020). fredi. Documentation has been subject to both a
45 USGCRP, 2018. Accessed August 2021. https://www.nifc.gov/ public review comment period and an independent
46 IPCC, 2018. fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html. Continued
this framework, the EPA estimates that ozone.57 Methane reacts to form feasibly and cost-effectively deploy
global emission projections, with no tropospheric ozone. these technologies.
additional mitigation, will result in Section XII.E of this preamble A. Background
significant climate-related damages to discusses the impacts of GHG emissions
the U.S.55 These damages to the U.S. on individuals living in socially and 1. Electric Power Sector
would mainly be from increases in lives economically vulnerable communities. Electricity in the U.S. is generated by
lost due to increases in temperatures, as While the EPA did not conduct a range of technologies, and different
well as impacts to human health from modeling to specifically quantify EGUs play different roles in providing
increases in climate-driven changes in changes in climate impacts resulting reliable and affordable electricity. For
air quality, dust and wildfire smoke from these rules in terms of avoided example, certain EGUs generate base
exposure, and incidence of suicide. temperature change or sea-level rise, the load power, which is the portion of
Additional major climate-related Agency did quantify climate benefits by electricity loads that are continually
damages would occur to U.S. monetizing the emission reductions present and typically operate
infrastructure such as roads and rail, as through the application of the social throughout all hours of the year.
well as transportation impacts and cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHGs), as Intermediate EGUs often provide
coastal flooding from sea level rise, described in section XII.D of this complementary generation to balance
increases in property damage from preamble. variable supply and demand resources.
tropical cyclones, and reductions in These scientific assessments, the EPA Low load ‘‘peaking units’’ provide
labor hours worked in outdoor settings analyses, and documented observed capacity during hours of the highest
and buildings without air conditioning. changes in the climate of the planet and daily, weekly, or seasonal net demand,
These impacts are also projected to vary of the U.S. present clear support and while these resources have low
from region to region with the regarding the current and future dangers levels of utilization on an annual basis,
Southeast, for example, projected to see of climate change and the importance of they play important roles in providing
some of the largest damages from sea GHG emissions mitigation. generation to meet short-term demand
level rise, the West Coast projected to and often must be available to quickly
IV. Recent Developments in Emissions increase or decrease their output.
experience damages from wildfire
Controls and the Electric Power Sector Furthermore, many of these EGUs also
smoke more than other parts of the
country, and the Northern Plains states play important roles ensuring the
In this section, we discuss reliability of the electric grid, including
projected to see a higher proportion of background information about the facilitating the regulation of frequency
damages to rail and road infrastructure. electric power sector and controls and voltage, providing ‘‘black start’’
While information on the distribution of available to limit GHG pollution from capability in the event the grid must be
climate impacts helps to better the fossil fuel-fired power plants repowered after a widespread outage,
understand the ways in which climate regulated by these final rules, and then and providing reserve generating
change may impact the U.S., recent discuss several recent developments capacity 58 in the event of unexpected
analyses are still only a partial that are relevant for determining the changes in the availability of other
assessment of climate impacts relevant BSER for these sources. After giving generators.
to U.S. interests and in addition do not some general background, we first In general, the EGUs with the lowest
reflect increased damages that occur due discuss CCS and explain that its costs operating costs are dispatched first, and,
to interactions between different sectors have fallen significantly. Lower costs as a result, an inefficient EGU with high
impacted by climate change or all the are central for the EPA’s determination fuel costs will typically only operate if
ways in which physical impacts of that CCS is the BSER for certain existing other lower-cost plants are unavailable
climate change occurring abroad have coal-fired steam generating units and or are insufficient to meet demand.
spillover effects in different regions of certain new natural gas-fired Units are also unavailable during both
the U.S. combustion turbines. Second, we routine and unanticipated outages,
discuss natural gas co-firing for coal- which typically become more frequent
Some GHGs also have impacts beyond
fired steam generating units and explain as power plants age. These factors result
those mediated through climate change.
recent reductions in cost for this in the mix of available generating
For example, elevated concentrations of
approach as well as its widespread capacity types (e.g., the share of
CO2 stimulate plant growth (which can
availability and current and potential capacity of each type of generating
be positive in the case of beneficial
deployment within this subcategory. source) being substantially different
species, but negative in terms of weeds Third, we discuss highly efficient
and invasive species, and can also lead than the mix of the share of total
generation as a BSER technology for electricity produced by each type of
to a reduction in plant new and reconstructed simple cycle and
micronutrients 56) and cause ocean generating source in a given season or
combined cycle combustion turbine year.
acidification. Nitrous oxide depletes the EGUs. The emission reductions
levels of protective stratospheric achieved by highly efficient turbines are 58 Generation and capacity are commonly
well demonstrated in the power sector, reported statistics with key distinctions. Generation
expert peer review, following EPA peer-review and along with operational and is the production of electricity and is a measure of
guidelines. an EGU’s actual output while capacity is a measure
55 Compared to a world with no additional maintenance best practices, represent a
of the maximum potential production of an EGU
warming after the model baseline (1986–2005). cost-effective technology that reduces under certain conditions. There are several methods
56 Ziska, L., A. Crimmins, A. Auclair, S. DeGrasse, fuel consumption. Finally, we discuss to calculate an EGU’s capacity, which are suited for
J.F. Garofalo, A.S. Khan, I. Loladze, A.A. Pérez de key developments in the electric power different applications of the statistic. Capacity is
León, A. Showler, J. Thurston, and I. Walls, 2016: sector that influence which units can typically measured in megawatts (MW) for
Ch. 7: Food Safety, Nutrition, and Distribution. The individual units or gigawatts (1 GW = 1,000 MW)
Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the for multiple EGUs. Generation is often measured in
United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global 57 WMO (World Meteorological Organization), kilowatt-hours (1 kWh = 1,000 watt-hours),
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 189– Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, megawatt-hours (1 MWh = 1,000 kWh), gigawatt-
216. https://health2016.globalchange.gov/low/ Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project— hours (1 GWh = 1 million kWh), or terawatt-hours
ClimateHealth2016_07_Food_small.pdf. Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. (1 TWh = 1 billion kWh).
Generated electricity must be Stationary combustion turbine EGUs net electricity supply in 2022. Many
transmitted over networks 59 of high (most commonly natural gas-fired) use projections show this share growing
voltage lines to substations where power one of two configurations: combined over time. For example, the EPA’s
is stepped down to a lower voltage for cycle or simple cycle turbines. Power Sector Platform 2023 using IPM
local distribution. Within each of these Combined cycle units have two (i.e., the EPA’s baseline projections of
transmission networks, there are generating components (i.e., two cycles) the power sector) projects zero-emitting
multiple areas where the operation of operating from a single source of heat. sources reaching 76 percent of
power plants is monitored and Combined cycle units first generate electricity generation by 2040. This shift
controlled by regional organizations to power from a combustion turbine (i.e., is driven by multiple factors. These
ensure that electricity generation and the combustion cycle) directly from the factors include changes in the relative
load are kept in balance. In some areas, heat of burning natural gas or other fuel.
economics of generating technologies,
the operation of the transmission system The second cycle reuses the waste heat
the efforts by states to reduce GHG
is under the control of a single regional from the combustion turbine engine,
which is routed to a heat recovery steam emissions, utility and other corporate
operator; 60 in others, individual commitments, and customer preference.
utilities 61 coordinate the operations of generator (HRSG) that generates steam,
which is then used to produce The shift is further promoted by
their generation and transmission to
additional power using a steam turbine provisions of Federal legislation, most
balance the system across their
(i.e., the steam cycle). Combining these notably the Clean Electricity Investment
respective service territories.
generation cycles increases the overall and Production tax credits included in
2. Types of EGUs efficiency of the system. Combined IRC sections 48E and 45Y of the IRA,
cycle units that fire mostly natural gas which do not begin to phase out until
There are many types of EGUs the later of 2032 or when power sector
are commonly referred to as natural gas
including fossil fuel-fired power plants combined cycle (NGCC) units, and, with GHG emissions are 75 percent less than
(i.e., those using coal, oil, and natural greater efficiency, are utilized at higher 2022 levels. (See section IV.F of this
gas), nuclear power plants, renewable capacity factors to provide base load or preamble and the accompanying RIA for
generating sources (such as wind and intermediate load power. An EGU’s additional discussion of projections for
solar) and others. This rule focuses on capacity factor indicates a power plant’s the power sector.) These projections are
the fossil fuel-fired portion of the electricity output as a percentage of its
generating fleet that is responsible for consistent with power company
total generation capacity. Simple cycle announcements. For example, as the
the vast majority of GHG emissions from turbines only use a combustion turbine
the power sector. The definition of fossil Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated in
to produce electricity (i.e., there is no pre-proposal public comments
fuel-fired electric utility steam heat recovery or steam cycle). These
generating units includes utility boilers submitted to the regulatory docket:
less-efficient combustion turbines are ‘‘Fifty EEI members have announced
as well as those that use gasification generally utilized at non-base load
technology (i.e., integrated gasification forward-looking carbon reduction goals,
capacity factors and contribute to two-thirds of which include a net-zero
combined cycle (IGCC) units). While reliable operations of the grid during
coal is the most common fuel for fossil by 2050 or earlier equivalent goal, and
periods of peak demand or provide
fuel-fired utility boilers, natural gas can members are routinely increasing the
flexibility to support increased
also be used as a fuel in these EGUs and ambition or speed of their goals or
generation from variable energy
many existing coal- and oil-fired utility sources.62 altogether transforming them into net-
boilers have refueled as natural gas-fired Other generating sources produce zero goals . . . . EEI’s member
utility boilers. An IGCC unit gasifies electricity by harnessing kinetic energy companies see a clear path to continued
fuel—typically coal or petroleum coke— from flowing water, wind, or tides, emissions reductions over the next
to form a synthetic gas (or syngas) thermal energy from geothermal wells, decade using current technologies,
composed of carbon monoxide (CO) and or solar energy primarily through including nuclear power, natural gas-
hydrogen (H2), which can be combusted photovoltaic solar arrays. Spurred by a based generation, energy demand
in a combined cycle system to generate combination of declining costs, efficiency, energy storage, and
power. The heat created by these consumer preferences, and government deployment of new renewable energy—
technologies produces high-pressure policies, the capacity of these renewable especially wind and solar—as older
steam that is released to rotate turbines, technologies is growing, and when coal-based and less-efficient natural gas-
which, in turn, spin an electric considered with existing nuclear energy, based generating units retire.’’ 63 The
generator. accounted for 40 percent of the overall Energy Strategy Coalition similarly said
59 The three network interconnections are the
in public comments that ‘‘[a]s major
62 Non-dispatchable renewable energy (electrical
Western Interconnection, comprising the western electrical utilities and power producers,
output cannot be used at any given time to meet
parts of the U.S. and Canada, the Eastern fluctuating demand) is both variable and our top priority is providing clean,
Interconnection, comprising the eastern parts of the intermittent and is often referred to as intermittent affordable, and reliable energy to our
U.S. and Canada except parts of Eastern Canada in renewable energy. The variability aspect results
the Quebec Interconnection, and the Texas
customers’’ and are ‘‘seeking to
from predictable changes in electric generation (e.g.,
Interconnection, encompassing the portion of the solar not generating electricity at night) that often
advance’’ technologies ‘‘such as a
Texas electricity system commonly known as the occur on longer time periods. The intermittent carbon capture and storage, which can
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). See aspect of renewable energy results from significantly reduce carbon dioxide
map of all NERC interconnections at https:// inconsistent generation due to unpredictable
www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Publishing external factors outside the control of the owner/

Images/NERC%20Interconnections.pdf. operator (e.g., imperfect local weather forecasts) 63 Edison Electric Institute (EEI). (November 18,
60 For example, PJM Interconnection, LLC, New
that often occur on shorter time periods. Since
York Independent System Operator (NYISO), 2022). Clean Air Act Section 111 Standards and the
renewable energy fluctuates over multiple time
Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO), periods, grid operators are required to adjust Power Sector: Considerations and Options for
California Independent System Operator (CAISO), forecast and real time operating procedures. As Setting Standards and Providing Compliance
etc. more renewable energy is added to the electric grid Flexibility to Units and States. Public comments
61 For example, Los Angeles Department of Power and generation forecasts improve, the intermittency submitted to the EPA’s pre-proposal rulemaking,
and Water, Florida Power and Light, etc. of renewable energy is reduced. Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0723–0024.
emissions from fossil fuel-fired and Sinks 69 (the U.S. GHG Inventory) to fired, including the top 41 emitters of
EGUs.’’ 64 comply with commitments under the CO2. In addition, of the 81 coal-fired
United Nations Framework Convention plants, 43 have no retirement planned
B. GHG Emissions From Fossil Fuel-
on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This prior to 2039. The top 10 of these plants
Fired EGUs
inventory, which includes recent trends, combined to emit more than 135 MMT
The principal GHGs that accumulate is organized by industrial sectors. It of CO2e, with the top emitter (James H.
in the Earth’s atmosphere above pre- presents total U.S. anthropogenic Miller power plant in Alabama)
industrial levels because of human emissions and sinks 70 of GHGs, reporting approximately 22 MMT of
activity are CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, including CO2 emissions since 1990. CO2e with each of its four EGUs
and SF6. Of these, CO2 is the most According to the latest inventory of all emitting between 5 MMT and 6 MMT
abundant, accounting for 80 percent of sectors, in 2021, total U.S. GHG CO2e that year. The combined capacity
all GHGs present in the atmosphere. emissions were 6,340 million metric of these 10 plants is more than 23
This abundance of CO2 is largely due to tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e).71 gigawatts (GW), and all except for the
the combustion of fossil fuels by the The transportation sector (28.5 percent), Monroe (Michigan) plant operated at
transportation, electricity, and which includes approximately 300 annual capacity factors of 50 percent or
industrial sectors.65 million vehicles, was the largest higher.74 For comparison, the largest
contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions GHG emitter in the U.S. that is not a
The amount of CO2 produced when a with 1,804 MMT CO2e followed by the
fossil fuel is burned in an EGU is a fossil fuel-fired power plant is the
power sector (25.0 percent) with 1,584 ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant
function of the carbon content of the MMT CO2e. In fact, GHG emissions from
fuel relative to the size and efficiency of in Baytown, Texas, which reported 12.6
the power sector were higher than the MMT CO2e (No. 6 overall in the nation)
the EGU. Different fuels emit different GHG emissions from all other industrial
amounts of CO2 in relation to the energy to the GHGRP in 2022. The largest
sectors combined (1,487 MMT CO2e). metals facility in terms of GHG
they produce when combusted. The Specifically, the power sector’s
heat content, or the amount of energy emissions was the U.S. Steel facility in
emissions were far more than petroleum Gary, Indiana, with 10.4 MMT CO2e
produced when a fuel is burned, is and natural gas systems 72 at 301 MMT
mainly determined by the carbon and (No. 16 overall in the nation).
CO2e; chemicals (71 MMT CO2e);
hydrogen content of the fuel. For minerals (64 MMT CO2e); coal mining Overall, CO2 emissions from the
example, in terms of pounds of CO2 (53 MMT CO2e); and metals (48 MMT power sector have declined by 36
emitted per million British thermal CO2e). The agriculture (636 MMT CO2e), percent since 2005 (when the power
units of energy produced when commercial (439 MMT CO2e), and sector reached annual emissions of
combusted, natural gas is the lowest residential (366 MMT CO2e) sectors 2,400 MMT CO2, its historical peak to
compared to other fossil fuels at 117 lb combined to emit 1,441 MMT CO2e. date).75 The reduction in CO2 emissions
CO2/MMBtu.66 67 The average for coal is Fossil fuel-fired EGUs are by far the can be attributed to the power sector’s
216 lb CO2/MMBtu, but varies between largest stationary source emitters of ongoing trend away from carbon-
206 to 229 lb CO2/MMBtu by type (e.g., GHGs in the nation. For example, intensive coal-fired generation and
anthracite, lignite, subbituminous, and according to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas toward more natural gas-fired and
bituminous).68 The value for petroleum Reporting Program (GHGRP), of the top renewable sources. In 2005, CO2
products such as diesel fuel and heating 100 large facilities that reported facility- emissions from coal-fired EGUs alone
oil is 161 lb CO2/MMBtu. level GHGs in 2022, 85 were fossil fuel- measured 1,983 MMT.76 This total
The EPA prepares the official U.S. fired power plants while 10 were dropped to 1,351 MMT in 2015 and
Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions refineries and/or chemical plants, four reached 974 MMT in 2019, the first time
were metals facilities, and one was a since 1978 that CO2 emissions from
64 Energy Strategy Coalition Comments on EPA’s petroleum and natural gas systems coal-fired EGUs were below 1,000 MMT.
proposed New Source Performance Standards for facility.73 Of the 85 fossil fuel-fired In 2020, emissions of CO2 from coal-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, power plants, 81 were primarily coal- fired EGUs measured 788 MMT as the
and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric result of pandemic-related closures and
Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for 69 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). reduced utilization before rebounding in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil
Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 2021 to 909 MMT. By contrast, CO2
Sinks: 1990–2021. https://www.epa.gov/ emissions from natural gas-fired
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, Document ID No.
ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-
EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072–0672, August 14, 2023. emissions-and-sinks-1990-2021. generation have almost doubled since
65 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
70 Sinks are a physical unit or process that stores 2005, increasing from 319 MMT to 613
Overview of greenhouse gas emissions. July 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-
GHGs, such as forests or underground or deep-sea MMT in 2021, and CO2 emissions from
reservoirs of carbon dioxide. petroleum products (i.e., distillate fuel
greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide. 71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
66 Natural gas is primarily CH , which has a
4 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and oil, petroleum coke, and residual fuel
higher hydrogen to carbon atomic ratio, relative to Sinks: 1990–2021. https://www.epa.gov/ oil) declined from 98 MMT in 2005 to
other fuels, and thus, produces the least CO2 per ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas- 18 MMT in 2021.
unit of heat released. In addition to a lower CO2 emissions-and-sinks.
emission rate on a lb/MMBtu basis, natural gas is 72 Petroleum and natural gas systems include:
generally converted to electricity more efficiently offshore and onshore petroleum and natural gas
74 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
than coal. According to EIA, the 2020 emissions production; onshore petroleum and natural gas Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory,
rate for coal and natural gas were 2.23 lb CO2/kWh gathering and boosting; natural gas processing; Form EIA–860M, November 2023. https://
and 0.91 lb CO2/kWh, respectively. www.eia.gov/ natural gas transmission/compression; onshore www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11. natural gas transmission pipelines; natural gas local 75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
67 Values reflect the carbon content on a per unit Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
distribution companies; underground natural gas
of energy produced on a higher heating value (HHV) storage; liquified natural gas storage; liquified Sinks: 1990–2020. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/
combustion basis and are not reflective of recovered natural gas import/export equipment; and other inventoryexplorer/#electricitygeneration/
useful energy from any particular technology. petroleum and natural gas systems. entiresector/allgas/category/all.
68 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 76 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. https:// Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Facility Level Monthly Energy Review, table 11.6. September
www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_ Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT). 2022. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/
mass.php. https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#. monthly/pdf/sec11.pdf.
When the EPA finalized the Clean three major components: CO2 capture, based his conclusions, reiterated the
Power Plan (CPP) in October 2015, the transportation, and sequestration/ claim that CCS would be commercially
Agency projected that, as a result of the storage. Solvent-based CO2 capture was available in 2015. A press release from
CPP, the power sector would reduce its patented nearly 100 years ago in the Alstom Power stated that, based on the
annual CO2 emissions to 1,632 MMT by 1930s 78 and has been used in a variety results of Alstom’s ‘‘13 pilot and
2030, or 32 percent below 2005 levels of industrial applications for decades. demonstration projects and validated by
(2,400 MMT).77 Instead, even in the Thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines independent experts . . . we can now
absence of Federal regulations for have been constructed and securely be confident that CCS works and is cost
existing EGUs, annual CO2 emissions operated in the U.S. for decades.79 And effective . . . and will be available at a
from sources covered by the CPP had tens of millions of tons of CO2 have
commercial scale in 2015 and will allow
fallen to 1,540 MMT by the end of 2021, been permanently stored deep
[plants] to capture 90% of the emitted
a nearly 36 percent reduction below underground either for geologic
2005 levels. The power sector achieved sequestration or in association with CO2.’’ The press release went on to note
a deeper level of reductions than enhanced oil recovery (EOR).80 The that ‘‘the same conclusion applies for a
forecast under the CPP and American Petroleum Institute (API) gas plant using CCS.’’ 84
approximately a decade ahead of time. explains that ‘‘CCS is a proven In 2011, however, AEP determined
By the end of 2015, several months after technology’’ and that ‘‘[t]he methods that the economic and regulatory
the CPP was finalized, those sources that apply to [the] carbon sequestration environment at the time did not support
already had achieved CO2 emission process are not novel. The U.S. has further development of the technology.
levels of 1,900 MMT, or approximately more than 40 years of CO2 gas injection After canceling a large-scale commercial
21 percent below 2005 levels. However, and storage experience. During the last project, Morris explained, ‘‘as a
progress in emission reductions is not 40 years the U.S. gas and oil industry’s regulated utility, it is impossible to gain
uniform across all states and is not (EOR) enhanced oil recovery operations) regulatory approval to cover our share of
guaranteed to continue, therefore have injected more than 1 billion tonnes the costs for validating and deploying
Federal policies play an essential role. of CO2.’’ 81 82 the technology without federal
As discussed earlier in this section, the In 2009, Mike Morris, then-CEO of
American Electric Power (AEP), was requirements to reduce greenhouse gas
power sector remains a leading emitter
of CO2 in the U.S., and, despite the interviewed by Reuters and the article emissions already in place.’’ 85
emission reductions since 2005, current noted that Morris’s ‘‘companies’ work in Thirteen years later, the situation is
CO2 levels continue to endanger human West Virginia on [CCS] gave [Morris] fundamentally different. Since 2011, the
health and welfare. Further, as sources more insight than skeptics who doubt technological advances from full-scale
in other sectors of the economy turn to the technology.’’ In that interview, deployments (e.g., the Petra Nova and
electrification to decarbonize, future Morris explained, ‘‘I’m convinced it will Boundary Dam projects discussed later
CO2 reductions from fossil fuel-fired be primetime ready by 2015 and in this preamble) combined with
EGUs have the potential to take on deployable.’’ 83 In 2011, Alstom Power, supportive policies in multiple states
added significance and increased the company that developed the 30 MW and the financial incentives included in
benefits. pilot project upon which Morris had the IRA, mean that CCS can be deployed
C. Recent Developments in Emissions 78 Bottoms, R.R. Process for Separating Acidic
at scale today. In addition to
Control Gases (1930) United States patent application. applications at fossil fuel-fired EGUs,
This section of the preamble describes United States Patent US1783901A; Allen, A.S. and installation of CCS is poised to
Arthur, M. Method of Separating Carbon Dioxide dramatically increase across a range of
recent developments in GHG emissions from a Gas Mixture (1933) United States Patent
control in general. Details of those Application. United States Patent US1934472A. industries in the coming years,
controls in the context of BSER 79 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline including ethanol production, natural
determination are provided in section and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, gas processing, and steam methane
‘‘Hazardous Annual Liquid Data.’’ 2022. https://
VII.C.1.a for CCS on coal-fired steam www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/
reformers.86 Many of the CCS projects
generating units, section VII.C.2.a for gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission- across these industries, including
natural gas co-firing on coal-fired steam hazardous-liquids. capture systems, pipelines, and
80 GHGRP US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/
generating units, section VIII.F.2.b for sequestration, are already in operation
ghgreporting/supply-underground-injection-and-
efficient generation on natural gas-fired geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide. or are in advanced stages of
combustion turbines, and section 81 American Petroleum Institute (API). (2024). deployment. There are currently at least
VIII.F.4.c.iv for CCS on natural gas-fired Carbon Capture and Storage: A Low-Carbon 15 operating CCS projects in the U.S.,
combustion turbines. Further details of Solution to Economy-Wide Greenhouse Gas and another 121 that are under
Emissions Reductions. https://www.api.org/news-
the control technologies are available in policy-and-issues/carbon-capture-storage.
the final TSDs, GHG Mitigation 82 Major energy company presidents have made 84 Alstom Power. (June 14, 2011). Alstom Power
Measures for Steam Generating Units similar statements. For example, in 2021, Shell Oil study demonstrates carbon capture and storage
and GHG Mitigation Measures—CCS for Company president Gretchen H. Watkins testified to (CCS) is efficient and cost competitive. https://
Congress that ‘‘Carbon capture and storage is a
Combustion Turbines, available in the proven technology,’’ and in 2022, Joe Blommaert,
www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2011/6/press-
docket for these actions. the president of ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions, releases-3-26.
85 Indiana Michigan Power. (July 14, 2011). AEP
stated that ‘‘Carbon capture and storage is a readily
1. CCS available technology that can play a critical role in Places Carbon Capture Commercialization on Hold,
helping society reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’ Citing Uncertain Status of Climate Policy, Weak
One of the key GHG reduction

See https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/ Economy. Press release. https://
technologies upon which the BSER 114185/witnesses/HHRG-117-GO00-Wstate- www.indianamichiganpower.com/company/news/
determinations are founded in these WatkinsG-20211028.pdf and https:// view?releaseID=1206.
final rules is CCS—a technology that corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/ 86 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023).
can capture and permanently store CO2 2022/0225_exxonmobil-to-expand-carbon-capture-
and-storage-at-labarge-wyoming-facility. Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon
from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. CCS has 83 Woodall, B. (June 25, 2009). AEP sees carbon Management. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/
capture from coal ready by 2015. Reuters. https:// uploads/2024/02/20230424-Liftoff-Carbon-
77 80 FR 63662 (October 23, 2015). www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55O6TS/. Management-vPUB_update4.pdf.
construction or in advanced stages of developing the project at the Coal Creek technology.95 A second is an Omnis
development.87 Station, located in McLean, North Fuel Technologies project to convert the
Process improvements learned from Dakota. Notably, Rainbow Energy coal-fired Pleasants Power Station to
earlier deployments of CCS, the purchased the 1,150 MW Coal Creek run on hydrogen.96 Omnis intends to
availability of better solvents, and other Station with a business model of use a pyrolysis-based process to convert
advances have decreased the costs of installing CCS based on the IRC section coal into hydrogen and graphite.
CCS in recent years. As a result, the cost 45Q tax credit of $50/ton that existed at Because the graphite is a usable, solid
of CO2 capture, excluding any tax the time (the IRA has since increased form of carbon, no CO2 sequestration
credits, from coal-fired power the amount to $85/ton).91 Rainbow will be required. Therefore, unlike more
generation is projected to fall by 50 Energy explains, ‘‘CCUS technology has traditional amine-based approaches,
percent by 2025 compared to 2010.88 been proven and is an economical instead of the captured CO2 being a cost,
The IRA makes additional and option for a facility like Coal Creek the graphite product will provide a
significant reductions in the cost of Station. We see CCUS as the best way revenue stream.97 Omnis states that the
implementing CCS by extending and to manage emissions at our facility.’’ 92 Pleasants Power Project broke ground in
increasing the tax credit for CO2 While North Dakota has encouraged August 2023 and will be online by 2025.
sequestration under IRC section 45Q. CCS on coal-fired power plants without
With this combination of polices, and It should be noted that Wyoming,
specific mandates, Wyoming is taking a West Virginia, and North Dakota
the advances related to CO2 capture, different approach. Senate Bill 42,
multiple projects consistent with the represented the first-, second-, and
enacted in 2024, requires utilities to seventh-largest coal producers,
emission reduction requirements of a 90 generate a specified percentage of their
percent capture amine based BSER are respectively, in the U.S. in 2022.98
electricity using coal-fired power plants
in advanced stages of development. with CCS. SB 42 updates HB 200, In addition to the coal-based CCS
These projects use a wider range of enacted in 2020, which required the projects mentioned above, multiple
technologies, and some of them are CCS to be installed by 2030, which SB other projects are in advanced stages of
being developed as first-of-a-kind 42 extends to 2033. To comply with development and/or have completed
projects and offer significant advantages those requirements, PacificCorp has FEED studies. For instance, Linde/BASF
over the amine-based CCS technology stated in its 2023 IRP that it intends to is installing a 10 MW pilot project on
that the EPA is finalizing as BSER. install CCS on two coal-fired units by the Dallman Power Plant in Illinois.
For instance, in North Dakota, 2028.93 Rocky Mountain Power has also Based on results from small scale pilot
Governor Doug Burgum announced a announced that it will explore a new studies, techno economic analysis
goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030 carbon capture technology at either its indicates that the Linde/BASF process
while retaining the core position of its David Johnston plant or its Wyodak can provide a significant reduction in
fossil fuel industries, and to do so by plant.94 Another CCS project is also capital costs compared to the NETL base
significant CCS implementation. Gov. case for a supercritical pulverized coal
under development at the Dry Fork
Burgum explained, ‘‘This may seem like plant with carbon capture.’’ 99 Multiple
Power Plant in Wyoming. Currently, a
a moonshot goal, but it’s actually not. other FEED studies are either completed
pilot project that will capture 150 tons
It’s actually completely doable, even or under development, putting those
of CO2 per day is under construction
with the technologies that we have projects on a path to being able to be
and is scheduled to be completed in late
today.’’ 89 Companies in the state are built and to commence operation well
2024. Work has also begun on a full-
backing up this claim with projects in before January 1, 2032.
scale front end engineering design
multiple industries in various stages of
(FEED) study. In addition to the Competitive Power
operation and development. In the Like North Dakota, West Virginia does Partners project, there are multiple post-
power sector, two of the biggest projects not have a carbon capture mandate, but combustion CCS retrofit projects in
under development are Project Tundra there are several carbon capture projects various stages of development. In
and Coal Creek. Project Tundra is a under development in the state. One is particular, NET Power is in advanced
carbon capture project on Minnkota a new, 2,000 MW natural gas combined stages of development on a 300 MW
Power’s 705 MW Milton R Young Power cycle plant being developed by project in west Texas using the Allam-
Plant in Oliver County, North Dakota. Competitive Power Ventures that will Fetvedt cycle, which is being designed
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will be capture 90–95 percent of the CO2 using to achieve greater than 97 percent CO2
providing an advanced version of its
GE turbine and carbon capture capture. In addition to working on this
carbon capture equipment that builds
first project, NET Power has indicated
upon the lessons learned from the Petra 2019/03/GHGT14_manuscript_20180913Clean- that it has an additional project under
Nova project.90 Rainbow Energy is version.pdf.
91 Minot Daily News. (April 8, 2024). Hoeven: ND
development and is working with
87 Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (December to lead country with carbon capture project at Coal
95 Competitive Power Ventures (CPV). Shay Clean
13, 2023). Carbon Capture and Storage in the United Creek Station. https://minotdailynews.com/news/
States. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59345. local-news/2021/07/hoeven-nd-to-lead-country- Energy Center. https://www.cpv.com/our-projects/
88 Global CCS Institute. (March 2021). Technology with-carbon-capture-project-at-coal-creek-station/. cpv-shay-energy-center/.
96 The Associated Press (AP). (August 30, 2023).
Readiness and Costs of CCS. https:// 92 Rainbow Energy Center. (ND). Carbon Capture.
www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/ https://rainbowenergycenter.com/what-we-do/ New owner restarts West Virginia coal-fired power

2021/03/Technology-Readiness-and-Costs-for-CCS- carbon-capture/. plant and intends to convert it to hydrogen use.
2021-1.pdf. 93 PacifiCorp. (April 1, 2024). 2023 Integrated https://apnews.com/article/west-virginia-power-
89 Willis, A. (May 12, 2021). Gov. Doug Burgum Resource Plan Update. https://www.pacificorp.com/ plant-coal-hydrogen-7b46798c8e3b093
calls for North Dakota to be carbon neutral by 2030. content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/ a8591f25f66340e8f.

97 omnigenglobal.com.
The Dickinson Press. https:// energy/integrated-resource-plan/2023_IRP_
www.thedickinsonpress.com/business/gov-doug- Update.pdf. 98 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
burgum-calls-for-north-dakota-to-be-carbon- 94 Rocky Mountain Power. (April 1, 2024). Rocky (October 2023). Annual Coal Report 2022. https://
neutral-by-2030. Mountain Power and 8 Rivers to collaborate on www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/acr.pdf.
90 Tanaka, H. et al. Advanced KM CDR Process proposed Wyoming carbon capture project. Press 99 National Energy Technology Laboratory
using New Solvent. 14th International Conference release. https://www.rockymountainpower.net/ (NETL). Large Pilot Carbon Capture Project
on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT– about/newsroom/news-releases/rmp-proposed- Supported by NETL Breaks Ground in Illinois.
14. https://www.cfaenm.org/wp-content/uploads/ wyoming-carbon-capture-project.html. https://netl.doe.gov/node/12284.
suppliers to support additional future pipelines to those units, and it implies infiltration, and cleaning and
projects.100 that those units are technically capable maintaining heat transfer surfaces.
In developing these final rules, the of co-firing at least 60 percent natural As discussed in section VIII.F.2.b of
EPA reviewed the current state and cost gas on a heat input basis on average over this preamble, efficient generation
of CCS technology for use with both the course of an extended period (e.g.,
steam generating units and stationary technologies have been in use at
a year). Additionally, many coal-fired
combustion turbines. This review is facilities in the power sector for decades
steam generating EGUs have also opted
reflected in the respective BSER and the levels of efficiency that the EPA
to switch entirely to providing
discussions later in this preamble and is generation from the firing of natural gas. is finalizing in this rule have been
further detailed in the accompanying Since 2011, more than 80 coal-fired achieved by many recently constructed
RIA and final TSDs, GHG Mitigation utility boilers have been converted to turbines. The efficiency improvements
Measures for Steam Generating Units natural gas-fired utility boilers.103 are incremental in nature and do not
and GHG Mitigation Measures—Carbon In developing these final actions, the change how the combustion turbine is
Capture and Storage for Combustion EPA reviewed in detail the current state operated or maintained and present
Turbines. These documents are of natural gas co-firing technology and little incremental capital or compliance
included in the rulemaking docket. costs. This review is reflected in the costs compared to other types of
2. Natural Gas Co-Firing BSER discussions later in this preamble technologies that may be considered for
and is further detailed in the new and reconstructed sources. In
For a coal-fired steam generating unit, accompanying RIA and final TSD, GHG addition, more efficient designs have
the substitution of natural gas for some Mitigation Measures for Steam lower fuel costs, which offset at least a
of the coal so that the unit fires a Generating Units. Both documents are portion of the increase in capital costs.
combination of coal and natural gas is included in the rulemaking docket. For additional discussion of this BSER
known as ‘‘natural gas co-firing.’’
Existing coal-fired steam generating 3. Efficient Generation technology, see the final TSD, Efficient
units can be modified to co-fire natural Generation in Combustion Turbines in
Highly efficient generation is the the docket for this rulemaking.
gas in any desired proportion with coal. BSER technology upon which the first
Generally, the modification of existing phase standards of performance are Efficiency improvements are also
boilers to enable or increase natural gas based for certain new and reconstructed available for fossil fuel-fired steam
firing involves the installation of new stationary combustion turbine EGUs. generating units, and as discussed
gas burners and related boiler This technology is available for both further in section VII.D.4.a, the more
modifications and may involve the simple cycle and combined cycle efficiently an EGU operates the less fuel
construction of a natural gas supply combustion turbines and has been it consumes, thereby emitting lower
pipeline if one does not already exist. In demonstrated—along with best amounts of CO2 and other air pollutants
recent years, the cost of natural gas co- operating and maintenance practices— per MWh generated. Efficiency
firing has declined because the expected to reduce emissions. Generally, as the improvements for steam generating
difference between coal and gas prices thermal efficiency of a combustion EGUs include a variety of technology
has decreased and analysis supports turbine increases, less fuel is burned per upgrades and operating practices that
lower capital costs for modifying gross MWh of electricity produced and may achieve CO2 emission rate
existing boilers to co-fire with natural there is a corresponding decrease in CO2 reductions of 0.1 to 5 percent for
gas, as discussed in section VII.C.2.a of and other air emissions. individual EGUs. These reductions are
this preamble. For simple cycle turbines,
It is common practice for steam small relative to the reductions that are
manufacturers continue to improve the achievable from natural gas co-firing
generating units to have the capability
efficiency by increasing firing and from CCS. Also, as efficiency
to burn multiple fuels onsite, and of the
temperature, increasing pressure ratios, increases, some facilities could increase
565 coal-fired steam generating units
using intercooling on the air their utilization and therefore increase
operating at the end of 2021, 249 of
compressor, and adopting other their CO2 emissions (as well as
them reported use of natural gas as a
measures. Best operating practices for emissions of other air pollutants). This
primary fuel or for startup.101 Based on
simple cycle turbines include proper
hourly reported CO2 emission rates from phenomenon is known as the ‘‘rebound
maintenance of the combustion turbine
the start of 2015 through the end of effect.’’ Because of this potential for
flow path components and the use of
2020, 29 coal-fired steam generating perverse GHG emission outcomes
inlet air cooling to reduce efficiency
units co-fired with natural gas at rates losses during periods of high ambient resulting from deployment of efficiency
at or above 60 percent of capacity on an temperatures. For combined cycle measures at certain steam generating
hourly basis.102 The capability of those turbines, a highly efficient combustion units, coupled with the relatively minor
units on an hourly basis is indicative of turbine engine is matched with a high- overall GHG emission reductions that
the extent of boiler burner modifications efficiency HRSG. High efficiency also would be expected, the EPA is not
and sizing and capacity of natural gas includes, but is not limited to, the use finalizing efficiency improvements as
of the most efficient steam turbine and the BSER for any subcategory of existing
100 Net Power. (March 11, 2024). Q4 2023
Business Update and Results. https:// minimizing energy losses using coal-fired steam generating units.
d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_ insulation and blowdown heat recovery. Specific details of efficiency measures
cde4aad258e20f5aec49abd8654499f8/netpower/db/ Best operating and maintenance are described in the final TSD, GHG
3583/33195/pdf/Q4_2023+Earnings+Presentation_ practices include, but are not limited to, Mitigation Measures for Steam
3.11.24.pdf.
101 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). minimizing steam leaks, minimizing air Generating Units, and an updated 2023
Form 923. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/ Sargent and Lundy HRI report (Heat
eia923/. 103 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Rate Improvement Method Costs and
102 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (5 August 2020). Today in Energy. More than 100 Limitations Memo), available in the
‘‘Power Sector Emissions Data.’’ Washington, DC: coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to
Office of Atmospheric Protection, Clean Air natural gas since 2011. https://www.eia.gov/ docket.
Markets Division. https://campd.epa.gov. todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636.
D. The Electric Power Sector: Trends 2. Broad Trends Within the Power resources. The IRA provides numerous
and Current Structure Sector tax and other incentives to directly spur
For more than a decade, the power deployment of clean energy
1. Overview technologies. Particularly relevant to
sector has been experiencing substantial
The electric power sector is transition and structural change, both in these final actions, the incentives in the
experiencing a prolonged period of terms of the mix of generating capacity IRA,107 108 which are discussed in detail
transition and structural change. Since and in the share of electricity generation later in this section of the preamble,
supplied by different types of EGUs. support the expansion of technologies,
the generation of electricity from coal-
These changes are the result of multiple such as CCS, that reduce GHG emissions
fired power plants peaked nearly two
factors, including normal replacements from fossil-fired EGUs.
decades ago, the power sector has The ongoing transition of the power
changed at a rapid pace. Today, natural of older EGUs; technological
improvements in electricity generation sector is illustrated by a comparison of
gas-fired power plants provide the data between 2007 and 2022. In 2007,
largest share of net generation, coal-fired from both existing and new EGUs;
changes in the prices and availability of the year of peak coal generation,
power plants provide a significantly approximately 72 percent of the
smaller share than in the recent past, different fuels; state and Federal policy;
the preferences and purchasing electricity provided to the U.S. grid was
renewable energy provides a steadily produced through the combustion of
behaviors of end-use electricity
increasing share, and as new fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural
consumers; and substantial growth in
technologies enter the marketplace, electricity generation from renewable gas, with coal accounting for the largest
power producers continue to replace sources. single share. By 2022, fossil fuel net
aging assets—especially coal-fired One of the most important generation was approximately 60
power plants—with more efficient and developments of this transition has been percent, less than the share in 2007
lower-cost alternatives. the evolving economics of the power despite electricity demand remaining
These developments have significant sector. Specifically, as discussed in relatively flat over this same period.
implications for the types of controls section IV.D.3.b of this preamble and in Moreover, the share of generation
that the EPA determined to qualify as the final TSD, Power Sector Trends, the supplied by coal-fired EGUs fell from 49
existing fleet of coal-fired EGUs percent in 2007 to 19 percent in 2022
the BSER for different types of fossil
continues to age and become more while the share supplied by natural gas-
fuel-fired EGUs. For example, power
costly to maintain and operate. At the fired EGUs rose from 22 to 39 percent
plant owners and operators retired an
same time, natural gas prices have held during the same period. In absolute
average annual coal-fired EGU capacity
relatively low due to increased supply, terms, coal-fired generation declined by
of 10 GW from 2015 to 2023, and coal-
and renewable costs have fallen rapidly 59 percent while natural gas-fired
fired EGUs comprised 58 percent of all generation increased by 88 percent. This
retired capacity in 2023.104 While use of with technological improvement and
growing scale. Natural gas surpassed reflects both the increase in natural gas
CCS promises significant emissions capacity as well as an increase in the
reduction from fossil fuel-fired sources, coal in monthly net electricity
generation for the first time in April utilization of new and existing natural
it requires substantial up-front capital gas-fired EGUs. The combination of
2015, and since that time natural gas has
expenditure. Therefore, it is not a wind and solar generation also grew
maintained its position as the primary
feasible or cost-reasonable emission from 1 percent of the electric power
fuel for base load electricity generation,
reduction technology for units that for peaking applications, and for sector mix in 2007 to 15 percent in
intend to cease operation before they balancing renewable generation.105 In 2022.109
would be able to amortize its costs. 2023, generation from natural gas was Additional analysis of the utility
Industry stakeholders requested that the more than 2.5 times as much as power sector, including projections of
EPA structure these rules to avoid generation from coal.106 Additionally, future power sector behavior and the
imposing costly control obligations on there has been increased generation impacts of these final rules, is discussed
coal-fired power plants that have from investments in zero- and low-GHG in more detail in section XII of this
announced plans to voluntarily cease emission energy technologies spurred preamble, in the accompanying RIA,
operations, and the EPA has determined by technological advancements, and in the final TSD, Power Sector
the BSER in accordance with its declining costs, state and Federal Trends. The latter two documents are
understanding of which coal-fired units policies, and most recently, the IIJA and available in the rulemaking docket.
will be able to feasibly and cost- the IRA. For example, the IIJA provides Consistent with analyses done by other
effectively deploy the BSER investments and other policies to help energy modelers, the information
technologies. In addition, the EPA commercialize, demonstrate, and deploy
recognizes that utilities and power plant technologies such as small modular 107 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). August
operators are building new natural gas- nuclear reactors, long-duration energy 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act Drives
Significant Emissions Reductions and Positions
fired combustion turbines with plans to storage, regional clean hydrogen hubs, America to Reach Our Climate Goals. https://
operate them at varying levels of CCS and associated infrastructure, www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/
utilization, in coordination with other advanced geothermal systems, and 8.18%20InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_
advanced distributed energy resources Final.pdf.
existing and expected new energy 108 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). August
sources. These patterns of operation are (DER) as well as more traditional wind, 2023. Investing in American Energy. Significant
important for the type of controls that solar, and battery energy storage Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and
the EPA is finalizing as the BSER for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the U.S. Energy
105 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Economy and Emissions Reductions. https://
these turbines. www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/
Monthly Energy Review and Short-Term Energy
Outlook, March 2016. https://www.eia.gov/ DOE%20OP%20Economy%20Wide%20Report_
104 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392. 0.pdf.
(7 February 2023). Today in Energy. Coal and 106 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 109 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
natural gas plants will account for 98 percent of Electric Power Monthly, March 2024. https:// Annual Energy Review, table 8.2b Electricity net
U.S. capacity retirements in 2023. https:// www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/ generation: electric power sector. https://
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439. march2024.pdf. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/.
provided in the RIA and TSD during that 20-year period.114 The peak of utility-scale solar capacity.
demonstrates that the sector trend of annual capacity addition was 14 GW, Additionally, a net summer capacity of
moving away from coal-fired generation which was added in 1980. These coal- 30 GW of DER solar were added from
is likely to continue, the share from fired steam generating units operated as 2015 to 2022.
natural gas-fired generation is projected base load units for decades. However,
to decline eventually, and the share of beginning in 2005, the U.S. power b. Current Structure of Coal-Fired
generation from non-emitting sector—and especially the coal-fired Generation
technologies is likely to continue fleet—began experiencing a period of
Although much of the fleet of coal-
increasing. For instance, according to transition that continues today. Many of
the Energy Information Administration the older coal-fired steam generating fired steam generating units has
(EIA), the net change in solar capacity units built in the 1960s, 1970s, and historically operated as base load, there
has been larger than the net change in 1980s have retired or have experienced can be notable differences in design and
capacity for any other source of significant reductions in net generation operation across various facilities. For
electricity for every year since 2020. In due to cost pressures and other factors. example, coal-fired steam generating
2024, EIA projects that the actual Some of these coal-fired steam units smaller than 100 MW comprise 18
increase in generation from solar will generating units repowered with percent of the total number of coal-fired
exceed every other source of generating combustion turbines and natural gas.115 units, but only 2 percent of total coal-
capacity. This is in part because of the With no new coal-fired steam generating fired capacity.118 Moreover, average
large amounts of new solar coming units larger than 25 MW commencing annual capacity factors for coal-fired
online in 2024 but is also due to the construction in the past decade—and steam generating units have declined
large amount of energy storage coming with the EPA unaware of any plans from 74 to 50 percent since 2007.119
online, which will help reduce being approved to construct a new coal- These declining capacity factors
renewable curtailments.110 EIA also fired EGU—much of the fleet that indicate that a larger share of units are
projects that in 2024, the U.S. will see remains is aging, expensive to operate operating in non-base load fashion
its largest year for installation of both and maintain, and increasingly largely because they are no longer cost-
solar and battery storage. Specifically, uncompetitive relative to other sources competitive in many hours of the year.
EIA projects that 36.4 GW of solar will of generation in many parts of the
Older power plants also tend to
be added, nearly doubling last year’s country.
Since 2007, the power sector’s total become uneconomic over time as they
record of 18.4 GW. Similarly, EIA
projects 14.3 GW of new energy storage. installed net summer capacity 116 has become more costly to maintain and
This would more than double last year’s increased by 167 GW (17 percent) while operate,120 especially when competing
record installation of 6.4 GW and nearly coal-fired steam generating unit capacity for dispatch against newer and more
double the existing total capacity of 15.5 has declined by 123 GW.117 This efficient generating technologies that
GW. This compares to only 2.5 GW of reduction in coal-fired steam generating have lower operating costs. The average
new natural gas turbine capacity.111 The unit capacity was offset by a net coal-fired power plant that retired
only year since 2013 when renewable increase in total installed wind capacity between 2015 and 2022 was more than
generation did not make up the majority of 125 GW, net natural gas capacity of 50 years old, and 65 percent of the
of new generation capacity in the U.S. 110 GW, and a net increase in utility- remaining fleet of coal-fired steam
was 2018.112 scale solar capacity of 71 GW during the generating units will be 50 years old or
same period. Additionally, significant more within a decade.121 To further
3. Coal-Fired Generation: Historical amounts (40 GW) of DER solar were also illustrate this trend, the existing coal-
Trends and Current Structure added. At least half of these changes fired steam generating units older than
a. Historical Trends in Coal-Fired were in the most recent 7 years of this 40 years represent 71 percent (129
Generation period. From 2015 to 2022, coal GW) 122 of the total remaining capacity.
Coal-fired steam generating units have capacity was reduced by 90 GW and this In fact, more than half (100 GW) of the
historically been the nation’s foremost reduction in capacity was offset by a net coal-fired steam generating units still
source of electricity, but coal-fired increase of 69 GW of wind capacity, 63 operating have already announced
generation has declined steadily since GW of natural gas capacity, and 59 GW retirement dates prior to 2039 or
its peak approximately 20 years ago.113 114 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
conversion to gas-fired units by the
Construction of new coal-fired steam Electric Generators Inventory, Form EIA–860M,
generating units was at its highest Inventory of Operating Generators and Inventory of 118 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
between 1967 and 1986, with Retired Generators, March 2022. https:// National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v7.
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/. December 2023. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-
approximately 188 GW (or 9.4 GW per modeling/national-electric-energy-data-system-
year) of capacity added to the grid Today in Energy. More than 100 coal-fired plants needs.
have been replaced or converted to natural gas
110 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Electric Power Annual 2021, table 1.2.
since 2011. August 2020. https://www.eia.gov/
Short Term Energy Outlook, December 2023. todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636. 120 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
111 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 116 This includes generating capacity at EGUs U.S. coal plant retirements linked to plants with
(February 15, 2024). Today in Energy. Solar and primarily operated to supply electricity to the grid higher operating costs. December 2019. https://
Battery Storage to make up 81% of new U.S. and combined heat and power (CHP) facilities www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42155.
Electric-generating capacity in 2024. https:// classified as Independent Power Producers and 121 eGRID 2020 (January 2022 release from EPA
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424. excludes generating capacity at commercial and eGRID website). Represents data from generators
112 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). industrial facilities that does not operate primarily that came online between 1950 and 2020
Today in Energy. Natural gas and renewables make as an EGU. Natural gas information reflects data for (inclusive); a 71-year period. Full eGRID data
up most of 2018 electric capacity additions. https:// all generating units using natural gas as the primary includes generators that came online as far back as
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36092. fossil heat source unless otherwise stated. This 1915.
113 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). includes combined cycle, simple cycle, steam, and 122 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Today in Energy. Natural gas expected to surpass miscellaneous (<1 percent). Electric Generators Inventory, Form–860M,
coal in mix of fuel used for U.S. power generation 117 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Inventory of Operating Generators and Inventory of
in 2016. March 2016. https://www.eia.gov/ Electric Power Annuals 2010 (Tables 1.1.A and Retired Generators. August 2022. https://
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392. 1.1.B) and 2022 (Tables 4.2.A and 4.2.B). www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
same year.123 As discussed later in this represents an average of almost 8.8 GW Power Sector Trends included in the
section, projections anticipate that this of new combustion turbine generation docket for this rulemaking.
trend will continue. capacity per year. In 2022, the net
The reduction in coal-fired generation E. The Legislative, Market, and State
summer capacity of combustion turbine
by electric utilities is also evident in Law Context
EGUs totaled 419 GW, with 289 GW
data for annual U.S. coal production, being combined cycle generation and 1. Recent Legislation Impacting the
which reflects reductions in 130 GW being simple cycle generation. Power Sector
international demand as well. In 2008,
This trend away from electricity On November 15, 2021, President
annual coal production peaked at nearly
generation using coal-fired EGUs to Biden signed the IIJA 129 (also known as
1,172 million short tons (MMst)
natural gas-fired turbine EGUs is also the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law),
followed by sharp declines in 2015 and
reflected in comparisons of annual which allocated more than $65 billion
2020.124 In 2015, less than 900 MMst
capacity factors, sizes, and ages of in funding via grant programs, contracts,
were produced, and in 2020, the total
affected EGUs. For example, the average cooperative agreements, credit
dropped to 535 MMst, the lowest output
annual capacity factors for natural gas- allocations, and other mechanisms to
since 1965. Following the pandemic, in
fired units increased from 28 to 38 develop and upgrade infrastructure and
2022, annual coal production had
percent between 2010 and 2022. And expand access to clean energy
increased to 594 MMst. For additional
analysis of the coal-fired steam compared with the fleet of coal-fired technologies. Specific objectives of the
generation fleet, see the final TSD, steam generating units, the natural gas legislation are to improve the nation’s
Power Sector Trends included in the fleet is generally smaller and newer. electricity transmission capacity,
docket for this rulemaking. While 67 percent of the coal-fired steam pipeline infrastructure, and increase the
Notwithstanding these trends, in generating unit fleet capacity is over 500 availability of low-GHG fuels. Some of
2022, coal-fired energy sources were MW per unit, 75 percent of the gas fleet the IIJA programs 130 that will impact
still responsible for 50 percent of CO2 is between 50 and 500 MW per unit. In the utility power sector include more
emissions from the electric power terms of the age of the generating units, than $20 billion to build and upgrade
sector.125 nearly 50 percent of the natural gas the nation’s electric grid, up to $6
capacity has been in service less than 15 billion in financial support for existing
4. Natural Gas-Fired Generation: years.127 nuclear reactors that are at risk of
Historical Trends and Current Structure closing, and more than $700 million for
b. Current Structure of Natural Gas- upgrades to the existing hydroelectric
a. Historical Trends in Natural Gas-
Fired Generation fleet. The IIJA established the Carbon
Fired Generation
In the lower 48 states, most Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure
There has been significant expansion
of the natural gas-fired EGU fleet since combustion turbine EGUs burn natural Finance and Innovation Program to
2000, coinciding with efficiency gas, and some have the capability to fire provide flexible Federal loans and
improvements of combustion turbine distillate oil as backup for periods when grants for building CO2 pipelines
technologies, increased availability of natural gas is not available, such as designed with excess capacity, enabling
natural gas, increased demand for when residential demand for natural gas integrated carbon capture and geologic
flexible generation to support the is high during the winter. Areas of the storage. The IIJA also allocated $21.5
expanding capacity of variable energy country without access to natural gas billion to fund new programs to support
resources, and declining costs for all often use distillate oil or some other the development, demonstration, and
three elements. According to data from locally available fuel. Combustion deployment of clean energy
EIA, annual capacity additions for turbines have the capability to burn technologies, such as $8 billion for the
natural gas-fired EGUs peaked between either gaseous or liquid fossil fuels, development of regional clean hydrogen
2000 and 2006, with more than 212 GW including but not limited to kerosene, hubs and $7 billion for the development
added to the grid during this period naphtha, synthetic gas, biogases, of carbon management technologies,
(about 35 GW per year). Of this total, liquified natural gas (LNG), and including regional direct air capture
approximately 147 GW (70 percent) hydrogen. hubs, carbon capture large-scale pilot
were combined cycle capacity and 65 projects for development of
Over the past 20 years, advances in transformational technologies, and
GW were simple cycle capacity.126 From hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking) and
2007 to 2022, more than 132 GW of carbon capture commercial-scale
horizontal drilling techniques have demonstration projects to improve
capacity were constructed and opened new regions of the U.S. to gas
approximately 77 percent of that total efficiency and effectiveness. Other clean
exploration. As the production of energy technologies with IIJA and IRA
were combined cycle EGUs. This figure natural gas has increased, the annual funding include industrial
123 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
average price has declined during the demonstrations, geologic sequestration,
National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v6. same period, leading to more natural grid-scale energy storage, and advanced
October 2022. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector- gas-fired combustion turbines.128 nuclear reactors.
modeling/national-electric-energy-data-system- Natural gas net generation increased 181
needs.
The IRA, which President Biden
percent in the past two decades, from signed on August 16, 2022,131 has the
(October 2023). Annual Coal Report 2022. https:// 601 thousand gigawatt-hours (GWh) in potential for even greater impacts on the
www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/acr.pdf. 2000 to 1,687 thousand GWh in 2022. electric power sector. Energy Security
125 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). For additional analysis of natural gas-
and Climate Change programs in the

U.S. CO2 emissions from energy consumption by fired generation, see the final TSD,
source and sector, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/
129 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/
totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/CO2_emissions_
2022.pdf. 127 National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) house-bill/3684/text.
126 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). v.6. 130 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
Electric Generators Inventory, Form EIA–860M, 128 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). uploads/2022/05/BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA-
Inventory of Operating Generators and Inventory of Natural Gas Annual, September 2021. https:// V2.pdf.
Retired Generators, July 2022. https://www.eia.gov/ www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/ 131 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/
electricity/data/eia860m/. prices.php. house-bill/5376/text.
IRA covering grant funding and tax at the higher credit value beginning in consecutive years. Tax-paying entities
incentives provide significant 2023 for qualifying projects. These may also elect to transfer credits to
investments in low and non GHG- incentives will significantly cut costs unrelated taxpayers, enabling direct
emitting generation. For example, one of and are expected to accelerate the monetization of the credits again
the conditions set by Congress for the adoption of CCS in the utility power without relying on tax equity
expiration of the Clean Electricity and other industrial sectors. Specifically transactions.
Production Tax Credits of the IRA, for the power sector, the IRA requires In addition to provisions such as 45Q
found in section 13701, is a 75 percent that a qualifying carbon capture facility that allow for the use of fossil-
reduction in GHG emissions from the have a CO2 capture design capacity of generating assets in a low-GHG future,
power sector below 2022 levels. The not less than 75 percent of the baseline the IRA also includes significant
IRA also contains the Low Emission CO2 production of the unit and that incentives to deploy clean energy
Electricity Program (LEEP) with funding construction must begin before January generation. For instance, the IRA
provided to the EPA with the objective 1, 2033. Tax credits under IRC section provides an additional 10 percent in
to reduce GHG emissions from domestic 45Q can be combined with some other production tax credit (PTC) and
electricity generation and use through tax credits, in some circumstances, and investment tax credit (ITC) bonuses for
promotion of incentives, tools to with state-level incentives, including clean energy projects located in energy
facilitate action, and use of CAA California’s low carbon fuel standard, communities with historic employment
regulatory authority. In particular, CAA which is a market-based program with and tax bases related to fossil fuels.135
section 135, added by IRA section fuel-specific carbon intensity The IRA’s Energy Infrastructure
60107, requires the EPA to conduct an benchmarks.133 The magnitude of this Reinvestment Program also provides
assessment of the GHG emission incentive is driving investment and $250 billion for the DOE to finance loan
reductions expected to occur from announcements, evidenced by the guarantees that can be used to reduce
changes in domestic electricity increased number of permit applications both the cost of retiring existing fossil
generation and use through fiscal year for geologic sequestration.134 assets and of replacement generation for
2031 and, further, provides the EPA $18 The new provisions in section 13204 those assets, including updating
million ‘‘to ensure that reductions in (IRC section 45V) codify production tax operating energy infrastructure with
[GHG] emissions are achieved through credits for ‘clean hydrogen’ as defined emissions control technologies.136 As a
use of the existing authorities of [the in the provision. The value of the further example, the Empowering Rural
Clean Air Act], incorporating the credits earned by a project is tiered (four America (New ERA) Program provides
assessment. . . .’’ CAA section different tiers) and depends on the rural electric cooperatives with funds
135(a)(6). estimated GHG emissions of the that can be used for a variety of
The IRA’s provisions also hydrogen production process as defined purposes, including ‘‘funding for
demonstrate an intent to support in the statute. The credits range from renewable and zero emissions energy
development and deployment of low- $3/kg H2 for less than 0.45 kilograms of systems that eliminate aging, obsolete or
GHG emitting technologies in the power CO2-equivalent emitted per kilogram of expensive infrastructure’’ or that allow
sector through a broad array of low-GHG hydrogen produced (kg CO2e/ rural cooperatives to ‘‘change [their]
additional tax credits, loan guarantees, kg H2) down to $0.6/kg H2 for 2.5 to 4.0 purchased-power mixes to support
and public investment programs. kg CO2e/kg H2 (assuming wage and cleaner portfolios, manage stranded
Particularly relevant for these final apprenticeship requirements are met). assets and boost [the] transition to clean
actions, these provisions are aimed at Projects with production related GHG energy.’’ 137 The $9.7 billion New ERA
reducing emissions of GHGs from new emissions greater than 4.0 kg CO2e/kg program represents the single largest
and existing generating assets, with tax H2 are not eligible. Future costs for investment in rural energy systems
credits for CCUS and clean hydrogen clean hydrogen produced using since the Rural Electrification Act of
production, providing a pathway for the renewable energy are anticipated to 1936.138
through 2030 due to these tax incentives On September 12, 2023, the EPA
use of coal and natural gas as part of a
and concurrent scaling up of released a report assessing the impact of
low-GHG electricity grid.
To assist states and utilities in their manufacturing and deployment of clean the IRA on the power sector. Modeling
hydrogen production facilities. results showed that economy-wide CO2
decarbonizing efforts, and most germane
Both IRC section 45Q and IRC section emissions are lower under the IRA. The
to these final actions, the IRA increased
the tax credit incentives for capturing 45V are eligible for additional 135 U.S. Department of the Treasury. (April 4,
and storing CO2, including from provisions that increase the value and 2023). Treasury Releases Guidance to Drive
industrial sources, coal-fired steam usability of the credits. Certain tax- Investment to Coal Communities. Press release.
generating units, and natural gas-fired exempt entities, such as electric co- https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/
operatives, may elect direct payment for jy1383.
stationary combustion turbines. The 136 Fong, C., Posner, D., Varadarajan, U. (February
increase in credit values, found in the full 12- or 10-year lifetime of the 16, 2024). The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment
section 13104 (which revises IRC credits to monetize the credits directly Program: Federal financing for an equitable, clean
section 45Q), is 70 percent, equaling as cash refunds rather than through tax economy. Case studies from Missouri and Iowa.
$85/metric ton for CO2 captured and equity transactions. Tax-paying entities Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). https://rmi.org/
the-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-
securely stored in geologic formations may elect to have direct payment of IRC federal-financing-for-an-equitable-clean-economy/.
and $60/metric ton for CO2 captured section 45Q or 45V credits for 5 137 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
and utilized or securely stored Empowering Rural America New ERA Program.
133 Global CCS Institute. (2019). The LCFS and https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/

incidentally in conjunction with
CCS Protocol: An Overview for Policymakers and electric-programs/empowering-rural-america-new-
EOR.132 The CCUS incentives include Project Developers. Policy report. https:// era-program.
12 years of credits that can be claimed www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/ 138 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). (October 4,
2019/05/LCFS-and-CCS-Protocol_digital_version- 2023). USDA $9.7B Rural Community Clean Energy
132 26 U.S.C. 45Q. Note, qualified facilities must 2.pdf. Program Receives 150+ Letters of Interest. Press
meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship 134 EPA. (2024). Current Class VI Projects under release. https://rmi.org/press-release/usda-9-7b-
requirements to be eligible for the full value of the Review at EPA. https://www.epa.gov/uic/current- rural-community-clean-energy-program-receives-
tax credit. class-vi-projects-under-review-epa. 150-letters-of-interest/.
results from the EPA’s analysis of an 50 power producers that are members of percent by 2030.144 145 146 These actions
array of multi-sector and electric sector the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) have include legislation to decarbonize state
modeling efforts show that a wide range announced CO2 reduction goals, two- power systems as well as commitments
of emissions reductions are possible. thirds of which include net-zero carbon that require utilities to expand
The IRA spurs CO2 emissions emissions by 2050.141 The members of renewable and clean energy production
reductions from the electric power the Energy Strategies Coalition, a group through the adoption of renewable
sector of 49 to 83 percent below 2005 of companies that operate and manage portfolio standards (RPS) and clean
levels in 2030. This finding reflects electricity generation facilities, as well energy standards (CES).
diversity in how the models represent as electricity and natural gas Several states have enacted binding
the IRA, the assumptions the models transmission and distribution systems, economy-wide emission reduction
use, and fundamental differences in likewise are focused on investments to targets that will require significant
model structures.139 reduce carbon dioxide emissions from decarbonization from state power
In determining the CAA section 111 the electricity sector.142 This trend is sectors, including California, Colorado,
emission limitations that are included not unique. Smaller utilities, rural Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
in these final actions, the EPA did not electric cooperatives, and municipal Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
consider many of the technologies that entities are also contributing to these Vermont, and Washington.147 These
receive investment under recent Federal changes. commitments are statutory emission
legislation. The EPA’s determination of Many electric utilities have publicly reduction targets accompanied by
the BSER focused on ‘‘measures that announced near- and long-term mandatory agency directives to develop
improve the pollution performance of emission reduction commitments comprehensive implementing
individual sources,’’ 140 not generation independent of these final actions. The regulations to achieve the necessary
technologies that entities could employ Smart Electric Power Alliance reductions. Some of these states, along
as alternatives to fossil fuel-fired EGUs. demonstrates that the geographic with other neighboring states, also
However, these overarching incentives footprint of commitments for 100 participate in the Regional Greenhouse
and policies are important context for percent renewable, net-zero, or other Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon market
this rulemaking and influence where carbon emission reductions by 2050 limiting pollution from power plants
control technologies can be feasibly and made by utilities, their parent throughout New England.148 The
cost-reasonably deployed, as well as companies, or in response to a state pollution limit combined with carbon
how owners and operators of EGUs may clean energy requirement, covers price and allowance market has led
respond to the requirements of these portions of 47 states and includes 80 member states to reduce power sector
final actions. percent of U.S. customer accounts.143 CO2 emissions by nearly 50 percent
According to this same source, 341 since the start of the program in 2009.
2. Commitments by Utilities To Reduce
GHG Emissions utilities in 26 states have similar This is 10 percent more than all non-
commitments by 2040. Additional detail RGGI states.149
Integrated resource plans (IRPs) are about emission reduction commitments
filed by public utilities and demonstrate Other states dependent on coal-fired
from major utilities is provided in power generation or coal production
how utilities plan to meet future section 2.2 of the RIA and in the final
forecasted energy demand while also have significant, albeit non-
TSD, Power Sector Trends.
ensuring reliable and cost-effective 144 Cao, L., Brindle., T., Schneer, K., and DeGolia,
service. In developing these rules, the 3. State Actions To Reduce Power
A. (December 2023). Turning Climate Commitments
EPA reviewed filed IRPs of companies Sector GHG Emissions into Results: Evaluating Updated 2023 Projections
that have publicly committed to States across the country have taken vs. State Climate Targets. Environmental Defense
reducing their GHGs. These IRPs Fund (EDF). https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/
the lead in efforts to reduce GHG 2023–11/EDF-State-Emissions-Gap-December-
demonstrate a range of strategies that emissions from the power sector. As of 2023.pdf.
public utilities are planning to adopt to mid-2023, 25 states had made 145 United Nations Framework Convention on
reduce their GHGs, independent of commitments to reduce economy-wide Climate Change. What is the Paris Agreement?
these final actions. These strategies GHG emissions consistent with the https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-
agreement.
include retiring aging coal-fired steam goals of the Paris Agreement, including 146 U.S. Department of State and U.S. Executive
generating EGUs and replacing them reducing GHG emissions by 50 to 52 Office of the President. November 2021. The Long-
with a combination of renewable Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to
resources, energy storage, other non- 141 See Comments of Edison Electric Institute to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050.
emitting technologies, and natural gas- EPA’s Pre-Proposal Docket on Greenhouse Gas https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/
Regulations for Fossil Fuel-fired Power Plants, 2021/10/us-long-term-strategy.pdf.
fired combustion turbines, and reducing Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0723–0024, 147 Cao, L., Brindle., T., Schneer, K., and DeGolia,
GHGs from their natural gas-fired assets November 18, 2022 (‘‘Fifty EEI members have A., December 2023. Turning Climate Commitments
through a combination of CCS and announced forward-looking carbon reduction goals, into Results: Evaluating Updated 2023 Projections
reduced utilization. To affirm these two-third of which include a net-zero by 2050 or vs. State Climate Targets. Environmental Defense
earlier equivalent goal, and members are routinely Fund (EDF). https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/
findings, according to EIA, as of 2022 increasing the ambition or speed of their goals or 2023-11/EDF-State-Emissions-Gap-December-
there are no new coal-fired EGUs in altogether transforming them into net-zero goals.’’). 2023.pdf.
development. This section highlights 142 Energy Strategy Coalition Comments on EPA’s 148 A full list of states currently participating in
recent actions and announced plans of proposed New Source Performance Standards for RGGI include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
many utilities across the industry to Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
reduce GHGs from their fleets. Indeed, Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Vermont.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil 149 Note that these figures do not include Virginia
139 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of and Pennsylvania, which were not members of
(September 2023). Electricity Sector Emissions the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, Document ID No. RGGI for the full duration of 2009–2023. Acadia
Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act. https:// EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072–0672, August 14, 2023. Center: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative;
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/ 143 Smart Electric Power Alliance Utility Carbon Findings and Recommendations for the Third
Electricity_Emissions_Impacts_Inflation_ Tracker. https://sepapower.org/utility- Program Review. https://acadiacenter.wpengine
Reduction_Act_Report_EPA–FINAL.pdf. transformation-challenge/utility-carbon-reduction- powered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/AC_
140 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. at 734. tracker/. RGGI_2023_Layout_R6.pdf.
binding, commitments that signal broad other states, including Montana and emitted in the state from electric
public support for policy with North Dakota, also have tax incentives generating facilities owned or operated
emissions-based metrics and public and regulations for CCS.156 In the case by electric public utilities from 2005
affirmation that climate change is of Montana, the acquisition of an equity levels by the year 2030 and carbon
fundamentally linked to fossil-intensive interest or lease of coal-fired EGUs is neutrality by the year 2050.’’ 161
energy sources. These states include prohibited unless it captures and stores The ambition and scope of these state
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New at least 50 percent of its CO2 power sector polices will impact the
Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, emissions.157 These state policies have electric generation fleet for decades.
and Virginia. States like Wyoming, the coincided with the planning and Seven states with 100-percent power
top coal producing state in the U.S., development of large CCS projects. sector decarbonization polices include a
have promulgated sector-specific Other states have broad total of 20 coal-fired EGUs with slightly
regulations requiring their public decarbonization laws that will drive less than 10 GW total capacity and
service commissions to implement low- significant decrease in power sector without announced retirement dates
carbon energy standards for public GHG emissions. In New York, The before 2039.162 Virginia, which has
utilities.150 151 Specific standards are Climate Leadership and Community three coal-steam units with no
further detailed in the sections that Protection Act, passed in 2019, sets announced retirement dates and one
follow and in the final TSD, Power several climate targets. The most with a 2045 retirement date, enacted the
Sector Trends. important goals include an 85 percent Clean Economy Act in 2020 to impose
Technologies like CCS provide a reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, a 100 percent RPS requirement by 2050.
means to achieve significant emission 100 percent zero-emission electricity by The combined capacity of all four of
reduction targets. For example, to 2040, and 70 percent renewable energy these units in Virginia totals nearly 1.5
achieve GHG emission reduction goals by 2030. Other targets include 9,000 GW. North Carolina, which has one
legislatively enacted in 2016, California MW of offshore wind by 2035, 3,000 coal-fired unit without an announced
Senate Bill 100, passed in 2018, requires MW of energy storage by 2030, and retirement date and one with a planned
the state to procure 60 percent of all 6,000 MW of solar by 2025.158 2048 retirement, as previously
electricity from renewable sources by Washington State’s Climate mentioned, enacted a state law in 2021
2030 and plan for 100 percent from Commitment Act sets a target of requiring the state’s utilities
carbon-free sources by 2045.152 reducing GHG emissions by 95 percent commission to achieve carbon neutrality
Achieving California’s established goal by 2050. The state is required to reduce by 2050. The combined capacity of both
of carbon-free electricity by 2045 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 45 units totals approximately 1.4 GW of
requires emissions to be balanced by percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 70 capacity. Nebraska, where three public
carbon sequestration, capture, or other percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and utility boards serving a large portion of
technologies. Therefore, California 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. the state have adopted net-zero
Senate Bill 905, passed in 2022, requires This also includes achieving net-zero electricity emission goals by 2040 or
the California Air Resources Board emissions by 2050.159 Illinois’ Climate 2050, includes six coal-fired units with
(CARB) to establish programs for and Equitable Jobs Act, enacted in a combined capacity of 2.9 GW. The
permitting CCS projects while September 2021, requires all private remaining eight units are in states with
preventing the use of captured CO2 for coal-fired or oil-fired power plants to long-term decarbonization goals
EOR within the state.153 As mentioned reach zero carbon emissions by 2030, (Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and
previously, as the top coal producing Wisconsin). All four of these states have
municipal coal-fired plants to reach zero
state, Wyoming has been exceptionally set 100 percent clean energy goals by
carbon emissions by 2045, and natural
persistent on the implementation of CCS 2050.
gas-fired plants to reach zero carbon Twenty-nine states and the District of
by incentivizing the national testing of emissions by 2045.160 In October 2021,
CCS at Basin Electric’s coal-fired Dry Columbia have enforceable RPS 163 that
North Carolina passed House Bill 951 require a percentage of electricity that
Fork Station154 and by requiring the that required the North Carolina
consideration of CCS as an alternative to utilities sell to come from eligible
Utilities Commission to ‘‘take all renewable sources like wind and solar
coal plant retirement.155 At least five reasonable steps to achieve a seventy rather than from fossil fuel-based
150 State of Wyoming. (Adopted March 24, 2020).
percent (70 percent) reduction in sources like coal and natural gas.
House Bill 200 Reliable and dispatchable low- emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) Furthermore, 20 states have adopted a
carbon energy standards. https://www.wyoleg.gov/ CES that includes some form of clean
Legislation/2020/HB0200. standards-amendments. https://www.wyoleg.gov/
151 State of Wyoming. (Adopted March 15, 2024). Legislation/2024/SF0042.
161 General Assembly of North Carolina, House
Senate Bill 42 Low-carbon reliable energy 156 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. 2019.
standards-amendments. https://www.wyoleg.gov/ Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization. Bill 951 (2021). https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/
Legislation/2024/SF0042. Interactive Tracker for State Action on Carbon 2021/Bills/House/PDF/H951v5.pdf.
162 These estimates are based on an analysis of the
152 Berkeley Law. California Climate Policy Capture. https://cdrlaw.org/ccus-tracker/.
EPA’s NEEDS database, which contains information
Dashboard. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/ 157 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. 2019.
about EGUs across the country. The analysis
clee/research/climate/climate-policy-dashboard. Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization. Model
includes a basic screen for units within the NEEDS
153 Berkeley Law. California Climate Policy Laws. Montana prohibition on acquiring coal plants
database that are likely subject to the final 111(d)
Dashboard. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/ without CCS. https://lpdd.org/resources/montana- EGU rule, namely coal-steam units with capacity
clee/research/climate/climate-policy-dashboard. prohibition-on-acquiring-coal-plants-without-ccs/. greater than 25 MW, and then removes units with
154 Basin Electric Power Cooperative. (May 2023). 158 New York State. Climate Act: Progress to our
an announced retirement dates prior to 2039, units
Press Release: Carbon Capture Technology Goals. https://climate.ny.gov/Our-Impact/Our- with announced plans to convert from coal- to gas-
Developers Break Ground at Wyoming Integrated Progress. fired units, and units likely to fall outside of the
Test Center Located at Basin Electric’s Dry Fork 159 Department of Ecology Washington State.
rule’s applicability via the cogeneration exemption.
Station. https://www.basinelectric.com/News- Greenhouse Gases. https://ecology.wa.gov/Air- 163 DSIRE, Renewable Portfolio Standards and
Center/news-briefs/Carbon-capture-technology- Climate/Climate-change/Tracking-greenhouse- Clean Energy Standards (2023). https://ncsolarcen-
developers-break-ground-at-Wyoming-Integrated- gases. prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/
Test-Center-located-at-Basin-Electrics-Dry-Fork- 160 State of Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 12/RPS-CES-Dec2023-1.pdf; LBNL, U.S. State
Station. 102–0662: Climate and Equitable Jobs Act. 2021. Renewables Portfolio & Clean Electricity Standards:
155 State of Wyoming. (Adopted March 15, 2024). https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/102/ 2023 Status Update. https://emp.lbl.gov/
Senate Bill 42 Low-carbon reliable energy PDF/102-0662.pdf. publications/us-state-renewables-portfolio-clean.
energy requirement or goal with a 100 governmental entities, academia, non- remain online, with capacity factors
percent or net-zero target.164 A CES governmental organizations (NGOs), and falling from approximately 48 percent in
shifts generating fleets away from fossil industry, to understand the impacts that 2022 to 45 percent in 2035 at facilities
fuel resources by requiring a percentage the IRA will have on power sector GHG that do not install CCS. By 2050, coal-
of retail electricity to come from sources emissions. In addition to engaging in fired steam generating unit capacity is
that are defined as clean. Unlike an RPS, several workgroups, the EPA has projected to diminish further, with only
which defines eligible generation in contributed to two separate journal 28 GW, or less than 16 percent of 2023
terms of the renewable attributes of its articles that include multi-model capacity (and approximately 9 percent
energy source, CES eligibility is based comparisons of IRA impacts across of the 2010 capacity), still in operation
on the GHG emission attributes of the several state-of-the-art models of the across the continental U.S.
generation itself, typically with a zero or U.S. energy system and electricity
net-zero carbon emissions requirement. sector 166 167 and participated in public These projections are driven by the
Additional discussion of state actions events exploring modeling assumptions eroding economic opportunities for
and legislation to reduce GHG emissions for the IRA.168 The EPA plans to coal-fired steam generating units to
from the power sector is provided in the continue collaborating with operate, the continued aging of the fleet
final TSD, Power Sector Trends. stakeholders, conducting external of coal-fired steam generating units, and
engagements, and using information the continued availability and
F. Future Projections of Power Sector expansion of low-cost alternatives, like
gathered to refine modeling of the IRA.
Trends While much of the discussion below natural gas, renewable technologies, and
Projections for the U.S. power focuses on the EPA’s Power Sector energy storage. The projected
sector—based on the landscape of Platform 2023 using IPM reference case, retirements continue the trend of coal
market forces in addition to the known many other analyses show similar plant retirements in recent decades that
actions of Congress, utilities, and trends,169 and these trends are is described in section IV.D.3. of this
states—have indicated that the ongoing consistent with utility IRPs and public preamble (and further in the Power
transition will continue for specific fuel GHG reduction commitments, as well as Sector Trends technical support
types and EGUs. The EPA’s Power state actions, both of which were document). The decline in coal
Sector Platform 2023 using IPM described in the previous sections. generation capacity has generally
reference case (i.e., the EPA’s resulted from a more competitive
projections of the power sector, which 1. Future Projections for Coal-Fired
Generation economic environment and increasing
includes representation of the IRA coal plant age. Most notably, declines in
absent further regulation), provides As described in the EPA’s baseline natural gas prices associated with the
projections out to 2050 on future modeling, coal-fired steam generating rise of hydraulic fracturing and
outcomes of the electric power sector. unit capacity is projected to fall from horizontal drilling lowered the cost of
For more information on the details of 181 GW in 2023 170 to 52 GW in 2035, natural gas-fired generation.172 Lower
this modeling, see the model of which 11 GW includes retrofit CCS. gas generation costs reduced coal plant
documentation.165 Generation from coal-fired steam capacity factors and revenues. Rapid
Since the passage of the IRA in generating units is projected to also fall declines in the costs of renewables and
August 2022, the EPA has engaged with from 898 thousand GWh in 2021 171 to battery storage have put further price
many external partners, including other 236 thousand GWh by 2035. This
pressure on coal plants, given the zero
change in generation reflects the
marginal cost operation of solar and
164 This count is adapted from Lawrence Berkeley anticipated continued decline in
National Laboratory’s (LBNL) U.S. State Renewables wind.173 174 175 In addition, most
projected coal-fired steam generating
Portfolio & Clean Electricity Standards: 2023 Status operational coal plants today were built
Update, which identifies 15 states with 100 percent unit capacity as well as a steady decline
before 2000, and many are reaching or
CES. The LBNL count includes Virginia, which the in annual operation of those EGUs that
EPA omits because it considers Virginia a 100
have surpassed their expected useful
percent RPS. Further, the LBNL count excludes 166 Bistline, et al. (2023). ‘‘Emissions and Energy lives.176 Retiring coal plants tend to be
Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Wisconsin System Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act of
because their clean energy goals are set by executive 2022.’’ https://www.science.org/stoken/author- 172 International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy
order. The EPA instead includes Louisiana, New tokens/ST-1277/full. Policies of IEA Countries: United States 2019
Jersey, and Wisconsin but characterizes them as 167 Bistline, et al. (2023). ‘‘Power Sector Impacts Review. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/
goals rather than requirements. Michigan, which
of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.’’https:// 7c65c270-ba15-466a-b50d-1c5cd19e359c/United_
enacted a CES by statute after the LBNL report’s
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ States_2019_Review.pdf.
publication, is also included in the EPA count.
ad0d3b. 173 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Finally, the EPA count includes Maryland, whose 168 Resource for the Future (2023). ‘‘Future
December 2023 Climate Pollution Reduction Plan (April 13, 2023). U.S. Electric Capacity Mix shifts
sets a goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2035, and Generation: Exploring the New Baseline for from Fossil Fuels to Renewables in AEO2023.
Delaware, which enacted a statutory goal to reach Electricity in the Presence of the Inflation https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. See LBNL, U.S. Reduction Act.’’ https://www.rff.org/events/rff-live/ detail.php?id=56160.
State Renewables Portfolio & Clean Electricity future-generation-exploring-the-new-baseline-for- 174 Solomon, M., et al. (January 2023). Coal Cost
Standards: 2023 Status Update, https://emp.lbl.gov/ electricity-in-the-presence-of-the-inflation- Crossover 3.0: Local Renewables Plus Storage
publications/us-state-renewables-portfolio-clean; reduction-act/. Create New Opportunities for Customer Savings
169 A wide variety of modeling teams have and Community Reinvestment. Energy Innovation.
Maryland’s Climate Pollution Reduction Plan,
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/ assessed baselines with IRA. The baseline estimated https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/
ClimateChange/Maryland%20Climate here is generally in line with these other estimates. 2023/01/Coal-Cost-Crossover-3.0.pdf.
%20Reduction%20Plan/Maryland%27s Bistline, et al. (2023). ‘‘Power Sector Impacts of the 175 Barbose, G., et al. (September 2023). Tracking
%20Climate%20Pollution%20Reduction Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.’’ https:// the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed
%20Plan%20-%20Final%20-%20Dec iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ Photovoltaic Systems in the United States, 2023

%2028%202023.pdf; and HB 99, An Act to Amend ad0d3b. Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Titles 7 and 29 of the Delaware Code Relating to 170 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/5_tracking_
Climate Change, https://legis.delaware.gov/json/ Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, the_sun_2023_report.pdf.
BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocumentEngrossment December 2023. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/ 176 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
?engrossmentId=25785&docTypeId=6. data/eia860m/ (August 2022). Electric Generators Inventory, Form–
165 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Power 171 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 860M, Inventory of Operating Generators and
Sector Platform 2023 using IPM. April 2024. https:// Electric Power Annual, table 3.1.A. November 2022. Inventory of Retired Generators. https://
www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/. www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/.
old.177 As plants age, their efficiency thousand GWh in 2021179 to 1,344 natural gas-fired combustion turbines
tends to decline and operations and thousand GWh by 2035. Power sector differ from those highlighted in recent
maintenance costs increase. Older coal related CO2 emissions from natural gas- historical trends. The largest source of
plant operational parameters are less fired EGUs were 615 million metric tons new generation is from renewable
aligned with current electric grid needs. in 2021.180 By 2035, emission levels are energy, and projections show that total
Coal plants historically were used as projected to reach 521 million metric natural gas-fired combined cycle
base load power sources and can be tons, 96 percent of which comes from capacity is likely to decline after 2030
slow (or expensive) to increase or NGCC sources. in response to increased generation from
decrease generation output throughout a The decline in generation and
renewables, deployment of energy
typical day. That has put greater emissions is driven by a projected
storage, and other technologies.
economic pressure on older coal plants, decline in NGCC capacity factors. In
model projections, NGCC units have a Approximately 95 percent of capacity
which are forced to either incur the additions in 2024 are expected to be
costs of adjusting their generation or capacity factor early in the projection
period of 59 percent, but by 2035, from non-emitting generation resources
operate during less profitable hours
capacity factor projections fall to 48 including solar, battery storage, wind,
when loads are lower or renewable
generation is more plentiful.178 All of percent as many of these units switch and nuclear.181 The IRA is likely to
these factors have contributed to from base load operation to more influence this trend, which is also
retirements over the past 15 years, and intermediate load operation to support expected to impact the operation of
similar underlying factors are projected the integration of variable renewable certain combustion turbines. For
to continue the trend of coal retirements energy resources. Natural gas-fired example, as the electric output from
in the coming years. simple cycle turbine capacity factors additional variable renewable
In 2020, there was a total of 1,439 also fall, although since they are used generating sources fluctuates daily and
million metric tons of CO2 emissions primarily as a peaking resource and seasonally, flexible low and
from the power sector with coal-fired their capacity factors are already below intermediate load combustion turbines
sources contributing to more than half 10 percent annually, their impact on will be needed to support these variable
of those emissions. In the EPA’s Power generation and emissions changes are sources and provide reliability to the
Sector Platform 2023 using IPM less notable. grid. This requires the ability to start
reference case, power sector related CO2 Some of the reasons for this and stop quickly and change load more
emission are projected to fall to 724 anticipated continued growth in natural
frequently. Today’s system includes 212
million metric tons by 2035, of which gas-fired capacity, coupled with a
GW of intermediate and low load
23 percent is projected to come from decline in generation and emissions,
combustion turbines. These operational
coal-fired sources in 2035. include the anticipated growth in peak
load, retirement of older fossil changes, alongside other tools like
2. Future Projections for Natural Gas- generators, and growth in renewable demand response, energy storage, and
Fired Generation energy coupled with the greater expanded transmission, will maintain
flexibility offered by combustion reliability of the grid.
As described in the EPA’s Power
Sector Platform 2023 using IPM turbines. Simple cycle turbines operate V. Statutory Background and
reference case, natural gas-fired capacity at lower efficiencies than NGCC units Regulatory History for CAA Section 111
is expected to continue to build out but offer fast startup times to meet
during the next decade with 34 GW of peaking load demands. In addition, A. Statutory Authority To Regulate
new capacity projected to come online combustion turbines, along with energy GHGs From EGUs Under CAA Section
by 2035 and 261 GW of new capacity by storage technologies and demand 111
2050. By 2035, the new natural gas response strategies, support the
expansion of renewable electricity by The EPA’s authority for and
capacity is comprised of 14 GW of
meeting demand during peak periods obligation to issue these final rules is
simple cycle turbines and 20 GW of
and providing flexibility around the CAA section 111, which establishes
combined cycle turbines. By 2050, most
variability of renewable generation and mechanisms for controlling emissions of
of the incremental new capacity is
projected to come just from simple cycle electricity demand. In the longer term, air pollutants from new and existing
turbines. This also represents a higher as renewables and battery storage grow, stationary sources. CAA section
rate of new simple cycle turbine builds they are anticipated to outcompete the 111(b)(1)(A) requires the EPA
compared to the reference periods (i.e., need for some natural gas-fired Administrator to promulgate a list of
2000–2006 and 2007–2021) discussed generation and the overall utilization of categories of stationary sources that the
previously in this section. natural gas-fired capacity is expected to Administrator, in his or her judgment,
It should be noted that despite this decline. For additional discussion and finds ‘‘causes, or contributes
increase in capacity, both overall analysis of projections of future coal- significantly to, air pollution which may
generation and emissions from the and natural gas-fired generation, see the reasonably be anticipated to endanger
natural gas-fired capacity are projected final TSD, Power Sector Trends in the public health or welfare.’’ The EPA has
to decline. Generation from natural gas docket for this rulemaking. the authority to define the scope of the
units is projected to fall from 1,579 As explained in greater detail later in source categories, determine the
this preamble and in the accompanying pollutants for which standards should
177 Mills, A., et al. (November 2017). Power Plant RIA, future generation projections for be developed, and distinguish among
Retirements: Trends and Possible Drivers. Lawrence classes, types, and sizes within
Berkeley National Laboratory. https://live- 179 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
etabiblio.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/lbnl_ Electric Power Annual, table 3.1.A. November 2022.

categories in establishing the standards.
retirements_data_synthesis_final.pdf. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/.
178 National Association of Regulatory Utility 180 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 181 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Commissioners. (January 2020). Recent Changes to Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources Today in Energy. Solar and battery storage to make
U.S. Coal Plant Operations and Current and Sinks. February 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ up 81 percent of new U.S. electric-generating
Compensation Practices. https://pubs.naruc.org/ system/files/documents/2023-02/US-GHG- capacity in 2024. February 2024. https://
pub/7B762FE1-A71B-E947-04FB-D2154DE77D45. Inventory-2023-Main-Text.pdf. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424.
1. Regulation of Emissions From New performance’’ in CAA 111(a)(1) makes components of the BSER itself. The
Sources clear that the EPA is to determine both EPA’s emission guidelines must also
Once the EPA lists a source category, the ‘‘best system of emission reduction permit a state, ‘‘in applying a standard
the EPA must, under CAA section . . . adequately demonstrated’’ (BSER) of performance to any particular
111(b)(1)(B), establish ‘‘standards of for the regulated sources in the source source,’’ to ‘‘take into consideration,
performance’’ for ‘‘new sources’’ in the category and the ‘‘degree of emission among other factors, the remaining
source category. These standards are limitation achievable through the useful life of the existing source to
referred to as new source performance application of the [BSER].’’ West which such standard applies.’’ 42 U.S.C.
standards, or NSPS. The NSPS are Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 709 7411(d)(1). Once a state receives the
national requirements that apply (2022). To determine the BSER, the EPA EPA’s approval of its plan, the
first identifies the ‘‘system[s] of provisions in the plan become federally
directly to the sources subject to them.
Under CAA section 111(a)(1), a emission reduction’’ that are enforceable against the source, in the
‘‘standard of performance’’ is defined, in ‘‘adequately demonstrated,’’ and then same manner as the provisions of an
the singular, as ‘‘a standard for determines the ‘‘best’’ of those systems, approved State Implementation Plan
emissions of air pollutants’’ that is ‘‘taking into account’’ factors including (SIP) under the Act. CAA section
‘‘cost,’’ ‘‘nonair quality health and 111(d)(2)(B). If a state elects not to
determined in a specified manner, as
environmental impact,’’ and ‘‘energy submit a plan or submits a plan that the
noted in this section, below.
Under CAA section 111(a)(2), a ‘‘new requirements.’’ The EPA then derives EPA does not find ‘‘satisfactory,’’ the
source’’ is defined, in the singular, as from that system an ‘‘achievable’’ EPA must promulgate a plan that
‘‘any stationary source, the construction ‘‘degree of emission limitation.’’ The establishes Federal standards of
EPA must then, under CAA section performance for the state’s existing
or modification of which is commenced
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate ‘‘standard[s] sources. CAA section 111(d)(2)(A).
after the publication of regulations (or,
for emissions’’—the NSPS—that reflect
if earlier, proposed regulations) 3. EPA Review of Requirements
that level of stringency.
prescribing a standard of performance CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the
under this section, which will be 2. Regulation of Emissions From EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years, review
applicable to such source.’’ Under CAA Existing Sources and, if appropriate, revise’’ new source
section 111(a)(3), a ‘‘stationary source’’ When the EPA establishes a standard performance standards. However, the
is defined as ‘‘any building, structure, for emissions of an air pollutant from Administrator need not review any such
facility, or installation which emits or new sources within a category, it must standard if the ‘‘Administrator
may emit any air pollutant.’’ Under also, under CAA section 111(d), regulate determines that such review is not
CAA section 111(a)(4), ‘‘modification’’ emissions of that pollutant from existing appropriate in light of readily available
means any physical change in, or sources within the same category, information on the efficacy’’ of the
change in the method of operation of, a unless the pollutant is regulated under standard. Id. When conducting a review
stationary source which increases the the National Ambient Air Quality of an NSPS, the EPA has the discretion
amount of any air pollutant emitted by Standards (NAAQS) program, under and authority to add emission limits for
such source or which results in the CAA sections 108–110, or the National pollutants or emission sources not
emission of any air pollutant not Emission Standards for Hazardous Air currently regulated for that source
previously emitted. While this provision Pollutants (NESHAP) program, under category. CAA section 111 does not by
treats modified sources as new sources, CAA section 112. See CAA section its terms require the EPA to review
EPA regulations also treat a source that 111(d)(1)(A)(i) and (ii); West Virginia, emission guidelines for existing sources,
undergoes ‘‘reconstruction’’ as a new 597 U.S. at 710. but the EPA retains the authority to do
source. Under the provisions in 40 CFR CAA section 111(d) establishes a so. See 81 FR 59277 (August 29, 2016)
60.15, ‘‘reconstruction’’ means the framework of ‘‘cooperative federalism (explaining legal authority to review
replacement of components of an for the regulation of existing sources.’’ emission guidelines for municipal solid
existing facility such that: (1) The fixed American Lung Ass’n, 985 F.3d at 931. waste landfills).
capital cost of the new components CAA sections 111(d)(1)(A)–(B) require
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital ‘‘[t]he Administrator . . . to prescribe B. History of EPA Regulation of
cost that would be required to construct regulations’’ that require ‘‘[e]ach state Greenhouse Gases From Electricity
a comparable entirely new facility; and . . . to submit to [EPA] a plan . . . Generating Units Under CAA Section
(2) it is technologically and which establishes standards of 111 and Caselaw
economically feasible to meet the performance for any existing stationary The EPA has listed more than 60
applicable standards. Pursuant to CAA source for’’ the air pollutant at issue, stationary source categories under CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of and which ‘‘provides for the section 111(b)(1)(A). See 40 CFR part 60,
performance or revisions thereof shall implementation and enforcement of subparts Cb–OOOO. In 1971, the EPA
become effective upon promulgation. such standards of performance.’’ CAA listed fossil fuel-fired EGUs (which
In setting or revising a performance section 111(a)(6) defines an ‘‘existing includes natural gas, petroleum, and
standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) source’’ as ‘‘any stationary source other coal) that use steam-generating boilers
provides that performance standards are than a new source.’’ in a category under CAA section
to reflect ‘‘the degree of emission To meet these requirements, the EPA 111(b)(1)(A). See 36 FR 5931 (March 31,
limitation achievable through the promulgates ‘‘emission guidelines’’ that 1971) (listing ‘‘fossil fuel-fired steam
application of the best system of identify the BSER and the degree of generators of more than 250 million Btu
emission reduction which (taking into emission limitation achievable through per hour heat input’’). In 1977, the EPA
account the cost of achieving such the application of the BSER. Each state listed fossil fuel-fired combustion
reduction and any non-air quality health must then establish standards of turbines, which can be used in EGUs, in
and environmental impact and energy performance for its sources that reflect a category under CAA section
requirements) the Administrator that level of stringency. However, the 111(b)(1)(A). See 42 FR 53657 (October
determines has been adequately states need not compel regulated 3, 1977) (listing ‘‘stationary gas
demonstrated.’’ The term ‘‘standard of sources to adopt the particular turbines’’).
Beginning in 2007, several decisions reconstructed fossil fuel-fired electric CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and deferred
by the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. utility steam generating units, i.e., action on one petition that raised the
Circuit have made clear that under CAA utility boilers and IGCC EGUs, and issue of the treatment of biomass. Apart
section 111, the EPA has authority to newly constructed and reconstructed from these petitions, the EPA proposed
regulate GHG emissions from listed stationary combustion turbine EGUs. to revise the 2015 NSPS in 2018, as
source categories. The U.S. Supreme These final standards are codified in 40 discussed in section V.B.2.
Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. In Multiple parties also filed petitions
that GHGs 182 meet the definition of ‘‘air promulgating the NSPS for newly for judicial review of the 2015 NSPS in
pollutant’’ in the CAA,183 and constructed fossil fuel-fired steam the D.C. Circuit. These cases have been
subsequently premised its decision in generating units, the EPA determined briefed and, on the EPA’s motion, are
AEP v. Connecticut 184—that the CAA the BSER to be a new, highly efficient, being held in abeyance pending EPA
displaced any Federal common law supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) action concerning the 2018 proposal to
right to compel reductions in CO2 EGU that implements post-combustion revise the 2015 NSPS.
emissions from fossil fuel-fired power partial CCS technology. The EPA In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA noted that
plants—on its view that CAA section concluded that CCS was adequately it was authorized to regulate GHGs from
111 applies to GHG emissions. The D.C. demonstrated (including being the fossil fuel-fired EGU source
Circuit confirmed in American Lung technically feasible) and widely categories because it had listed those
Ass’n v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914, 977 (D.C. available and could be implemented at source categories under CAA section
Cir. 2021), discussed in section V.B.5, reasonable cost. The EPA identified 111(b)(1)(A). The EPA added that CAA
that the EPA is authorized to natural gas co-firing and IGCC section 111 did not require it to make
promulgate requirements under CAA technology (either with natural gas co- a determination that GHGs from EGUs
section 111 for GHG from the fossil fuel- firing or implementing partial CCS) as contribute significantly to dangerous air
fired EGU source category alternative methods of compliance. pollution (a pollutant-specific
notwithstanding that the source The 2015 NSPS included standards of significant contribution finding), but in
category is regulated under CAA section performance for steam generating units the alternative, the EPA did make that
112. As discussed in section V.B.6, the that undergo a ‘‘reconstruction’’ as well finding. It explained that ‘‘[greenhouse
U.S. Supreme Court did not accept as units that implement ‘‘large gas] air pollution may reasonably be
certiorari on the question whether the modifications,’’ (i.e., modifications anticipated to endanger public health or
EPA could regulate GHGs from fossil- resulting in an increase in hourly CO2 welfare,’’ 80 FR 64530 (October 23,
fuel fired EGUs under CAA section emissions of more than 10 percent). The 2015) and emphasized that power plants
111(d) when other pollutants from 2015 NSPS did not establish standards are ‘‘by far the largest emitters’’ of
fossil-fuel fired EGUs are regulated of performance for steam generating greenhouse gases among stationary
under CAA section 112 in West Virginia units that undertake ‘‘small sources in the U.S. Id. at 64522. In
v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and so the modifications’’ (i.e., modifications American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 985 F.3d
D.C. Circuit’s holding on this issue resulting in an increase in hourly CO2 977 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that
remains good law. emissions of less than or equal to 10 even if the EPA were required to
In 2015, the EPA promulgated two percent), due to the limited information determine that CO2 from fossil fuel-fired
rules that addressed CO2 emissions from available to inform the analysis of a EGUs contributes significantly to
fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The first BSER and corresponding standard of dangerous air pollution—and the court
promulgated standards of performance performance. emphasized that it was not deciding that
for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The 2015 NSPS also finalized the EPA was required to make such a
‘‘Standards of Performance for standards of performance for newly pollutant-specific determination—the
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, constructed and reconstructed determination in the alternative that the
Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary stationary combustion turbine EGUs. EPA made in the 2015 NSPS was not
Sources: Electric Utility Generating For newly constructed and arbitrary and capricious and,
Units; Final Rule,’’ (80 FR 64510; reconstructed base load natural gas-fired accordingly, the EPA had a sufficient
October 23, 2015) (2015 NSPS). The stationary combustion turbines, the EPA basis to regulate greenhouse gases from
finalized a standard based on efficient EGUs under CAA section 111(d) in the
second promulgated emission
NGCC technology as the BSER. For ACE Rule. This aspect of the decision
guidelines for existing sources. ‘‘Carbon
newly constructed and reconstructed remains good law. The EPA is not
Pollution Emission Guidelines for
non-base load natural gas-fired reopening and did not solicit comment
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
stationary combustion turbines and for on any of those determinations in the
Utility Generating Units; Final Rule,’’
both base load and non-base load multi- 2015 NSPS concerning its rational basis
(80 FR 64662; October 23, 2015) (Clean
fuel-fired stationary combustion to regulate GHG emissions from EGUs or
Power Plan, or CPP).
turbines, the EPA finalized a heat input- its alternative finding that GHG
1. 2015 NSPS based standard based on the use of emissions from EGUs contribute
In 2015, the EPA promulgated an lower-emitting fuels (referred to as clean significantly to dangerous air pollution.
NSPS to limit emissions of GHGs, fuels in the 2015 NSPS). The EPA did
not promulgate final standards of 2. 2018 NSPS Proposal To Revise the
manifested as CO2, from newly 2015 NSPS
constructed, modified, and performance for modified stationary
combustion turbines due to lack of In 2018, the EPA proposed to revise
the NSPS for new, modified, and
182 The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding defines information. The 2015 NSPS remains in
the air pollution which may endanger public health effect today. reconstructed fossil fuel-fired steam
and welfare as the well-mixed aggregate group of The EPA received six petitions for generating units and IGCC units, in the
the following gases: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous reconsideration of the 2015 NSPS. On Review of Standards of Performance for
oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons
May 6, 2016 (81 FR 27442), the EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New,
(PFCs). denied five of the petitions on the basis Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary
183 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007). that they did not satisfy the statutory Sources: Electric Utility Generating
184 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537–38 (2011). conditions for reconsideration under Units; Proposed Rule (83 FR 65424;
December 20, 2018) (2018 NSPS determined the ‘‘degree of emission ‘‘generation-shifting measures.’’ See 84
Proposal). The EPA proposed to revise limitation achievable through the FR 32529 (July 8, 2019). The EPA
the NSPS for newly constructed units, application of the [BSER],’’ CAA section acknowledged, however, that ‘‘[m]arket-
based on a revised BSER of a highly 111(a)(1), expressed as emission based forces ha[d] already led to
efficient SCPC, without partial CCS. The performance rates. See 80 FR 64667 significant generation shifting in the
EPA also proposed to revise the NSPS (October 23, 2015). The EPA explained power sector,’’ (84 FR 32532; July 8,
for modified and reconstructed units. As that a state would ‘‘have to ensure, 2019), and that there was ‘‘likely to be
discussed in IX.A, in the present action, through its plan, that the emission no difference between a world where
the EPA is withdrawing this proposed standards it establishes for its sources the CPP is implemented and one where
rule.185 individually, in the aggregate, or in it is not.’’ See 84 FR 32561 (July 8,
combination with other measures 2019); the Regulatory Impact Analysis
3. Clean Power Plan
undertaken by the state, represent the for the Repeal of the Clean Power Plan,
With the promulgation of the 2015 equivalent of’’ those performance rates and the Emission Guidelines for
NSPS, the EPA also incurred a statutory (80 FR 64667; October 23, 2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
obligation under CAA section 111(d) to Neither states nor sources were required Existing Electric Utility Generating
issue emission guidelines for GHG to apply the specific measures identified Units, 2–1 to 2–5.186
emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired in the BSER (80 FR 64667; October 23, In addition, the EPA promulgated in
steam generating EGUs and stationary 2015), and states could include trading the ACE Rule a new set of emission
combustion turbine EGUs, which the or averaging programs in their state guidelines for existing coal-fired steam-
EPA initially fulfilled with the plans for compliance. See 80 FR 64840 generating EGUs. See 84 FR 32532 (July
promulgation of the CPP. See 80 FR (October 23, 2015). 8, 2019). In light of ‘‘the legal
64662 (October 23, 2015). The EPA first Numerous states and private parties interpretation adopted in the repeal of
determined that the BSER included petitioned for review of the CPP before the CPP,’’ (84 FR 32532; July 8, 2019)—
three types of measures: (1) improving the D.C. Circuit. On February 9, 2016, which ‘‘limit[ed] ‘standards of
heat rate (i.e., the amount of fuel that the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule performance’ to systems that can be
must be burned to generate a unit of pending review, West Virginia v. EPA, applied at and to a stationary source,’’
electricity) at coal-fired steam plants; (2) 577 U.S. 1126 (2016). The D.C. Circuit (84 FR 32534; July 8, 2019)—the EPA
substituting increased generation from held the litigation in abeyance, and found the BSER to be heat rate
lower-emitting NGCC plants for ultimately dismissed it at the improvements alone. See 84 FR 32535
generation from higher-emitting steam petitioners’ request. American Lung (July 8, 2019). The EPA listed various
plants (which are primarily coal-fired); Ass’n, 985 F.3d at 937. technologies that could improve heat
and (3) substituting increased 4. The CPP Repeal and ACE Rule rate (84 FR 32536; July 8, 2019), and
generation from new renewable energy identified the ‘‘degree of emission
sources for generation from fossil fuel- In 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP limitation achievable’’ by ‘‘providing
fired steam plants and combustion and replaced it with the ACE Rule. In ranges of expected [emission]
turbines. See 80 FR 64667 (October 23, contrast to its interpretation of CAA reductions associated with each of the
2015). The latter two measures are section 111 in the CPP, in the ACE Rule
technologies.’’ See 84 FR 32537–38 (July
known as ‘‘generation shifting’’ because the EPA determined that the statutory
8, 2019).
they involve shifting electricity ‘‘text and reasonable inferences from it’’
generation from higher-emitting sources make ‘‘clear’’ that a ‘‘system’’ of 5. D.C. Circuit Decision in American
to lower-emitting ones. See 80 FR emission reduction under CAA section Lung Association v. EPA Concerning the
64728–29 (October 23, 2015). 111(a)(1) ‘‘is limited to measures that CPP Repeal and ACE Rule
The EPA based this BSER can be applied to and at the level of the Numerous states and private parties
determination on a technical record that individual source,’’ (84 FR 32529; July petitioned for review of the CPP Repeal
evaluated generation shifting, including 8, 2019); that is, the system must be and ACE Rule. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit
its cost-effectiveness, against the limited to control measures that could vacated the ACE Rule, including the
relevant statutory criteria for BSER and be applied at and to each source to CPP Repeal. American Lung Ass’n v.
on a legal interpretation that the term reduce emissions at each source. See 84 EPA, 985 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The
‘‘system’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1) is FR 32523–24 (July 8, 2019). Specifically, court held, among other things, that
sufficiently broad to encompass shifting the ACE Rule argued that the CAA section 111(d) does not limit the
of generation from higher-emitting to requirements in CAA sections 111(d)(1), EPA, in determining the BSER, to
lower-emitting sources. See 80 FR 64720 (a)(3), and (a)(6), that each state measures applied at and to an
(October 23, 2015). The EPA then establish a standard of performance individual source. The court noted that
‘‘for’’ ‘‘any existing source,’’ defined, in ‘‘the sole ground on which the EPA
185 In the 2018 NSPS Proposal, the EPA solicited general, as any ‘‘building . . . [or] defends its abandonment of the [CPP] in
comment on whether it is required to make a facility,’’ and the requirement in CAA favor of the ACE Rule is that the text of
determination that GHGs from a source category section 111(a)(1) that the degree of
contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution [CAA section 111] is clear and
emission limitation must be
as a predicate to promulgating a NSPS for GHG unambiguous in constraining the EPA to
‘‘achievable’’ through the ‘‘application’’
emissions from that source category for the first use only improvements at and to
time. 83 FR 65432 (December 20, 2018). The EPA of the BSER, by their terms, impose this
existing sources in its [BSER].’’ 985 F.3d
subsequently issued a final rule that provided that limitation. The EPA concluded that
it would not regulate GHGs under CAA section 111 at 944. The court found ‘‘nothing in the
generation shifting is not such a control
from a source category unless the GHGs from the text, structure, history, or purpose of
measure. See 84 FR 32546 (July 8, 2019).
category exceed 3 percent of total U.S. GHG [CAA section 111] that compels the
emissions, on grounds that GHGs emitted in a lesser Based on its view that the CPP was a
reading the EPA adopted.’’ 985 F.3d at
amount do not contribute significantly to dangerous ‘‘major rule,’’ the EPA further
air pollution. 86 FR 2652 (January 13, 2021). 957. The court likewise rejected the
determined that, absent ‘‘a clear
Shortly afterwards, the D.C. Circuit granted an
unopposed motion by the EPA for voluntary vacatur
statement from Congress,’’ the term 186 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
and remand of the final rule. California v. EPA, No. ‘‘ ‘system of emission reduction’ ’’ 06/documents/utilities_ria_final_cpp_repeal_and_
21–1035, doc. 1893155 (D.C. Cir. April 5, 2021). should not be read to encompass ace_2019-06.pdf.
view that the CPP’s use of generation- from fossil-fuel fired power plants ‘‘the magnitude and consequence’’ of
shifting implicated a ‘‘major question’’ under CAA section 111, when fossil-fuel the CPP. Id. at 2616. It noted ‘‘the
requiring unambiguous authorization by fired power plants are regulated for magnitude of this unprecedented power
Congress. 985 F.3d at 958–68. other pollutants under CAA section 112. over American industry,’’ id. at 2612
The D.C. Circuit concluded that, In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court (internal quotation marks and citation
because the EPA had relied on an reversed the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of the omitted), and added that the EPA’s
‘‘erroneous legal premise,’’ both the CPP ACE Rule’s embedded repeal of the CPP. adoption of generation shifting
Repeal Rule and the ACE Rule should West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 ‘‘represent[ed] a transformative
be vacated. 985 F.3d at 995. The court (2022). The Supreme Court stated that expansion in its regulatory authority.’’
did not decide, however, ‘‘whether the CAA section 111 authorizes the EPA to Id. at 2610 (internal quotation marks
approach of the ACE Rule is a determine the BSER and the degree of and citation omitted). The Court also
permissible reading of the statute as a emission limitation that state plans viewed the CPP as promulgating ‘‘a
matter of agency discretion,’’ 985 F.3d at must achieve. Id. at 2601–02. The program that . . . Congress had
944, and instead ‘‘remanded to the EPA Supreme Court concluded, however, considered and rejected multiple
so that the Agency may ‘consider the that the CPP’s BSER of ‘‘generation- times.’’ Id. at 2614 (internal quotation
question afresh,’ ’’ 985 F.3d at 995 shifting’’ raised a ‘‘major question,’’ and marks and citation omitted). For these
(citations omitted). was not clearly authorized by section and related reasons, the Court viewed
The court also rejected the arguments 111. The Court characterized the the CPP as raising a major question, and
that the EPA cannot regulate CO2 generation-shifting BSER as therefore, requiring ‘‘clear congressional
emissions from coal-fired power plants ‘‘restructuring the Nation’s overall mix authorization’’ as a basis. Id. (internal
under CAA section 111(d) at all because of electricity generation,’’ and stated quotation marks and citation omitted).
it had already regulated mercury that the EPA’s claim that CAA section The Court declined to address the
emissions from coal-fired power plants 111 authorized it to promulgate D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that the text of
under CAA section 112. 985 F.3d at 988. generation shifting as the BSER was CAA section 111 did not limit the type
In addition, the court held that that the ‘‘not only unprecedented; it also of ‘‘system’’ the EPA could consider as
2015 NSPS included a valid effected a fundamental revision of the the BSER to measures applied at and to
determination that greenhouse gases statute, changing it from one sort of an individual source. See id. at 2615.
from the EGU source category scheme of regulation into an entirely Nor did the Court address the scope of
contributed significantly to dangerous different kind.’’ Id. at 2612 (internal the states’ compliance flexibilities.
air pollution, which provided a quotation marks, brackets, and citation
sufficient basis for a CAA section 111(d) 7. D.C. Circuit Order Reinstating the
omitted). The Court explained that the ACE Rule
rule regulating greenhouse gases from EPA, in prior rules under CAA section
existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Id. at On October 27, 2022, the D.C. Circuit
111, had set emissions limits based on responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s
977. ‘‘measures that would reduce pollution
Because the D.C. Circuit vacated the reversal by recalling its mandate for the
by causing the regulated source to vacatur of the ACE Rule. American Lung
ACE Rule on the grounds noted above,
operate more cleanly.’’ Id. at 2610. The Ass’n v. EPA, No. 19–1140, Order
it did not address the other challenges
Court noted with approval those ‘‘more (October 27, 2022). Accordingly, at that
to the ACE Rule, including the
traditional air pollution control time, the ACE Rule came back into
arguments by Petitioners that the heat
measures,’’ and gave as examples ‘‘fuel- effect. The court also revised its
rate improvement BSER was inadequate
switching’’ and ‘‘add-on controls,’’ judgment to deny petitions for review
because of the limited number of
which, the Court observed, the EPA had challenging the CPP Repeal Rule,
reductions it achieved and because the
considered in the CPP. Id. at 2611 consistent with the judgment in West
ACE Rule failed to include an
(internal quotations marks and citation Virginia, so that the CPP remains
appropriately specific degree of
omitted). In contrast, the Court repealed. The court took further action
emission limitation.
Upon a motion from the EPA, the D.C. continued, generation shifting was denying several of the petitions for
Circuit agreed to stay its mandate with ‘‘unprecedented’’ because ‘‘[r]ather than review unaffected by the Supreme
respect to vacatur of the CPP Repeal, focus on improving the performance of Court’s decision in West Virginia, which
American Lung Assn v. EPA, No. 19– individual sources, it would improve means that certain parts of its 2021
1140, Order (February 22, 2021), so that the overall power system by lowering decision in American Lung Association
the CPP remained repealed. Therefore, the carbon intensity of power remain in effect. These parts include the
following the D.C. Circuit’s decision, no generation. And it would do that by holding that the EPA’s prior regulation
EPA rule under CAA section 111 to forcing a shift throughout the power of mercury emissions from coal-fired
reduce GHGs from existing fossil fuel- grid from one type of energy source to electric power plants under CAA
fired EGUs remained in place. another.’’ Id. at 2611–12 (internal section 112 does not preclude the
quotation marks, emphasis, and citation Agency from regulating CO2 from coal-
6. U.S. Supreme Court Decision in West omitted). fired electric power plants under CAA
Virginia v. EPA Concerning the CPP The Court recognized that a rule section 111, and the holding, discussed
The Supreme Court granted petitions based on traditional measures ‘‘may end above, that the 2015 NSPS included a
for certiorari from the D.C. Circuit’s up causing an incidental loss of coal’s valid significant contribution
American Lung Association decision, market share,’’ but emphasized that the determination and therefore provided a
limited to the question of whether CAA CPP was ‘‘obvious[ly] differen[t]’’ sufficient basis for a CAA section 111(d)
section 111 authorized the EPA to because, with its generation-shifting rule regulating greenhouse gases from
determine that ‘‘generation shifting’’ BSER, it ‘‘simply announc[ed] what the existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The
was the best system of emission market share of coal, natural gas, wind, court’s holding to invalidate
reduction for fossil-fuel fired EGUs. The and solar must be, and then require[ed] amendments to the implementing
Supreme Court did not grant certiorari plants to reduce operations or subsidize regulations applicable to emission
on the question of whether the EPA was their competitors to get there.’’ Id. at guidelines under CAA section 111(d)
authorized to regulate GHG emissions 2613 n.4. The Court also emphasized that extended the preexisting schedules
for state and Federal actions and The EPA’s authority to determine the kind, class, or group,’’ or ‘‘qualities
sources’ compliance, also remains in BSER includes the authority to create common to a number of individuals that
force. Based on the EPA’s stated subcategories that tailor the BSER for distinguish them as an identifiable
intention to replace the ACE Rule, the differently situated sets of sources. class.’’ See https://www.merriam-
court stayed further proceedings with Again, for new sources, CAA section webster.com/dictionary/type.
respect to the ACE Rule, including the 111(b)(2) confers authority for the EPA The EPA has developed subcategories
various challenges that its BSER was to ‘‘distinguish among classes, types, in many rulemakings under CAA
flawed because it did not achieve and sizes within categories.’’ Though section 111 since the 1970s. These
sufficient emission reductions and CAA section 111(d) does not speak rulemakings have included
failed to specify an appropriately specifically to the creation of subcategories on the basis of the size of
specific degree of emission limitation. subcategories for a category of existing the sources, see 40 CFR 60.40b(b)(1)–(2)
sources, the authority to identify the (subcategorizing certain coal-fired steam
C. Detailed Discussion of CAA Section ‘‘best’’ system of emission reduction for generating units on the basis of heat
111 Requirements existing sources includes the discretion input capacity); the types of fuel
This section discusses in more detail to differentiate between differently combusted, see Sierra Club, v. EPA, 657
the key requirements of CAA section situated sources in the category, and F.2d 298, 318–19 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
111 for both new and existing sources group those sources into subcategories (upholding a rulemaking that
that are relevant for these rulemakings. in appropriate circumstances. The size, established different NSPS ‘‘for utility
type, class, and other characteristics can plants that burn coal of varying sulfur
1. Approach to the Source Category and make different emission controls more content’’), 2015 NSPS, 80 FR 64510,
Subcategorizing appropriate for different sources. A 64602 (table 15) (October 23, 2015)
CAA section 111 requires the EPA system of emission reduction that is (subdividing new combustion turbines
first to list stationary source categories ‘‘best’’ for some sources may not be on the basis of type of fuel combusted);
that cause or contribute to air pollution ‘‘best’’ for others with different the types of equipment used to produce
which may reasonably be anticipated to characteristics. For more than four products, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016)
endanger public health or welfare and decades, the EPA has interpreted CAA (promulgating separate NSPS for many
then to regulate new sources within section 111(d) to confer authority on the types of oil and gas sources, such as
each such source category. CAA section Agency to create subcategories. The centrifugal compressors, pneumatic
111(b)(2) grants the EPA discretion EPA’s implementing regulations under controllers, and well sites); types of
whether to ‘‘distinguish among classes, CAA section 111(d), promulgated in manufacturing processes used to
types, and sizes within categories of 1975, 40 FR 53340 (November 17, 1975), produce product, see 42 FR 12022
new sources for the purpose of provide that the Administrator will (March 1, 1977) (announcing
specify different emission guidelines or availability of final guideline document
establishing [new source] standards,’’
compliance times or both ‘‘for different for control of atmospheric fluoride
which we refer to as ‘‘subcategorizing.’’
sizes, types, and classes of designated emissions from existing phosphate
Whether and how to subcategorize is a
facilities when [based on] costs of fertilizer plants) and ‘‘Final Guideline
decision for which the EPA is entitled
control, physical limitations, Document: Control of Fluoride
to a ‘‘high degree of deference’’ because
geographical location, or [based on] Emissions From Existing Phosphate
it entails ‘‘scientific judgment.’’ Lignite
similar factors.’’ 187 This regulation Fertilizer Plants,’’ EPA–450/2–77–005
Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930,
governs the EPA’s general authority to 1–7 to 1–9, including table 1–2
933 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
subcategorize under CAA section (applying different control requirements
Although CAA section 111(d)(1) does 111(d), and the EPA is not reopening for different manufacturing operations
not explicitly address subcategorization, that issue here. At the time of for phosphate fertilizer); levels of
since its first regulations implementing promulgation, the EPA explained that utilization of the sources, see 2015
the CAA, the EPA has interpreted it to subcategorization allows the EPA to take NSPS, 80 FR 64510, 64602 (table 15)
authorize the Agency to exercise into account ‘‘differences in sizes and (October 23, 2015) (dividing new
discretion as to whether and, if so, how types of facilities and similar natural gas-fired combustion turbines
to subcategorize, for the following considerations, including differences in into the subcategories of base load and
reasons. CAA section 111(d)(1) grants control costs that may be involved for non-base load); the activity level of the
the EPA authority to ‘‘prescribe sources located in different parts of the sources, see 81 FR 59276, 59278–79
regulations which shall establish a country’’ so that the ‘‘EPA’s emission (August 29, 2016) (dividing municipal
procedure . . . under which each State guidelines will in effect be tailored to solid waste landfills into the
shall submit to the Administrator a plan what is reasonably achievable by subcategories of active and closed
[with standards of performance for particular classes of existing landfills); and geographic location of the
existing sources.]’’ The EPA sources. . . .’’ Id. at 53343. The EPA’s sources, see 71 FR 38482 (July 6, 2006)
promulgates emission guidelines under authority to ‘‘distinguish among classes, (SO2 NSPS for stationary combustion
this provision directing the states to types, and sizes within categories,’’ as turbines subcategorizing turbines on the
regulate existing sources. The Supreme provided under CAA section 111(b)(2), basis of whether they are located in, for
Court has recognized that, under CAA generally allows the Agency to place example, a continental area, a non-
section 111(d), the ‘‘Agency, not the types of sources into subcategories. This continental area, the part of Alaska
States, decides the amount of pollution is consistent with the commonly north of the Arctic Circle, and the rest
reduction that must ultimately be
understood meaning of the term ‘‘type’’ of Alaska). Thus, the EPA has
achieved. It does so by again in CAA section 111(b)(2): ‘‘a particular subcategorized many times in
determining, as when setting the new rulemaking under CAA sections 111(b)
source rules, ‘the best system of 187 40 CFR 60.22(b)(5), 60.22a(b)(5). Because the and 111(d) and based on a wide variety
emission reduction . . . that has been definition of subcategories depends on of physical, locational, and operational
adequately demonstrated for [existing characteristics relevant to the BSER, and because
those characteristics can differ as between new and characteristics.
covered] facilities.’ West Virginia, 597 existing sources, the EPA may establish different Regardless of whether the EPA
U.S. at 710 (citations omitted). subcategories as between new and existing sources. subcategorizes within a source category
for purposes of determining the BSER amount of air pollution’’ 189 reduced a. System of Emission Reduction
and the degree of emission limitation and the role of ‘‘technological The CAA does not define the phrase
achievable, a state retains certain innovation.’’ 190 The D.C. Circuit has ‘‘system of emission reduction.’’ In West
flexibility in assigning standards of also stated that to determine the ‘‘best’’ Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court
performance to its affected EGUs. The system, the EPA may weigh the various recognized that historically, the EPA
statutory framework for CAA section factors identified in the statute and had looked to ‘‘measures that improve
111(d) emission guidelines, and the caselaw against each other, and has the pollution performance of individual
flexibilities available to states within emphasized that the EPA has discretion sources and followed a ‘‘technology-
that framework, are discussed below. in weighing the factors.191 192 based approach’’ in identifying systems
2. Key Elements of Determining a The EPA’s overall approach to of emission reduction. In particular, the
Standard of Performance determining the BSER and degree of Court identified ‘‘the sort of ‘systems of
emission limitation achievable, which emission reduction’ [the EPA] had
Congress first included the definition incorporates the various elements, is as always before selected,’’ which included
of ‘‘standard of performance’’ when follows: The EPA identifies ‘‘system[s] ‘‘ ‘efficiency improvements, fuel-
enacting CAA section 111 in the 1970 of emission reduction’’ that have been switching,’ and ‘add-on controls’.’’ 597
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ for a U.S. at 727 (quoting the Clean Power
amended it in the 1977 CAAA, and then particular source category and Plan).194 Section 111 itself recognizes
amended it again in the 1990 CAAA to determines the ‘‘best’’ of these systems that such systems may include off-site
largely restore the definition as it read after evaluating the amount of emission activities that may reduce a source’s
in the 1970 CAAA. The current text of reductions, costs, any non-air health pollution contribution, identifying
CAA section 111(a)(1) reads: ‘‘The term and environmental impacts, and energy ‘‘precombustion cleaning or treatment of
‘standard of performance’ means a requirements. As discussed below, for fuels’’ as a ‘‘system’’ of ‘‘emission
standard for emission of air pollutants each of numerous subcategories, the reduction.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(7)(B). A
which reflects the degree of emission EPA followed this approach to ‘‘system of emission reduction’’ thus, at
limitation achievable through the determine the BSER on the basis that a minimum, includes measures that an
application of the best system of the identified costs are reasonable and individual source applies that improve
that the BSER is rational in light of the the emissions performance of that
emission reduction which (taking into
statutory factors, including the amount source. Measures are fairly
account the cost of achieving such
of emission reductions, that the EPA characterized as improving the
reduction and any non-air quality health
examined in its BSER analysis, pollution performance of a source where
and environmental impact and energy
consistent with governing precedent. they reduce the individual source’s
requirements) the Administrator
After determining the BSER, the EPA overall contribution to pollution.
determines has been adequately In West Virginia, the Supreme Court
demonstrated.’’ The D.C. Circuit has determines an achievable emission limit
did not define the term ‘‘system of
reviewed CAA section 111 rulemakings based on application of the BSER.193 For
emissions reduction,’’ and so did not
on numerous occasions since 1973,188 a CAA section 111(b) rule, the EPA rule on whether ‘‘system of emission
and has developed a body of caselaw determines the standard of performance reduction’’ is limited to those measures
that interprets the term ‘‘standard of that reflects the achievable emission that the EPA has historically relied
performance,’’ as discussed throughout limit. For a CAA section 111(d) rule, the upon. It did go on to apply the major
this preamble. states have the obligation of establishing questions doctrine to hold that the term
standards of performance for the ‘‘system’’ does not provide the requisite
The basis for standards of
affected sources that reflect the degree clear authorization to support the Clean
performance, whether promulgated by
of emission limitation that the EPA has Power Plan’s BSER, which the Court
the EPA under CAA section 111(b) or
determined. As discussed below, the described as ‘‘carbon emissions caps
established by the states under CAA
EPA is finalizing these determinations based on a generation shifting
section 111(d), is that the EPA
in association with each of the BSER approach.’’ Id. at 2614. While the Court
determines the ‘‘degree of emission
determinations. did not define the outer bounds of the
limitation’’ that is ‘‘achievable’’ by the
sources by application of a ‘‘system of The remainder of this subsection meaning of ‘‘system,’’ systems of
emission reduction’’ that the EPA discusses each element in our general emissions reduction like fuel switching,
determines is ‘‘adequately analytical approach. add-on controls, and efficiency
demonstrated,’’ ‘‘taking into account’’ improvements fall comfortably within
the factors of ‘‘cost . . . and any nonair
189 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 the scope of prior practice as recognized
(D.C. Cir. 1981). by the Supreme Court.
quality health and environmental 190 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 347.
impact and energy requirements,’’ and 191 See Lignite Energy Council, 198 F.3d at 933. b. ‘‘Adequately Demonstrated’’
that the EPA determines to be the 192 CAA section 111(a)(1), by its terms states that
Under CAA section 111(a)(1), an
‘‘best.’’ The D.C. Circuit has stated that the factors enumerated in the parenthetical are part
essential, although not sufficient,
in determining the ‘‘best’’ system, the of the ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ determination. In
addition, the D.C. Circuit’s caselaw makes clear that condition for a ‘‘system of emission
EPA must also take into account ‘‘the the EPA may consider these same factors when it
determines which adequately demonstrated system 194 As noted in section V.B.4 of this preamble, the
188 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 of emission reduction is the ‘‘best.’’ See Sierra Club ACE Rule adopted the interpretation that CAA
F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 330 (recognizing that CAA section 111(a)(1), by its plain language, limits
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra section 111 gives the EPA authority ‘‘when ‘‘system of emission reduction’’ to those control
Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Lignite determining the best technological system to weigh measures that could be applied at and to each
Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. cost, energy, and environmental impacts’’). source to reduce emissions at each source. 84 FR
1999); Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 193 See, e.g., Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New 32523–24 (July 8, 2019). The EPA has subsequently
(D.C. Cir. 2011); American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 985 Source Performance Standards and National rejected that interpretation as too narrow. See
F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2021), rev’d in part, West Emission Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for
Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022). See also Reviews (77 FR 49494; August 16, 2012) (describing Designated Facilities: Implementing Regulations
Delaware v. EPA, No. 13–1093 (D.C. Cir. May 1, the three-step analysis in setting a standard of Under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), 88 FR 80535
2015). performance). (November 17, 2023).
reduction’’ to serve as the basis for an i. Plain Text, Statutory Context, and determine, according to ‘‘the judgment
‘‘achievable’’ emission standard is that Legislative History of the ‘‘Adequately of the Administrator,’’ an ‘‘adequate
the Administrator must determine that Demonstrated’’ Provision in CAA margin of safety.’’ 199 The D.C. Circuit
the system is ‘‘adequately Section 111(a)(1) has held that the use of the term
demonstrated.’’ The concepts of Analysis of the plain text, statutory ‘‘adequate’’ confers significant deference
adequate demonstration and context, and legislative history of CAA to the Administrator’s scientific and
achievability are closely related: as the section 111(a)(1) establishes two technological judgment. In Mississippi
D.C. Circuit has stated, ‘‘[i]t is the primary themes. First, Congress v. EPA,200 for example, the D.C. Circuit
system which must be adequately assigned the task of determining the in 2013 upheld the EPA’s choice to set
demonstrated and the standard which appropriate BSER to the Administrator, the NAAQS for ozone below 0.08 ppm,
must be achievable,’’ 195 through based on a reasonable review of and noted that any disagreements with
application of the system. An achievable available evidence. Second, Congress the EPA’s interpretations of the
standard means a standard based on the authorized the EPA to set a standard, scientific evidence that underlay this
EPA’s record-based finding that based on the evidence, that encourages decision ‘‘must come from those who
sufficient evidence exists to reasonably broader adoption of an emissions- are qualified to evaluate the science, not
determine that the affected sources in [the court].’’ 201 This Mississippi v. EPA
reducing technological approach that
the source category can adopt a specific
may not yet be in widespread use. precedent aligns with the general
system of emission reduction to achieve The plain text of CAA section standard for judicial review of the EPA’s
the specified degree of emission 111(a)(1), and in particular the phrase understanding of the evidence under
limitation. As discussed below, ‘‘the Administrator determines’’ and the CAA section 307(d)(9)(A) (‘‘arbitrary,
consistent with Congress’s use of the term ‘‘adequately,’’ confer discretion to
word ‘‘demonstrated,’’ the caselaw has capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
the EPA in identifying the appropriate otherwise not in accordance with law’’).
approved the EPA’s ‘‘adequately system. Rather than providing specific
demonstrated’’ determinations The plain language of the phrase ‘‘has
criteria for determining what constitutes
concerning systems utilized at test been adequately demonstrated,’’ in
appropriate evidence, Congress directed
sources or other individual sources context, and in light of the legislative
the Administrator to ‘‘determine[ ]’’ that
operating at commercial scale. The case history, further strongly indicates that
the demonstration is ‘‘adequate[ ].’’
law also authorizes the EPA to set an the system in question need not be in
Courts have typically deferred to the
emissions standard at levels more widespread use at the time the EPA’s
EPA’s scientific and technological
stringent than has regularly been rule is published. To the contrary, CAA
judgments in making such
achieved, based on the understanding section 111(a)(1) authorizes technology
determinations.198 Further, use of the
that sources will be able to adopt forcing, in the sense that the EPA is
term ‘‘adequate’’ in provisions
specific technological improvements to authorized to promote a system which
the system in question that will enable throughout the CAA highlights EPA
is not yet in widespread use; provided
them to achieve the lower standard. flexibility and discretion in setting
standards and in analyzing data that the technology is in existence and the
Importantly, and contrary to some EPA has adequate evidence to
comments received on the proposed forms the basis for standard setting.
In setting NAAQS under CAA section extrapolate.202
rule, CAA section 111(a)(1) does not
109, for example, the EPA is directed to Some commenters argued that use of
require that a system of emission
the phrase ‘‘has been’’ in ‘‘has been
reduction exist in widespread
and in particular its technology-forcing nature. The adequately demonstrated’’ means that
commercial use in order to satisfy the first page of the House report declared that ‘‘[t]he
‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ the system must be in widespread
purpose of the legislation reported unanimously by
requirement.196 Instead, CAA section [Committee was] to speed up, expand, and intensify commercial use at the time of rule
111(a)(1) authorizes the EPA to establish the war against air pollution in the United States promulgation. We disagree. Considering
standards which encourage the
. . .’’ H.R. Rep. No. 17255 at 1 (1970). It was clear, the plain text, the use of the past tense,
stated the House report, that until that point ‘‘the ‘‘has been adequately demonstrated’’
deployment of more effective systems of strategies which [the United States had] pursued in
emission reduction that have been the war against air pollution [had] been inadequate indicates a requirement that the
adequately demonstrated but that are in several important respects, and the methods technology currently be demonstrated.
not yet in widespread use. This aligns employed in implementing those strategies often However, ‘‘demonstrated’’ in common
[had] been slow and less effective than they might usage at the time of enactment meant to
with Congress’s purpose in enacting the have been.’’ Id. The Senate report agreed, stating
CAA, in particular its recognition that that their bill would ‘‘provide a much more ‘‘explain or make clear by using
polluting sources were not widely intensive and comprehensive attack on air examples, experiments, etc.’’ 203 As a
pollution,’’ 1 S. 4358 at 4 (1970), including, general matter, and as this definition
adopting emission control technology crucially, by increased federal involvement. See id.
on a voluntary basis and that Federal 198 The D.C. Circuit stated in Nat’l Asphalt
indicates, the term ‘‘to demonstrate’’
regulation was necessary to spur the Pavement Ass’n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775, 786 (D.C. suggests the need for a test or study—
development and deployment of those Cir. 1976) ‘‘The standard of review of actions of the as in, for example, a ‘‘demonstration
technologies.197 Administrator in setting standards of performance
is an appropriately deferential one, and we are to 199 42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1).
affirm the action of the Administrator unless it is 200 744
195 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
427, 433 (1973) (emphasis omitted). otherwise not in accordance with law,’’ 5 U.S.C.
201 Id.
196 See, e.g., Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 202 While not relevant here, because CCS is
706(2)(A) (1970). Since this is one of those ‘‘highly
486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (in which the D.C. technical areas, where our understanding of the already in existence, the text, case law, and
Circuit upheld a CAA section 111 standard based import of the evidence is attenuated, our readiness legislative history make a compelling case that EPA
on a system which had been extensively used in to review evidentiary support for decisions must be is authorized to go farther than this, and may make
Europe but at the time of promulgation was only in correspondingly restrained.’’ Ethyl Corporation v. a projection regarding the way in which a particular
use in the United States at one plant). EPA, 96 S. Ct. 2663 (1976). ‘‘Our ‘expertise’ is not system will develop to allow for greater emissions
197 In introducing the respective bills which in setting standards for emission control, but in reductions in the future. See 80 FR 64556–58
ultimately became the 1970 Clean Air Act upon determining if the standards as set are the result of (discussion of ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in 2015
Conference Committee review, both the House and reasoned decision-making.’’ Essex Chem. Corp. v. NSPS).
Senate emphasized the urgency of the matter at Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1973)) 203 Webster’s New World Dictionary: Second
hand, the intended power of the new legislation, (cleaned up).’’ College Edition (David B. Guralnik, ed., 1972).
project’’ or ‘‘demonstration plant’’—that widespread use at the time of rule demonstrated standard of performance
is, examples of technological feasibility. enactment. The final language of CAA may reflect the EPA’s reasonable
The statutory context is also useful in section 111(a)(1), requiring that systems projection of what that particular system
establishing that where Congress of emission reduction be ‘‘adequately may be expected to achieve going
wanted to specify the availability of the demonstrated,’’ was the result of forward, extrapolating from available
control system, it did so. The only other compromise in the Conference data from pilot projects or individual
use of the exact term ‘‘adequately Committee between the House and commercial-scale sources. A standard
demonstrated’’ occurs in CAA section Senate bill language. The House bill may be considered achievable even if
119, which establishes that, in order for would have required that the EPA give the system upon which the standard is
the EPA to require a particular ‘‘means ‘‘appropriate consideration to based has not regularly achieved the
of emission limitation’’ for smelters, the technological and economic feasibility’’ standard in testing. See, e.g., Essex
Agency must establish that such means when establishing standards.208 The Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus 212
‘‘has been adequately demonstrated to Senate bill would have required that (upholding a standard of 4.0 lbs per ton
be reasonably available. . . .’’ 204 The standards ‘‘reflect the greatest degree of based on a system whose average
lack of the phrase ‘‘reasonably emission control which the Secretary control rate was 4.6 lbs per ton, and
available’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1) is determines to be achievable through which had achieved 4.0 lbs per ton on
notable, and suggests that a system may application of the latest available only three occasions and ‘‘‘nearly
be ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ under control technology, processes, operating equaled’ [the standard] on the average of
CAA section 111 even if it is not methods, or other alternatives.’’ 209 nineteen different readings.’’) 213 The
‘‘reasonably available’’ for every single Although the exact language of neither Ruckelshaus court concluded that the
source.205 the House nor Senate bill was adopted EPA’s extrapolation from available data
The term ‘‘demonstration’’ also in the final bill, both reports made clear was ‘‘the result of the exercise of
appears in CAA section 103 in an their intent that CAA section 111 would reasoned discretion by the
instructive context. CAA section 103, be significantly technology-forcing. In Administrator’’ and therefore ‘‘[could
which establishes a ‘‘national research particular, the Senate Report referred to not] be upset by [the] court.’’ 214 The
and development program for the ‘‘available control technology’’—a court also emphasized that in order to
prevention and control of air pollution’’ phrase that, as just noted, the Senate bill be considered achievable, the standard
directs that as part of this program, the included—but clarified that the set by the EPA need not be regularly or
EPA shall ‘‘conduct, and promote the technology need not ‘‘be in actual, even specifically achieved at the time of
coordination and acceleration of, routine use somewhere.’’ 210 The House rule promulgation. Instead, according to
research, investigations, experiments, Report explained that EPA regulations the court, ‘‘[a]n achievable standard is
demonstrations, surveys, and studies would ‘‘prevent and control such one which is within the realm of the
relating to’’ the issue of air pollution.206 emissions to the fullest extent adequately demonstrated system’s
According to the canon of noscitur a compatible with the available efficiency and which, while not at a
sociis, associated words in a list bear on technology and economic feasibility as level that is purely theoretical or
one another’s meaning.207 In CAA determined by [the EPA],’’ and ‘‘[i]n experimental, need not necessarily be
section 103, the word ‘‘demonstrations’’ order to be considered ‘available’ the routinely achieved within the industry
appears alongside ‘‘research,’’ technology may not be one which prior to its adoption.’’ 215
‘‘investigations,’’ ‘‘experiments,’’ and constitutes a purely theoretical or Case law also establishes that the EPA
‘‘studies’’—all words suggesting the experimental means of preventing or may set a standard more stringent than
development of new and emerging controlling air pollution.’’ 211 This last has regularly been achieved based on its
technology. This supports interpreting statement implies that the House Report identification of specific available
CAA section 111(a)(1) to authorize the anticipated that the EPA’s technological improvements to the
EPA to determine a system of emission determination may be technology system. See Sierra Club v. Costle 216
reduction to be ‘‘adequately forcing. Nothing in the legislative (upholding a 90 percent standard for
demonstrated’’ based on demonstration history suggests that Congress intended SO2 emissions from coal-fired steam
projects, testing, examples, or that the technology already be in generators despite the fact that not all
comparable evidence. widespread commercial use. plants had previously achieved this
Finally, the legislative history of the standard, based on the EPA’s
ii. Caselaw expectations for improved performance
CAA in general, and section 111 in
particular, strongly supports the point In a series of cases reviewing with specific technological fixes and the
that BSER technology need not be in standards for new sources, the D.C. use of ‘‘coal washing’’ going forward).217
Circuit has held that an adequately Further, the EPA may extrapolate based
204 The statutory text at CAA section 119 on testing at a particular kind of source
continues, ‘‘as determined by the Administrator, 208 H.R. Rep. No. 17255 at 921 (1970) (quoting
to conclude that the technology at issue
taking into account the cost of compliance, nonair CAA Sec. 112(a), as proposed). will also be effective at a different,
quality health and environmental impact, and 209 S. Rept. 4358 at 91 (quoting CAA Sec.
energy consideration.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7419(b)(3). 113(b)(2), as proposed). 212 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
205 It should also be noted that the section 119 210 S. Rep. 4358 at 15–16 (1970). The Senate
213 Id. at 437.
language was added as part of the 1977 Clean Air Report went on to say that the EPA should
214 Id. at 437.
Act amendments, while the section 111 language ‘‘examine the degree of emission control that has
was established in 1970. Thus, Congress was aware been or can be achieved through the application of 215 Id. at 433–34 (D.C. Cir. 1973). See also Sierra
of section 111’s more permissive language when it technology which is available or normally can be Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), which
added the ‘‘reasonably available’’ language to made available . . . at a cost and at a time which supports the point that EPA may extrapolate from
section 119. [the Agency] determines to be reasonable.’’ Id. testing results, rather than relying on consistent
206 42 U.S.C. 7403(a)(1). Again, this language rebuts any suggestion that a performance, to identify an appropriate system and
207 As the Supreme Court recently explained in BSER technology must be in widespread use at the standard based on that system. In that case, EPA
Dubin v. United States, even words that might be time of rule enactment—Congress assumed only analyzed scrubber performance by considering
indeterminate alone may be more easily interpreted that the technology would be ‘‘available’’ or even performance during short-term testing periods. See
in ‘‘company,’’ because per noscitur a sociis ‘‘a that it ‘‘[could] be made available,’’ not that it id. at 377.
would be already broadly used. 216 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
word is known by the company it keeps.’’ 599 U.S.
110, 244 (2023). 211 H.R. Rep. No. 17255 at 900. 217 Id. at 365, 370–73; 365.
related, source. See Lignite Energy Circuit has stated that the EPA may commencement of a requirement to end
Council v. EPA 218 (holding it determine a ‘‘system of emission routine flaring and route associated gas
permissible to base a standard for reduction’’ to be ‘‘adequately to a sales line.228
industrial boilers on application of SCR demonstrated’’ if the EPA reasonably Finally, the EPA’s longstanding
based on extrapolated information about projects that it may be more broadly regulations for new source performance
the application of SCR on utility deployed with adequate lead time. This standards under CAA section 111
boilers).219 The Lignite court clarified view is well-grounded in the purposes specifically authorize a minimum
that ‘‘where data are unavailable, EPA of CAA section 111(a)(1), discussed period for lead time. Pursuant to 40 CFR
may not base its determination that a above, which aim to control dangerous 60.11, compliance with CAA section
technology is adequately demonstrated air pollution by allowing for standards 111 standards is generally determined
or that a standard is achievable on mere which encourage more widespread in accordance with performance tests
speculation or conjecture,’’ but the adoption of a technology demonstrated conducted under 40 CFR 60.8. Both of
‘‘EPA may compensate for a shortage of at individual plants. these regulatory provisions were
data through the use of other qualitative As a practical matter, CAA section adopted in 1971. Under 40 CFR 60.8,
methods, including the reasonable 111’s allowance for lead time recognizes source performance is generally
extrapolation of a technology’s that existing pollution control systems measured via performance tests, which
performance in other industries.’’ 220 may be complex and may require a must typically be carried out ‘‘within 60
As a general matter, the case law is predictable amount of time for sources days after achieving the maximum
clear that at the time of Rule across the source category to be able to production rate at which the affected
promulgation, the system which the design, acquire, install, test, and begin facility will be operated, but not later
EPA establishes as BSER need not be in to operate them.223 Time may also be than 180 days after initial startup of
widespread use. See, e.g., required to allow for the development of such facility, or at such other times
Ruckelshaus 221 (upholding a standard skilled labor, and materials like steel, specified by this part, and at such other
based on a relatively new system which concrete, and speciality parts. times as may be required by the
was in use at only one United States Accordingly, in setting 111 standards Administrator under section 114 of the
plant at the time of rule promulgation. for both new and existing sources, the Act. . . .’’ 229 The fact that this
Although the system was in use more EPA has typically allowed for some provision has been in place for over 50
extensively in Europe at the time of rule amount of time before sources must years indicates that the EPA has long
promulgation, the EPA based its demonstrate compliance with the recognized the need for lead time for at
analysis on test results from the lone standards. For instance, in the 2015 least one component of control
U.S. plant only.) 222 This makes good NSPS for residential wood heaters, the development.230
sense, because, as discussed above, CAA EPA established a ‘‘stepped compliance
c. Costs
section 111(a)(1) authorizes a approach’’ which phased in
technology-forcing standard that requirements over 5 years to ‘‘allow Under CAA section 111(a)(1), in
encourages broader adoption of an manufacturers lead time to develop, determining whether a particular
emissions-reducing technological test, field evaluate and certify current emission control is the ‘‘best system of
approach that is not yet broadly used. It technologies’’ across their model emission reduction . . . adequately
follows that at the time of promulgation, lines.224 The EPA also allowed for a demonstrated,’’ the EPA is required to
not every source will be prepared to series of phase-ins of various take into account ‘‘the cost of achieving
adopt the BSER at once. Instead, as requirements in the 2023 oil and gas [the emission] reduction.’’ Although the
discussed next, the EPA’s responsibility NSPS.225 For example: the EPA CAA does not describe how the EPA is
is to determine that the technology can finalized a compliance deadline for to account for costs to affected sources,
be adopted in a reasonable period of process controllers allowing for 1 year the D.C. Circuit has formulated the cost
time, and to base its requirements on from the effective date of the final rule, standard in various ways, including
this understanding. to allow for delays in equipment stating that the EPA may not adopt a
availability; 226 the EPA established a 1- standard the cost of which would be
iii. Compliance Timeframe ‘‘excessive’’ or ‘‘unreasonable.’’ 231 232
year lead time period for pumps, also in
The preceding subsections have response to possible equipment and
shown various circumstances under labor shortages; 227 and the EPA built in
228 See id. at 16886.
which the EPA may determine that a 24 months between publication in the
229 40 CFR 60.8.
230 For further discussion of lead time in the
system of emission reduction is Federal Register and the context of this rulemaking, see section VIII.F.
‘‘adequately demonstrated.’’ In order to 231 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C.
establish that a system is appropriate for 223 As discussed above, although the EPA is not Cir. 1981). See 79 FR 1430, 1464 (January 8, 2014);
the source category as a whole, the EPA relying on this point for purposes of these rules, it Lignite Energy Council, 198 F.3d at 933 (costs may
must also demonstrate that the industry should be noted that the EPA may determine a not be ‘‘exorbitant’’); Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA,
can deploy the technology at scale in system of emission reduction to be adequately 513 F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (costs may not
demonstrated based on some amount of projection, be ‘‘greater than the industry could bear and
the compliance timeframe. The D.C. even if some aspects of the system are still in survive’’).
development. Thus, the authorization for lead time 232 These cost formulations are consistent with
218 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1999). accommodates the development of projected the legislative history of CAA section 111. The 1977
219 See id. at 933–34. technology. House Committee Report noted:
220 Id. at 934 (emphasis added). 224 See Standards of Performance for New
In the [1970] Congress [sic: Congress’s] view, it
221 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). See also Sierra Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential was only right that the costs of applying best
Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), which Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, 80 FR practicable control technology be considered by the
supports the point that EPA may extrapolate from 13672, 13676 (March 16, 2015). owner of a large new source of pollution as a
225 See Standards of Performance for New, normal and proper expense of doing business.
testing results, rather than relying on consistent
performance, to identify an appropriate system and Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and 1977 House Committee Report at 184. Similarly,
standard based on that system. In that case, EPA Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and the 1970 Senate Committee Report stated:
analyzed scrubber performance by considering Natural Gas Sector Climate Review. 89 FR 16943 The implicit consideration of economic factors in
performance during short-term testing periods. See (March 8, 2024). determining whether technology is ‘‘available’’
id. at 377. 226 See id. at 16929.
should not affect the usefulness of this section. The
222 486 F.2d at 435–36. 227 See id. at 16937. overriding purpose of this section would be to
The EPA has discretion in its plants). This metric allows the EPA to plants—on a review of the legislative
consideration of cost under section compare the amount a regulation would history, stating,
111(a), both in determining the require sources to pay to reduce a [T]he Reports from both Houses on the
appropriate level of costs and in particular pollutant across regulations Senate and House bills illustrate very clearly
balancing costs with other BSER and industries. In rules for the electric that Congress itself was using a long-term
factors.233 To determine the BSER, the power sector, the EPA has also looked lens with a broad focus on future costs,
EPA must weigh the relevant factors, at a metric that determines the dollar environmental and energy effects of different
including the cost of controls and the increase in the cost of a MWh of technological systems when it discussed
amount of emission reductions, as well electricity generated by the affected section 111.238
as other factors.234 sources due to the emission controls, The court has upheld EPA rules that
The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly which shows the cost of controls the EPA ‘‘justified . . . in terms of the
upheld the EPA’s consideration of cost relative to the output of electricity. See policies of the Act,’’ including balancing
in reviewing standards of performance. section VII.C.1.a.ii of this preamble, long-term national and regional impacts.
In several cases, the court upheld which discusses $/MWh costs of the For example, the court upheld a
standards that entailed significant costs, Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone standard of performance for SO2
consistent with Congress’s view that NAAQS (88 FR 36654; June 5, 2023) and emissions from new coal-fired power
‘‘the costs of applying best practicable the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule plants on grounds that it—
control technology be considered by the (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208; August 8, 2011). reflects a balance in environmental,
owner of a large new source of pollution This metric facilitates comparing costs economic, and energy consideration by being
as a normal and proper expense of doing across regulations and pollutants. In sufficiently stringent to bring about
business.’’ 235 See Essex Chemical Corp. these final actions, as explained herein, substantial reductions in SO2 emissions (3
v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 440 (D.C. the EPA looks at both of these metrics, million tons in 1995) yet does so at
Cir. 1973); 236 Portland Cement Ass’n v. in addition to other cost evaluations, to reasonable costs without significant energy
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 387–88 assess the cost reasonableness of the penalties. . . .239
(D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. Costle, final requirements. The EPA’s The EPA interprets this caselaw to
657 F.2d 298, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1981) consideration of cost reasonableness in authorize it to assess the impacts of the
(upholding NSPS imposing controls on this way meets the statutory controls it is considering as the BSER,
SO2 emissions from coal-fired power requirement that the EPA take into including their costs and implications
plants when the ‘‘cost of the new account ‘‘the cost of achieving [the for the energy system, on a sector-wide,
controls . . . is substantial. The EPA emission] reduction’’ under section regional, or national basis, as
estimates that utilities will have to 111(a)(1). appropriate. For example, the EPA may
spend tens of billions of dollars by 1995 assess whether controls it is considering
on pollution control under the new d. Non-Air Quality Health and would create risks to the reliability of
NSPS.’’). Environmental Impact and Energy the electricity system in a particular
In its CAA section 111 rulemakings, Requirements area or nationwide and, if they would,
the EPA has frequently used a cost- to reject those controls as the BSER.
effectiveness metric, which determines Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA
the cost in dollars for each ton or other is required to take into account ‘‘any f. ‘‘Best’’
quantity of the regulated air pollutant nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements’’ in In determining which adequately
removed through the system of emission demonstrated system of emission
reduction. See, e.g., 81 FR 35824 (June determining the BSER. Non-air quality
health and environmental impacts may reduction is the ‘‘best,’’ the EPA has
3, 2016) (NSPS for GHG and VOC broad discretion. In AEP v. Connecticut,
emissions for the oil and natural gas include the impacts of the disposal of
byproducts of the air pollution controls, 564 U.S. 410, 427 (2011), the Supreme
source category); 71 FR 9866, 9870 Court explained that under CAA section
(February 27, 2006) (NSPS for NOX, SO2, or requirements of the air pollution
control equipment for water. Portland 111, ‘‘[t]he appropriate amount of
and PM emissions from fossil fuel-fired regulation in any particular greenhouse
electric utility steam generating units); Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 465 F.2d
375, 387–88 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. gas-producing sector cannot be
61 FR 9905, 9910 (March 12, 1996) prescribed in a vacuum: . . . informed
(NSPS and emission guidelines for denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974). Energy
requirements may include the impact, if assessment of competing interests is
nonmethane organic compounds and required. Along with the environmental
landfill gas from new and existing any, of the air pollution controls on the
source’s own energy needs. benefit potentially achievable, our
municipal solid waste landfills); 50 FR Nation’s energy needs and the
40158 (October 1, 1985) (NSPS for SO2 e. Sector or Nationwide Component of possibility of economic disruption must
emissions from sweetening and sulfur Factors in Determining the BSER weigh in the balance. The Clean Air Act
recovery units in natural gas processing entrusts such complex balancing to the
Another component of the D.C.
EPA in the first instance, in
prevent new air pollution problems, and toward Circuit’s interpretations of CAA section
combination with state regulators. Each
that end, maximum feasible control of new sources 111 is that the EPA may consider the
at the time of their construction is seen by the ‘‘standard of performance’’ the EPA sets
various factors it is required to consider
committee as the most effective and, in the long must ‘‘tak[e] into account the cost of
on a national or regional level and over
run, the least expensive approach. achieving [emissions] reduction and any
S. Comm. Rep. No. 91–1196 at 16. time, and not only on a plant-specific
nonair quality health and environmental
233 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. level at the time of the rulemaking.237
impact and energy requirements.’’
Cir. 1981). The D.C. Circuit based this (paragraphing revised; citations
234 Id. (EPA’s conclusion that the high cost of
interpretation—which it made in the omitted)).
control was acceptable was ‘‘a judgment call with 1981 Sierra Club v. Costle case
which we are not inclined to quarrel’’).
235 1977 House Committee Report at 184. regarding the NSPS for new power 238 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 331 (citations
236 The costs for these standards were described omitted) (citing legislative history).
in the rulemakings. See 36 FR 24876 (December 23, 237 See 79 FR 1430, 1465 (January 8, 2014) (citing 239 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 327–28
1971), 37 FR 5769 (March 21, 1972). Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 351). (quoting 44 FR 33583–84; June 11, 1979).
Likewise, in Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. below other factors that the D.C. Circuit
F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the court 1973), the D.C. Circuit held that under has held the EPA should account for in
explained that ‘‘section 111(a) explicitly CAA section 111(a)(1) as it read prior to determining what system is the ‘‘best.’’
instructs the EPA to balance multiple the enactment of the 1977 CAA
g. Amount of Emissions Reductions
concerns when promulgating a Amendments that added a requirement
NSPS,’’ 240 and emphasized that ‘‘[t]he that the EPA take account of non-air Consideration of the amount of
text gives the EPA broad discretion to quality environmental impacts, the EPA emissions from the category of sources
weigh different factors in setting the must consider ‘‘counter-productive or the amount of emission reductions
standard,’’ including the amount of environmental effects’’ in Determining achieved as factors the EPA must
emission reductions, the cost of the the BSER. Id. at 385. The court consider in determining the ‘‘best
controls, and the non-air quality elaborated: ‘‘The standard of the ‘best system of emission reduction’’ is
environmental impacts and energy system’ is comprehensive, and we implicit in the plain language of CAA
requirements.241 And in Lignite Energy cannot imagine that Congress intended section 111(a)(1)—the EPA must choose
Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. that ‘best’ could apply to a system the best system of emission reduction.
1999), the court reiterated: which did more damage to water than Indeed, consistent with this plain
Because section 111 does not set forth the it prevented to air.’’ Id., n.42. In Sierra language and the purpose of CAA
weight that should be assigned to each of Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 326, 346–47, section 111, the EPA must consider the
these factors, we have granted the agency a the court added that the EPA must quantity of emissions at issue. See
great degree of discretion in balancing them consider the amount of emission Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326
. . . . EPA’s choice [of the ‘best system’] will reductions and technology advancement (D.C. Cir. 1981) (‘‘we can think of no
be sustained unless the environmental or in determining BSER, as discussed in sensible interpretation of the statutory
economic costs of using the technology are section V.C.2.g of this preamble. words ‘‘best . . . system’’ which would
exorbitant . . . . EPA [has] considerable
The court’s view that ‘‘best’’ includes not incorporate the amount of air
discretion under section 111.242
additional factors that further the pollution as a relevant factor to be
Importantly, the courts recognize that purpose of CAA section 111 is a weighed when determining the optimal
the EPA must consider several factors reasonable interpretation of that term in standard for controlling . . .
and that determining what is ‘‘best’’ its statutory context. The purpose of emissions’’).244 The fact that the
depends on how much weight to give CAA section 111 is to reduce emissions purpose of a ‘‘system of emission
the factors. In promulgating certain of air pollutants that endanger public reduction’’ is to reduce emissions, and
standards of performance, the EPA may health or welfare. CAA section that the term itself explicitly
give greater weight to particular factors 111(b)(1)(A). The court reasonably incorporates the concept of reducing
than it does in promulgating other surmised that the EPA’s determination emissions, supports the court’s view
standards of performance. Thus, the of whether a system of emission that in determining whether a ‘‘system
determination of what is ‘‘best’’ is reduction that reduced certain air of emission reduction’’ is the ‘‘best,’’ the
complex and necessarily requires an pollutants is ‘‘best’’ should be informed EPA must consider the amount of
exercise of judgment. By analogy, the by impacts that the system may have on emission reductions that the system
question of who is the ‘‘best’’ sprinter in other pollutants that affect public or would yield. Even if the EPA were not
the 100-meter dash primarily depends welfare. Portland Cement Ass’n, 486 required to consider the amount of
on only one criterion—speed—and F.2d at 385. The Supreme Court emission reductions, the EPA has the
therefore is relatively straightforward, confirmed the D.C. Circuit’s approach in discretion to do so, on grounds that
whereas the question of who is the Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), either the term ‘‘system of emission
‘‘best’’ baseball player depends on a explaining that administrative agencies reduction’’ or the term ‘‘best’’ may
more complex weighing of multiple must engage in ‘‘reasoned reasonably be read to allow that
criteria and therefore requires a greater decisionmaking’’ that, in the case of discretion.
exercise of judgment. pollution control, cannot be based on
The term ‘‘best’’ also authorizes the technologies that ‘‘do even more damage h. Expanded Use and Development of
EPA to consider factors in addition to to human health’’ than the emissions Technology
the ones enumerated in CAA section they eliminate. Id. at 751–52. After The D.C. Circuit has long held that
111(a)(1), that further the purpose of the Portland Cement Ass’n, Congress Congress intended for CAA section 111
statute. In Portland Cement Ass’n v. revised CAA section 111(a)(1) to make
explicit that in determining whether a gas-driven controllers in the oil and natural gas
240 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 319. system of emission reduction is the sector on the basis of, among other things, impacts
241 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 321; see also on emissions of criteria pollutants). In this
New York v. Reilly, 969 F.2d at 1150 (because
‘‘best,’’ the EPA should account for non- preamble, for convenience, the EPA generally
Congress did not assign the specific weight the air quality health and environmental discusses the effects of controls on non-GHG air
Administrator should assign to the statutory impacts. By the same token, the EPA pollutants along with the effects of controls on non-
elements, ‘‘the Administrator is free to exercise takes the position that in determining air quality health and environmental impacts.
[her] discretion’’ in promulgating an NSPS). 244 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir.
242 Lignite Energy Council, 198 F.3d at 933
whether a system of emission reduction
1981) was governed by the 1977 CAAA version of
(paragraphing revised for convenience). See New is the ‘‘best,’’ the EPA may account for the definition of ‘‘standard of performance,’’ which
York v. Reilly, 969 F.2d 1147, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1992) the impacts of the system on air revised the phrase ‘‘best system of emission
(‘‘Because Congress did not assign the specific pollutants other than the ones that are reduction’’ to read, ‘‘best technological system of
weight the Administrator should accord each of the subject of the CAA section 111 continuous emission reduction.’’ As noted above,
these factors, the Administrator is free to exercise the 1990 CAAA deleted ‘‘technological’’ and
his discretion in this area.’’); see also NRDC v. EPA, regulation.243 We discuss immediately ‘‘continuous’’ and thereby returned the phrase to
25 F.3d 1063, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (The EPA did how it read under the 1970 CAAA. The court’s
not err in its final balancing because ‘‘neither RCRA 243 See generally Standards of Performance for interpretation of the 1977 CAAA phrase in Sierra
nor EPA’s regulations purports to assign any New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Club v. Costle to require consideration of the
particular weight to the factors listed in subsection Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and amount of air emissions focused on the term ‘‘best,’’
(a)(3). That being the case, the Administrator was Natural Gas Sector Climate Review—Supplemental and the terms ‘‘technological’’ and ‘‘continuous’’
free to emphasize or deemphasize particular factors, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 87 FR 74765 were irrelevant to its analysis. It thus remains valid
constrained only by the requirements of reasoned (December 6, 2022) (proposing the BSER for for the 1990 CAAA phrase ‘‘best system of emission
agency decisionmaking.’’). reducing methane and VOC emissions from natural reduction.’’
to create incentives for new technology standard of performance is ‘‘achievable’’ application of the BSER. See West
and therefore that the EPA is required if a technology can reasonably be Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. at 710.254
to consider technological innovation as projected to be available to an The EPA has promulgated emission
one of the factors in determining the individual source at the time it is guidelines on the basis that the existing
‘‘best system of emission reduction.’’ constructed that will allow it to meet sources can achieve the degree of
See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at the standard.250 Moreover, according to emission limitation described therein,
346–47. The court has grounded its the court, ‘‘[a]n achievable standard is even though under the RULOF
reading in the statutory text of CAA one which is within the realm of the provision of CAA section 111(d)(1), the
111(a)(1), defining the term ‘‘standard of adequately demonstrated system’s state retains discretion to apply
performance.’’ 245 In addition, the efficiency and which, while not at a standards of performance to individual
court’s interpretation finds support in level that is purely theoretical or sources that are less stringent, which
the legislative history.246 The legislative experimental, need not necessarily be indicates that Congress recognized that
history identifies three different ways routinely achieved within the industry the EPA may promulgate emission
that Congress designed CAA section 111 prior to its adoption.’’ 251 To be guidelines that are consistent with CAA
to authorize standards of performance achievable, a standard ‘‘must be capable section 111(d) even though certain
that promote technological of being met under most adverse individual sources may not be able to
improvement: (1) The development of conditions which can reasonably be achieve the degree of emission
technology that may be treated as the expected to recur and which are not or limitation identified therein by applying
‘‘best system of emission reduction . . . cannot be taken into account in the controls that the EPA determined to
adequately demonstrated;’’ under CAA determining the ‘costs’ of be the BSER. Note further that this
section 111(a)(1); 247 (2) the expanded compliance.’’ 252 To show a standard is requirement that the emission limitation
use of the best demonstrated achievable, the EPA must ‘‘(1) identify be ‘‘achievable’’ based on the ‘‘best
technology; 248 and (3) the development variable conditions that might system of emission reduction . . .
of emerging technology.249 Even if the contribute to the amount of expected adequately demonstrated’’ indicates that
EPA were not required to consider emissions, and (2) establish that the test the technology or other measures that
technological innovation as part of its data relied on by the agency are the EPA identifies as the BSER must be
determination of the BSER, it would be representative of potential industry- technically feasible.
reasonable for the EPA to consider it wide performance, given the range of 3. EPA Promulgation of Emission
because technological innovation may variables that affect the achievability of Guidelines for States To Establish
be considered an element of the term the standard.’’ 253 Standards of Performance
‘‘best,’’ particularly in light of Although the courts have established
Congress’s emphasis on technological these standards for achievability in CAA section 111(d)(1) directs the EPA
innovation. cases concerning CAA section 111(b) to promulgate regulations establishing a
new source standards of performance, procedure similar to that provided by
i. Achievability of the Degree of generally comparable standards for CAA section 110 under which states
Emission Limitation achievability should apply under CAA submit state plans that establish
For new sources, CAA section section 111(d), although the BSER may ‘‘standards of performance’’ for
111(b)(1)(B) and (a)(1) provides that the differ in some cases as between new and emissions of certain air pollutants from
EPA must establish ‘‘standards of existing sources due to, for example, sources which, if they were new
performance,’’ which are standards for higher costs of retrofit. 40 FR 53340 sources, would be regulated under CAA
emissions that reflect the degree of (November 17, 1975). For existing section 111(b), and that provide for the
emission limitation that is ‘‘achievable’’ sources, CAA section 111(d)(1) requires implementation and enforcement of
through the application of the BSER. A the EPA to establish requirements for such standards of performance. The
state plans that, in turn, must include term ‘‘standard of performance’’ is
245 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 346 (‘‘Our
‘‘standards of performance.’’ As the defined under CAA section 111(a)(1),
interpretation of section 111(a) is that the mandated
Supreme Court has recognized, this quoted above. Thus, CAA sections
balancing of cost, energy, and non-air quality health 111(a)(1) and (d)(1) collectively require
and environmental factors embraces consideration provision requires the EPA to
of technological innovation as part of that balance. promulgate emission guidelines that the EPA to determine the degree of
The statutory factors which EPA must weigh are determine the BSER for a source emission limitation achievable through
broadly defined and include within their ambit
category and then identify the degree of application of the BSER to existing
subfactors such as technological innovation.’’). sources and to establish regulations
246 See S. Rep. No. 91–1196 at 16 (1970) emission limitation achievable by
(‘‘Standards of performance should provide an
under which states establish standards
incentive for industries to work toward constant 250 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 364, n.276 of performance reflecting that degree of
improvement in techniques for preventing and (D.C. Cir. 1981). emission limitation. The EPA addresses
controlling emissions from stationary sources’’); S. 251 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
both responsibilities through its
Rep. No. 95–127 at 17 (1977) (cited in Sierra Club 427, 433–34 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S.
v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 346 n.174) (‘‘The section 111
emission guidelines, as well as through
969 (1974).
Standards of Performance . . . sought to assure the 252 Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433,
its general implementing regulations for
use of available technology and to stimulate the n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980). CAA section 111(d). Consistent with the
development of new technology’’). 253 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 377 (D.C. statutory requirements, the general
247 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486
Cir. 1981) (citing Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d implementing regulations require that
F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (the best system of 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In considering the
emission reduction must ‘‘look[ ] toward what may the EPA’s emission guidelines reflect—
representativeness of the source tested, the EPA
fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather may consider such variables as the ‘‘ ‘feedstock, the degree of emission limitation achievable
than the state of the art at present’’). operation, size and age’ of the source.’’ Nat’l Lime through the application of the best system of
248 1970 Senate Committee Report No. 91–1196 at
Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1980). emission reduction which (taking into
15 (‘‘The maximum use of available means of Moreover, it may be sufficient to ‘‘generalize from account the cost of such reduction and any
preventing and controlling air pollution is essential a sample of one when one is the only available non-air quality health and environmental
to the elimination of new pollution problems’’). sample, or when that one is shown to be
249 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 351 representative of the regulated industry along
(upholding a standard of performance designed to relevant parameters.’’ Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627
promote the use of an emerging technology). F.2d 416, 434, n.52 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 254 40 CFR 60.21(e), 60.21a(e).
impact and energy requirements) the To apply a less stringent standard of the suite of HRI set forth in the ACE
Administrator has determined has been performance or longer compliance Rule provide negligible CO2 reductions
adequately demonstrated from designated schedule, the state must demonstrate at best and, in many cases, may increase
facilities.255
with respect to each facility (or class of CO2 emissions because of the ‘‘rebound
Following the EPA’s promulgation of such facilities), that the facility cannot effect,’’ as explained in section
emission guidelines, each state must reasonably achieve the degree of VII.D.4.a.iii of this preamble. These
establish standards of performance for emission limitation determined by the concerns, along with the EPA’s
its existing sources, which the EPA’s EPA based on unreasonable cost of experience in implementing the ACE
regulations call ‘‘designated control resulting from plant age, Rule, cast doubt that the ACE Rule
facilities.’’ 256 Such standards of location, or basic process design; would achieve emission reductions and
performance must reflect the degree of physical impossibility or technical increase the likelihood that the ACE
emission limitation achievable through infeasibility of installing necessary Rule could make CO2 pollution worse.
application of the best system of control equipment; or other As a result, the EPA has determined it
emission reduction as determined by circumstances specific to the facility. In is appropriate to repeal the rule, and to
the EPA, which the Agency may express doing so, the state must demonstrate reevaluate whether other technologies
as a presumptive standard of that there are fundamental differences constitute the BSER.
performance in the applicable emission between the information specific to a Second, even assuming the ACE
guidelines. facility (or class of such facilities) and Rule’s rejection of CCS and natural gas
While the standards of performance the information the EPA considered in co-firing was supported at the time, the
that states establish in their plans must determining the degree of emission ACE Rule’s rationale for rejecting CCS
generally be no less stringent than the limitation achievable through and natural gas co-firing as the BSER no
degree of emission limitation application of the BSER or the longer applies because of new factual
determined by the EPA,257 CAA section compliance schedule that make developments. Since the ACE Rule was
111(d)(1) also requires that the EPA’s achieving such degree of emission promulgated, changes in the power
regulations ‘‘permit the State in reduction or meeting such compliance industry, developments in the costs of
applying a standard of performance to schedule unreasonable for that facility. controls, and new federal subsidies have
any particular source . . . to take into In addition, under CAA section 116, made other controls more broadly
consideration, among other factors, the states may establish standard of available and less expensive.
remaining useful life of the existing performances that are more stringent Considering these developments, the
source to which such standard applies.’’ than the presumptive standards of EPA has determined that co-firing with
Consistent with this statutory direction, performance contained in the EPA’s natural gas and CCS are the BSER for
the EPA’s general implementing emission guidelines.258 The state must certain subcategories of sources as
regulations for CAA section 111(d) include the standards of performance in described in section VII.C of this
provide a framework for states’ their state plans and submit the plans to preamble, and that the HRI technologies
consideration of remaining useful life the EPA for review according to the adopted by the ACE Rule are not the
and other factors (referred to as procedures established in the Agency’s BSER. Thus, repeal of the ACE Rule is
‘‘RULOF’’) when applying a standard of general implementing regulations for proper on this ground as well.
performance to a particular source. In CAA section 111(d).259 Under CAA Third, the EPA concludes that the
November 2023, the EPA finalized section 111(d)(2)(A), the EPA approves ACE Rule conflicted with CAA section
clarifications to its regulations state plans that are determined to be 111 and the EPA’s implementing
governing states’ consideration of ‘‘satisfactory.’’ CAA section 111(d)(2)(A) regulations because it did not
RULOF to apply less stringent standards also gives the Agency ‘‘the same specifically identify the BSER or the
of performance to particular existing authority’’ as under CAA section 110(c) ‘‘degree of emission limitation
sources. As amended, these regulations to promulgate a Federal plan in cases achievable though application of the
provide that states may apply a standard where a state fails to submit a [BSER].’’ Instead, the ACE Rule
of performance to a particular satisfactory state plan. described only a broad range of values
designated facility that is less stringent as the ‘‘degree of emission limitation
VI. ACE Rule Repeal achievable.’’ In doing so, the rule did
than, or has a longer compliance
schedule than, otherwise required by The EPA is finalizing repeal of the not provide the states with adequate
the applicable emission guideline taking ACE Rule. The EPA proposed to repeal guidance on the degree of emission
into consideration that facility’s the ACE Rule and did not receive limitation that must be reflected in the
remaining useful life and other factors. significant comments objecting to the standards of performance so that a state
proposal. The EPA is finalizing the plan would be approvable by the EPA.
255 40 CFR 60.21a(e). proposal largely as proposed. A general The ACE Rule is repealed for this reason
256 40 CFR 60.21a(b), 60.24a(b). summary of the ACE Rule, including its also.
257 As the Supreme Court explained in West regulatory and judicial history, is A. Summary of Selected Features of the
Virginia v. EPA, ‘‘Although the States set the actual included in section V.B.4 of this
rules governing existing power plants, EPA itself ACE Rule
still retains the primary regulatory role in Section
preamble. The EPA repeals the ACE
111(d).’’ 597 U.S. at 710. The Court elaborated that Rule on three grounds that each The ACE Rule determined that the
‘‘[t]he Agency, not the States, decides the amount independently justify the rule’s repeal. BSER for coal-fired EGUs was a ‘‘list of
of pollution reduction that must ultimately be First, as a policy matter, the EPA ‘candidate technologies,’ ’’ consisting of
achieved. It does so by again determining, as when seven types of the ‘‘most impactful HRI
setting the new source rules, ‘the best system of

concludes that the suite of heat rate
emission reduction . . . that has been adequately improvements (HRI) the ACE Rule technologies, equipment upgrades, and
demonstrated for [existing covered] facilities.’ 40 selected as the BSER is not an best operating and maintenance
CFR 60.22(b)(5) (2021); see also 80 FR 64664, and appropriate BSER for existing coal-fired practices,’’ (84 FR 32536; July 8, 2019),
n.1. The States then submit plans containing the including, among others, ‘‘Boiler Feed
emissions restrictions that they intend to adopt and
EGUs. In the EPA’s technical judgment,
enforce in order not to exceed the permissible level
Pumps’’ and ‘‘Redesign/Replace
of pollution established by EPA. See §§ 60.23, 258 40 CFR 60.24a(i). Economizer.’’ Id. at 32537 (table 1). The
60.24; 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(1).’’ Id. 259 See generally 40 CFR 60.23a–60.28a. rule provided a range of improvements
in heat rate that each of the seven determine whether it is satisfactory.’’ Id. technologies to their sources, the rule
‘‘candidate technologies’’ could achieve at 32558. would achieve a less-than-1-percent
if applied to coal-fired EGUs of different The ACE Rule projected a very low reduction in power-sector CO2
capacities. For six of the technologies, level of overall emission reduction if emissions by 2030.262 The EPA now
the expected level of improvement in states generally applied the set of doubts that even these minimal
heat rate ranged from 0.1–0.4 percent to candidate technologies to their sources. reductions would be achieved. The ACE
1.0–2.9 percent, and for the seventh The rule was projected to achieve a less- Rule’s projected benefits were premised
technology, ‘‘Improved Operating and than-1-percent reduction in power- in part on a 2009 technical report by
Maintenance (O&M) Practices,’’ the sector CO2 emissions by 2030.260 Sargent & Lundy that evaluated the
range was ‘‘0 to >2%.’’ Id. The ACE Rule Further, the EPA also projected that it effects of HRI technologies. In 2023,
explained that states must review each would increase CO2 emissions from Sargent & Lundy issued an updated
of their designated facilities, on either a power plants in 15 states and the report which details that the HRI
source-by-source or group-of-sources District of Columbia because of the selected as the BSER in the ACE Rule
basis, and ‘‘evaluate the applicability of ‘‘rebound effect’’ as coal-fired sources would bring fewer emissions reductions
each of the candidate technologies.’’ Id. implemented HRI measures and became than estimated in 2009. The 2023 report
at 32550. States were to use the list of more efficient. This phenomenon is concludes that, with few exceptions,
HRI technologies ‘‘as guidance but will explained in more detail in section HRI technologies are less effective at
be expected to conduct unit-specific VII.D.4.a.iii of this document.261 reducing CO2 emissions than assumed
evaluations of HRI potential, technical The ACE Rule considered several in 2009. Further reinforcing the
feasibility, and applicability for each of other control measures as the BSER, conclusion that HRIs would bring few
the BSER candidate technologies.’’ Id. at including co-firing with natural gas and reductions, the 2023 report also
32538. CCS, but rejected them. The ACE Rule concluded that most sources had
The ACE Rule emphasized that states rejected co-firing with natural gas already optimized application of HRIs,
had ‘‘inherent flexibility’’ in evaluating primarily on grounds that it was too and so there are fewer opportunities to
candidate technologies with ‘‘a wide costly in general. 84 FR 32545 (July 8, reduce emissions than previously
range of potential outcomes.’’ Id. at 2019). The rule also concluded that anticipated.263
32542. The ACE Rule provided that generating electricity by co-firing Second, for a subset of sources, HRI
states could conclude that it was not natural gas in a utility boiler would be are likely to cause a ‘‘rebound effect’’
appropriate to apply some technologies. an inefficient use of the gas when leading to an increase in GHG emissions
Id. at 32550. Moreover, if a state decided compared to combusting it in a for those sources. The rebound effect is
to apply a particular technology to a combustion turbine. Id. The ACE Rule explained in detail in section
particular source, the state could rejected CCS on grounds that it was too VII.D.4.a.iii of this preamble. The ACE
determine the level of heat rate costly. Id. at 32548. The rule identified Rule’s analysis projected that the rule
improvement from the technology could the high capital and operating costs of would increase CO2 emissions from
be anywhere within the range that the CCS and noted the fact that the IRC power plants in 15 states and the
EPA had identified for that technology, section 45Q tax credit, as it then District of Columbia. The EPA’s
or even outside that range. Id. at 32551. applied, would provide only limited modeling projections assumed that,
The ACE Rule stated that after the state benefit to sources. Id. at 32548–49. consistent with the rule, some sources
evaluated the technologies and B. Developments Undermining ACE would impose a small degree of
calculated the amount of HRI in this Rule’s Projected Emission Reductions efficiency improvements. The modeling
way, it should determine the standard of showed that, as a consequence of these
performance 0that the source could The EPA’s first basis for repealing the improvements, the rule would increase
achieve, Id. at 32550, and then adjust ACE Rule is that it is unlikely that—if absolute emissions at some coal-fired
that standard further based on the implemented—the rule would reduce sources as these sources became more
application of source-specific factors emissions, and implementation could efficient and displaced lower emitting
such as remaining useful life. Id. at increase CO2 emissions instead. Thus, sources like natural gas-fired EGUs.264
32551. the EPA concludes that as a matter of Even though the ACE Rule was
The ACE Rule then identified the policy it is appropriate to repeal the rule projected to increase emissions in many
process by which states had to take and evaluate anew whether other states, these states were nevertheless
these actions. States must ‘‘evaluat[e] technologies qualify as the BSER. obligated under the rule to assemble
each’’ of the seven candidate Two factors, taken together, detailed state plans that evaluated
technologies and provide a summary, undermine the ACE Rule’s projected available technologies and the
which ‘‘include[s] an evaluation of the emission reductions and create the risk performance of each existing coal-fired
. . . degree of emission limitation that implementation of the ACE Rule power plant, as described in section
achievable through application of the could increase—rather than reduce— IX.A of this preamble. For example, the
technologies.’’ Id. at 32580. Then, the CO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs. state was required to analyze the plant’s
state must provide a variety of First, HRI technologies achieve only ‘‘annual generation,’’ ‘‘CO2 emissions,’’
information about each power plant, limited GHG emission reductions. The ‘‘[f]uel use, fuel price, and carbon
including, the plant’s ‘‘annual ACE Rule projected that if states content,’’ ‘‘operation and maintenance
generation,’’ ‘‘CO2 emissions,’’ ‘‘[f]uel generally applied the set of candidate
use, fuel price, and carbon content,’’ 262 ACE Rule RIA 3–11, table 3–3.
260 ACE Rule RIA 3–11, table 3–3.
263 Sargent and Lundy. Heat Rate Improvement

‘‘operation and maintenance costs,’’ 261 The rebound effect becomes evident by Method Costs and Limitations Memo. Available in
‘‘[h]eat rates,’’ ‘‘[e]lectric generating comparing the results of the ACE Rule IPM runs for Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072.
capacity,’’ and the ‘‘timeline for the 2018 reference case, EPA, IPM State-Level 264 See EPA, IPM State-Level Emissions: EPAv6
implementation,’’ among other Emissions: EPAv6 November 2018 Reference Case, November 2018 Reference Case, Document ID No.
information. Id. at 32581. The EPA Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0355– EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0355–26720 (providing ACE
26720, and for the ‘‘Illustrative ACE Scenario. IPM reference case); IPM State-Level Emissions:
explained that the purpose of this data State-Level Emissions: Illustrative ACE Scenario, Illustrative ACE Scenario, Document ID No. EPA–
was to allow the Agency to ‘‘adequately Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0355– HQ–OAR–2017–0355–26724 (providing illustrative
and appropriately review the plan to 26724. scenario).
costs,’’ ‘‘[h]eat rates,’’ ‘‘[e]lectric with FCC v. Fox Television Stations, preamble. For medium term units, the
generating capacity,’’ and the ‘‘timeline Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009). There, the BSER of 40 percent natural gas co-firing
for implementation,’’ among other Supreme Court explained that an agency achieves CO2 stack emissions reductions
information. 84 FR 32581 (July 8, 2019). issuing a new policy ‘‘need not of 16 percent, as described in section
The risk of an increase in emissions demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that VII.C.2.b.iv of this preamble. Given the
raises doubts that the HRI for coal-fired the reasons for the new policy are better availability of more effective, cost-
sources satisfies the statutory criteria to than the reasons for the old one.’’ reasonable technology, the EPA
constitute the BSER for this category of Instead, ‘‘it suffices that the new policy concludes that HRIs are not the BSER
sources. The core element of the BSER is permissible under the statute, that for all coal-fired EGUs.
analysis is whether the emission there are good reasons for it, and that The EPA is thus finalizing a new
reduction technology selected reduces the agency believes it to be better, which policy for coal-fired power plants. This
emissions. See Essex Chem. Corp. v. the conscious change of course rule applies to those sources that intend
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 441 (D.C. adequately indicates.’’ Id. at 514–16 to operate past January 1, 2032. For
Cir. 1973) (noting ‘‘counter productive (emphasis in original; citation omitted). sources that intend to cease operations
environmental effects’’ raises questions Along with changes in the anticipated after January 1, 2032, but before January
as to whether the BSER selected was in reductions from HRI, it makes sense for 1, 2039, the EPA concludes that the
fact the ‘‘best’’). Moreover, this the EPA to reexamine the BSER because BSER is co-firing 40 percent by volume
evaluation and the imposition of the costs of two control measures, co- natural gas. The EPA concludes this
standards of performance was mandated firing with natural gas and CCS, have control measure is appropriate because
even though the state plan would lead fallen for sources with longer-term it achieves substantial reductions at
to an increase rather than decrease CO2 operating horizons. As noted, the ACE reasonable cost. In addition, the EPA
emissions. Imposing such an obligation Rule rejected natural gas co-firing as the believes that because a large supply of
on states under these circumstances was BSER on grounds that it was too costly natural gas is available, devoting part of
arbitrary. and would lead to inefficient use of this supply for fuel for a coal-fired
The EPA’s experience in natural gas. But as discussed in section steam generating unit in place of a
implementing the ACE Rule reinforces VII.C.2.b of this preamble, the costs of percentage of the coal burned at the unit
these concerns. After the ACE Rule was natural gas co-firing are presently is an appropriate use of natural gas and
promulgated, one state drafted a state reasonable, and the EPA concludes that will not adversely impact the energy
plan that set forth a standard of the costs of co-firing 40 percent by system, as described in section
performance that allowed the affected volume natural gas are cost-effective for VII.C.2.b.iii(B) of this preamble. For
source to increase its emission rate. The existing coal-fired EGUs that intend to sources that intend to operate past
draft partial plan would have applied to operate after January 1, 2032, and cease January 1, 2039, the EPA concludes that
one source, the Longview Power, LLC operation before January 1, 2039. In the BSER is CCS with 90 percent
facility, and would have established a addition, changed circumstances— capture of CO2. The EPA believes that
standard of performance, based on the including that natural gas is available in this control measure is appropriate
state’s consideration of the ‘‘candidate greater amounts, that many coal-fired because it achieves substantial
technologies,’’ that was higher (i.e., less EGUs have begun co-firing with natural reductions at reasonable cost, as
stringent) than the source’s historical gas or converted wholly to natural-gas, described in section VII.C.1 of this
emission rate. Thus, the draft plan and that there are fewer coal-fired EGUs preamble.
would not have achieved any emission in operation—mitigate the concerns the The EPA is not concluding that HRI
reductions from the source, and instead ACE Rule identified about inefficient is the BSER for any coal-fired EGUs. As
would have allowed the source to use of natural gas. discussed in section VII.D.4.a, the EPA
increase its emissions, if it had been Similarly, the ACE Rule rejected CCS does not consider HRIs an appropriate
finalized.265 as the BSER on grounds that it was too BSER for coal-fired EGUs because these
Because there is doubt that the costly. But the costs of CCS have technologies would achieve few, if any,
minimal reductions projected by the substantially declined, as discussed in emissions reductions and may increase
ACE Rule would be achieved, and section VII.C.1.a.ii of the preamble, emissions due to the rebound effect.
because the rebound effect could lead to partly because of developments in the Most importantly, changed
an increase in emissions for many technology that have lowered capital circumstances show that co-firing
sources in many states, the EPA costs, and partly because the IRA natural gas and CCS are available at
concludes that it is appropriate to repeal extended and increased the IRS section reasonable cost, and will achieve more
the ACE Rule and reevaluate the BSER 45Q tax credit so that it defrays a higher GHG emissions reductions.
for this category of sources. portion of the costs of CCS. Accordingly, the EPA believes that HRI
Accordingly, for coal-fired EGUs that do not qualify as the BSER for any coal-
C. Developments Showing That Other will continue to operate past 2039, the fired EGUs, and that other approaches
Technologies Are the BSER for This EPA concludes that the costs of CCS are meet the statutory standard. On this
Source Category reasonable, as described in section basis, the EPA repeals the ACE Rule.
Since the promulgation of the ACE VII.C.1.a.ii of the preamble.
Rule in 2019, the factual underpinnings The emission reductions from these D. Insufficiently Precise Degree of
of the rule have changed in several ways two technologies are substantial. For Emission Limitation Achievable From
and lead the EPA to determine that HRI long-term coal-fired steam generating Application of the BSER
units, the BSER of 90 percent capture The third independent reason why
are not the BSER for coal-fired power

plants. This reevaluation is consistent CCS results in substantial CO2 the EPA is repealing the ACE Rule is
emissions reductions amounting to that the rule did not identify with
265 West Virginia CAA § 111(d) Partial Plan for emission rates that are 88.4 percent sufficient specificity the BSER or the
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric lower on a lb/MWh-gross basis and 87.1 degree of emission limitation achievable
Utility Generating Units (EGUs), https://dep.wv.gov/
daq/publicnoticeandcomment/Documents/
percent lower on a lb/MWh-net basis through the application of the BSER.
Proposed%20WV%20ACE%20State%20Partial compared to units without capture, as Thus, states lacked adequate guidance
%20Plan.pdf. described in section VII.C.2.b.iv of this on the BSER they should consider and
level of emission reduction that the determining whether the plan is The only constraints that the ACE
standards of performance must achieve. ‘‘satisfactory’’ includes that the plan Rule imposed on the states were
The ACE Rule determined the BSER to must contain ‘‘emission standards . . . procedural ones, and those did not give
be a suite of HRI ‘‘candidate no less stringent than the corresponding the EPA any benchmark to determine
technologies,’’ but did not identify with emission guideline(s).’’ 40 CFR 60.24(c), whether a plan could be approved or
specificity the degree of emission 40 CFR 60.24a(c). In addition, under give the states any certainty on whether
limitation states should apply in CAA section 111(d)(1), in ‘‘applying a their plan would be approved. As noted
developing standards of performance for standard of performance to any above, when a state submitted its plan,
their sources. As a result, the ACE Rule particular source’’ a state may consider, it needed to show that it evaluated each
conflicted with CAA section 111 and ‘‘among other factors, the remaining candidate technology for each source or
the implementing regulations, and thus useful life of the existing source to group of sources, explain how it
failed to provide states adequate which such standard applies.’’ This is determined the degree of emission
guidance so that they could ensure that also known as the RULOF provision and limitation achievable, and include data
their state plans were satisfactory and is discussed in section X.C.2 of this about the sources. But because the ACE
approvable by the EPA. preamble. Rule did not identify a BSER or include
CAA section 111 and the EPA’s In the ACE Rule, the EPA recognized a degree of emission limitation that the
longstanding implementing regulations that the CAA required it to determine standards must reflect, the states lacked
establish a clear process for the EPA and the BSER and identify the degree of specific guidance on how to craft
states to regulate emissions of certain air emission limitation achievable through adequate standards of performance, and
pollutants from existing sources. ‘‘The application of the BSER. 84 FR 32537 the EPA had no benchmark against
statute directs the EPA to (1) (July 8, 2019). But the rule did not make which to evaluate whether a state’s
‘determine[ ],’ taking into account those determinations. Rather, the ACE submission was ‘‘satisfactory’’ under
various factors, the ‘best system of Rule described the BSER as a list of CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). Thus, the
emission reduction which . . . has been ‘‘candidate technologies.’’ And the rule EPA’s review of state plans would be
adequately demonstrated,’ (2) ascertain described the degree of emission essentially a standardless exercise,
the ‘degree of emission limitation limitation achievable by application of notwithstanding the Agency’s
achievable through the application’ of the BSER as ranges of reductions from longstanding view that it was
that system, and (3) impose an the HRI technologies. The rule thus ‘‘essential’’ that ‘‘EPA review . . . [state]
emissions limit on new stationary shifted the responsibility for plans for their substantive adequacy.’’
sources that ‘reflects’ that amount.’’ determining the BSER and degree of 40 FR 53342–43 (November 17, 1975).
West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. at 709 emission limitation achievable from the In 1975, the EPA explained that it was
(quoting 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)). Further, EPA to the states. Accordingly, the ACE not appropriate to limit its review based
‘‘[a]lthough the States set the actual Rule did not meet the CAA section 111 ‘‘solely on procedural criteria’’ because
rules governing existing power plants, requirement that the EPA determine the otherwise ‘‘states could set extremely
EPA itself still retains the primary BSER or the degree of emission lenient standards . . . so long as EPA’s
regulatory role in Section 111(d) . . . limitation from application of the BSER. procedural requirements were met.’’ Id.
[and] decides the amount of pollution As described above, the ACE Rule at 53343.
reduction that must ultimately be identified the HRI in the form of a list Finally, the ACE Rule’s approach to
achieved.’’ Id. at 2602. of seven ‘‘candidate technologies,’’ determining the BSER and degree of
Once the EPA makes these accompanied by a wide range of emission limitation departed from prior
determinations, the state must establish percentage improvements to heat rate emission guidelines under CAA section
‘‘standards of performance’’ for its that these technologies could provide. 111(d), in which the EPA included a
sources that are based on the degree of Indeed, for one of them, improved numeric degree of emission limitation.
emission limitation that the EPA ‘‘O&M’’ practices (that is, operation and See, e.g., 42 FR 55796, 55797 (October
determines in the emission guidelines. management practices), the range was 18, 1977) (limiting emission rate of acid
CAA section 111(a)(1) makes this clear ‘‘0 to >2%,’’ which is effectively mist from sulfuric acid plants to 0.25
through its definition of ‘‘standard of unbounded. 84 FR 32537 (table 1) (July grams per kilogram of acid); 44 FR
performance’’ as ‘‘a standard for 8, 2019). The ACE Rule was clear that 29829 (May 22, 1979) (limiting
emissions of air pollutants which this list was simply the starting point for concentrations of total reduced sulfur
reflects the degree of emission a state to calculate the standards of from most of the subcategories of kraft
limitation achievable through the performance for its sources. That is, the pulp mills, such as digester systems and
application of the [BSER].’’ After the seven sets of technologies were lime kilns, to 5, 20, or 25 ppm over 12-
EPA determines the BSER, 40 CFR ‘‘candidate[s]’’ that the state could apply hour averages); 61 FR 9919 (March 12,
60.22(b)(5), and the degree of emission to determine the standard of 1996) (limiting concentration of non-
limitation achievable from application performance for a source, and if the methane organic compounds from solid
of the BSER, ‘‘the States then submit state did choose to apply one or more waste landfills to 20 parts per million by
plans containing the emissions of them, the state could do so in a volume or a 98 percent reduction). The
restrictions that they intend to adopt manner that yielded any percentage of ACE Rule did not grapple with this
and enforce in order not to exceed the heat rate improvement within the range change in position as required by FCC
permissible level of pollution that the EPA identified, or even outside v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S.
established by EPA.’’ 597 U.S. at 710 that range. Thus, as a practical matter, 502 (2009), or explain why it was
(citing 40 CFR 60.23, 60.24; 42 U.S.C. the ACE Rule did not determine the appropriate to provide a boundless
7411(d)(1)). BSER or any degree of emission degree of emission limitation achievable
The EPA then reviews the plan and limitation from application of the BSER, in this context.
approves it if the standards of and so states had no guidance on how The EPA is finalizing the repeal the
performance are ‘‘satisfactory,’’ under to craft approvable state plans. In this ACE Rule on this ground as well. The
CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). The EPA’s way, the ACE Rule did not adhere to the ACE Rule’s failure to determine the
longstanding implementing regulations applicable statutory obligations. See 84 BSER and the associated degree of
make clear that the EPA’s basis for FR 32537–38 (July 8, 2019). emission limitation achievable from
application of the BSER deviated from EPA expressed in that proposal relevant for the suitability of the
CAA section 111 and the implementing preamble. emission controls, the EPA may create
regulations. Without these Furthermore, in the event that any separate subcategories and make
determinations, the ACE Rule lacked sources are increasing their absolute separate BSER determinations for those
any benchmark that would guide the emissions after modifying an EGU, subcategories.
states in developing their state plans, applicability of the NSR program is The EPA considered the
and by which the EPA could determine beneficial as a backstop that provides characteristics of fossil fuel-fired steam
whether those state plans were review of those situations to determine generating units that may impact the
satisfactory. if additional controls or other emission suitability of different control measures.
For each of these three, independent limitations are necessary on a case-by- First, the EPA observed that the type
reasons, repeal of the ACE Rule is case basis to protect air quality. In and amounts of fossil fuels—coal, oil,
proper. addition, given that considerable time and natural gas—fired in the steam
has passed since these EGU-specific generating unit affect the performance
E. Withdrawal of Proposed NSR
NSR applicability revisions were and emissions reductions achievable by
Revisions
proposed in 2018, should the EPA different control technologies, in part
In addition to repealing the ACE Rule, decide to pursue them at a later time, it due to the differences in the carbon
the Agency is withdrawing the proposed is prudent for the Agency to propose content of those fuels. The EPA
revisions to the NSR applicability them again at that time, accompanied recognized that many sources fire
provisions that were included the ACE with the EPA’s updated context and multiple types of fossil fuel. Therefore,
Rule proposal (83 FR 44756, 44773–83; justification to support re-proposing the the EPA is finalizing subcategories of
August 31, 2018). These proposed NSR revisions, rather than relying on coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-
revisions would have included an the proposal from 2018. Therefore, the fired steam generating units. The EPA is
hourly emissions rate test to determine EPA is withdrawing these proposed basing these subcategories, in part, on
NSR applicability for a modified EGU, NSR revisions. the amount of fuel combusted by the
with the expressed purpose of steam generating unit.
alleviating permitting burdens for VII. Regulatory Approach for Existing
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generating The EPA then considered the BSER
sources undertaking HRI projects that may be suitable for each of those
pursuant to the ACE Rule emission Units
subcategories of fuel type. For coal-fired
guidelines. The ACE Rule final action Existing fossil fuel-fired steam steam generating units, of the available
did not include the NSR revisions, and generation units are the largest control technologies, the EPA is
the EPA indicated in that preamble that stationary source of CO2 emissions, determining that CCS with 90 percent
it intended to take final action on the emitting 909 MMT CO2e in 2021. Recent capture of CO2 meets the requirements
NSR proposal in a separate action at a developments in control technologies for BSER, including being adequately
later date. However, the EPA did not offer opportunities to reduce CO2 demonstrated and achieving significant
take a final action on the NSR revisions, emissions from these sources. The emission reductions at reasonable cost
and the EPA has decided to no longer EPA’s regulatory approach for these for units operating in the long-term, as
pursue them and to withdraw the units is to require emissions reduction detailed in section VII.C.1.a of this
proposed revisions. consistent with these technologies, preamble. Application of this BSER
Withdrawal of the proposal to where their use is cost-reasonable. results in a degree of emission
establish an hourly emissions test for limitation equivalent to an 88.4 percent
NSR applicability for EGUs is A. Overview
reduction in emission rate (lb CO2/
appropriate because of the repeal of the In this section of the preamble, the
MWh-gross). The compliance date for
ACE rule and the EPA’s conclusion that EPA identifies the BSER and degree of
these sources is January 1, 2032.
HRI is not the BSER for coal-fired EGUs. emission limitation achievable for the
Typically, the EPA assumes that
The EPA’s basis for proposing the NSR regulation of GHG emissions from
sources subject to controls operate in
revisions was to ease permitting existing fossil fuel-fired steam
the long-term.266 See, for example, the
burdens for state agencies and sources generating units. As detailed in section
2015 NSPS (80 FR 64509; October 23,
that may result from implementing the V of this preamble, to meet the
2015) or the 2011 CSAPR (76 FR 48208;
ACE Rule. There was concern that, for requirements of CAA section 111(d), the
August 8, 2011). Under that assumption,
sources that modified their EGU to EPA promulgates ‘‘emission guidelines’’
fleet average costs for CCS are
improve the heat rate, if a source were that identify the BSER and the degree of
comparable to the cost metrics the EPA
to be dispatched more frequently emission limitation achievable through
has previously considered to be
because of improved efficiency (the the application of the BSER, and states
reasonable. However, the EPA observes
‘‘rebound effect’’), the source could then establish standards of performance
that about half of the capacity (87 GW
experience an increase in absolute for affected sources that reflect that level
out of 181 GW) of existing coal-fired
emissions for one or more pollutants of stringency. To determine the BSER
steam generating units have announced
and potentially trigger major NSR for a source category, the EPA identifies
plans to permanently cease operation
requirements. The hourly emissions rate systems of emission reduction (e.g.,
prior to 2039, as detailed in section
test was proposed to relieve such control technologies) that have been
IV.D.3.b of this preamble, affecting the
sources that were undertaking HRI adequately demonstrated and evaluates
period available for those sources to
projects to comply with their state plans the potential emissions reduction, costs,
amortize the capital costs of CCS.
from the burdens of NSR permitting, any non-air health and environmental
particularly in cases in which a source impacts, and energy requirements. As 266 Typically, the EPA assumes that the capital
has an increase in annual emissions of described in section V.C.1 of this costs can be amortized over a period of 15 years.
a pollutant. However, given that this preamble, the EPA has broad authority As discussed in section VII.C.1.a.ii of this preamble,
final rule BSER is not based on HRIs for to create subcategories under CAA in the case of CCS, the IRC section 45Q tax credit,
which defrays a significant portion of the costs of
coal-fired EGUs, the NSR revisions section 111(d). Therefore, where the CCS, is available for the first 12 years of operation.
proposed as part of the ACE Rule would sources in a category differ from each Accordingly, EPA generally assumed a 12-year
no longer serve the purpose that the other by some characteristic that is amortization period in determining CCS costs.
Accordingly, the EPA evaluated the an amortization period that is subcategories based on capacity factor.
costs of CCS for different amortization significantly shorter than the period for Because natural gas- and oil-fired steam
periods. For an amortization period of CCS. The EPA has determined that the generating units with similar annual
more than 7 years—such that sources costs of co-firing meet the metrics for capacity factors perform similarly to one
operate after January 1, 2039— cost reasonableness for the majority of another, the EPA is finalizing a BSER of
annualized fleet average costs are the capacity that permanently cease routine methods of operation and
comparable to or less than the metrics operation more than 2 years after the maintenance and a degree of emission
of costs for controls that the EPA has January 1, 2030, implementation date, limitation of no increase in emission
previously found to be reasonable. or after January 1, 2032 (and up to rate for intermediate and base load
However, the group of sources ceasing December 31, 2038), and that therefore subcategories. For low load natural gas-
operation prior to January 1, 2039, have have an amortization period of more and oil-fired steam generating units, the
less time available to amortize the than 2 years (and up to 9 years). EPA is finalizing a BSER of uniform
capital costs of CCS, resulting in higher The EPA is also determining that fuels and respective degrees of emission
annualized costs. sources demonstrating that they plan to limitation defined on a heat input basis
Because the costs of CCS depend on permanently cease operation before (130 lb CO2/MMBtu and 170 lb CO2/
the available amortization period, the January 1, 2032, are not subject to the MMBtu). Furthermore, the EPA is
EPA is creating a subcategory for 40 percent co-firing requirement. This is finalizing presumptive standards for
sources demonstrating that they plan to because their amortization period would natural gas- and oil-fired steam
permanently cease operation prior to be so short—2 years or less—that the generating units as follows: base load
January 1, 2039. Instead, for this costs of co-firing would, in general, be sources (those with annual capacity
subcategory of sources, the EPA is less comparable to the cost metrics for factors greater than 45 percent) have a
determining that natural gas co-firing at reasonableness for that group of sources. presumptive standard of 1,400 lb CO2/
40 percent of annual heat input meets Accordingly, the EPA is defining the MWh-gross, intermediate load sources
the requirements of BSER. Application medium-term subcategory to include (those with annual capacity factors
of the natural gas co-firing BSER results those sources demonstrating that they
in a degree of emission limitation greater than 8 percent and or less than
plan to permanently cease operating or equal to 45 percent) have a
equivalent to a 16 percent reduction in after December 31, 2031, and before
emission rate (lb CO2/MWh-gross). Co- presumptive standard of 1,600 lb CO2/
January 1, 2039. MWh-gross. For low load oil-fired
firing at 40 percent entails significantly Considering the limited emission
less control equipment and sources, the EPA is finalizing a
reductions available in light of the cost
infrastructure than CCS, and as a result, presumptive standard of 170 lb CO2/
reasonableness of controls with short
the EPA has determined that affected MMBtu, while for low load natural gas-
amortization periods, the EPA is
sources are able to implement it more finalizing an applicability exemption for fired sources the EPA is finalizing a
quickly than CCS, by January 1, 2030. coal-fired steam generating units presumptive standard of 130 lb CO2/
Importantly, co-firing at 40 percent also demonstrating that they plan to MMBtu. A compliance date of January
entails significantly less capital cost permanently cease operation before 1, 2030, applies for all natural gas- and
than CCS, and as a result, the costs of January 1, 2032. oil-fired steam generating units.
co-firing are comparable to or less than For natural gas- and oil-fired steam The final subcategories and BSER are
the metrics for cost reasonableness with generating units, the EPA is finalizing summarized in table 1 of this document.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL BSER, SUBCATEGORIES, AND DEGREES OF EMISSION LIMITATION FOR AFFECTED EGUS
Presumptively
Degree of
Affected approvable
Subcategory definition BSER emission
EGUs standard of
limitation performance *
Long-term existing coal-fired Coal-fired steam generating units CCS with 90 percent cap- 88.4 percent reduction in 88.4 percent reduction in annual
steam generating units. that are not medium-term units. ture of CO2. emission rate (lb CO2/ emission rate (lb CO2/MWh-
MWh-gross). gross) from the unit-specific
baseline.
Medium-term existing coal- Coal-fired steam generating units Natural gas co-firing at 40 A 16 percent reduction in A 16 percent reduction in an-
fired steam generating units. that have demonstrated that they percent of the heat input emission rate (lb CO2/ nual emission rate (lb CO2/
plan to permanently cease oper- to the unit. MWh-gross). MWh-gross) from the unit-
ations after December 31, 2031, specific baseline.
and before January 1, 2039.
Base load existing oil-fired Oil-fired steam generating units with Routine methods of oper- No increase in emission rate An annual emission rate limit of
steam generating units. an annual capacity factor greater ation and maintenance. (lb CO2/MWh-gross). 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross.
than or equal to 45 percent.
Intermediate load existing oil- Oil-fired steam generating units with Routine methods of oper- No increase in emission rate An annual emission rate limit of
fired steam generating units. an annual capacity factor greater ation and maintenance. (lb CO2/MWh-gross). 1,600 lb CO2/MWh-gross.
than or equal to 8 percent and
less than 45 percent.
Low load existing oil-fired Oil-fired steam generating units with lower-emitting fuels .............. 170 lb CO2/MMBtu .............. 170 lb CO2/MMBtu.
steam generating units. an annual capacity factor less
than 8 percent.
Base load existing natural Natural gas-fired steam generating Routine methods of oper- No increase in emission rate An annual emission rate limit of
gas-fired steam generating units with an annual capacity fac- ation and maintenance. (lb CO2/MWh-gross). 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross.
units. tor greater than or equal to 45
percent.
Intermediate load existing nat- Natural gas-fired steam generating Routine methods of oper- No increase in emission rate An annual emission rate limit of
ural gas-fired steam gener- units with an annual capacity fac- ation and maintenance. (lb CO2/MWh-gross). 1,600 lb CO2/MWh-gross.
ating units. tor greater than or equal to 8 per-
cent and less than 45 percent.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL BSER, SUBCATEGORIES, AND DEGREES OF EMISSION LIMITATION FOR AFFECTED EGUS—
Continued
Presumptively
Degree of
Affected approvable
Subcategory definition BSER emission
EGUs standard of
limitation performance *
Low load existing natural gas- Oil-fired steam generating units with lower-emitting fuels .............. 130 lb CO2/MMBtu .............. 130 lb CO2/MMBtu.
fired steam generating units. an annual capacity factor less
than 8 percent.
* Presumptive standards of performance are discussed in detail in section X of the preamble. While states establish standards of performance for sources, the EPA
provides presumptively approvable standards of performance based on the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER for each sub-
category. Inclusion in this table is for completeness.
B. Applicability Requirements and includes that discussion by reference either 219,000 MWh or the product of
Fossil Fuel-Type Definitions for here. the design efficiency and the potential
Subcategories of Steam Generating Section 111(a)(6) of the CAA defines electric output, whichever is greater; (5)
Units an ‘‘existing source’’ as ‘‘any stationary units that serve a generator along with
In this section of the preamble, the source other than a new source.’’ other affected EGU(s), where the
EPA describes the rationale for the final Therefore, the emission guidelines do effective generation capacity
applicability requirements for existing not apply to any steam generating units (determined based on a prorated output
fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. that are new after January 8, 2014, or of the base load rating of EGU) is 25 MW
The EPA also describes the rationale for reconstructed after June 18, 2014, the or less; (6) municipal waste combustor
the fuel type definitions and associated applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60, units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
subcategories. subpart TTTT. Moreover, because the Eb; (7) commercial or industrial solid
EPA is now finalizing revised standards waste incineration units that are subject
1. Applicability Requirements of performance for coal-fired steam to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC; (8)
For the emission guidelines, the EPA generating units that undertake a EGUs that derive greater than 50 percent
is finalizing that a designated facility 267 modification, a modified coal-fired of the heat input from an industrial
is any fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating unit would be process that does not produce any
steam generating unit (i.e., utility boiler considered ‘‘new,’’ and therefore not electrical or mechanical output or useful
or IGCC unit) that: (1) was in operation subject to these emission guidelines, if thermal output that is used outside the
or had commenced construction on or the modification occurs after the date affected EGU; or (9) coal-fired steam
before January 8, 2014; 268 (2) serves a the proposal was published in the generating units that have elected to
generator capable of selling greater than Federal Register (May 23, 2023). Any permanently cease operation prior to
25 MW to a utility power distribution coal-fired steam generating unit that has January 1, 2032.
system; and (3) has a base load rating modified prior to that date would be The exemptions listed above at (4),
greater than 260 GJ/h (250 million considered an existing source that is (5), (6), and (7) are among the current
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/ subject to these emission guidelines. exemptions at 40 CFR 60.5509(b), as
h)) heat input of fossil fuel (either alone In addition, the EPA is finalizing in discussed in section VIII.E.1 of this
or in combination with any other fuel). the applicability requirements of the preamble. The exemptions listed above
Consistent with the implementing emission guidelines many of the same at (2), (3), and (8) are exemptions the
regulations, the term ‘‘designated exemptions as discussed for 40 CFR part EPA is finalizing revisions for 40 CFR
facility’’ is used throughout this 60, subpart TTTT, in section VIII.E.1 of part 60, subpart TTTT, and the rationale
preamble to refer to the sources affected this preamble. EGUs that may be for the exemptions is in section VIII.E.1
by these emission guidelines.269 For the excluded from the requirement to of this preamble. For consistency with
emission guidelines, consistent with establish standards under a state plan the applicability requirements in 40
prior CAA section 111 rulemakings are: (1) units that are subject to 40 CFR CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, and 40 CFR
concerning EGUs, the term ‘‘designated part 60, subpart TTTT, as a result of part 60, subpart TTTTa, the Agency is
facility’’ refers to a single EGU that is commencing a qualifying modification finalizing these same exemptions for the
affected by these emission guidelines. or reconstruction; (2) steam generating applicability of the emission guidelines.
The rationale for the final applicability units subject to a federally enforceable
requirements is the same as that for 40 permit limiting net-electric sales to one- 2. Coal-Fired Units Permanently Ceasing
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT (80 FR third or less of their potential electric Operation Before January 1, 2032
64543–44; October 23, 2015). The EPA output or 219,000 MWh or less on an The EPA is not addressing existing
annual basis and annual net-electric coal-fired steam generating units
267 The term ‘‘designated facility’’ means ‘‘any sales have never exceeded one-third or demonstrating that they plan to
existing facility . . . which emits a designated less of their potential electric output or permanently cease operating before
pollutant and which would be subject to a standard
of performance for that pollutant if the existing
219,000 MWh; (3) non-fossil fuel units January 1, 2032, in these emission
facility were an affected facility.’’ See 40 CFR (i.e., units that are capable of deriving at guidelines. Sources ceasing operation
60.21a(b). least 50 percent of heat input from non- before that date have far less emission
268 Under CAA section 111, the determination of
fossil fuel at the base load rating) that reduction potential than sources that
whether a source is a new source or an existing

source (and thus potentially a designated facility)
are subject to a federally enforceable will be operating longer, because there
is based on the date that the EPA proposes to permit limiting fossil fuel use to 10 are unlikely to be appreciable, cost-
establish standards of performance for new sources. percent or less of the annual capacity reasonable emission reductions
269 The EPA recognizes, however, that the word
factor; (4) combined heat and power available on average for the group of
‘‘facility’’ is often understood colloquially to refer
to a single power plant, which may have one or
(CHP) units that are subject to a sources operating in that timeframe.
more EGUs co-located within the plant’s federally enforceable permit limiting This is because controls that entail
boundaries. annual net-electric sales to no more than capital expenditures are unlikely to be
of reasonable cost for these sources due system of emission reduction EPA determined that a technology-based
to the relatively short period over which corresponding to a substantial level of BSER was available for coal-fired units
they could amortize the capital costs of natural gas co-firing would broadly operating past January 1, 2032.
controls. entail costs of control that are above Sources that retire before that date,
In particular, in developing the those that the EPA is generally however, are differently situated as
emission guidelines, the EPA evaluated considering reasonable. Sources described above. In light of the small
two systems of emission reduction that permanently ceasing operation before number of sources that are planning to
achieve substantial emission reductions January 1, 2032 would have less than 2 retire before January 1, 2032 that could
for coal-fired steam generating units: years to amortize the capital costs, as cost-effectively co-fire with natural gas,
CCS with 90 percent capture; and detailed in section VII.C.2.a of this coupled with the small amount of
natural gas co-firing at 40 percent of preamble. Compared to the metrics for emissions reductions that can be
heat input. For CCS, the EPA has cost reasonableness that EPA has achieved from co-firing in such a short
determined that controls can be previously deemed reasonable ($18.50/ time span, the EPA is choosing not to
installed and fully operational by the MWh of generation and $98/ton of CO2 establish a BSER for these sources.271
compliance date of January 1, 2032, as reduced), very few sources can co-fire Because, at this time, the EPA has
detailed in section VII.C.1.a.i(E) of this 40 percent natural gas at costs determined that CCS and natural gas co-
preamble. CCS would therefore, in most comparable to these metrics with an firing are not available at reasonable
cases, be unavailable to coal-fired steam amortization period of only one year; cost for sources ceasing operation before
generating units planning to cease only 1 percent of units have costs that January 1, 2032, the EPA is not
operation prior to that date. are below both $18.50/MWh of finalizing a BSER for such sources. Not
Furthermore, the EPA evaluated the generation and $98/ton of CO2 reduced. finalizing a BSER for these sources is
costs of CCS for different amortization The number of sources that can co-fire consistent with the Agency’s discretion
periods. For an amortization period of lower amounts of natural gas at costs to take incremental steps to address CO2
more than 7 years—such that sources comparable to these metrics is likewise from sources in the category, and to
operate after January 1, 2039— limited—only approximately 34 percent direct the EPA’s limited resources at
annualized fleet average costs are of units can co-fire with 20 percent regulation of those sources that can
comparable to or less than the costs of natural gas at costs lower than both cost achieve the most emission reductions.
controls the EPA has previously metrics. Furthermore, the period that The EPA is therefore providing that
determined to be reasonable ($18.50/ these sources would operate with co- existing coal-fired steam generating
MWh of generation and $98/ton of CO2 firing for would be short, so that the EGUs that have elected to cease
reduced), as detailed in section emission reductions from that group of operating before January 1, 2032, are not
VII.C.1.a.ii of this preamble. However, sources would be limited. regulated by these emission guidelines.
the costs for shorter amortization By contrast, assuming a two-year This exemption applies to a source until
periods are higher. For sources ceasing amortization period, many more units the earlier of December 31, 2031, or the
operation by January 1, 2032, it would can co-fire with meaningful amounts of date it demonstrates in the state plan
be unlikely that the annualized costs of natural gas at a cost that is consistent that it plans to cease operation. If a
CCS would be reasonable even were with the metrics EPA has previously source continues to operate past this
CCS installed at an earlier date (e.g., by used: 18 percent of units can co-fire date, it is no longer exempt from these
January 1, 2030) due to the shorter with 40 percent natural gas at costs less emission guidelines. See section X.E.1
amortization period available. than $98/ton and $18.50/MWh, and 50 of this preamble for discussion of how
Because the costs of CCS would be percent of units can co-fire with 20 state plans should address sources
higher for shorter amortization periods, percent natural gas at costs lower than subject to exemption (9).272
the EPA is finalizing a separate both metrics. Because a substantial 3. Sources Outside of the Contiguous
subcategory for sources demonstrating number of sources can implement 40- U.S.
that they plan to permanently cease percent co-firing with natural gas with
operating by January 1, 2039, with a an amortization period of two years or The EPA proposed the same emission
BSER of 40 percent natural gas co-firing, longer with reasonable costs, and even guidelines for fossil fuel-fired steam
as detailed in section VII.C.2.b.ii of this more can co-fire with lesser amounts
preamble. For natural gas co-firing, the with reasonable costs with amortization amount of natural gas be subject to these emission
guidelines.
EPA is finalizing a compliance date of periods longer than two years,270 the 271 For the reasons described at length in section
January 1, 2030, as detailed in section VI.B, the EPA does not believe that heat rate
VII.C.2.b.i(C) of this preamble. 270 As described in detail in section X.C.2 of this improvement measures or HRI are appropriate for
Therefore, the EPA assumes sources preamble, the EPA recognizes that particular sources retiring before January 1, 2032 because HRI
subject to a natural gas co-firing BSER affected EGUs may have characteristics that make applied to coal-fired sources achieve few emission
it unreasonable to achieve the degree of emission reductions, and can lead to the ‘‘rebound effect’’
can amortize costs for a period of up to limitation corresponding to 40 percent co-firing where CO2 emissions from the source increase
9 years. The EPA has determined that with natural gas. For example, a state may be able rather than decrease as a consequence of imposing
the costs of natural gas co-firing at 40 to demonstrate a fundamental difference between the technologies.
percent meet the metrics for cost the costs the EPA considered in these emission 272 The EPA notes that this applicability
guidelines and the costs to an affected EGU that exemption does not conflict with states’ ability to
reasonableness for the majority of the plans to cease operation in late 2032. If such costs consider the remaining useful lives of ‘‘particular’’
capacity that operate more than 2 years make it unreasonable for a particular unit to meet sources that are subject to these emission
after the January 1, 2030, the degree of emission limitation corresponding to guidelines. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(1). As the EPA’s
40 percent co-firing with natural gas, the state may implementing regulations specify, the provision for
implementation date, i.e., that operate

apply a less stringent standard of performance to states’ consideration of RULOF is intended address
after January 1, 2032 (and up to that unit. Consistent with the requirements for the specific conditions of particular sources,
December 31, 2038), and that therefore calculating a less stringent standard of performance whereas the EPA is responsible for determining
have an amortization period of more at 40 CFR 60.24a(f), under these emission generally how to regulate a source category under
than 2 years (and up to 9 years). guidelines states would consider whether it is an emission guideline. Moreover, RULOF applies
reasonable for units that cannot cost-reasonably co- only to when a state is applying a standard of
However, for sources ceasing fire natural gas at 40 percent to co-fire at levels performance to an affected source—and the state
operation prior to January 1, 2032, the lower than 40 percent. It is thus appropriate that would not apply a standard of performance to
EPA believes that establishing a best coal-fired EGUs that can reasonably co-fire any exempted sources.
generating units in non-continental from DOE for a front-end engineering after December 31, 2029, or for more
areas (i.e., Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin design (FEED) study for CCS targeting a than 15.0 percent of the annual heat
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the capture efficiency of more than 95 input during any one calendar year after
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the percent.273 For these reasons, the EPA is December 31, 2029, or that retains the
Northern Mariana Islands) and non- not distinguishing IGCC units from capability to fire coal after December 31,
contiguous areas (non-continental areas other coal-fired steam generating EGUs, 2029.
and Alaska) as the EPA proposed for so that the BSER of co-firing for • An oil-fired steam generating unit is
comparable units in the contiguous 48 medium-term coal-fired units and CCS an electric utility steam generating unit
states. The EPA notes that the modeling for long-term coal-fired units apply to meeting the definition of ‘‘fossil fuel-
that supports the final emission IGCC units.274 fired’’ that is not a coal-fired steam
guidelines focus on sources in the generating unit, that no longer retains
5. Fossil Fuel-Type Definitions for
contiguous U.S. Further, the EPA notes the capability to fire coal after December
Subcategories of Steam Generating Units
that few, if any, coal-fired steam 31, 2029, and that burns oil for more
generating units operate outside of the In this action, the EPA is finalizing than 10.0 percent of the average annual
contiguous 48 states and meet the definitions for subcategories of existing heat input during any continuous 3-
applicability criteria. Finally, the EPA fossil fuel-fired steam generating units calendar-year period after December 31,
notes that the proposed BSER and based on the type and amount of fossil 2029, or for more than 15.0 percent of
degree of emissions limitation for non- fuel used in the unit. The EPA is the annual heat input during any one
continental oil-fired steam generating finalizing separate subcategories based calendar year after December 31, 2029.
units would have achieved few on fuel type because the carbon content • A natural gas-fired steam
emission reductions. Therefore, the EPA of the fuel combusted affects the output generating unit is an electric utility
is not finalizing emission guidelines for emission rate (i.e., lb CO2/MWh). Fuels
steam generating unit meeting the
existing steam generating units in states with a higher carbon content produce a
definition of ‘‘fossil fuel-fired,’’ that is
and territories (including Alaska, greater amount of CO2 emissions per
not a coal-fired or oil-fired steam
Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. unit of fuel combusted (on a heat input
generating unit, that no longer retains
Virgin Islands) that are outside of the basis, MMBtu) and per unit of electricity
the capability to fire coal after December
contiguous U.S. at this time. generated (i.e., MWh).
The EPA proposed fossil fuel type 31, 2029, and that burns natural gas for
4. IGCC Units subcategory definitions based on the more than 10.0 percent of the average
definitions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart annual heat input during any
The EPA notes that existing IGCC
UUUUU, and the fossil fuel definitions continuous 3-calendar-year period after
units were included in the proposed
applicability requirements and that, in in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. Those December 31, 2029, or for more than
section VII.B of this preamble, the EPA proposed definitions were determined 15.0 percent of the annual heat input
is finalizing inclusion of those units in by the relative heat input contribution during any one calendar year after
the subcategory of coal-fired steam of the different fuels combusted in a December 31, 2029.
generating units. IGCC units gasify coal unit during the 3 years prior to the The EPA received some comments on
or solid fossil fuel (e.g., pet coke) to proposed compliance date of January 1, the fuel type definitions. Those
produce syngas (a mixture of carbon 2030. Further, to be considered an oil- comments and responses are as follows.
monoxide and hydrogen), and either fired or natural gas-fired unit for Comment: Some industry
burn the syngas directly in a combined purposes of this emission guideline, a stakeholders suggested changes to the
cycle unit or use a catalyst for water-gas source would no longer retain the proposed definitions for fossil fuel type.
shift (WGS) to produce a pre- capability to fire coal after December 31, Specifically, some commenters
combustion gas stream with a higher 2029. requested that the reference to the initial
concentration of CO2 and hydrogen, The EPA proposed a 3-year lookback compliance date be removed and that
which can be burned in a hydrogen period, so that the proposed fuel-type the fuel type determination should
turbine combined cycle unit. As subcategorization would have been instead be rolling and continually
described in section VII.C of this based, in part, on the fuel type fired update after the initial compliance date.
preamble, the final BSER for coal-fired between January 1, 2027, and January 1, Those commenters suggested this
steam generating units includes co- 2030. However, the intent of the would, for example, allow sources in
firing natural gas and CCS. The few proposed fuel type subcategorization the coal-fired subcategory that begin
IGCC units that now operate in the U.S. was to base the fuel type definition on natural gas co-firing in 2030 to convert
either burn natural gas exclusively—and the state of the source on January 1, to the natural-gas fired subcategory prior
as such operate as natural gas combined 2030. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing to the proposed date of January 1, 2040,
cycle units—or in amounts near to the the following fuel type subcategory instead of ceasing operation.
40 percent level of the natural gas co- definitions: Other industry commenters suggested
firing BSER. Additionally, IGCC units • A coal-fired steam generating unit that to be a natural gas-fired steam
may be suitable for pre-combustion CO2 is an electric utility steam generating generating unit, a source could either
capture. Because the CO2 concentration unit or IGCC unit that meets the meet the heat input requirements during
in the pre-combustion gas, after WGS, is definition of ‘‘fossil fuel-fired’’ and that the 3 years prior to the compliance date
high relative to coal-combustion flue burns coal for more than 10.0 percent of or (emphasis added) no longer retain the
gas, pre-combustion CO2 capture for the average annual heat input during capability to fire coal after December 31,
2029. Those commenters noted that, as
IGCC units can be performed using any continuous 3-calendar-year period

either an amine-based (or other solvent- proposed, a source that had planned to
based) capture process or a physical 273 Duke Edwardsport DOE FEED Study Fact convert to 100 percent natural gas-firing
absorption capture process. Sheet. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ would essentially have to do so prior to
Alternatively, post-combustion CO2 2024-01/OCED_CCFEEDs_AwardeeFactSheet_ January 1, 2027, to meet the proposed
Duke_1.5.2024.pdf.
capture can be applied to the source. 274 For additional details on pre-combustion CO heat input-based definition, in addition
2
The one existing IGCC unit that still capture, please see the final TSD, GHG Mitigation to removing the capability to fire coal by
uses coal was recently awarded funding Measures for Steam Generating Units. the compliance date.
Response: Although full natural gas sources operating in the long-term, the CCS as the BSER; and a medium-term
conversions are not a measure that the EPA proposed CCS with 90 percent subcategory for sources that
EPA considered as a potential BSER, the capture as BSER. For sources operating permanently cease operations by that
emission guidelines do not prohibit in the medium-term (i.e., those date and were not in any of the other
such conversions should a state elect to demonstrating that they plan to proposed subcategories, discussed next,
require or accommodate them. As noted permanently cease operation by January with 40 percent co-firing as the BSER.
above, the EPA recognizes that many 1, 2040), the EPA proposed 40 percent For both subcategories, the compliance
steam EGUs that formerly utilized coal natural gas co-firing as BSER. For date was January 1, 2030. The EPA also
as a primary fuel have fully or partially imminent-term and near-term sources proposed an imminent-term
converted to natural gas, and that ceasing operation earlier, the EPA subcategory, for sources that planned to
additional steam EGUs may elect to do proposed BSERs of routine methods of permanently cease operations by
so during the implementation period for operation and maintenance. January 1, 2032; and a near-term
these emission guidelines. However, The EPA is finalizing CCS with 90 subcategory, for sources that planned to
these emission guidelines place percent capture as BSER for coal-fired permanently case operations by January
reasonable constraints on the timing of steam generating units because CCS can 1, 2035, and that limited their annual
such a conversion in situations where a achieve a substantial amount of capacity utilization to 20 percent. The
source seeks to be regulated as a natural emission reductions and satisfies the EPA proposed a BSER of routine
gas-fired steam EGU rather than as a other BSER criteria. CCS has been methods of operation and maintenance
coal-fired steam EGU. The EPA believes adequately demonstrated and results in for these two subcategories.
that such constraints are necessary in by far the largest emissions reductions The EPA is not finalizing these
order to avoid creating a perverse of the available control technologies. As imminent-term and near-term
incentive for EGUs to defer conversions noted below, the EPA has also subcategories. In addition, after
in a way that could undermine the determined that the compliance date for considering the comments, the EPA
emission reduction purpose of the rule. CCS is January 1, 2032. CCS, however, acknowledges that some additional time
Therefore, the EPA disagrees with those entails significant up-front capital from what was proposed may be
commenters that suggest the EPA expenditures that are amortized over a beneficial for the planning and
should, in general, allow EGUs to be period of years. The EPA evaluated the installation of CCS. Therefore, the EPA
regulated as natural gas-fired steam cost for different amortization periods, is finalizing a January 1, 2032,
EGUs when they undertake such and the EPA has concluded that CCS is compliance date for long-term existing
conversions past January 1, 2030. cost-reasonable for units that operate coal-fired steam generating units. As
However, the EPA acknowledges that past January 1, 2039. As noted in noted above, the EPA’s analysis of the
the proposed subcategorization would section IV.D.3.b of this preamble, about costs of CCS also indicates that CCS is
have essentially required a unit to half (87 GW out of 181 GW) of all coal- cost-reasonable with a minimum
convert to natural gas by January 1, 2027 fired capacity currently in existence has amortization period of seven years; as a
in order to be regulated as a natural gas- announced plans to permanently cease result, the final emission guidelines
fired steam EGU. The EPA is finalizing operations by January 1, 2039, and would apply a CCS-based standard only
fuel type subcategorization based on the additional sources are likely to do so to those units that plan to operate for at
state of the source on the compliance because they will be older than the age least seven years after the compliance
date of January 1, 2030, and during any at which sources generally have deadline (i.e., units that plan to remain
period thereafter, as detailed in section permanently ceased operations since in operation after January 1, 2039). For
VII.B of this preamble. Should a source 2000. The EPA has determined that the medium-term sources subject to a
not be able to fully convert to natural remaining sources that may operate after natural gas co-firing BSER, the EPA is
gas by this date, it would be treated as January 1, 2039, can, on average, install finalizing a January 1, 2030, compliance
a coal-fired steam generating EGU; CCS at a cost that is consistent with the date because the EPA has concluded
however, the state may be able to use EPA’s metrics for cost reasonableness, that this provides a reasonable amount
the RULOF provisions, as discussed in accounting for an amortization period of time to begin co-firing, a technology
section X.C.2 of this preamble, to for the capital costs of more than 7 that entails substantially less up-front
particularize a standard of performance years, as detailed in section VII.C.1.a.ii infrastructure and, relatedly, capital
for the unit. Note that if a state relies on of this preamble. If a particular source expenditure than CCS.
operating conditions within the control has costs of CCS that are fundamentally
1. Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam
of the source as the basis of providing different from those amounts, the state
Generating Units
a less stringent standard of performance may consider it to be a candidate for a
or longer compliance schedule, it must different control requirement under the The EPA is finalizing CCS with 90
include those operating conditions as an RULOF provision, as detailed in section percent capture of CO2 at the stack as
enforceable requirement in the state X.C.2 of this preamble. For the group of BSER for long-term coal-fired steam
plan. 40 CFR 60.24a(g). sources that permanently cease generating units. Coal-fired steam
operation before January 1, 2039, the generating units are the largest
C. Rationale for the BSER for Coal-Fired EPA has concluded that CCS would in stationary source of CO2 in the United
Steam Generating Units general be of higher cost, and therefore States. Coal-fired steam generating units
This section of the preamble describes is finalizing a subcategory for these have higher emission rates than other
the rationale for the final BSERs for units, termed medium-term units, and generating technologies, about twice the
existing coal-fired steam generating finalizing 40 percent natural gas co- emission rate of a natural gas combined
units based on the criteria described in firing on a heat input basis as the BSER. cycle unit. Typically, even newer, more
section V.C of this preamble. These final subcategories and BSERs efficient coal-fired steam generating
At proposal, the EPA evaluated two are largely consistent with the proposal, units emit over 1,800 lb CO2/MWh-
primary control technologies as which included a long-term subcategory gross, while many existing coal-fired
potentially representing the BSER for for sources that did not plan to steam generating units have emission
existing coal-fired steam generating permanently cease operations by rates of 2,200 lb CO2/MWh-gross or
units: CCS and natural gas co-firing. For January 1, 2040, with 90 percent capture higher. As noted in section IV.B of this
preamble, coal-fired sources emitted 909 available to defray the costs of partial sequestration sites are widely available
MMT CO2e in 2021, 59 percent of the CCS and the emission reductions would across the nation, and the EPA has
GHG emissions from the power sector be limited. And the EPA is not developed a comprehensive regulatory
and 14 percent of the total U.S. GHG finalizing HRI as the BSER for these structure to oversee geologic
emissions—contributing more to U.S. units because of the limited reductions sequestration projects and assure their
GHG emissions than any other sector, and potential rebound effect. safety and effectiveness.277
aside from transportation road
a. Rationale for CCS as the BSER for i. Adequately Demonstrated
sources.275 Furthermore, considering
Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam Generating In this section of the preamble, the
the sources in the long-term subcategory
Units EPA explains the rationale for finalizing
will operate longer than sources with
shorter operating horizons, long-term In this section of the preamble, the its determination that 90 percent
coal-fired units have the potential to EPA explains the rationale for CCS as capture applied to long-term coal-fired
emit more total CO2. the BSER for existing long-term coal- steam generating units is adequately
CCS is a control technology that can fired steam generating units. This demonstrated. In this section, the EPA
be applied at the stack of a steam section discusses the aspects of CCS that first describes how simultaneous
generating unit, achieves substantial are relevant for existing coal-fired steam operation of all components of CCS
reductions in emissions and can capture generating units and, in particular, long- functioning in concert with one another
and permanently sequester more than term units. As noted in section has been demonstrated, including a
90 percent of CO2 emitted by coal-fired VIII.F.4.c.iv of this preamble, much of commercial scale application on a coal-
steam generating units. The technology this discussion is also relevant for the fired steam generating unit. The
is adequately demonstrated, given that it EPA’s determination that CCS is the demonstration of the individual
has been operated at scale and is widely BSER for new base load combustion components of CO2 capture, transport,
applicable to these sources, and there turbines. and sequestration further support that
are vast sequestration opportunities In general, CCS has three major CCS is adequately demonstrated. The
across the continental U.S. components: CO2 capture, EPA describes how demonstrations of
Additionally, the costs for CCS are transportation, and sequestration/ CO2 capture support that 90 percent
reasonable, in light of recent technology storage. Detailed descriptions of these capture rates are adequately
cost declines and policies including the components are provided in section demonstrated. The EPA further
tax credit under IRC section 45Q. VII.C.1.a.i of this preamble. As an describes how transport and geologic
Moreover, the non-air quality health and overview, post-combustion capture sequestration are adequately
environmental impacts of CCS can be processes remove CO2 from the exhaust demonstrated, including the feasibility
mitigated and the energy requirements gas of a combustion system, such as a of transport infrastructure and the broad
of CCS are not unreasonably adverse. utility boiler or combustion turbine. availability of geologic sequestration
The EPA’s weighing of these factors This technology is referred to as ‘‘post- reservoirs in the U.S.
together provides the basis for finalizing combustion capture’’ because CO2 is a
CCS as BSER for these sources. In product of the combustion of the (A) Simultaneous Demonstration of CO2
addition, this BSER determination primary fuel and the capture takes place Capture, Transport, and Sequestration
aligns with the caselaw, discussed in after the combustion of that fuel. The The EPA proposed that CCS was
section V.C.2.h of the preamble, stating exhaust gases from most combustion adequately demonstrated for
that CAA section 111 encourages processes are at atmospheric pressure, applications on combustion turbines
continued advancement in pollution contain somewhat dilute concentrations and existing coal-fired steam generating
control technology. of CO2, and are moved through the flue units.
At proposal, the EPA also evaluated gas duct system by fans. To separate the On reviewing the available
natural gas co-firing at 40 percent of CO2 contained in the flue gas, most information, all components of CCS—
heat input as a potential BSER for long- current post-combustion capture CO2 capture, CO2 transport, and CO2
term coal-fired steam generating units. systems utilize liquid solvents— sequestration—have been demonstrated
While the unit level emission rate commonly amine-based solvents—in concurrently, with each component
reductions of 16 percent achieved by 40 CO2 scrubber systems using chemical operating simultaneously and in concert
percent natural gas co-firing are absorption (or chemisorption).276 In a with the other components.
appreciable, those reductions are chemisorption-based separation process,
substantially less than CCS with 90 the flue gas is processed through the (1) Industrial Applications of CCS
percent capture of CO2. Therefore, CO2 scrubber and the CO2 is absorbed Solvent-based CO2 capture was
because CCS achieves more reductions by the liquid solvent. The CO2-rich patented nearly 100 years ago in the
at the unit level and is cost-reasonable, solvent is then regenerated by heating 1930s 278 and has been used in a variety
the EPA is not finalizing natural gas co- the solvent to release the captured CO2. of industrial applications for decades.
firing as the BSER for these units. The high purity CO2 is then For example, since 1978, an amine-
Further, the EPA is not finalizing compressed and transported, generally based system has been used to capture
partial-CCS at lower capture rates (e.g., through pipelines, to a site for geologic approximately 270,000 metric tons of
30 percent) because it achieves sequestration (i.e., the long-term CO2 per year from the flue gas of the
substantially fewer unit-level reductions containment of CO2 in subsurface bituminous coal-fired steam generating
at greater cost, and because CCS at 90 geologic formations). Pipelines are units at the 63 MW Argus Cogeneration
percent is achievable. Notably, the IRC subject to Federal safety regulations Plant at Searles Valley Minerals (Trona,
section 45Q tax credit may not be administered by PHMSA. Furthermore,
277 80FR 64549 (October 23, 2015).
275 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 276 Othertechnologies may be used to capture 278 Bottoms, R.R. Process for Separating Acidic
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CO2, as described in the final TSDs, GHG Mitigation Gases (1930) United States patent application.
Sinks: 1990–2021. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measures for Steam Generating Units and the GHG United States Patent US1783901A; Allen, A.S. and
by Inventory Sector, 2021. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ Mitigation Measures—Carbon Capture and Storage Arthur, M. Method of Separating Carbon Dioxide
ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/index.html#iallsectors/ for Combustion Turbines, available in the from a Gas Mixture (1933) United States Patent
allsectors/allgas/inventsect/current. rulemaking docket. Application. United States Patent US1934472A.
California).279 Furthermore, thousands steam methane reformers at the Scotford individual components is based on
of miles of CO2 pipelines have been Upgrader facility (operated by Shell decades of direct data and experience.
constructed and securely operated in Canada Energy) to capture and sequester
(B) CO2 Capture Technology at Coal-
the U.S. for decades.280 And tens of approximately 80 percent of the CO2 in
Fired Steam Generating Units
millions of tons of CO2 have been the produced syngas.286 Amine-solvents
permanently stored deep underground are also applied for post-combustion The EPA is finalizing the
either for geologic sequestration or in capture from fossil fuel fired EGUs. The determination that the CO2 capture
association with EOR.281 There are Quest facility has been operating since component of CCS has been adequately
currently at least 15 operating CCS 2015 and captures approximately 1 demonstrated at a capture efficiency of
projects in the U.S., and another 121 million metric tons of CO2 per year. 90 percent, is technically feasible, and
that are under construction or in is achievable over long periods (e.g., a
Applications of CCS at Coal-Fired Steam year) for the reasons summarized here
advanced stages of development.282
Generating Units and detailed in the following
This broad application of CCS
demonstrates that the components of For electricity generation subsections of this preamble. This
CCS have been successfully operated applications, this includes operation of determination is based, in part, on the
simultaneously. The Shute Creek CCS at Boundary Dam Unit 3 in demonstration of the technology at
Facility has a capture capacity of 7 Saskatchewan, Canada. CCS at existing coal-fired steam generating
million metric tons per year and has Boundary Dam Unit 3 includes capture units, including the commercial-scale
been in operation since 1986.283 The of the CO2 from the flue-gas of the fossil installation at Boundary Dam Unit 3.
facility uses a solvent-based process to fuel-fired EGU, compression of the CO2 The application of CCS at Boundary
remove CO2 from natural gas, and the onsite and transport via pipeline offsite, Dam follows decades of development of
captured CO2 is stored in association and storage of the captured CO2 CO2 capture for coal-fired steam
with EOR. Another example of CCS in underground. Storage of the CO2 generating units, as well as numerous
industrial applications is the Great captured at Boundary Dam primarily smaller-scale demonstrations that have
Plains Synfuels Plant has a capture occurs via EOR. Moreover, CO2 captured successfully implemented this
capacity of 3 million metric tons per from Boundary Dam Unit 3 is also technology. Review of the available
year and has been in operation since stored in a deep saline aquifer at the information has also identified specific,
2000.284 285 The Great Plains Synfuels Aquistore Deep Saline CO2 Storage currently available, minor technological
Plant (Beulah, North Dakota) uses a Project, which has permanently stored improvements that can be applied today
solvent-based process to remove CO2 over 550,000 tons of CO2 to date.287 to better the performance of new capture
from lignite-derived syngas, the CO2 is Other demonstrations of CCS include plant retrofits, and which can assure
transported by the Souris Valley the 240 MWe Petra Nova CCS project at that the capture plants achieve 90
pipeline, and stored underground in the subbituminous coal-fired W.A. percent capture. The EPA’s
association with EOR in the Weyburn Parish plant in Texas, which, because it determination that 90 percent capture of
and Midale Oil Units in Saskatchewan, was EPAct05-assisted, we cite as useful CO2 is adequately demonstrated is
Canada. Over 39 million metric tons of in section VII.C.1.a.i(B)(2) of this further corroborated by EPAct05-
CO2 has been captured since 2000. preamble, but not essential, assisted projects, including the Petra
(2) Various CO2 capture methods are corroboration. See section Nova project.
used in industrial applications and are VII.C.1.a.i(H)(1) for a detailed Moreover, several CCS retrofit
tailored to the flue gas conditions of a description of how the EPA considers projects on coal-fired steam generating
particular industry (see the TSD GHG information from EPAct05-assisted units are in progress that apply the
Mitigation Measures for Steam projects. lessons from the prior projects and use
Generating Units for details). Of those Commenters stated that that all solvents that achieve higher capture
capture technologies, amine solvent- constituent components of CCS—carbon rates. Technology providers that supply
based capture has been demonstrated capture, transportation, and those solvents and the associated
for removal of CO2 from the post- sequestration—have not been process technologies have made
combustion flue gas of fossil fuel-fired adequately demonstrated in integrated, statements concluding that the
EGUs. The Quest CO2 capture facility in simultaneous operation. We disagree technology is commercially proven and
Alberta, Canada, uses amine-based CO2 with this comment. The record available today and have further stated
capture retrofitted to three existing described in the preceding shows that that those solvents achieve capture rates
all components have been demonstrated of 95 percent or greater. Technology
279 Dooley, J.J., et al. (2009). ‘‘An Assessment of simultaneously. Even if the record only providers have decades of experience
the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide included demonstration of the and have done the work to responsibly
Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009.’’
individual components of CCS, the EPA scale up the technology over that time
U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, across a range of flue gas compositions.
under Contract DE–AC05–76RL01830. would still determine that CCS is
280 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline adequately demonstrated as it would be Taking all of those factors into
and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, reasonable on a technical basis that the consideration, and accounting for the
‘‘Hazardous Annual Liquid Data.’’ 2022. https:// individual components are capable of operation and flue gas conditions of the
www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/ affected sources, solvent-based capture
gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission- functioning together—they have been
hazardous-liquids. engineered and designed to do so, and will consistently achieve capture rates
281 GHGRP US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ the record for the demonstration of the of 90 percent or greater for the fleet of
ghgreporting/supply-underground-injection-and- long-term coal-fired steam generating

geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide. 286 Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project units.
282 Carbon Capture and Storage in the United
Annual Summary Report, Alberta Department of Various technologies may be used to
States. CBO. December 13, 2023. https:// Energy: 2021. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/ capture CO2, the details of which are
www.cbo.gov/publication/59345. quest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-annual-
283 Id. described generally in section IV.C.1 of
report-2021.
284 https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy- 287 Aquistore Project. https://ptrc.ca/media/ this preamble and in more detail in the
systems/gasification/gasifipedia/great-plains. whats-new/aquistore-co2-storage-project-reached- final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for
285 https://co2re.co/FacilityData. +500000-tonnes-stored. Steam Generating Units, which is
available in the rulemaking docket.288 usually by pipeline. The amine solution challenges. The EPA has reviewed the
For post-combustion capture, these from the regenerating column is then record of CO2 capture at Boundary Dam
technologies include solvent-based cooled, a portion of the lean solvent is Unit 3. While Boundary Dam is in
methods (e.g., amines, chilled treated in a solvent reclaiming process Canada and therefore not subject to this
ammonia), solid sorbent-based methods, to mitigate degradation of the solvent, action, these technical challenges have
membrane filtration, pressure-swing and the lean solvent streams are been sufficiently overcome or are
adsorption, and cryogenic methods.289 recombined and sent back to the actively mitigated so that Boundary
Lastly, oxy-combustion uses a purified absorption column. Dam has more recently been capable of
oxygen stream from an air separation achieving capture rates of 83 percent
unit (often diluted with recycled CO2 to (1) Capture Demonstrations at Coal-
when the capture plant is online.292
control the flame temperature) to Fired Steam Generating Units
Furthermore, the improvements already
combust the fuel and produce a higher (a) SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3 employed and identified at Boundary
concentration of CO2 in the flue gas, as SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3, a Dam can be readily applied during the
opposed to combustion with oxygen in 110 MW lignite-fired unit in initial construction of a new CO2
air which contains 80 percent nitrogen. Saskatchewan, Canada, was designed to capture plant today.
The CO2 can then be separated by the achieve CO2 capture rates of 90 percent The CO2 captured at Boundary Dam is
aforementioned CO2 capture methods. using an amine-based post-combustion mostly used for EOR and CO2 is also
Of the available capture technologies, capture system retrofitted to the existing stored geologically in a deep saline
solvent-based processes have been the steam generating unit. The capture reservoir at the Aquistore site.293 The
most widely demonstrated at plant, which began operation in 2014, is amount of flue gas captured is based in
commercial scale for post-combustion the first full-scale CO2 capture system part on economic reasons (i.e., to meet
capture and are applicable to use with retrofit on an existing coal-fired power related contract requirements). The
either combustion turbines or steam plant. It uses the amine-based Shell incentives for CO2 capture at Boundary
generating units. CANSOLV® process, which includes an Dam beyond revenue from EOR have
The EPA’s identification of CCS with been limited to date, and there have
amine-based SO2 scrubbing process and
90 percent capture as the BSER is been limited regulatory requirements for
a separate amine-based CO2 capture
premised, in part, on an amine solvent- CO2 capture at the facility. As a result,
process, with integrated heat and power
based CO2 system. Amine solvents used a portion (about 25 percent on average)
from the steam generating unit.290
for carbon capture are typically After undergoing maintenance and of the flue gas bypasses the capture
proprietary, although non-proprietary design improvements in September and plant and is emitted untreated.
solvents (e.g., monoethanolamine, MEA) October of 2015 to address technical However, because of increasing
may be used. Carbon capture occurs by and mechanical challenges faced in its requirements to capture CO2 in Canada,
reactive absorption of the CO2 from the first year of operation, Boundary Dam Boundary Dam Unit 3 has more recently
flue gas into the amine solution in an Unit 3 completed a 72-hour test of its pursued further process optimization.
absorption column. The amine reacts design capture rate (3,240 metric tons/ Total capture efficiencies at the plant
with the CO2 but will also react with day), and captured 9,695 metric tons of have also been affected by technical
impurities in the flue gas, including CO2 or 99.7 percent of the design issues, particularly with the SO2
SO2. PM will also affect the capture capacity (approximately 89.7 percent removal system that is upstream of the
system. Adequate removal of SO2 and capture) with a peak rate of 3,341 metric CO2 capture system. Operation of the
PM prior to the CO2 capture system is tons/day.291 However, the capture plant SO2 removal system affects downstream
therefore necessary. After pretreatment has not consistently operated at this CO2 capture and the amount of flue gas
of the flue gas with conventional SO2 total capture efficiency. In general, the that can be processed. Specifically, fly
and PM controls, the flue gas goes capture plant ran less than 100 percent ash (PM) in the flue gas at Boundary
through a quencher to cool the flue gas of the flue gas through the capture Dam Unit 3 contributed to fouling of
and remove further impurities before equipment and the coal-fired steam SO2 system components, particularly in
the CO2 absorption column. After generating unit also operates when the the SO2 reboiler and the demisters of the
absorption, the CO2-rich amine solution capture plant is offline for maintenance. SO2 absorber column. Buildup of scale
passes to the solvent regeneration As a result, although the capture plant in the SO2 reboiler limited heat transfer
column, while the treated gas passes has consistently achieved 90 percent and regeneration of the SO2 scrubbing
through a water and/or acid wash capture rates of the CO2 in the processed amine, and high pressure drop affected
column to limit emission of amines or slipstream, the amount of CO2 captured the flowrate of the SO2 lean-solvent
other byproducts. In the solvent was less than 90 percent of the total back to the SO2 absorber. Likewise,
regeneration column, the solution is amount of CO2 in the flue gas of the fouling of the demisters in the SO2
heated (using steam) to release the steam generating unit. Some of the absorber column caused high pressure
absorbed CO2. The released CO2 is then reasons for this operation were due to drop and restricted the flow of flue gas
compressed and transported offsite, the economic incentives and regulatory through the system, limiting the amount
288 Technologies to capture CO are also
requirements of the project, while other of flue gas that could be processed by
2
discussed in the final TSD, GHG Mitigation reasons were due to technical the downstream CO2 capture system. To
Measures—Carbon Capture and Storage for address these technical issues,
Combustion Turbines. 290 Giannaris, S., et al. Proceedings of the 15th
additional wash systems were added,
289 For pre-combustion capture (as is applicable International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
including ‘‘demister wash systems, a

to an IGCC unit), syngas produced by gasification Control Technologies (March 15–18, 2021).
passes through a water-gas shift catalyst to produce SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3 Carbon Capture pre-scrubber flue gas inlet curtain spray
a gas stream with a higher concentration of Facility—The Journey to Achieving Reliability. wash system, flue gas cooler throat
hydrogen and CO2. The higher CO2 concentration https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ sprays, and a booster fan wash
relative to conventional combustion flue gas id=3820191. system.’’ 294
reduces the demands (power, heating, and cooling) 291 SaskPower Annual Report (2015–16). https://
of the subsequent CO2 capture process (e.g., solid www.saskpower.com/about-us/Our-Company/∼/

293 Aquistore. https://ptrc.ca/aquistore.
sorbent-based or solvent-based capture); the treated link.aspx?_id=29E795C8C20D48398EAB
hydrogen can then be combusted in the unit. 5E3273C256AD&_z=z. 294 Id.
Such issues will definitively not G) ratio in the absorber and other tons of CO2 per year from the flue gas
occur in a different type of SO2 removal process parameters,’’ as well as other of the bituminous coal-fired steam
system (e.g., wet lime scrubber flue gas optimization procedures.297 While generating units at the 63 MW Argus
desulfurization, wet-FGD). SO2 foaming is mitigated by an antifoam Cogeneration Plant (Trona,
scrubbers have been successfully injection regimen, the EPA further notes California).301 Amine-based carbon
operated for decades across a large that the extent of foaming that could capture has further been demonstrated
number of U.S. coal-fired sources. Of occur may be specific to the chemistry at AES’s Warrior Run (Cumberland,
the coal-fired sources with planned of the solvent and the source’s flue gas Maryland) and Shady Point (Panama,
operation after 2039, 60 percent have conditions—foaming was not reported Oklahoma) coal-fired power plants, with
wet FGD and 23 percent have a dry for MHI’s KS–1 solvent when treating the captured CO2 being sold for use in
FGD. In section VII.C.1.a.ii of this bituminous coal post-combustion flue the food processing industry.302 At the
preamble, the EPA accounts for the cost gas at Petra Nova. Lastly, while 180 MW bituminous coal-fired Warrior
of adding a wet-FGD for those sources biological fouling in the CO2 absorber Run plant, approximately 10 percent of
that do not have an FGD. wash water and the SO2 absorber caustic the plant’s CO2 emissions (about
To further mitigate fouling due to fly polisher has been observed, ‘‘the current 110,000 metric tons of CO2 per year) has
ash, the PM controls (electrostatic mitigation plan is to perform chemical been captured since 2000 and sold to
precipitators) at Boundary Dam Unit 3 shocking to remove this particular the food and beverage industry. AES’s
were upgraded in 2015/2016 by adding buildup.’’ 298 320 MW Shady Point plant fires
switch integrated rectifiers. Of the coal- Based on the experiences of Boundary subbituminous and bituminous coal,
fired sources with planned operation Dam Unit 3, key improvements can be and captured CO2 from an approximate
after 2039, 31 percent have baghouses implemented in future CCS 5 percent slipstream (about 66,000
and 67 percent have electrostatic deployments during initial design and metric tons of CO2 per year) from 2001
precipitators. Sources with baghouses construction. Improvements to PM and through around 2019.303 These
have greater or more consistent degrees SO2 controls can be made prior to facilities, which have operated for
of emission control, and wet FGD also operation of the CO2 capture system. multiple years, clearly show the
provides additional PM control. Where fly ash is present in the flue gas, technical feasibility of post-combustion
Fouling at Boundary Dam Unit 3 also wash systems can be installed to limit carbon capture.
affected the heat exchangers in both the associated fouling. Additional
SO2 removal system and the CO2 (2) EPAct05-Assisted CO2 Capture
redundancies and isolations of key heat-
capture system. Additional Projects at Coal-Fired Steam Generating
exchangers can be made to allow for in-
redundancies and isolations to those Units 304
line cleaning during operation.
key components were added in 2017 to Redundancy of key equipment (e.g., (a) Petra Nova
allow for online maintenance. Damage utilizing two CO2 compressor trains
to the capture plant’s CO2 compressor Petra Nova is a 240 MW-equivalent
instead of one) will further improve capture facility that is the first at-scale
resulted in an unplanned outage in operational availability. A feasibility
2021, and the issue was corrected.295 application of carbon capture at a coal-
study for the Shand power plant, which fired power plant in the U.S. The system
The facility reported 98.3 percent is also operated by SaskPower, includes
capture system availability in the third is located at the subbituminous coal-
many such design improvements, at an
quarter of 2023.296 overall cost that was less than the cost 301 Dooley, J.J., et al. (2009). ‘‘An Assessment of
Regular maintenance further mitigates
for Boundary Dam.299 the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide
fouling in the SO2 and CO2 absorbers, Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009.’’
and other challenges (e.g., foaming, (b) Other Coal-Fired Demonstrations U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
biological fouling) typical of gas-liquid Several other projects have
under Contract DE–AC05–76RL01830.
302 Dooley, J.J., et al. (2009). ‘‘An Assessment of
absorbers can be mitigated by standard successfully demonstrated the capture the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide
procedures. According to the 2022 component of CCS at electricity Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009.’’
paper co-authored by the International generating plants and other industrial U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
CCS Knowledge Centre and SaskPower, facilities, some of which were under Contract DE–AC05–76RL01830.
‘‘[a] number of initiatives are ongoing or previously noted in the discussion in
303 Shady Point Plant (River Valley) was sold to
planned with the goal of eliminating Oklahoma Gas and Electric in 2019. https://
the 2015 NSPS.300 Since 1978, an www.oklahoman.com/story/business/columns/
flue gas bypass as follows: Since 2016, amine-based system has been used to 2019/05/23/oklahoma-gas-and-electric-acquires-
online cleaning of demisters has been aes-shady-point-after-federal-approval/
capture approximately 270,000 metric
effective at controlling demister 60454346007/.
pressure; Chemical cleans and 297 Jacobs, B., et al. Proceedings of the 16th
304 In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA provided a legal
replacement of fouled packing in the interpretation of the constraints on how the EPA
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas could rely on EPAct05-assisted projects in
absorber towers to reduce pressure Control Technologies (October 2022). Reducing the determining whether technology is adequately
losses; Optimization of antifoam CO2 Emission Intensity of Boundary Dam Unit 3 demonstrated for the purposes of CAA section 111.
injection and other aspects of amine Through Optimization of Operating Parameters of Under that legal interpretation, ‘‘these provisions
the Power Plant and Carbon Capture Facilities. [in the EPAct05] . . . preclude the EPA from
health, to minimize foaming potential; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ relying solely on the experience of facilities that
[and] Optimization of Liquid-to-Gas (L/ id=4286430. received [EPAct05] assistance, but [do] not . . .
298 Pradoo, P., et al. Proceedings of the 16th
preclude the EPA from relying on the experience of
295 S&P Global Market Intelligence (January 6, International Conference on Greenhouse Gas such facilities in conjunction with other
2022). Only still-operating carbon capture project Control Technologies (October 2022). Improving the information.’’ As part of the rulemaking action here,
battled technical issues in 2021. https:// Operating Availability of the Boundary Dam Unit 3 the EPA incorporates the legal interpretation and
www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- Carbon Capture Facility. https://papers.ssrn.com/ discussion of these EPAct05 provisions with respect
insights/latest-news-headlines/only-still-operating- sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286503. the appropriateness of considering facilities that
carbon-capture-project-battled-technical-issues-in- 299 International CCS Knowledge Centre. The
received EPAct05 assistance in determining
2021-68302671. Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report. https:// whether CCS is adequately demonstrated, as found
296 SaskPower (October 18, 2022). BD3 Status ccsknowledge.com/pub/Publications/Shand_CCS_ in the 2015 NSPS, 80 FR 64509, 64541–43 (October
Update: Q3 2023. https://www.saskpower.com/ Feasibility_Study_Public_Report_Nov2018_(2021- 23, 2015), and the supporting response to
about-us/Our-Company/Blog/2023/BD3-Status- 05-12).pdf. comments, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495–11861 at
Update-Q3-2023. 300 80 FR 64548–54 (October 23, 2015). pgs.113–134.
fired W.A. Parish Generating Station in determination, because the final BSER is presence of cooling tower fill (a solid
Thompsons, Texas, and began operation not premised on the CO2 capture plant medium used to increase surface area in
in 2017, successfully capturing and using an auxiliary combined cycle plant cooling towers) in the cooling water
sequestering CO2 for several years. The for steam and power. Rather, the final system exchangers may have impacted
system was put into reserve shutdown BSER assumes the steam and power performance. It is also possible that
(i.e., idled) in May 2020, citing the poor come directly from the associated steam there could have been some fouling in
economics of utilizing captured CO2 for generating unit. Extreme weather events heat exchangers. Fill was planned to be
EOR at that time. On September 13, can affect the operation of any facility. removed and fouling checked for during
2023, JX Nippon announced that the Furthermore, the BSER is not premised regular maintenance. Petra Nova did not
carbon capture facility at Petra Nova on EOR, and it is not dependent on observe fouling of the CO2 absorber
had been restarted.305 A final report downstream oil recovery or processing. packing or high pressure drops across
from the National Energy Technology Outages attributable to the CO2 capture the CO2 absorber bed, and Petra Nova
Laboratory (NETL) details the success of facility were 41 days in 2017, 34 days also did not report any foaming of the
the project and what was learned from in 2018, and 29 days in 2019—outages solvent. Even with the challenges that
this first-of-a-kind demonstration at decreased year-on-year and were on were faced, Petra Nova was never
scale.306 The project used Mitsubishi average less than 10 percent of the year. restricted in reaching its maximum
Heavy Industry’s proprietary KM–CDR Planned and unplanned outages are capture rate of 5,200 tons of CO2 per
Process®, a process that is similar to an normal for industrial processes, day, a scale that was substantially
amine-based solvent process but that including steam generating units. greater than Boundary Dam Unit 3
uses a proprietary solvent. During its Petra Nova experienced some (approximately 3,600 tons of CO2 per
operation, the project successfully technical challenges that were day).
captured 92.4 percent of the CO2 from addressed during its first 3 years of
operation.308 One of these issues was (b) Plant Barry
the slip stream of flue gas processed
with 99.08 percent of the captured CO2 leaks from heat exchangers due to the
properties of the gasket materials— Plant Barry, a bituminous coal-fired
sequestered by EOR. steam generating unit in Mobile,
The amount of flue gas treated at Petra replacement of the gaskets addressed
the issue. Another issue was vibration of Alabama, began using the KM–CDR
Nova was consistent with a 240 MW Process® in 2011 for a fully integrated
size coal-fired steam EGU. The the flue gas blower due to build-up of
slurry and solids carryover. W.A. Parish 25 MWe CCS project with a capture rate
properties of the flue gas—composition, of 90 percent.309 The CCS project at
temperature, pressure, density, flowrate, Unit 8 uses a wet limestone FGD
scrubber to remove SO2, and the flue gas Plant Barry captured approximately
etc.—are the same as would occur for a 165,000 tons of CO2 annually, which
similarly sized coal-firing unit. connection to the capture plant is
located at the bottom of the duct was then transported via pipeline and
Therefore, Petra Nova corroborates that sequestered underground in geologic
the capture equipment—including the running from the wet-FGD to the
original stack. A diversion wall and formations.310
CO2 absorption column, solvent
regeneration column, balance of plant collection drains were installed to (c) Project Tundra
equipment, and the solvent itself—work mitigate solids and slurry carryover.
at commercial scale and can achieve Regular maintenance is required to Project Tundra is a carbon capture
capture rates of 90 percent. clean affected components and reduce project in North Dakota at the Milton R.
The Petra Nova project did experience the amount of slurry carryover to the Young Station lignite coal-fired power
periodic outages that were unrelated to quencher. Solids and slurry carryover plant. Project Tundra will capture up to
the CO2 capture facility and do not also resulted in calcium scale buildup 4 million metric tons of CO2 per year for
implicate the basis for the EPA’s BSER on the flue gas blower. Although permanent geologic storage. One
determination.307 These include outages calcium concentrations were observed planned storage site is collocated with
at either the coal-fired steam generating to increase in the solvent, impacts of the power plant and is already fully
unit (W.A. Parish Unit 8) or the calcium on the quencher and capture permitted, while permitting for a second
auxiliary combined cycle facility, plant chemistry were not observed. nearby storage site is in progress.311 An
extreme weather events (Hurricane Some scaling may have been occurring air permit for the capture facility has
Harvey), and the operation of the EOR in the cooling section of the quencher also been issued by North Dakota
site and downstream oil recovery and and would have been addressed during Department of Environmental Quality.
processing. Outages at the coal-fired a planned outage in 2020. Another issue The project is designed to capture CO2
steam generating unit itself do not encountered was scaling related to the at a rate of about 95 percent of the
compromise the reliability of the CO2 CO2 compressor intercoolers, treated flue gas.312 The capture plant
capture plant or the plant’s ability to compressor dehydration system, and an will treat the flue gas from the 455 MW
associated heat exchanger. The issue Unit 2 and additional flue gas from the
achieve a standard of performance based
was determined to be due to a material 250 MW Unit 1, and will treat an
on CCS, as there would be no CO2 to
incompatibility of the CO2 compressor equivalent capacity of 530 MW.313 The
capture. Outages at the auxiliary
intercooler, and the components were project began a final FEED study in
combined cycle facility are also not
replaced during a 2018 planned outage. February 2023 with planned completion
relevant to the EPA’s BSER
To mitigate the scaling prior to the
305 JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation.
replacement of those components, the 309 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). National
Restart of the large-scale Petra Nova Carbon compressor drain was also rerouted to Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). https://
Capture Facility in the U.S. (September 2023). the reclaimer and a backup filtering www.netl.doe.gov/node/1741.
310 80 FR 64552 (October 23, 2015).
https://www.nex.jx-group.co.jp/english/ system was also installed and used, both
newsrelease/upload_files/20230913EN.pdf. of which proved to be effective. Some
311 Project Tundra—Progress, Minnkota Power
306 W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO Capture Cooperative, 2023. https://
2
and Sequestration Demonstration Project, Final
decrease in performance was also www.projecttundrand.com.
Scientific/Technical Report (March 2020). https:// observed in heat exchangers. The 312 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608572. 0072–0632.
307 Id. 308 Id. 313 Id.
in April 2024,314 and, prior to selection demonstrated. The FOA further notes and offer guarantees that 90 percent
by DOE for funding award negotiation, that the technologies used by the capture rates are achievable. Generally,
the project was scheduled to begin projects receiving funding should be while there are many CO2 capture
construction in 2024.315 The project will proven such that, ‘‘the technologies methods available, solvent-based CO2
use MHI’s KS–21 solvent and the funded can be readily replicated and capture from post-combustion flue gas is
Advanced KM–CDR process. The MHI deployed into commercial practice.’’ 321 particularly applicable to fossil fuel-
solvent KS–1 and an advanced MHI The EPA also notes that this and other fired EGUs. Solvent-based CO2 capture
solvent (likely KS–21) were previously on-going projects were announced well systems are commercially available from
tested on the lignite post-combustion in advance of the FOA. Considering technology providers including Shell,
flue gas from the Milton R. Young these factors, Project Tundra and other Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI),
Station.316 To provide additional similarly funded projects are supportive Linde/BASF, Fluor and ION Clean
conditioning of the flue gas, the project of the determination that CCS is Energy.
is utilizing a wet electrostatic adequately demonstrated. Technology providers have made
precipitator (WESP). A draft statements asserting extensive
Environmental Assessment (d) Project Diamond Vault experience in CO2 capture and the
summarizing the project and potential Project Diamond Vault will capture commercial availability of CO2 capture
environmental impacts was released by up to 95 percent of CO2 emissions from technologies. Solvent-based CO2 capture
DOE.317 Finally, Project Tundra was the 600 MW Madison Unit 3 at Brame was first patented in the 1930s.326 Since
selected for award negotiation for Energy Center in Lena, Louisiana. then, commercial solvent-based capture
funding from DOE.318 Madison Unit 3 fires approximately 70 systems have been developed that are
That this project has funding through percent petroleum coke and 30 percent focused on applications to post-
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and bituminous (Illinois Basin) coal in a combustion flue gas. Several technology
that this funding is facilitated through circulating fluidized bed. The FEED providers have over 30 years of
DOE’s Office of Clean Energy study for the project is targeted for experience applying solvent-based CO2
Demonstration’s (OCED) Carbon Capture completion on September 9, 2024.322 323 capture to the post-combustion flue gas
Demonstration Projects Program, does Construction is planned to begin by the of fossil fuel-fired EGUs. In general,
not detract from the adequate end of 2025 with commercial operation technology providers describe the
demonstration of CCS. Rather, the goal starting in 2028.324 From the utility: technologies for CO2 capture from post-
of that program is, ‘‘to accelerate the ‘‘Government Inflation Reduction Act combustion flue gas as ‘‘proven’’ or
implementation of integrated carbon (IRA) funding through 45Q tax credits ‘‘commercially available’’ or
capture and storage technologies and makes the project financially viable. ‘‘commercially proven’’ or ‘‘available
catalyze significant follow-on With these government tax credits, the now’’ and describe their experience
investments from the private sector to company does not expect a rate increase with CO2 capture from post-combustion
mitigate carbon emissions sources in as a result of this project.’’ 325 flue gas as ‘‘extensive.’’ CO2 capture
industries across America.’’ 319 For the rates of 90 percent or higher from post-
commercial scale projects, the stated (e) Other Projects combustion flue gas have been proven
requirement of the funding opportunity Other projects have completed or are by CO2 capture technology providers
announcement (FOA) is not that in the process of completing feasibility using several commercially available
projects demonstrate CCS in general, but work or FEED studies, or are taking solvents. Many of the available solvent
that they ‘‘demonstrate significant other steps towards installing CCS on technologies have over 50,000 hours of
improvements in the efficiency, coal-fired steam generating units. These operation, equivalent to over 5 years of
effectiveness, cost, operational and projects are summarized in the final operation.
environmental performance of existing TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for Shell has decades of experience in
carbon capture technologies.’’ 320 This Steam Generating Units, available in the CO2 capture systems. Shell notes that
implies that the basic technology docket. In general, these projects target ‘‘[c]apturing and safely storing carbon is
already exists and is already capture rates of 90 percent or above and an option that’s available now.’’ 327
provide evidence that sources are Shell has developed the CANSOLV®
314 ‘‘An Overview of Minnkota’s Carbon Capture
actively pursuing the installation of CO2 capture system for CO2 capture
Initiative—Project Tundra,’’ 2023 LEC Annual from post-combustion flue gas, a
Meeting, October 5, 2023.
CCS.
315 Project Tundra—Progress, Minnkota Power
regenerable amine that the company
(3) CO2 Capture Technology Vendor claims has multiple advantages
Cooperative, 2023. https://
www.projecttundrand.com.
Statements including ‘‘low parasitic energy
316 Laum, Jason. Subtask 2.4—Overcoming
CO2 capture technology providers consumption, fast kinetics and
Barriers to the Implementation of Postcombustion have issued statements supportive of the extremely low volatility.’’ 328 Shell
Carbon Capture. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/
1580659. application of systems and solvents for further notes, ‘‘Moreover, the
317 DOE–EA–2197 Draft Environmental CO2 capture at fossil fuel-fired EGUs. technology has been designed for
Assessment, August 17, 2023. https:// These statements speak to the decades
www.energy.gov/nepa/listings/doeea-2197- of experience that technology providers 326 Bottoms, R.R. Process for Separating Acidic
documents-available-download. Gases (1930) United States patent application.
318 Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects
have and as noted below, vendors attest,
United States Patent US1783901A; Allen, A.S. and
Selections for Award Negotiations. https:// Arthur, M. Method of Separating Carbon Dioxide
321 Id.
www.energy.gov/oced/carbon-capture- from a Gas Mixture (1933) United States Patent
322 Diamond Vault Carbon Capture FEED Study.

demonstration-projects-selections-award- Application. United States Patent US1934472A.
negotiations. https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/ 327 Shell Global—Carbon Capture and Storage.
319 DOE. https://www.energy.gov/oced/carbon- 23CM_PSCC31_Bordelon.pdf. https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/
323 Note that while the FEED study is EPAct05-
capture-demonstration-projects-program-front-end- carbon-capture-and-storage.html.
engineering-design-feed-studies. assisted, the capture plant is not. 328 Shell Global—CANSOLV® CO Capture
2
320 DE–FOA–0002962. https://oced- 324 Project Diamond Vault Overview. https://
System. https://www.shell.com/business-customers/
exchange.energy.gov/ www.cleco.com/docs/default-source/diamond- catalysts-technologies/licensed-technologies/
FileContent.aspx?FileID=86c47d5d-835c-4343-86e8- vault/project_diamond_vault_overview.pdf. emissions-standards/tail-gas-treatment-unit/
2ba27d9dc119. 325 Id. cansolv-co2.html.
reliability through its highly flexible concentration than the CO2 contained in Econamine FG Plus, Fluor notes that the
turn-up and turndown capacity.’’ 329 the atmosphere.’’ 337 ‘‘[the] Technology [is] commercially
The company has stated that ‘‘Over 90% Linde engineering in partnership with proven on natural gas, coal, and fuel oil
of the CO2 in exhaust gases can be BASF has made available BASF’s flue gases,’’ and further note that
effectively and economically removed OASE® blue amine solvent technology ‘‘[o]perating experience includes using
through the implementation of Shell’s for post-combustion CO2 capture. Linde steam reformers, gas turbines, gas
carbon capture technology.’’ 330 Shell notes their experience: ‘‘We have engines, and coal/natural gas boilers.’’
also notes, ‘‘Systems can be guaranteed longstanding experience in the design ION Clean Energy is a company
for bulk CO2 removal of over 90%.’’ 331 and construction of chemical wash focused on post-combustion carbon
MHI in collaboration with Kansai processes, providing the necessary capture founded in 2008. ION’s ICE–21
Electric Power Co., Inc. began amine-based solvent systems and the solvent has been used at NCCC and
developing a solvent-based capture CO2 compression, drying and TCM Norway.344 ION has achieved
process (the KM CDR ProcessTM) using purification system.’’ 338 Linde also capture rates of 98 percent using the
the KS–1TM solvent in 1990.332 MHI notes that ‘‘[t]he BASF OASE® process ICE–31 solvent.
describes the extensive experience of is used successfully in more than 400
(4) CCS User Statements on CCS
commercial application of the solvent, plants worldwide to scrub natural,
synthesis and other industrial gases.’’ 339 A number of the companies who have
‘‘KS–1TM—a solvent whose high either completed large scale pilot
reliability has been confirmed by a track The OASE® blue technology has been
successfully piloted at RWE Power, projects or who are currently developing
record of deliveries to 15 commercial full scale projects have also indicated
Niederaussem, Germany (from 2009
plants worldwide.’’ 333 Notable that CCS technology is currently a
through 2017; 55,000 operating hours)
applications of KS–1TM and the KM– viable technology for large coal-fired
and the National Center for Carbon
CDR ProcessTM include applications at power plants. In 2011, announcing a
Capture in Wilsonville, Alabama
Plant Barry and Petra Nova. Previously, decision not to move forward with the
(January 2015 through January 2016;
MHI has achieved capture rates of first full scale commercial CCS
3,200 operating hours). Based on the
greater than 90 percent over long installation of a carbon capture system
demonstrated performance, Linde
periods and at full scale at the Petra on a coal plant, AEP did not cite any
concludes that ‘‘PCC plants combining
Nova project where the KS–1TM solvent technology concerns, but rather
Linde’s engineering skills and BASF’s
was used.334 MHI has further improved indicated that ‘‘it is impossible to gain
OASE® blue solvent technology are now
on the original process and solvent by commercially available for a wide range regulatory approval to recover our share
making available the Advanced KM of applications.’’ 340 Linde and BASF of the costs for validating and deploying
CDR ProcessTM using the KS–21TM have demonstrated capture rates over 90 the technology without federal
solvent. From MHI, ‘‘Commercialization percent and operating availability 341 requirements to reduce greenhouse gas
of KS–21TM solvent was completed rates of more than 97 percent during emissions already in place.’’ 345 Enchant
following demonstration testing in 2021 55,000 hours of operation. Energy, a company developing CCS for
at the Technology Centre Mongstad in Fluor provides a solvent technology coal-fired power plants explained that
Norway, one of the world’s largest (Econamine FG Plus) and EPC services its FEED study for the San Juan
carbon capture demonstration for CO2 capture. Fluor describes their Generating Station, ‘‘shows that the
facilities.’’ 335 MHI has achieved CO2 technology as ‘‘proven,’’ noting that, technical and business case for adding
capture rates of 95 to 98 percent using ‘‘Proven technology. Fluor Econamine carbon capture to existing coal-fired
both the KS–1TM and KS–21TM solvent FG Plus technology is a propriety power plants is strong.’’ 346 Rainbow
at the Technology Centre Mongstad carbon capture solution with more than Energy, who is developing a carbon
(TCM).336 Higher capture rates under 30 licensed plants and more than 30 capture project at the Coal Creek Power
modified conditions were also years of operation.’’ 342 Fluor further Station in North Dakota explains,
measured, ‘‘In addition, in testing notes, ‘‘The technology builds on ‘‘CCUS technology has been proven and
conducted under modified operating Fluor’s more than 400 CO2 removal is an economical option for a facility
conditions, the KS–21TM solvent units in natural gas and synthesis gas like Coal Creek Station. We see CCUS as
delivered an industry-leading carbon processing.’’ 343 Fluor further states, the best option to manage CO2
capture rate was 99.8% and ‘‘Fluor is a global leader in CO2 capture emissions at our facility.’’ 347
demonstrated the successful recovery of [. . .] with long-term commercial
CO2 from flue gas of lower (5) State CCS Requirements
operating experience in CO2 recovery
from flue gas.’’ On the status of Several states encourage or even
329 Shell Catalysts & Technologies—Shell require sources to install CCS. These
CANSOLV® CO2 Capture System. https:// 337 Id. state requirements further indicate that
catalysts.shell.com/en/Cansolv-co2-fact-sheet. 338 Linde Engineering—Post Combustion Capture. CCS is well-established and effective.
330 Id.
https://www.linde-engineering.com/en/process- These state laws include the Illinois
331 Id.
plants/co2-plants/carbon-capture/post-combustion-
332 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries—CO Capture capture/index.html.
2021 Climate and Equitable Jobs Act,
2
Technology—CO2 Capture Process. https:// 339 Linde and BASF—Carbon capture storage and which requires privately owned coal-
www.mhi.com/products/engineering/co2plants_ utilisation. https://www.linde-engineering.com/en/
process.html. images/Carbon-capture-storage-utilisation-Linde- 344 ION Clean Energy—Company. https://
333 Id. BASF_tcm19-462558.pdf. www.ioncleanenergy.com/company.
334 Note: Petra Nova is an EPAct05-assisted 340 Id. 345 https://www.aep.com/news/releases/read/
project. W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture 341 Operating availability is the percent of time 1206/AEP-Places-Carbon-Capture-
and Sequestration Demonstration Project, Final that the CO2 capture equipment is available relative Commercialization-On-Hold-Citing-Uncertain-
Scientific/Technical Report (March 2020). https:// to its planned operation. Status-Of-Climate-Policy-Weak-Economy.
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608572. 342 Fluor—Comprehensive Solutions for Carbon 346 Enchant Energy. What is Carbon Capture and
335 Id. Capture. https://www.fluor.com/client-markets/ Sequestration (CCS)? https://enchantenergy.com/
336 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, ‘‘Mitsubishi energy/production/carbon-capture. carbon-capture-technology/.
Heavy Industries Engineering Successfully 343 Fluor—Econamine FG PlusSM. https:// 347 Rainbow Energy Center. Carbon Capture.
Completes Testing of New KS–21TM Solvent for CO2 www.fluor.com/sitecollectiondocuments/qr/ https://rainbowenergycenter.com/what-we-do/

Capture,’’ https://www.mhi.com/news/211019.html. econamine-fg-plus-brochure.pdf. carbon-capture/.
fired units to reduce emissions to zero Pennsylvania’s 2021 Climate Action cycles greater than 60 percent.360 Prior
by 2030 and requires publicly owned Plan notes that the state is well demonstrations of CO2 capture plants on
coal-fired units to reduce emissions to positioned to install CCS to transition coal-fired steam generating units have
zero by 2045.348 Illinois has also the state’s electric fleet to a zero-carbon had turndown limits of approximately
imposed CCS-based CO2 emission economy.354 The state also established 60 percent of throughput for Boundary
standards on new coal-fired power an interagency workgroup in 2019 to Dam Unit 3 361 and about 70 percent
plants since 2009 when the state identify ways to speed the deployment throughput for Petra Nova.362 Based on
adopted its Clean Coal Portfolio of CCS. the technology currently available,
Standard law.349 The statute required an The Governor of North Dakota turndown to throughputs of 50
initial capture rate of 50 percent when announced in 2021 an economy-wide percent 363 are achievable for a single
enacted but steadily increased the carbon neutral goal by 2030.355 The capture train.364 Considering that coal
capture rate requirement to 90 percent announcement singled out the Project units can typically only turndown to 40
in 2017, where it remains. Tundra Initiative, which is working to percent, a 50 percent turndown ratio for
Michigan in 2023 established a 100 apply CCS technology to the state’s the CO2 capture plant is likely sufficient
percent clean energy requirement by Milton R. Young Power Station. for most sources, although utilizing two
2040 with a nearer term 80 percent The Governor of Wyoming has CO2 capture trains would allow for
clean energy by 2035 requirement.350 broadly promoted a Decarbonizing the turndown to as low as 25 percent of
The statute encourages the application West initiative that includes the study throughput. When operating at less than
of CCS by defining ‘‘clean energy’’ to of CCS technologies to reduce carbon maximum throughputs, the CO2 capture
include generation resources that emissions from the region.356 A 2024 facility actually achieves higher capture
achieve 90 percent carbon capture. Wyoming law also requires utilities in efficiencies, as evidenced by the data
California identifies carbon capture the state to install CCS technologies on collected at Boundary Dam Unit 3.365
and sequestration as a necessary tool to a portion of their existing coal-fired Data from the Shand Feasibility Report
reduce GHG emissions within its 2022 power plants by 2033.357 suggests that, for a solvent and design
scoping plan update 351 and, that same achieving 90 percent capture at 100
(6) Variable Load and Startups and percent of net load, 97.5 percent capture
year, enacted a statutory requirement Shutdowns
through Assembly Bill 1279 352 is achievable at 62.5 percent of net
In this section of the preamble, the load.366 Considering these factors, CO2
requiring the state to plan and
EPA considers the effects of variable capture is, in general, able to meet the
implement policies that enable carbon
load and startups and shutdowns on the variable load of coal-fired steam
capture and storage technologies.
achievability of 90 percent capture. generating units without any adverse
Several states in different parts of the First, the coal-fired steam generating impact on the CO2 capture rate. In fact,
country have adopted strategic and unit can itself turndown 358 to only operation at lower loads may lead to
planning frameworks that also about 40 percent of its maximum design
encourage CCS. Louisiana, which in capacity. Due to this, coal-fired EGUs 360 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2020 set an economy-wide net-zero goal have relatively high duty cycles 359— ‘‘Power Sector Emissions Data.’’ Washington, DC:
by 2050, has explored policies that that is, they do not cycle as frequently Office of Atmospheric Protection, Clean Air
encourage CCS deployment in the Markets Division. Available from EPA’s Air Markets
as other sources and typically have high Program Data website: https://campd.epa.gov.
power sector. The state’s 2022 Climate average loads when operating. In 2021, 361 Jacobs, B., et al. Proceedings of the 16th
Action Plan proposes a Renewable and coal-fired steam generating units had an International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Clean Portfolio Standard requiring 100 average duty cycle of 70 percent, and Control Technologies (March 15–18, 2021).
percent renewable or clean energy by more than 75 percent of units had duty
Reducing the CO2 Emission Intensity of Boundary
2035.353 That proposal defines power Dam Unit 3 Through Optimization of Operating
Parameters of the Power Plant and Carbon Capture
plants achieving 90 percent carbon 354 Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Facilities. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
capture as a qualifying clean energy Protection. Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286430.
resource that can be used to meet the (2021). https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/climate/ 362 W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO Capture
2
standard. Pages/PA-Climate-Action-Plan.aspx. and Sequestration Demonstration Project, Final

355 https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/updated- Scientific/Technical Report (March 2020). https://
waudio-burgum-addresses-williston-basin- www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608572.
348 State of Illinois General Assembly. Public Act
petroleum-conference-issues-carbon-neutral. 363 International CCS Knowledge Centre. The
102–0662: Climate and Equitable Jobs Act. 2021. 356 https://westgov.org/initiatives/overview/ Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report. https://
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/102/ decarbonizing-the-west. ccsknowledge.com/pub/Publications/Shand_CCS_
PDF/102-0662.pdf. 357 State of Wyoming Legislature. SF0042. Low- Feasibility_Study_Public_Report_Nov2018_(2021-
349 State of Illinois General Assembly. Public Act
carbon Reliable Energy Standards-amendments. 05-12).pdf.
095–1027: Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law. https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2024/SF0042. 364 Here, a ‘‘train’’ in this context is a series of
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/PDF/ 358 Here, ‘‘turndown’’ is the ability of a facility to connected sequential process equipment. For
095-1027.pdf. turn down some process value, such as flowrate, carbon capture, a process train can include the
350 State of Michigan Legislature. Public Act 235
throughput or capacity. Typically, this is expressed quencher, absorber, stripper, and compressor.
of 2023. Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy as a ratio relative to operation at its maximum Rather than doubling the size of a single train of
Waste Reduction Act. https://legislature.mi.gov/ instantaneous capability. Because processes are process equipment, a source could use two
documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA- designed to operate within specific ranges, equivalent sized trains.
0235.pdf. turndown is typically limited by some lower 365 Jacobs, B., et al. Proceedings of the 16th
351 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping
threshold. International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https:// 359 Here, ‘‘duty cycle’’ is the ratio of the gross Control Technologies (March 15–18, 2021).
ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022- amount of electricity generated relative to the Reducing the CO2 Emission Intensity of Boundary
sp.pdf. amount that could be potentially generated if the Dam Unit 3 Through Optimization of Operating
352 State of California Legislature. Assembly Bill Parameters of the Power Plant and Carbon Capture
unit operated at its nameplate capacity during every
1279 (2022). The California Climate Crisis Act. hour of operation. Duty cycle is thereby an Facilities. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ indication of the amount of cycling or load papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286430.
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1279. following a unit experiences (higher duty cycles 366 International CCS Knowledge Centre. The
353 Louisiana Climate Initiatives Task Force. indicate less cycling, i.e., more time at nameplate Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report. https://
Louisiana Climate Action Plan (February 1, 2022). capacity when operating). Duty cycle is different ccsknowledge.com/pub/Publications/Shand_CCS_
https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/CCI-Task- from capacity factor, as the latter also quantifies the Feasibility_Study_Public_Report_Nov2018_(2021-
force/CAP/ClimateActionPlanFinal.pdf. amount that the unit spends offline. 05-12).pdf.
higher achievable capture rates over compositions including a broad range of Young station (North Dakota),374 Project
long periods of time. different coal ranks, differences in CO2 Diamond Vault at the petroleum coke-
Coal-fired steam generating units also concentration are slight and the capture and subbituminous-fired Brame Energy
typically have few startups and process can be designed to the Center Madison Unit 3 (Louisiana) 375
shutdowns per year, and CO2 emissions appropriate scale, amine solvents have and two units at the Jim Bridger Plant
during those periods are low. Although been used to capture CO2 from flue gas (Wyoming).376
capacity factor has declined in recent with much lower CO2 concentrations, Different coal ranks have different
years, as noted in section IV.D.3 of the and differences in flue gas impurities carbon contents, affecting the
preamble, the number of startups per due to different coal compositions can concentration of CO2 in flue gas. In
year has been relatively stable. In 2011, be managed or mitigated by controls. general, however, CO2 concentration of
coal-fired sources had about 10 startups As detailed in the preceding sections, coal combustion flue gas varies only
on average. In 2021, coal-fired steam CO2 capture has been operated on flue between 13 and 15 percent. Differences
generating units had only 12 startups on gas from the combustion of a broad in CO2 concentration can be accounted
average, see the final TSD, GHG range of coal ranks including lignite, for by appropriately designing the
Mitigation Measures for Steam bituminous, subbituminous, and capture equipment, including sizing the
Generating Units, available in the anthracite coals. Post-combustion CO2 absorber columns. As detailed in section
docket. Prior to generation of electricity, capture from the flue gas of an EGU VIII.F.4.c.iv of the preamble, CO2 has
coal-fired steam generating units use firing lignite has been demonstrated at been captured from the post-combustion
natural gas or distillate oil—which have the Boundary Dam Unit 3 EGU flue gas of NGCCs, which typically have
a lower carbon content than coal— (Saskatchewan, Canada). Most lignites a CO2 concentration of 4 percent.
because of their ignition stability and have a higher ash and moisture content Prior to emission controls and pre-
low ignition temperature. Heat input than other coal types and, in that conditioning, characteristics of different
rates during startup are relatively low, respect, the flue gas can be more coal ranks and boiler design result in
to slowly raise the temperature of the challenging to manage for CO2 capture. other differences in the flue gas
boiler. Existing natural gas- or oil-fired Amine CO2 capture has also been used composition, including in the
ignitors designed for startup purposes to treat lignite post-combustion flue gas concentration of SO2, NOX, PM, and
are generally sized for up to 15 percent in pilot studies at the Milton R. Young trace impurities. Such impurities in the
of the maximum heat-input. station (North Dakota).367 CO2 capture flue gas can react with the solvent or
Considering the low heat input rate, use solvents have been used to treat cause fouling of downstream processes.
of fuel with a lower carbon content, and subbituminous post-combustion flue gas However, in general, most existing coal-
the relatively few startups per year, the from W.A. Parish Generating Station fired steam generating units in the U.S.
contribution of startup to total GHG (Texas),368 and the bituminous post- have controls that are necessary for the
emissions is relatively low. Shutdowns combustion flue gas from Plant Barry pre-conditioning of flue gas prior to the
are relatively short events, so that the (Mobile, Alabama),369 Warrior Run CO2 capture plant, including PM and
contribution to total emissions are also (Maryland),370 and Argus Cogeneration SO2 controls. For those sources without
low. The emissions during startup and Plant (California).371 Amine solvents an FGD for SO2 control, the EPA
shutdown are therefore small relative to have also been used to remove CO2 from included the costs of adding an FGD in
emissions during normal operation, so the flue gas of the bituminous- and its cost analysis. Other marginal
that any impact is averaged out over the subbituminous-fired Shady Point differences in flue gas impurities can be
course of a year. plant.372 CO2 capture solvents have
managed by appropriately designing the
Furthermore, the IRC section 45Q tax been used to treat anthracite post-
polishing column (direct contact cooler)
credit provides incentive for units to combustion flue gas at the
operate more. Sources operating at for the individual source’s flue gas.
Wilhelmshaven power plant
higher capacity factors are likely to have Trace impurities can be mitigated using
(Germany).373 There are also ongoing
fewer startups and shutdowns and conventional controls in the solvent
projects that will apply CCS to the flue
spend less time at low loads, so that reclaiming process (e.g., an activated
gas of coal-fired steam generating units.
their average load would be higher. This carbon bed).
The EPA considers these ongoing
would further minimize the Considering the broad range of coal
projects to be indicative of the
insubstantial contribution of startups post-combustion flue gases amine
confidence that industry stakeholders
and shutdowns to total emissions. solvents have been operated with, that
have in CCS. These include Project
Additionally, as noted in the preceding solvents capture CO2 from flue gases
Tundra at the lignite-fired Milton R.
sections of the preamble, new solvents with lower CO2 concentrations, that the
achieve capture rates of 95 percent at 367 Laum, Jason. Subtask 2.4—Overcoming capture process can be designed for
full load, and ongoing projects are Barriers to the Implementation of Postcombustion different CO2 concentrations, and that
targeting capture rates of 95 percent. Carbon Capture. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/ flue gas impurities that may differ by
1580659. coal rank can be managed by controls,
Considering all of these factors, startup 368 W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO Capture
and shutdown, in general, do not affect
2
the EPA therefore concludes that 90
and Sequestration Demonstration Project, Final
the achievability of 90 percent capture Scientific/Technical Report (March 2020). https:// percent capture is achievable across all
over long periods (i.e., a year). www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608572. coal ranks, including waste coal.
369 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). National
(7) Coal Rank Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). https:// 374 Project Tundra—Progress, Minnkota Power
www.netl.doe.gov/node/1741. Cooperative, 2023. https://
CO2 capture at coal-fired steam
370 Dooley, J.J., et al. (2009). ‘‘An Assessment of

www.projecttundrand.com.
generating units achieves 90 percent the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide 375 Project Diamond Vault Overview. https://
capture, for the reasons detailed in Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009.’’ www.cleco.com/docs/default-source/diamond-
sections VII.C.1.a.i(B)(1) through (6) of U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, vault/project_diamond_vault_overview.pdf.
under Contract DE–AC05–76RL01830. 376 2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update,
this preamble. Moreover, 90 percent 371 Id.
PacifiCorp, April 1, 2024, https://
capture is achievable for all coal types 372 Id.
www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/
because amine solvents have been used 373 Reddy, et al. Energy Procedia, 37 (2013) 6216– documents/en/pacificorp/energy/integrated-
to remove CO2 from a variety of flue gas 6225. resource-plan/2023_IRP_Update.pdf.
(8) Natural Gas-Fired Combustion CO2 capture from coal-fired steam less than 32 km (20 miles) from
Turbines generating units is adequately potential deep saline sequestration sites,
Additional information supporting demonstrated. Substantial additional 73 percent is located within 50 km (31
the EPA’s determination that 90 percent information from EPAct05-assisted miles), 80 percent is located within 100
capture of CO2 from steam generating projects, as described in section km (62 miles), and 91 percent is within
units is adequately demonstrated is the VII.C.1.a.i.(B), provides additional 160 km (100 miles). While the EPA’s
experience from CO2 capture from support and confirms that 90 percent analysis focuses on the geographic
natural gas-fired combustion turbines. CO2 capture from coal-fired steam availability of deep saline formations,
The EPA describes this information in generating units is adequately unmineable coal seams and depleted oil
section VIII.F.4.c.iv(B)(1), including demonstrated. and gas reservoirs could also potentially
explaining how information about CO2 serve as storage formations depending
(C) CO2 Transport
on site-specific characteristics. Thus, for
capture from coal-fired steam generating The EPA is finalizing its the majority of sources, only relatively
units also applies to natural gas-fired determination that CO2 transport by short pipelines would be needed for
combustion turbines. The reverse is true pipelines as a component of CCS is transporting CO2 from the source to the
as well; information about CO2 capture adequately demonstrated. The EPA sequestration site. For the reasons
from natural gas-fired turbines can be anticipates that in the coming years, a described below, the EPA believes that
applied to coal fired-units, for much the large-scale interstate pipeline network both new and existing EGUs are capable
same reasons. may develop to transport CO2. Indeed, of constructing CO2 pipelines as needed.
(9) Summary of Evidence Supporting PHMSA is currently engaged in a New EGUs may also be planned to be
BSER Determination Without EPAct05- rulemaking to update and strengthen its co-located with a storage site so that
Assisted Projects safety regulations for CO2 pipelines, minimal transport of the CO2 is
which assumes that such a pipeline required. The EPA has assurance that
As noted above, under the EPA’s network will develop.377 For purposes
interpretation of the EPAct05 the necessary pipelines will be safe
of determining the CCS BSER in this because the safety of existing and new
provisions, the EPA may not rely on final action, however, the EPA did not
capture projects that received assistance supercritical CO2 pipelines is
base its analysis of the availability of comprehensively regulated by
under EPAct05 as the sole basis for a CCS on the projected existence of a PHMSA.379
determination of adequate large-scale interstate pipeline network.
demonstration, but the EPA may rely on Instead, the EPA adopted a more (1) CO2 Transport Demonstrations
those projects to support or corroborate conservative approach. The BSER is The majority of CO2 transported in the
other information that supports such a premised on the construction of United States is moved through
determination. The information relatively short lateral pipelines that pipelines. CO2 pipelines have been in
described above that supports the EPA’s extend from the source to the nearest use across the country for nearly 60
determination that 90 percent CO2 geologic storage reservoir. While the years. Operation of this pipeline
capture from coal-fired steam generating EPA anticipates that sources would infrastructure for this period of time
units is adequately demonstrated, likely avail themselves of an existing establishes that the design, construction,
without consideration of the EPAct05- interstate pipeline network if one were and operational requirements for CO2
assisted projects, includes (i) the constructed and that using an existing pipelines have been adequately
information concerning Boundary Dam, network would reduce costs, the EPA’s demonstrated.380 PHMSA reported that
coupled with engineering analysis analysis focuses on steps that an 8,666 km (5,385 miles) of CO2 pipelines
concerning key improvements that can individual source could take to access were in operation in 2022, a 14 percent
be implemented in future CCS CO2 storage independently. increase in CO2 pipeline miles since
deployments during initial design and EGUs that do not currently capture 2011.381 This pipeline infrastructure
construction (i.e., all the information in and transport CO2 will need to construct continues to expand with a number of
section VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(a) and the new CO2 pipelines to access CO2 storage anticipated projects underway.
information concerning Boundary Dam sites, or make arrangements with The U.S. CO2 pipeline network
in section VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(b)); (ii) the pipeline owners and operators who can includes major trunkline (i.e., large
information concerning other coal-fired do so. Most coal-fired steam EGUs, capacity) pipelines as well as shorter,
demonstrations, including the Argus however, are located in relatively close smaller capacity lateral pipelines
Cogeneration Plant and AES’s Warrior proximity to deep saline formations that connecting a CO2 source to a larger
Run (i.e., all the information concerning have the potential to be used as long- trunkline or connecting a CO2 source to
those sources in section term CO2 storage sites.378 Of existing a nearby CO2 end use. While CO2
VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(a)); (iii) the information coal-fired steam generating capacity
concerning industrial applications of with planned operation during or after 379 PHMSA additionally initiated a rulemaking in
CCS (i.e., all the information in section 2039, more than 50 percent is located 2022 to develop and implement new measures to
VII.C.1.a.i.(A)(1); (iv) the information strengthen its safety oversight of CO2 pipelines
following investigation into a CO2 pipeline failure
concerning CO2 capture technology 377 PHMSA submitted the associated Notice of
in Satartia, Mississippi in 2020. For more
vendor statements (i.e., all the Proposed Rulemaking to the White House Office of
Management and Budget on February 1, 2024 for information, see: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/
information in section VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(3)); pre-publication review. The notice stated that the phmsa-announces-new-safety-measures-protect-
(v) information concerning carbon proposed rulemaking would enhance safety americans-carbon-dioxide-pipeline-failures.
380 For additional information on CO
regulations to ‘‘accommodate an anticipated
capture at natural gas-fired combustion 2

increase in the number of carbon dioxide pipelines transportation infrastructure project timelines, costs
turbines other than EPAct05-assisted and volume of carbon dioxide transported.’’ Office and other details, please see EPA’s final TSD, GHG
projects (i.e., all the information other of Management and Budget. https:// Mitigation Measures for Steam Generating Units.
than information about EPAct05- www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 381 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
assisted projects in section eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2137-AF60. and Hazardous Material Safety Administration,

378 Individual saline formations would require ‘‘Hazardous Annual Liquid Data.’’ 2022. https://
VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B)(1)). All this information site-specific characterization to determine their www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/
by itself is sufficient to support the suitability for geologic sequestration and the gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission-
EPA’s determination that 90 percent potential capacity for storage. hazardous-liquids.
pipelines are generally more percent is within 402 km (250 miles) of other words, more pipeline buildout for
economical, other methods of CO2 potential sequestration sites. In total, one compliance method necessarily
transport may also be used in certain assuming all existing coal-fired steam means less pipeline buildout for the
circumstances and are detailed in the generating capacity with planned other method. Therefore, there is no
final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for operation during or after 2039 adopts compliance scenario in which the total
Steam Generating Units. CCS, the EPA analysis shows that pipeline construction is equal to the
(a) Distance of CO2 Transport for Coal- approximately 8,000 km (5,000 miles) of sum of the CCS and natural gas co-firing
Fired Power Plants CO2 pipelines would be constructed by pipeline estimates presented in this
2032. This includes units located at any preamble.
An important factor in the distance from sequestration. Note that While natural gas line construction
consideration of the feasibility of CO2 this value is not optimized for the least may be easier in some circumstances
transport from existing coal-fired steam total pipeline length, but rather given the uniform federal regulation that
generating units to sequestration sites is represents the approximate total governs those such construction, the
the distance the CO2 must be pipeline length that would be required historical trends support the EPA’s
transported. As discussed in section if each power plant constructed a lateral conclusion that constructing less CO2
VII.C.1.a.i(D), potential sequestration pipeline connecting their power plant to pipeline length over a several year
formations include deep saline the nearest potential saline period is feasible.
formations, unmineable coal seams, and sequestration site.384
oil and gas reservoirs. Based on data (b) CO2 Pipeline Examples
Additionally, the EPA’s compliance
from DOE/NETL studies of storage modeling projects 3,300 miles of CO2 PHMSA reported that 8,666 km (5,385
resources, of existing coal-fired steam pipeline buildout in the baseline and miles) of CO2 pipelines were in
generating capacity with planned 4,700 miles of pipeline buildout in the operation in 2022.387 Due to the unique
operation during or after 2039, 80 policy scenario. This is comparable to nature of each project, CO2 pipelines
percent is within 100 km (62 miles) of the 4,700 to 6,000 miles of CO2 pipeline vary widely in length and capacity.
potential deep saline sequestration sites, buildout estimated by other simulations Examples of projects that have utilized
and another 11 percent is within 160 km examining similar scenarios of coal CCS CO2 pipelines include the following:
(100 miles).382 In other words, 91 deployment.385 Over 5 years, this total Beaver Creek (76 km), Monell (52.6 km),
percent of this capacity is within 160 projected CO2 pipeline capacity would Bairoil (258 km), Salt Creek (201 km),
km (100 miles) of potential deep saline amount to about 660 to 940 miles per Sheep Mountain (656 km), Slaughter (56
sequestration sites. In gigawatts, of the year on average.386 This projected km), Cortez (808 km), Central Basin (231
81 GW of coal-fired steam generation pipeline mileage is comparable to other km), Canyon Reef Carriers (354 km), and
capacity with planned operation during types of pipelines that are regularly Choctaw (294 km). These pipelines
or after 2039, only 16 GW is not within constructed in the United States each range in capacity from 1.6 million tons
100 km (62 miles) of a potential saline year. For example, based on data per year to 27 million tons per year, and
sequestration site, and only 7 GW is not collected by EIA, the total annual transported CO2 for uses such as
within 160 km (100 mi). The vast mileage of natural gas pipelines EOR.388
majority of these units (on the order of constructed over the 2017–2021 period Most sources deploying CCS are
80 percent) can reach these deep saline anticipated to construct pipelines that
ranged from approximately 1,000 to
sequestration sites by building an run from the source to the sequestration
2,500 miles per year. The projected
intrastate pipeline. This distance is site. Similar CO2 pipelines have been
annual average CO2 pipeline mileage is
consistent with the distances referenced successfully constructed and operated
less than each year in this historical
in studies that form the basis for in the past. For example, a 109 km (68
natural gas pipeline range, and
transport cost estimates for this final mile) CO2 pipeline was constructed
significantly less than the upper end of
rule.383 While the EPA’s analysis from a fertilizer plant in Coffeyville,
this range.
focuses on the geographic availability of Kansas, to the North Burbank Unit, an
The EPA also notes that the pipeline
deep saline formations, unmineable coal EOR operation in Oklahoma.389
construction estimates presented in this
seams and depleted oil and gas Chaparral Energy entered a long-term
section are not additive with the natural
reservoirs could also potentially serve as CO2 purchase and sale agreement with
gas co-firing pipeline construction
storage formations depending on site- a subsidiary of CVR Energy for the
estimates presented below because
specific characteristics.
individual sources will not elect to capture of CO2 from CVR’s nitrogen
Of the 9 percent of existing coal-fired
steam generating capacity with planned utilize both compliance methods. In fertilizer plant in 2011.390 The pipeline
operation during or after 2039 that is not 384 Note that multiple coal-fired EGUs may be 387 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
within 160 km (100 miles) of a potential located at each power plant. and Hazardous Material Safety Administration,
deep saline sequestration site, 5 percent 385 CO Pipeline Analysis for Existing Coal-Fired
2
is within 241 km (150 miles) of Powerplants. Chen et. al. Los Alamos National Lab. www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/
potential saline sequestration sites, an 2024. https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/ gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission-
tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-24-23321. hazardous-liquids.
additional 3 percent is within 322 km 386 In the EPA’s representative timeline, the CO 388 Noothout, Paul. Et. Al. (2014). ‘‘CO Pipeline
2
(200 miles) of potential saline pipeline is constructed in an 18-month period. In
2
infrastructure—lessons learnt.’’ https://
sequestration sites, and another 1 practice, all CO2 pipeline construction projects www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
would be spread over a larger time period. In the S187661021402864.
389 Rassenfoss, Stephen. (2014). ‘‘Carbon Dioxide:
Transport and Storage Timeline Summary, ICF
382 Sequestration potential as it relates to distance
from existing resources is a key part of the EPA’s (2024), available in Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– From Industry to Oil Fields.’’ ttps://jpt.spe.org/
regular power sector modeling development, using 2023–0072, permitting is 1.5 years. Some CO2 carbon-dioxide-industry-oil-fields.
data from DOE/NETL studies. For details, please see pipeline construction would therefore likely begin 390 GlobeNewswire. ‘‘Chaparral Energy Agrees to
chapter 6 of the IPM documentation. https:// by the start of 2028, or even earlier considering on- a CO2 Purchase and Sale Agreement with CVR
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/ going projects. With the one-year compliance Energy for Capture of CO2 for Enhanced Oil
chapter-6-co2-capture-storage-and-transport.pdf. extension for delays outside of the owner/operators Recovery.’’ March 29, 2011. https://
383 The pipeline diameter was sized for this to be control that would provide extra time if there were www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2011/03/29/
achieved without the need for recompression stages challenges in building pipelines, the construction 443163/10562/en/Chaparral-Energy-Agrees-to-a-
along the pipeline length. on CO2 pipelines could occur during 2032. CO2-Purchase-and-Sale-Agreement-With-CVR-
was then constructed, and operations km (5 miles) long.397 398 399 Additionally, network with existing pipelines in the
started in 2013.391 Furthermore, a 132 Project Tundra, a saline sequestration region—including the Denbury
km (82 mile) pipeline was constructed project planned at the lignite-fired Greencore pipeline, which was
from the Terrell Gas facility (formerly Milton R. Young Station in North completed in 2012 and is 232 miles
Val Verde) in Texas to supply CO2 for Dakota will transport CO2 via a 0.4 km long, running from the Lost Cabin gas
EOR projects in the Permian Basin.392 (0.25 mile) pipeline.400 plant in Wyoming to Bell Creek Field in
Additionally, the Kemper Country CCS Montana.403
(d) Existing and Planned CO2 In addition to the existing pipeline
project in Mississippi, was designed to
Trunklines network, there are a number of large
capture CO2 from an integrated
gasification combined cycle power Although the BSER is premised on the CO2 trunklines that are planned or in
plant, and transport CO2 via a 96 km (60 construction of pipelines that connect progress, which could further reduce
mile) pipeline to be used in EOR.393 the CO2 source to the sequestration site, the number of miles of pipeline that a
Construction for this facility in practice some sources may construct source may need to construct. Several
commenced in 2010 and was completed short laterals to existing CO2 trunklines, major projects have recently been
in 2014.394 Furthermore, the Citronelle which can reduce the number of miles announced to expand the CO2 pipeline
Project in Alabama, which was the of pipeline that may need to be network across the United States. For
largest demonstration of a fully constructed. A map displaying both example, the Summit Carbon Solutions
integrated, pulverized coal-fired CCS existing and planned CO2 pipelines, Midwest Carbon Express project has
project in the United States as of 2016, overlayed on potential geologic proposed to add more than 3,200 km
utilized a dedicated 19 km (12 mile) sequestration sites, is available in the (2,000) miles of dedicated CO2 pipeline
pipeline constructed by Denbury final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for in Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Resources in 2011 to transport CO2 to a Steam Generating Units. Pipelines Dakota, and Minnesota. The Midwest
saline storage site.395 connect natural CO2 sources in south Carbon Express is projected to begin
central Colorado, northeast New operations in 2026. Further, Wolf
(c) EPAct05-Assisted CO2 Pipelines for Mexico, and Mississippi to oil fields in Carbon Solutions has recently
CCS Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, announced that it plans to refile permit
and Louisiana. The Cortez pipeline is applications for the Mt. Simon Hub,
Consistent with the EPA’s legal which will expand the CO2 pipeline by
interpretation that the Agency can rely the longest CO2 pipeline, and it
traverses over 800 km (500) miles from 450 km (280 miles) in the Midwest.
on experience from EPAct05 funded Tallgrass announced in 2022 a plan to
facilities in conjunction with other southwest Colorado to Denver City,
Texas CO2 Hub, where it connects with convert an existing 630 km (392 mile)
information, this section provides natural gas pipeline to carry CO2 from
additional examples of CO2 pipelines several other CO2 pipelines. Many
existing CO2 pipelines in the U.S. are an ADM ethanol production facility in
with EPAct05 funding. CCS projects Nebraska to a planned commercial-scale
with EPAct05 funding have built located in the Permian Basin region of
west Texas and eastern New Mexico. CO2 sequestration hub in Wyoming
pipelines to connect the captured CO2 aimed for completion in 2024.404
source with sequestration sites, CO2 pipelines in Wyoming, Texas, and
Louisiana also carry CO2 captured from Recently, as part of agreeing to a
including Illinois Industrial Carbon communities benefits plan, a number of
Capture and Storage in Illinois, Petra natural gas processing plants and
refineries to EOR projects. Additional community groups have agreed that
Nova in Texas, and Red Trail Energy in they will support construction of the
North Dakota. The Petra Nova project, pipelines have been constructed to meet
the demand for CO2 transportation. A Tallgrass pipeline in Nebraska.405 While
which restarted operations in September the construction of larger networks of
2023,396 transports CO2 via a 131 km (81 170 km (105 mile) CO2 pipeline owned
by Denbury connecting oil fields in the trunklines could facilitate CCS for
mile) pipeline to the injection site, power plants, the BSER is not
while the Illinois Industrial Carbon Cedar Creek Anticline (located along the
Montana-North Dakota border) to CO2 predicated on the buildout of a
Capture project and Red Trail Energy trunkline network and the existence of
transport CO2 using pipelines under 8 produced in Wyoming was completed
in 2021, and a 30 km (18 mile) pipeline future trunklines was not assumed in
also owned by Denbury connects to the the EPA’s feasibility or costing analysis.
Energy-for-Capture-of-CO2-for-Enhanced-Oil-
same oil field and was completed in The EPA’s analysis is conservative in
Recovery.html. that it does not presume the buildout of
391 Chaparral Energy. ‘‘A ‘CO Midstream’ 2022.401 402 These pipelines form a
2
trunkline networks. The development of
Overview: EOR Carbon Management Workshop.’’
December 10, 2013. https://www.co2conference.net/ 397 Technical Review of Subpart RR MRV Plan for more robust and interconnected
wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13-Chaparral-CO2- Petra Nova West Ranch Unit. (2021). https:// pipeline systems over the next several
Midstream-Overview-2013.12.09new.pdf. www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/ years would merely lower the EPA’s
392 ‘‘Val Verde Fact Sheet: Commercial EOR using wru_decision.pdf.
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide.’’ https:// 398 Technical Review of Subpart RR MRV Plan for
402 AP News. Officials mark start of CO pipeline
2
sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/val_ Archer Daniels Midland Illinois Industrial Carbon used for oil recovery. (2022) https://apnews.com/
verde.html. Capture and Storage Project. (2017). https:// article/business-texas-north-dakota-plano-
393 Kemper County IGCC Fact Sheet: Carbon www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/ 25f1dbf9a924613a56827c1c83e4ba68.
Dioxide Capture and Storage Project. https:// documents/adm_final_decision.pdf. 403 Denbury. Detailed Pipeline and Ownership
sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html. 399 Red Trail Energy Subpart RR Monitoring,
Information. (2022) https://www.denbury.com/wp-
394 Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Plan. (2022). content/uploads/2022/11/DEN-Pipeline-
Management. Southern Company—Kemper County, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022- Schedule.pdf.
Mississippi. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/ 04/rtemrvplan.pdf. 404 Tallgrass. Tallgrass to Capture and Sequester

southern-company-kemper-county-mississippi. 400 Technical Review of Subpart RR MRV Plan for
CO2 Emissions from ADM Corn Processing Complex
395 Citronelle Project. National Energy Tundra SGS LLC at the Milton R. Young Station. in Nebraska. (2022). https://tallgrass.com/
Technology Laboratory. (2018). https:// (2022). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ newsroom/press-releases/tallgrass-to-capture-and-
www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/ documents/2022-04/tsgsdecision.pdf. sequester-co2-emissions-from-adm-corn-processing-
Citronelle-SECARB-Project.PDF. 401 Denbury. Detailed Pipeline and Ownership complex-in-nebraska.
396 Jacobs, Trent. (2023). ‘‘A New Day Begins for Information. (2022) https://www.denbury.com/wp- 405 https://boldnebraska.org/upcoming-meetings-
Shuttered Petra Nova CCUS.’’ https://jpt.spe.org/a- content/uploads/2022/11/DEN-Pipeline- understanding-the-new-tallgrass-carbon-pipeline-

new-day-begins-for-shuttered-petra-nova-ccus. Schedule.pdf. community-benefits-agreement/.
cost projections and create additional authority, which typically accompanies Pennsylvania have created a joint
CO2 transport options for power plants siting permits from state utility permitting form that allows applicants
that do CCS. regulators with jurisdiction over CO2 to file a single application for pipeline
Moreover, pipeline projects have pipeline siting.408 The permitting projects covering both state and federal
received funding under the IIJA to process for interstate pipelines may take permitting requirements.413 Even in
conduct front-end engineering and longer than for intrastate pipelines. states without this streamlined process,
design (FEED) studies.406 Carbon Whereas multiple state regulatory pipeline developers can pursue required
Solutions LLC received funding to agencies would be involved in the state permits concurrently with federal
conduct a FEED study for a commercial- permitting process for an interstate permits, NEPA review (as applicable),
scale pipeline to transport CO2 in pipeline, only one primary state and the acquisition of rights-of-way.
support of the Wyoming Trails Carbon regulatory agency would be involved in Pipeline developers have been able to
Hub as part of a statewide pipeline the permitting process for an intrastate successfully secure the necessary rights-
system that would be capable of pipeline. of way for CO2 pipeline projects. For
transporting up to 45 million metric Most regulation of CO2 pipeline siting example, Summit Carbon Solutions,
tons of CO2 per year from multiple and development is conducted at the which has proposed to add more than
sources. In addition, Howard Midstream state level, and under state specific 3,200 km (2,000 mi) of dedicated CO2
Energy Partners LLC received funding to regulatory regimes. As the interest in pipeline in Iowa, Nebraska, North
conduct a FEED study for a 965 km (600 CO2 pipelines has grown, states have Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota,
mi) CO2 pipeline system on the Gulf taken steps to facilitate pipeline siting has stated that as of November 7, 2023,
Coast that would be capable of moving and construction. State level regulation it had reached easement agreements
at least 250 million metric tons of CO2 related to CO2 sequestration and with 2,100 landowners along the
annually and connecting carbon sources transport is an very active area of route.414 As of February 23, 2024,
within 30 mi of the trunkline. legislation across states in all parts of Summit Carbon Solutions stated that it
Other programs were created by the the country, with many states seeking to had acquired about 75 percent of the
IIJA to facilitate the buildout of large facilitate pipeline siting and rights of way needed in Iowa, about 80
pipelines to carry carbon dioxide from construction.409 Many states, including percent in North Dakota, about 75
multiple sources. For example, the Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, percent in South Dakota, and about 89
Carbon Dioxide Transportation Arkansas, and Rhode Island, treat CO2 percent in Minnesota. The company has
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation pipeline operators as common carriers successfully navigated hurdles, such as
Act (CIFIA) was incorporated into the or public utilities.410 This is an rerouting the pipelines in certain
IIJA and provided $2.1 billion to DOE to important classification in some counties where necessary.415 416 The
finance projects that build shared (i.e., jurisdictions where it may be required EPA notes that this successful
common carrier) transport infrastructure for pipelines seeking to exercise acquisition of right-of-way easements
to move CO2 from points of capture to eminent domain.411 Currently, 17 states for thousands of miles of pipeline across
conversion facilities and/or storage explicitly allow CO2 pipeline operators five states has taken place in just the
wells. The program offers direct loans, to exercise eminent domain authority three years since the project launched in
loan guarantees, and ‘‘future growth for acquisition of CO2 pipeline rights-of- 2021.417 In addition, the Citronelle
grants’’ to provide cash payments to way, should developers not secure them Project, which was constructed in
specifically for eligible costs to build through negotiation with landowners.412 Alabama in 2011, successfully acquired
additional capacity for potential future Some states have recognized the need rights-of-way through 9 miles of forested
demand.407 for a streamlined CO2 pipeline and commercial timber land and 3 miles
permitting process when there are of emergent shrub and forested
(2) Permitting and Rights of Way multiple layers of regulation and wetlands. The Citronelle Project was
The permitting process for CO2 developed joint permit applications. able to attain rights-of-way through the
pipelines often involves a number of Illinois, Louisiana, New York, and habitat of an endangered species by
private, local, state, tribal, and/or mitigating potential environmental
408 Congressional Research Service.2022. Carbon
Federal agencies. States and local
Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues, CRS Reports, June
governments are directly involved in 3, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/
413 Martin Lockman. Permitting CO Pipelines.
2
siting and permitting proposed CO2 pdf/IN/IN11944. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sept. 2023).
pipeline projects. CO2 pipeline siting 409 Great Plains Institute State Legislative Tracker https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=sabin_
and permitting authorities, landowner 2023. Carbon Management State Legislative
climate_change.
Program Tracker. https://www.quorum.us/
rights, and eminent domain laws are spreadsheet/external/fVOjsTvwyeWkIqVlNmoq/
414 South Dakota Public Broadcasting. ‘‘Summit
governed by the states and vary by state. ?mc_cid=915706f2bc&. reaches land deals on more than half of CO2
State laws determine pipeline siting 410 National Association of Regulatory Utility pipeline route.’’ (2022). https://listen.sdpb.org/
and the process for developers to Commissioners (NARUC). (2023). Onshore U.S. business-economics/2022-11-08/summit-reaches-
Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety. and land-deals-on-more-than-half-of-co2-pipeline-route.
acquire rights-of-way needed to build. 415 Summit CEO: CO2 Pipeline’s Time is Now.
Regulation. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/F1EECB6B-
Pipeline developers may secure rights- CD8A-6AD4-B05B-E7DA0F12672E. (2024). https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/
of-way for proposed projects through 411 Martin Lockman. Permitting CO Pipelines.
2
news/business-inputs/article/2024/02/23/summit-
voluntary agreements with landowners; Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2023). ceo-blank-says-company-toward.
416 Summit Carbon Solutions. Summit Carbon
pipeline developers may also secure https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=sabin_ Solutions Signs 80 Percent of North Dakota
rights-of-way through eminent domain climate_change. Landowners. (2023). https://
412 The 17 states are: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, summitcarbonsolutions.com/summit-carbon-

406 Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon solutions-signs-80-percent-of-north-dakota-
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Management. ‘‘Project Selections for FOA 2730: Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, landowners/.
Carbon Dioxide Transport Engineering and Design North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, 417 Summit Carbon Solutions. Summit Carbon
(Round 1).’’ https://www.energy.gov/fecm/project- and Wyoming. National Association of Regulatory Solutions Announces Progress on Carbon Capture
selections-foa-2730-carbon-dioxide-transport- Utility Commissioners (NARUC). (2023). Onshore and Storage Project. (2022). https://
engineering-and-design-round-1. U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety. summitcarbonsolutions.com/summit-carbon-
407 https://www.energy.gov/lpo/carbon-dioxide- and Regulation. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/ solutions-announces-progress-on-carbon-capture-
transportation-infrastructure. F1EECB6B-CD8A-6AD4-B05B-E7DA0F12672E. and-storage-project/.
impacts.418 Even projects that require considering the whole project (e.g., Petra Nova project in Texas required an
rights-of-way across multiple ownership crossings of sensitive habitats, cultural EIS to evaluate the potential
regimes including state, private, and resources, wetlands, public safety environmental impacts associated with
federally owned land have been concerns). Consequently, whether a DOE’s proposed action of providing
successfully developed. The 170 km pipeline project is covered by NEPA and financial assistance for the project. This
(105 mile) Cedar Creek Anticline CO2 the associated permitting timelines may EIS addressed potential impacts from
pipeline owned by Denbury required vary depending on site characteristics both the associated 131 km (81 mile)
easements for approximately 10 km (6.2 (e.g., pipeline length, whether a project pipeline and other aspects of the larger
mi) to cross state school trust lands in crosses a water of the U.S.) and funding CCS system, including the post-
Montana, 27 km (17 mi) across Federal source. Pipelines through Bureau of combustion CO2.431 For Petra Nova, a
land and the remaining miles across Land Management (BLM) land, U.S. notice of intent to issue an EIS was
private lands.419 420 The pipeline was Forest Service (USFS) land, or other published on November 14, 2011, and
completed in 2021.421 Federal land would be subject to NEPA. the record of decision was issued less
Federal actions (e.g., funding a CCS To ensure that agencies conduct NEPA than 2 years later, on May 23, 2013.432
project) must generally comply with reviews as efficiently and expeditiously Construction of the CO2 pipeline for
NEPA, which often requires that an as practicable, the Fiscal Responsibility Petra Nova from the W.A. Parish Power
environmental assessment (EA) or Act 424 amendments to NEPA Plant to the West Ranch Oilfield in
environmental impact statement (EIS) established deadlines for the Jackson County, TX began in July 2014
be conducted to consider environmental preparation of environmental and was completed in July 2016.433
impacts of the proposed action, assessments and environmental impact Compliance with section 7 of the
including consideration of reasonable statements. Environmental assessments Endangered Species Act related to
alternatives.422 An EA determines must be completed within 1 year and Federal agency consultation and
whether or not a Federal action has the environmental impact statements must biological assessment is also required
potential to cause significant be completed within 2 years 425 A lead for projects on Federal lands.
environmental effects. Each Federal agency that determines it is not able to Specifically, the Endangered Species
agency has adopted its own NEPA meet the deadline may extend the Act requires consultation with the
procedures for the preparation of deadline, in consultation with the Department of Interior’s Fish and
EAs.423 If the agency determines that the applicant, to establish a new deadline Wildlife Service and Department of
action will not have significant that provides only so much additional Commerce’s NOAA Fisheries, in order
environmental impacts, the agency will time as is necessary to complete such to avoid or mitigate impacts to any
issue a Finding of No Significant Impact environmental impact statement or threatened or endangered species and
(FONSI). Some projects may also be environmental assessment.426 their habitats.434 This agency
‘‘categorically excluded’’ from a detailed As discussed above, it is anticipated consultation process and biological
environmental analysis when the that most EGUs would need shorter, assessment are generally conducted
Federal action normally does not have intrastate pipeline segments. For during preparation of the NEPA
a significant effect on the human example, ADM’s Decatur, Illinois, documentation (EIS or EA) for the
environment. Federal agencies prepare pipeline, which spans 1.9 km (1.18 Federal project and generally within the
an EIS if a proposed Federal action is miles), was constructed after Decatur regulatory timeframes for environmental
determined to significantly affect the was selected for the DOE Phase 1 assessment or environmental impact
quality of the human environment. The research and development grants in statement preparation. Consequently,
regulatory requirements for an EIS are October 2009.427 Construction of the the EPA does not anticipate that
more detailed and rigorous than the CO2 compression, dehydration, and compliance with the Endangered
requirements for an EA. The pipeline facilities began in July 2011 Species Act will change the anticipated
determination of the level of NEPA and was completed in June 2013.428 The timeline for most projects.
review depends on the potential for ADM project required only an EA. The EPA notes that the Fixing
significant environmental impacts Additionally, Air Products operates a America’s Surface Transportation Act
large-scale system to capture CO2 from (FAST Act) is also relevant to CCS
418 SECARB. (2021). Final Project Report— two steam methane reformers located projects and pipelines. Title 41 of this
SECARB Phase III, September 2021. https:// within the Valero Refinery in Port Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m et seq.), referred
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1823250.
Arthur, Texas. The recovered and to as ‘‘FAST–41,’’ created a new
419 Great Falls Tribune. Texas company plans
110-mile CO2 pipeline to enhance Montana oil purified CO2 is delivered by pipeline for
Chemicals, Inc. Recovery Act: Demonstration of
recovery. (2018). https://www.greatfallstribune. use in enhanced oil recovery CO2 Capture and Sequestration of Steam Methane
com/story/news/2018/10/09/texas-company-plans- operations.429 This 12-mile pipeline Reforming Process Gas Used for Large Scale
co-2-pipeline-injection-free-montana-oil/ required only an EA.430 Conversely, the Hydrogen Production. https://netl.doe.gov/sites/
1577657002/. default/files/environmental-assessments/20110622_
420 U.S. D.O.I B.L.M. Denbury-Green Pipeline-MT,
424 Public APCI_PtA_CO2_FEA.pdf.
LLC, Denbury Onshore, LLC Cedar Creek Anticline Law 118–5 (June 3, 2023). 431 Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy
425 NEPA Sec. 107(g)(1); 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1).
CO2 Pipeline and EOR Development Project and Compliance. (2013). EIS–0473: Record of
426 NEPA sec. 107(g)(2); 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(2).
Scoping Report. https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_ Decision. https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/eis-
projects/nepa/89883/137194/167548/BLM_ 427 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2014).
0473-record-decision.
Denbury_Projects_Scoping_Report_March2018.pdf. Decatur Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and 432 Department of Energy. (2017). Petra Nova
421 AP News. Officials mark start of CO pipeline
2 Storage Project. https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/ W.A. Parish Project. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/
used for oil recovery. (2022) https://apnews.com/ projects/decatur.html. petra-nova-wa-parish-project.
article/business-texas-north-dakota-plano- 428 NETL. ‘‘CO2 Capture from Biofuels Production 433 Kennedy, Greg. (2020). ‘‘W.A. Parish Post
25f1dbf9a924613a56827c1c83e4ba68. and Sequestration into the Mt. Simon Sandstone.’’ Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration
422 Council on Environmental Quality. (2024). Award #DE–FE0001547. https://www.usaspending. Demonstration Project.’’ Final Technical Report.
CEQ NEPA Regulations. https://ceq.doe.gov/laws- gov/award/ASST_NON_DEFE0001547_8900. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1608572/.
regulations/regulations.html. 429 Air Products. Carbon Capture. https:// 434 CEQ. (2021). ‘‘Council on Environmental
423 Council of Environmental Quality. (2023). www.airproducts.com/company/innovation/carbon- Quality Report to Congress on Carbon Capture,
Agency NEPA Implementing Procedures. https:// capture. Utilization, and Sequestration.’’ https://
ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/agency_ 430 Department of Energy. (2011). Final www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
implementing_procedures.html. Environmental Assessment for Air Products and CEQ-CCUS-Permitting-Report.pdf.
governance structure, set of procedures, of the siting tool is to aid pipeline construction and how long it will take
and funding authorities to improve the routing decisions and facilitate to build a pipeline.
Federal environmental review and avoidance of areas that would pose A unit that is located more than 100
authorization process for covered permitting challenges. km away from sequestration may face
infrastructure projects.435 The Utilizing In sum, the permitting process for CO2 complexities in pipeline construction,
Significant Emissions with Innovative pipelines often involves private, local, including additional permitting hurdles,
Technologies (USE IT) Act, among other state, tribal, and/or Federal agencies, difficulties in obtaining the necessary
actions, clarified that CCS projects and and permitting timelines may vary rights of way over such a distance, or
CO2 pipelines are eligible for this more depending on site characteristics. other considerations, that may make it
predictable and transparent review Projects that opt in to the FAST–41 unreasonable for that unit to meet the
process.436 FAST–41 created the Federal process are eligible for a more compliance schedule that is generally
Permitting Improvement Steering transparent and predictable review reasonable for sources in the
Council (Permitting Council), composed process. EGUs can generally proceed to subcategory as a whole. Pursuant to the
of agency Deputy Secretary-level obtain permits and rights-of-way RULOF provisions of 40 CFR 60.2a(e)–
members and chaired by an Executive simultaneously, and the EPA anticipates (h), if a state can demonstrate that there
Director appointed by the President. that, in total, the permitting process is a fundamental difference between the
FAST–41 establishes procedures that would only take around 2.5 years for information relevant to a particular
standardize interagency consultation pipelines that only need an EA, with a affected EGU and the information the
and coordination practices. FAST–41 possible additional year if the project EPA considered in determining the
codifies into law the use of the requires an EIS (see the final TSD, GHG compliance deadline for sources in the
Permitting Dashboard 437 to track project Mitigation Measures for Steam long-term subcategory, and that this
timelines, including qualifying actions Generating Units for additional difference makes it unreasonable for the
that must be taken by the EPA and other information). This is consistent with the EGU to meet the compliance deadline,
Federal agencies. Project sponsor anticipated timelines for CCS discussed a longer compliance schedule may be
participation in FAST–41 is in section VII.C.1.a.i(E). Furthermore, warranted. The EPA does not believe
voluntary.438 the EPA notes that there is over 60 years that the fact that a pipeline crosses state
Community engagement also plays a of experience in the CO2 pipeline boundaries standing alone is sufficient
role in the safe operation and industry designing, permitting, building to show that an extended timeframe
construction of CO2 pipelines. These and operating CO2 pipelines, and that would be appropriate—many such
efforts can be supported using the CCS pipelines could be reasonably
this expertise can be applied to the CO2
Pipeline Route Planning Database that accomplished in the required
pipelines that would be constructed to
was developed by NETL, a public timeframe. Rather, it is the confluence
connect to sequestration sites and units.
resource designed to support pipeline of factors, including that a pipeline
routing decisions and increase As discussed above in section
VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(1)(a), the core of the EPA’s crosses state boundaries, along with
transportation safety.439 The database others that may make RULOF
includes state-specific regulations and analysis of pipeline feasibility focuses
on units located within 100 km (62 appropriate.
restrictions, energy and social justice
factors, land use requirements, existing miles) of potential deep saline (3) Security of CO2 Transport
infrastructure, and areas of potential sequestration formations. The EPA notes
As part of its analysis, the EPA also
risk. The database produces weighted that the majority (80 percent) of the
considered the safety of CO2 pipelines.
values ranging from zero to one, where coal-fired steam generating capacity
The safety of existing and new CO2
zero represents acceptable areas for with planned operation during or after
pipelines that transport CO2 in a
pipeline placement and one represents 2039 is located within 100 km (62
supercritical state is regulated by
areas that should be avoided.440 The miles) of the nearest potential deep
PHMSA. These regulations include
database will be a key input for the CCS saline sequestration site. For these
standards related to pipeline design,
Pipeline Route Planning Tool under sources, as explained, units would be
pipeline construction and testing,
development by NETL.441 The purpose required only to build relatively short
pipeline operations and maintenance,
pipelines, and such buildout would be
operator reporting requirements,
435 Federal Permitting Improvement Steering feasible within the required timeframe.
operator qualifications, corrosion
Council. (2022). FAST–41 Fact Sheet. https:// For the capacity that is more than 100
www.permits.performance.gov/documentation/fast- control and pipeline integrity
km (62 miles) away from sequestration,
41-fact-sheet. management, incident reporting and
building a pipeline may become more
436 Galford, Chris. USE IT carbon capture bill response, and public awareness and
becomes law, incentivizing development and complex. Almost all (98 percent) of this
communications. PHMSA has
deployment. (2020). https:// capacity’s closest sequestration site is
regulatory authority to conduct
dailyenergyinsider.com/news/28522-use-it-carbon- located outside state boundaries, and
capture-bill-becomes-law-incentivizing- inspections of supercritical CO2
access to the nearest sequestration site
development-and-deployment/. pipeline operations and issue notices to
would require building an interstate
437 Permitting Dashboard Federal Infrastructure
operators in the event of operator
Projects. https://permits.performance.gov/. pipeline and coordinating with multiple
noncompliance with regulatory
438 EPA. ‘‘FAST–41 Coordination.’’ (2023). state authorities for permitting
requirements.442
https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/fast-41- purposes. Conversely, for capacity CO2 pipelines have been operating
coordination. where the distance to the nearest
439 ‘‘CCS Pipeline Route Planning Database V1— safely for more than 60 years. In the past
potential sequestration site is less than
EDX.’’ https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/ccs- 20 years, 500 million metric tons of CO2

pipeline-route-planning-database-v1. 100 km (62 miles), only about 19 moved through over 5,000 miles of CO2
440 ‘‘CCS Pipeline Route Planning Database V1— percent would require the associated pipelines with zero incidents involving
EDX.’’ https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/ccs- pipeline to cross state boundaries. fatalities.443 PHMSA reported a total of
pipeline-route-planning-database-v1. Therefore, the EPA believes that
441 Department of Energy. ‘‘CCS Pipeline Route
Planning Database V1—EDX.’’ https://

distance to the nearest sequestration site 442 Seegenerally 49 CFR 190–199.
edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/ccs-pipeline-route- is a useful proxy for considerations 443 Congressional Research Service. 2022. Carbon
planning-database-v1. related to the complexity of pipeline Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues, CRS Reports, June
102 CO2 pipeline incidents between civil penalties and identifies actions for controls and PHMSA standards are
2003 and 2022, with one injury the operator to take to address the designed to ensure that captured CO2
(requiring in-patient hospitalization) alleged violations and risk will be securely conveyed to a
and zero fatalities.444 conditions.448 PHMSA has further sequestration site.
As noted previously in this preamble, issued an updated nationwide advisory
a significant CO2 pipeline rupture bulletin to all pipeline operators and (4) Comments Received on CO2
occurred in 2020 in Satartia, solicited research proposals to Transport and Responses
Mississippi, following heavy rains that strengthen CO2 pipeline safety.449 Given The EPA received comments on CO2
resulted in a landslide. Although no one the Federal and state regulation of CO2 transport, including CO2 pipelines.
required in-patient hospitalization as a pipelines and the steps that PHMSA is Those comments, and the EPA’s
result of this incident, 45 people taking to further improve pipeline responses, are as follows.
received treatment at local emergency safety, the EPA believes CO2 can be Comment: Some commenters
rooms after the incident and 200 safely transported by pipeline. identified challenges to the deployment
hundred residents were evacuated. Certain states have authority of a national, interstate CO2 pipeline
Typically, when CO2 is released into the delegated from the U.S. Department of network. In particular, those
open air, it vaporizes into a heavier- Transportation to conduct safety commenters discussed the experience
than-air gas and dissipates. During the inspections and enforce state and faced by long (e.g., over 1,000 miles)
Satartia incident, however, unique Federal pipeline safety regulations for CO2 pipelines seeking permitting and
atmospheric conditions and the intrastate CO2 pipelines.450 451 452 right-of-way access in Midwest states
topographical features of the area PHMSA’s state partners employ about including Iowa and North Dakota.
delayed this dissipation. As a result, 70 percent of all pipeline inspectors, Commenters claimed those challenges
residents were exposed to high which covers more than 80 percent of make CCS as BSER infeasible. Some
concentrations of CO2 in the air after the regulated pipelines.453 Federal law commenters argued that the existing
rupture. Furthermore, local emergency requires certified state authorities to CO2 pipeline capacity is not adequate to
responders were not informed by the adopt safety standards at least as meet potential demand caused by this
operator of the rupture and the nature stringent as the Federal standards.454 rule and that the ability of the network
of the unique safety risks of the CO2 Further, there are required steps that to grow and meet future potential
pipeline.445 CO2 pipeline operators must take to demand is hindered by significant
PHMSA initiated a rulemaking in ensure pipelines are operated safely public opposition.
2022 to develop and implement new under PHMSA standards and related Response: The EPA acknowledges the
measures to strengthen its safety state standards, such as the use of challenges that some large multi-state
oversight of supercritical CO2 pipelines pressure monitors to detect leaks or pipeline projects have faced, but does
following the investigation into the CO2 initiate shut-off valves, and annual not agree that those experiences show
pipeline failure in Satartia.446 PHMSA reporting on operations, structural that the BSER is not adequately
submitted the associated Notice of integrity assessments, and demonstrated or that the standards
Proposed Rulemaking to the White inspections.455 These CO2 pipeline finalized in these actions are not
House Office of Management and achievable. As detailed in the preceding
Budget on February 1, 2024 for pre- 448 Department of Transportation. (2023). Consent
subsections of the preamble, the BSER
publication review.447 Following the Order, Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines, LLC, CPF No.
4–2022–017–NOPV https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ is not premised on the buildout of a
Satartia incident, PHMSA also issued a comm/reports/enforce/CaseDetail_cpf_ national, trunkline CO2 pipeline
Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed 42022017NOPV.html?nocache=7208. network. Most coal-fired steam
Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance 449 Ibid.
generating units are in relatively close
Order (Notice) to the operator related to 450 New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.
proximity to geologic storage, and those
probable violations of Federal pipeline 2023. Transportation Pipeline Safety. New Mexico
Public Regulation Commission, Bureau of Pipeline shorter pipelines would not likely be as
safety regulations. The Notice was Safety. https://www.nm-prc.org/transportation/ challenging to permit and build as
ultimately resolved through a Consent pipeline-safety. demonstrated by the examples of
Agreement between PHMSA and the 451 Texas Railroad Commission. 2023. Oversight &
smaller pipeline discussed above.
operator that includes the assessment of Safety Division. Texas Railroad Commission.
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/about-us/organization- The EPA acknowledges that some
and-activities/rrc-divisions/oversight-safety- larger trunkline CO2 pipeline projects,
3, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ division. specifically the Heartland Greenway
pdf/IN/IN11944. 452 NARUC. (2023). Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline
444 NARUC. (2023). Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline project, have recently been delayed or
Deployment: Siting, Safety. and Regulation.
Deployment: Siting, Safety. and Regulation. Prepared by Public Sector Consultants for the
canceled. However, many projects are
Prepared by Public Sector Consultants for the National Association of Regulatory Utility still moving forward and several major
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). June 2023. https:// projects have recently been announced
Commissioners (NARUC). June 2023. https:// pubs.naruc.org/pub/F1EECB6B-CD8A-6AD4-B05B-
pubs.naruc.org/pub/F1EECB6B-CD8A-6AD4-B05B-
to expand the CO2 pipeline network
E7DA0F12672E.
E7DA0F12672E. 453 PHMSA. (2023). ‘‘PHMSA Issues Letters to
across the United States. The EPA notes
445 Failure Investigation Report—Denbury Gulf
Wolf Carbon, Summit, and Navigator Clarifying that there are often opportunities to
Coast Pipeline, May 2022. https:// Federal, State, and Local Government Pipeline reroute pipelines to minimize
www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/ Authorities.’’ https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/ permitting challenges and landowner
2022-05/Failure%20Investigation%20Report%20- phmsa-issues-letters-wolf-carbon-summit-and-
%20Denbury%20Gulf%20Coast%20Pipeline.pdf. navigator-clarifying-federal-state-and-local.
concerns. For example, Summit Carbon
446 PHMSA. (2022). ‘‘PHMSA Announces New 454 PHMSA, ‘‘PHMSA Issues Letters to Wolf Solutions changed their planned
Safety Measures to Protect Americans From Carbon Carbon, Summit, and Navigator Clarifying Federal, pipeline route in North Dakota after
Dioxide Pipeline Failures After Satartia, MS Leak.’’ State, and Local Government Pipeline Authorities.’’ their initial permit was denied, leading
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa- 2023. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-
announces-new-safety-measures-protect-americans- issues-letters-wolf-carbon-summit-and-navigator-
to successful acquisition of rights of
carbon-dioxide-pipeline-failures. clarifying-federal-state-and-local. way.456 Additionally, Tallgrass, which
447 Columbia Law School. (2024). PHMSA 455 Carbon Capture Coalition. ‘‘PHMSA/Pipeline
Advances CO2 Pipeline Safety Regulations. https:// Safety Fact Sheet,’’ November 2023. https:// 456 Summit Carbon Solutions. Summit Carbon
climate.law.columbia.edu/content/phmsa- carboncapturecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/ Solutions Signs 80 Percent of North Dakota

advances-co2-pipeline-safety-regulations. 2023/11/Pipeline-Safety-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Continued
is planning to convert a 630 km (392 NETL studies used to estimate CO2 ensure CO2 can be safely transported by
mile) natural gas pipeline to carry CO2, transport costs. The EPA carefully pipeline.
announced that they had reach a reviewed the assumptions on which the
(D) Geologic Sequestration of CO2
community benefits agreement, in NETL transport cost estimates are based
which certain organizations have agreed and continues to find them reasonable. The EPA is finalizing its
not to oppose the pipeline project while The NETL studies referenced in section determination that geologic
Tallgrass has agreed to terms such as VII.C.1.a.ii based transport costs on a sequestration (i.e., the long-term
contributing funds to first responders generic 100 km (62 mile) pipeline and containment of a CO2 stream in
along the pipeline route and providing a generic 80 km pipeline.459 For most subsurface geologic formations) is
royalty checks to landowners.457 See EGUs, the necessary pipeline distance is adequately demonstrated. In this
section VII.C.1.a.i(C)(1)(d) for additional anticipated to be less than 100 km and section, we provide an overview of the
discussion of planned CO2 pipelines. therefore the associated costs could also availability of sequestration sites in the
While access to larger trunkline projects be lower than these assumptions. Other U.S., discuss how geologic sequestration
would not be required for most EGUs, published economic models applying of CO2 is well proven and broadly
at least some larger trunkline projects different assumptions have also reached available throughout the U.S, explain
are likely to be constructed, which the conclusion that CO2 transport and the effectiveness of sequestration,
would increase opportunities for sequestration are adequately discuss the regulatory framework for
connecting to pipeline networks. demonstrated.460 UIC wells, and discuss the timing of
Comment: Some commenters Comment: Commenters also stated permitting for sequestration sites. We
disagreed with the modeling that the permitting and construction then provide a summary of key
assumption that 100 km is a typical processes can be time-consuming. comments received concerning geologic
pipeline distance. The commenters Response: The EPA acknowledges sequestration and our responses to those
asserted that there is data showing the building CO2 pipelines requires capital comments.
actual locations of the power plants expenditure and acknowledges that the (1) Sequestration Sites for Coal-Fired
affected by the rule, and the required timeline for siting, engineering design, Power Plants Subject to CCS
pipeline distance is not always 100 km. permitting, and construction of CO2 Requirements
Response: The EPA acknowledges pipelines depends on factors including
that the physical locations of EGUs and (a) Broad Availability of Sequestration
the pipeline capacity and pipeline
the physical locations of carbon length, whether the pipeline route is Sequestration is broadly available in
sequestration capacity and intrastate or interstate, and the specifics the United States, which makes clear
corresponding pipeline distance will of the state pipeline regulator’s that it is adequately demonstrated. By
not be 100 km in all cases. As discussed regulatory requirements. In the BSER far the most widely available and well
previously in section VII.C.1.a.i(C)(1)(a), understood type of sequestration is that
analysis, individual EGUs that are
the EPA modeled the unique in deep saline formations. These
subject to carbon capture requirements
approximate distance from each existing formations are common in the U.S.
are assumed to take a point-to-point
coal-fired steam generating capacity These formations are numerous and
approach to CO2 transport and
with planned operation during or after only a small subset of the existing saline
sequestration. These smaller-scale
2039 to the nearest potential saline storage capacity would be required to
projects require less capital and may
sequestration site, and found that the store the CO2 from EGUs. Many projects
present less complexity than larger
majority (80 percent) is within 100 km are in the process of completing
projects. The EPA considers the
(62 miles) of potential saline thorough subsurface studies of these
timeline to permit and install such
sequestration sites, and another 11 deep saline formations to determine
pipelines in section VII.C.1.a.i(E) of the
percent is within 160 km (100 miles).458 their suitability for regional-scale
preamble, and has determined that a
Furthermore, the EPA disagrees with the storage. Furthermore, sequestration
compliance date of January 1, 2032
comments suggesting that the use of 100 formations could also include
allows for a sufficient amount of time.
km is an inappropriate economic unmineable coal seams and oil and gas
Comment: Some commenters
modeling assumption. The 100 km reservoirs. CO2 may be stored in oil and
expressed significant concerns about the
assumption was not meant to gas reservoirs in association with EOR
safety of CO2 pipelines following the
encompass the physical location of and enhanced gas recovery (EGR)
every potentially affected EGU. The 100 CO2 pipeline failure in Satartia,
Mississippi in 2020. technologies, collectively referred to as
km assumption is intended as an enhanced recovery (ER), which include
economic modeling assumption and is Response: For a discussion of the
safety of CO2 pipelines and the Satartia the injection of CO2 in oil and gas
based on similar assumptions applied in reservoirs to increase production. ER is
pipeline failure, see section
VII.C.1.a.i(C)(3). The EPA believes that a technology that has been used for
Landowners. (2023). https:// decades in states across the U.S.461
summitcarbonsolutions.com/summit-carbon- the framework of Federal and state
solutions-signs-80-percent-of-north-dakota- regulation of CO2 pipelines and the Geologic sequestration is based on a
landowners/. steps that PHMSA is taking to further demonstrated understanding of the
457 Hammel, Paul. (2024). Pipeline company,
improve pipeline safety, is sufficient to trapping and containment processes that
Nebraska environmental group strike unique retain CO2 in the subsurface. The
‘community benefits’ agreement. https://
www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/science/ 459 The pipeline diameter was sized for this to be
presence of a low permeability seal is an
environment/2024/04/11/nebraska- achieved without the need for recompression stages important component of demonstrating
environmentalist-forge-peace-pact-with-pipeline- along the pipeline length. secure geologic sequestration. Analyses

company/73282852007/. 460 Ogland-Hand, Jonathan D. et. al. 2022.
of the potential availability of geologic
458 Sequestration potential as it relates to distance Screening for Geologic Sequestration of CO2: A sequestration capacity in the United
from existing resources is a key part of the EPA’s Comparison Between SCO2TPRO and the FE/NETL
regular power sector modeling development, using CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model. International States have been conducted by DOE,
data from DOE/NETL studies. For details, please see Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 114,
chapter 6 of the IPM documentation. https:// February 2022, 103557. https:// 461 NETL. (2010). Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Recovery. https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/

chapter-6-co2-capture-storage-and-transport.pdf. S175058362100308X. files/netl-file/co2_eor_primer.pdf.
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) steam EGUs located in states that are existing coal-fired EGUs. Unmineable
has also undertaken a comprehensive further than 100 km (62 mi) of potential coal seams have a sequestration
assessment of geologic sequestration geologic sequestration sites. potential of at least 54 billion metric
resources in the United States.462 463 Furthermore, as described in section tons of CO2, or 2 percent of total
Geologic sequestration potential for CO2 VII.C.1.a.i(C), new EGUs would have the potential in the United States, and are
is widespread and available throughout ability to consider proximity and access located in 22 states.
the United States. Nearly every state in to geologic sequestration sites or CO2 The potential for CO2 sequestration in
the United States has or is in close pipelines in the siting process. unmineable coal seams has been
proximity to formations with geologic The DOE and the United States demonstrated in small-scale
sequestration potential, including areas Geological Survey (USGS) have demonstration projects, including the
offshore. There have been numerous independently conducted preliminary Allison Unit pilot project in New
efforts demonstrating successful analyses of the availability and potential Mexico, which injected a total of
geologic sequestration projects in the CO2 sequestration resources in the 270,000 tons of CO2 over a 6-year period
United States and overseas, and the United States. The DOE estimates are (1995–2001). Further, DOE Regional
United States has developed a detailed compiled in the DOE’s National Carbon Carbon Sequestration Partnership
set of regulatory requirements to ensure Sequestration Database and Geographic projects have injected CO2 volumes in
the security of sequestered CO2. Information System (NATCARB) using unmineable coal seams ranging from 90
Moreover, the amount of storage volumetric models and are published in tons to 16,700 tons, and completed site
potential can readily accommodate the its Carbon Utilization and Sequestration characterization, injection, and post-
amount of CO2 for which sequestration Atlas (NETL Atlas). The DOE estimates injection monitoring for sites. DOE has
could be expected under this final rule. that areas of the United States with included unmineable coal seams in the
The EPA has performed a geographic appropriate geology have a NETL Atlas. One study estimated that in
availability analysis in which the sequestration potential of at least 2,400 the United States, 86.16 billion tons of
Agency examined areas of the U.S. with billion to over 21,000 billion metric tons CO2 could be permanently stored in
sequestration potential in deep saline of CO2 in deep saline formations, unmineable coal seams.466 Although the
formations, unmineable coal seams, and unmineable coal seams, and oil and gas large-scale injection of CO2 in coal
oil and gas reservoirs; information on reservoirs. The USGS assessment seams can lead to swelling of coal, the
existing and probable, planned or under estimates a mean of 3,000 billion metric literature also suggests that there are
study CO2 pipelines; and areas within a tons of subsurface CO2 sequestration available technologies and techniques to
100 km (62-mile) area of potential potential across the United States. With compensate for the resulting reduction
sequestration sites. This availability respect to deep saline formations, the in injectivity. Further, the reduced
analysis is based on resources from the DOE estimates a sequestration potential injectivity can be anticipated and
DOE, the USGS, and the EPA. The of at least 2,200 billion metric tons of accommodated in sizing and
distance of 100 km is consistent with CO2 in these formations in the United characterizing prospective sequestration
the assumptions underlying the NETL States. The EPA estimates that the CO2 sites.
cost estimates for transporting CO2 by emissions reductions for this rule Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
pipeline. The scoping assessment by the (which is similar to the amount of CO2 present additional potential for geologic
EPA found that at least 37 states have may be sequestered under this rule) are sequestration. The reservoir
geologic characteristics that are estimated in the range of 1.3 to 1.4 characteristics of developed fields are
amenable to deep saline sequestration, billion metric tons over the 2028 to 2047 well known as a result of exploration
and an additional 6 states are within timeframe.465 This volume of and many years of hydrocarbon
100 kilometers of potentially amenable sequestered CO2 is less than a tenth of production and, in many areas,
deep saline formations in either onshore a percent of the storage capacity in deep infrastructure already exists which
or offshore locations. Of the 7 states that saline formations estimated to be could be evaluated for conversion to
are further than 100 km (62 mi) of available by DOE. CO2 transportation and sequestration
onshore or offshore storage potential in Unmineable coal seams offer another service. Other types of geologic
deep saline formations, only New potential option for geologic formations such as organic rich shale
Hampshire has coal EGUs that were sequestration of CO2. Enhanced coalbed and basalt may also have the ability to
assumed to be in operation after 2039, methane recovery is the process of store CO2, and DOE is continuing to
with a total capacity of 534 MW. injecting and storing CO2 in unmineable evaluate their potential sequestration
However, the EPA notes that as of coal seams to enhance methane capacity and efficacy.
March 27, 2024, the last coal-fired steam recovery. These operations take
EGUs in New Hampshire announced advantage of the preferential chemical (b) Inventory of Coal-Fired Power Plants
that they would cease operation by affinity of coal for CO2 relative to the That Are Candidates for CCS
2028.464 Therefore, the EPA anticipates methane that is naturally found on the Sequestration potential as it relates to
that there will no existing coal-fired surfaces of coal. When CO2 is injected, distance from existing coal-fired steam
it is adsorbed to the coal surface and generating units is a key part of the
462 U.S. DOE NETL. (2015). Carbon Storage Atlas,
releases methane that can then be EPA’s regular power sector modeling,
Fifth Edition, September 2015. https:// captured and produced. This process using data from DOE/NETL studies.467
www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/
atlasv. effectively ‘‘locks’’ the CO2 to the coal, As discussed in section
463 U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon where it remains stored. States with the VII.C.1.a.i(D)(1)(a), the availability
Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team. potential for sequestration in

(2013). National assessment of geologic carbon unmineable coal seams include Iowa 466 Godec, Koperna, and Gale. (2014). ‘‘CO -
2
dioxide storage resources—Summary: U.S. ECBM: A Review of its Status and Global
Geological Survey Factsheet 2013–3020. http://
and Missouri, which have little to no Potential’’, Energy Procedia, Volume 63. https://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3020/. saline sequestration potential and have doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.619.
464 Vickers, Clayton. (2024). ‘‘Last coal plants in 467 For details, please see Chapter 6 of the IPM
New England to close; renewables take their place.’’ 465 For detailed information on the estimated documentation. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/ emissions reductions from this rule, see section 3 documents/2021-09/chapter-6-co2-capture-storage-
4560375-new-hampshire-coal-plants-closing/. of the RIA, available in the rulemaking docket. and-transport.pdf.
analysis shows that of the coal-fired to determine if the reservoir is suitable Currently, there are planned geologic
steam generating capacity with planned for geologic sequestration sites of more sequestration facilities across the United
operation during or after 2039, more than 50 million tons of CO2, address States in various phases of
than 50 percent is less than 32 km (20 technical and non-technical challenges development, construction, and
miles) from potential deep saline that may arise, develop a risk operation. The Wyoming Department of
sequestration sites, 73 percent is located assessment and CO2 management Environmental Quality issued three UIC
within 50 km (31 miles), 80 percent is strategy for the project; and assist with Class VI permits in December 2023 to
located within 100 km (62 miles), and the validation of existing tools. Five Frontier Carbon Solutions. The Frontier
91 percent is within 160 km (100 projects have been funded for Carbon Solutions project will sequester
miles).468 CarbonSAFE Phase III and are currently 5 million metric tons of CO2/year.477
performing site characterization and Additionally, UIC Class VI permit
(2) Geologic Sequestration of CO2 Is
permitting. applications have been submitted to the
Adequately Demonstrated The EPA notes that, while only Wyoming Department of Environmental
Geologic sequestration is based on a sequestration facilities with Federal Quality for a proposed Eastern
demonstrated understanding of the funding are currently operational in the Wyoming Sequestration Hub project
processes that affect the fate of CO2 in United States, multiple commercial that would sequester up to 3 million
the subsurface. Existing project and sequestration facilities, other than those metric tons of CO2/year.478 The North
regulatory experience, along with other funded under EPAct05, are in Dakota Oil and Gas Division has issued
information, indicate that geologic construction or advanced development, UIC Class VI permits to 6 sequestration
sequestration is a viable long-term CO2 with some scheduled to open for projects that collectively will sequester
sequestration option. As discussed in operation as early as 2025.471 These 18 million metric tons of CO2/year.479
this section, there are many examples of facilities have proposed sequestration Since 2014, the EPA has issued two UIC
projects successfully injecting and capacities ranging from 0.03 to 6 million Class VI permits to Archer Daniels
containing CO2 in the subsurface. tons of CO2 per year. The Great Plains Midland (ADM) in Decatur, Illinois,
Research conducted through the Synfuel Plant currently captures 2 which authorize the injection of up to
Department of Energy’s Regional Carbon million metric tons of CO2 per year, 7 million metric tons of CO2. One of the
Sequestration Partnerships has which is exported to Canada for use in AMD wells is in the injection phase
demonstrated geologic sequestration EOR; a planned addition of while the other is in the post-injection
through a series of field research sequestration in a saline formation for phase. In January 2024, the EPA issued
projects that increased in scale over this facility is expected to increase the two UIC Class VI permits to Wabash
time, injecting more than 12 million amount of CO2 captured and Carbon Services LLC for a project that
tons of CO2 with no indications of sequestered (through both geologic will sequester up to 1.67 million metric
negative impacts to either human health sequestration and EOR) to 3.5 million tons of CO2/year over an injection
or the environment.469 Building on this metric tons of CO2 per year.472 The EPA period of 12 years.480 In December 2023,
experience, DOE launched the Carbon and states with approved UIC Class VI the EPA released for public comment
Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise programs (including Wyoming, North four UIC Class VI draft permits for the
(CarbonSAFE) Initiative in 2016 to Dakota, and Louisiana) are currently Carbon TerraVault projects, to be
demonstrate how knowledge from the reviewing UIC Class VI geologic located in California.481 These projects
Regional Carbon Sequestration sequestration well permit applications propose to sequester CO2 captured from
Partnerships can be applied to for proposed sequestration sites in multiple different sources in California
commercial-scale safe storage. This fourteen states.473 474 475 As of March 15, including a hydrogen plant, direct air
initiative is furthering the development 2024, 44 projects with 130 injection capture, and pre-combustion gas
and refinement of technologies and wells are under review by the EPA.476 treatment. TerraVault plans to inject
techniques critical to the 1.46 million metric tons of CO2 annually
characterization of sites with the 471 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of
into the four proposed wells over a 26-
potential to sequester greater than 50 CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- year injection period with a total
content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS-
million tons of CO2.470 In Phase I of Report-1.pdf.
potential capacity of 191 million metric
CarbonSAFE, thirteen projects 472 Basin Electric Power Cooperative. (2021). tons.482 483 One of the proposed wells is
conducted economic feasibility ‘‘Great Plains Synfuels Plant Potential to Be Largest
analyses, collected, analyzed, and Coal-Based Carbon Capture and Storage Project to 477 Wyoming DEQ, Water Quality. Wyoming
modeled extensive regional data, Use Geologic Storage’’. https:// grants its first three Class VI permits. By Kimberly
www.basinelectric.com/News-Center/news-releases/ Mazza, December 14, 2023 https://
evaluated multiple storage sites and Great-Plains-Synfuels-Plant-potential-to-be-largest- deq.wyoming.gov/2023/12/wyoming-grants-its-first-
infrastructure, and evaluated business coal-based-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-to- three-class-vi-permits/.
plans. Six projects were funded for use-geologic-storage. 478 Wyoming DEQ Class VI Permit Applications.
473 UIC regulations for Class VI wells authorize
Phase II which involves storage complex Trailblazer permit application. https://
the injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration while deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/groundwater/uic/
feasibility studies. These projects protecting human health by ensuring the protection class-vi.
evaluate initial reservoir characteristics of underground sources of drinking water. The 479 North Dakota Oil and Gas Division, Class VI—
major components to be included in UIC Class VI Geologic Sequestration Wells. https://
468 Sequestration potential as it relates to distance permits are detailed further in section www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/oilgas/ClassVI.
from existing resources is a key part of the EPA’s VII.C.1.a.i(D)(4). 480 EPA Approves Permits to Begin Construction
regular power sector modeling development, using 474 U.S. EPA Class VI Underground Injection
of Wabash Carbon Services Underground Injection
data from DOE/NETL studies. For details, please see Control (UIC) Class VI Wells Permitted by EPA as Wells in Indiana’s Vermillion and Vigo Counties.
chapter 6 of the IPM documentation. https:// of January 25, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/uic/table- (2024) https://www.epa.gov/uic/epa-approves-
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/ epas-draft-and-final-class-vi-well-permits Last permits-wabash-carbon-services-underground-
chapter-6-co2-capture-storage-and-transport.pdf. updated January 19, 2024. injection-wells-indianas-vigo-and
469 Regional Sequestration Partnership Overview. 475 U.S. EPA Current Class VI Projects under 481 U.S. EPA Current Class VI Projects under
https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon- Review at EPA. 2024. https://www.epa.gov/uic/ Review at EPA. 2024. https://www.epa.gov/uic/

storage/RCSP. current-class-vi-projects-under-review-epa. current-class-vi-projects-under-review-epa.
470 National Energy Technology Laboratory. 476 U.S. EPA. Current Class VI Projects under 482 U.S. EPA Class VI Permit Application. ‘‘Intent
CarbonSAFE Initiative. https://netl.doe.gov/carbon- Review at EPA. 2024. https://www.epa.gov/uic/ to Issue Four (4) Class VI Geologic Carbon
management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe. current-class-vi-projects-under-review-epa. Sequestration Underground Injection Control (UIC)
an existing UIC Class II well that would United States has nearly 60 years of Trail Energy CCS Project in North
be converted to a UIC Class VI well for experience with EOR.490 This Dakota and Illinois Industrial Carbon
the TerraVault project.484 experience provides a strong foundation Capture and Storage in Illinois are
Geologic sequestration has been for demonstrating successful CO2 dedicated saline sequestration facilities,
proven to be successful and safe in injection and monitoring technologies, while the other facilities, including
projects internationally. In Norway, which are needed for safe and secure Petra Nova in Texas, are sequestration
facilities conduct offshore sequestration geologic sequestration that can be used via EOR.497 498 Several other facilities
under the Norwegian continental for deployment of CCS across are under development.499 The Red
shelf.485 In addition, the Sleipner CO2 geographically diverse areas. The Trail Energy CCS facility in North
Storage facility in the North Sea, which amount of CO2 that can be injected for Dakota began injecting CO2 captured
began operations in 1996, injects around an EOR project and the duration of from ethanol production plants in
1 million metric tons of CO2 per year operations are of similar magnitude to 2022.500 This project is expected to
from natural gas processing.486 The the duration and volume of CO2 that is inject 180,000 tons of CO2 per year.501
Snohvit CO2 Storage facility in the expected to be captured from fossil fuel- The Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture
Barents Sea, which began operations in fired EGUs. The Farnsworth Unit, the and Storage Project began injecting CO2
2008, injects around 0.7 million metric Camrick Unit, the Shute Creek Facility, from ethanol production into the Mount
tons of CO2 per year from natural gas and the Core Energy CO2-EOR facility Simon Sandstone in April 2017.
processing. The SaskPower carbon are all examples of operations that store According to the facility’s report to the
capture and sequestration facility at anthropogenic CO2 as a part of EOR EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Boundary Dam Power Station in operations.491 492 Currently, 13 states Program (GHGRP), as of 2022, 2.9
Saskatchewan, Canada had, as of the have active EOR operations, and these million metric tons of CO2 had been
end of 2023, captured 5.6 million metric states also have areas that are amenable injected into the saline reservoir.502 CO2
tons of CO2 since it began operating in to deep saline sequestration in either injection for one of the two permitted
2014.487 Other international onshore or offshore locations.493 Class VI wells ceased in 2021 and this
sequestration facilities in operation well is now in the post-operation data
include Glacier Gas Plant MCCS (3) EPAct05-Assisted Geologic
Sequestration Projects collection phase.503
(Canada),488 Quest (Canada), and Qatar There are additional planned geologic
LNG CCS (Qatar). The CarbFix project in Consistent with the EPA’s legal sequestration projects under review by
Iceland injects CO2 into a geologic interpretation that the Agency can rely the EPA and across the United
formation in which the CO2 reacts with on experience from EPAct05 funded
States.504 505 Project Tundra, a saline
basalt rock formations to form stone. facilities in conjunction with other
sequestration project planned at the
The CarbFix project has injected information, this section provides
lignite-fired Milton R. Young Station in
approximately 100,000 metric tons of examples of EPAct05-assisted geologic
North Dakota is projected to capture 4
CO2 into geologic formations since sequestration projects. While the EPA
million metric tons of CO2 annually.506
2014.489 has determined that the sequestration
In Wyoming, Class VI permit
EOR, the process of injecting CO2 into component of CCS is adequately
oil and gas formations to extract demonstrated based on the non-EPAct05 497 Reuters. (September 14, 2023) ‘‘Carbon capture
additional oil and gas, has been examples discussed above, adequate project back at Texas coal plant after 3-year
successfully used for decades at demonstration of geologic sequestration shutdown’’. https://www.reuters.com/business/
numerous production fields throughout is further corroborated by planned and energy/carbon-capture-project-back-texas-coal-
operational geologic sequestration plant-after-3-year-shutdown-2023-09-14/.
the United States to increase oil and gas 498 Clean Air Task Force. (August 3, 2023). U.S.
recovery. The oil and gas industry in the projects assisted by grants, loan Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map. https://
guarantees, and the IRC section 48A www.catf.us/ccsmapus/.
Permits for Carbon TerraVault JV Storage Company federal tax credit for ‘‘clean coal 499 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of
Sub 1, LLC. EPA–R09–OW–2023–0623.’’ https:// technology’’ authorized by the CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-
www.epa.gov/publicnotices/intent-issue-class-vi- EPAct05.494 content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS-
underground-injection-control-permits-carbon- Report-1.pdf.
terravault-jv.
At present, there are 13 operational 500 Ibid.
483 California Resources Corporation. ‘‘Carbon and one post-injection phase 501 Ibid.
TerraVault Potential Storage Capacity.’’https:// commercial carbon sequestration 502 EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Data
www.crc.com/carbon-terravault/Vaults/ facilities in the United States.495 496 Red reported as of August 12, 2022.
default.aspx. 503 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
484 U.S. EPA Class VI Permit Application. ‘‘Intent
490 NETL. (2010). Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Prairie Research Institute. (2022). Data from
to Issue Four (4) Class VI Geologic Carbon Recovery. https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/ landmark Illinois Basin carbon storage project are
Sequestration Underground Injection Control (UIC) files/netl-file/co2_eor_primer.pdf. now available. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/7447/
Permits for Carbon TerraVault JV Storage Company 491 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of 54118905.
Sub 1, LLC. EPA–R09–OW–2023–0623. CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- 504 In addition, Denbury Resources injected CO
2
485 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- into a depleted oil and gas reservoir at a rate greater
(2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture Report-1.pdf. than 1.2 million tons/year as part of a DOE
and Storage. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon- 492 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration
dioxide-capture-and-storage/. monitoring reports for these facilities are available Partnership study. The Texas Bureau of Economic
486 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of
at https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/subpart-rr- Geology tested a wide range of surface and
CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide#decisions. subsurface monitoring tools and approaches to
content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- 493 U.S. DOE NETL, Carbon Storage Atlas, Fifth document sequestration efficiency and
Report-1.pdf. Edition, September 2015. https://www.netl.doe.gov/ sequestration permanence at the Cranfield oilfield
487 BD3 Status Update: Q3 2023. https:// in Mississippi. Texas Bureau of Economic Geology,
research/coal/carbon-storage/atlasv.
www.saskpower.com/about-us/our-company/blog/ 494 80 FR 64541–42 (October 23, 2015). ‘‘Cranfield Log.’’ https://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/
2023/bd3-status-update-q3-2023. 495 Clean Air Task Force. (August 3, 2023). U.S. research/cranfield.
488 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of 505 EPA Class VI Permit Tracker. https://
Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map. https://
CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- www.catf.us/ccsmapus/. www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/
content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- 496 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of class-vi-permit-tracker_2-5-24.pdf. Accessed
Report-1.pdf. CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- February 5, 2024.
489 CarbFix Operations. (2024). https:// content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- 506 Project Tundra. ‘‘Project Tundra.’’ https://
www.carbfix.com/. Report-1.pdf. www.projecttundrand.com/.
applications have been issued by the detailed regulatory framework for access to pore space on BLM lands,
Wyoming Department of Environmental geologic sequestration in the United including clarification of Federal policy
Quality for the proposed Eastern States. This framework is analyzed in a for situations where the surface and
Wyoming Sequestration Hub project, a 2021 report from the Council on pore space are under the control of
saline sequestration facility proposed to Environmental Quality (CEQ),511 and different Federal agencies.516
be located in Southwestern statutory and regulatory frameworks
Wyoming.507 At full capacity, the that may be applicable for CCS are (b) Underground Injection Control (UIC)
facility would permanently store up to summarized in the EPA CCS Program
5 million metric tons of CO2 captured Regulations Table.512 513 This regulatory The UIC regulations, including the
from industrial facilities annually in the framework includes the UIC regulations, Class VI program, authorize the
Nugget saline sandstone reservoir.508 In promulgated by the EPA under the injection of CO2 for geologic
Texas, three NGCCs plan to add carbon authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act sequestration while protecting human
capture equipment. Deer Park NGCC (SDWA); and the GHGRP, promulgated health by ensuring the protection of
plans to capture 5 million tons per year, by the EPA under the authority of the underground sources of drinking water
Quail Run NGCC plans to capture 1.5 CAA. The requirements of the UIC and (USDW). These regulations are built
million tons of CO2 per year, and GHGRP programs work together to upon nearly a half-century of Federal
Baytown NGCC plans to capture up to ensure that sequestered CO2 will remain experience regulating underground
2 million tons of CO2 per year.509 510 securely stored underground. injection wells, and many additional
Furthermore, geologic sequestration years of state UIC program expertise.
(4) Security of Geologic Sequestration
efforts on Federal lands as well as those The IIJA established a $50 million grant
and Related Regulatory Requirements
efforts that are directly supported with program to assist states and tribal
As discussed in section Federal funds would need to comply regulatory authorities in developing and
VII.C.1.a.i(D)(2) of this preamble, there with the NEPA and other Federal laws implementing UIC Class VI programs.517
have been numerous instances of and regulations, depending on the
geologic sequestration in the U.S. and Major components included in UIC
nature of the project.514 In cases where Class VI permits are site
overseas, and the U.S. has developed a sequestration is conducted offshore, the
detailed set of regulatory requirements characterization, area of review,518
SDWA, the Marine Protection, Research, corrective action,519 well construction
to ensure the security of sequestered and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) or the
CO2. This regulatory framework and operation, testing and monitoring,
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act financial responsibility, post-injection
includes the UIC well regulations (OCSLA) may apply. The Department of
pursuant to SDWA authority, and the site care, well plugging, emergency and
Interior Bureau of Safety and remedial response, and site closure. The
GHGRP pursuant to CAA authority. Environmental Enforcement and Bureau
Regulatory oversight of geologic EPA’s UIC regulations are included in
of Ocean Energy Management are
sequestration is built upon an 40 CFR parts 144–147. The UIC
developing new regulations and creating
understanding of the proven regulations ensure that injected CO2
a program for oversight of carbon
mechanisms by which CO2 is retained does not migrate out of the authorized
sequestration activities on the outer
in geologic formations. These injection zone, which in turn ensures
continental shelf.515 Furthermore, Title
mechanisms include (1) Structural and that CO2 is securely stored
V of the Federal Land Policy and
stratigraphic trapping (generally underground.
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and
trapping below a low permeability its implementing regulations, 43 CFR Review of a UIC permit application by
confining layer); (2) residual CO2 part 2800, authorize the Bureau of Land the permitting authority, including for
trapping (retention as an immobile Management (BLM) to issue rights-of- Class VI geologic sequestration, entails a
phase trapped in the pore spaces of the way (ROWs) to geologically sequester multidisciplinary evaluation to
geologic formation); (3) solubility CO2 in Federal pore space, including determine whether the application
trapping (dissolution in the in situ BLM ROWs for the necessary physical includes the required information, is
formation fluids); (4) mineral trapping infrastructure and for the use and technically accurate, and supports a
(reaction with the minerals in the occupancy of the pore space itself. The determination that USDWs will not be
geologic formation and confining layer BLM has published a policy defining endangered by the proposed injection
to produce carbonate minerals); and (5)
preferential adsorption trapping 511 CEQ. (2021). ‘‘Council on Environmental 516 National Policy for the Right-of-Way
(adsorption onto organic matter in coal Quality Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Authorizations Necessary for Site Characterization,
and shale). Utilization, and Sequestration.’’ https:// Capture, Transportation, Injection, and Permanent
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in
(a) Overview of Legal and Regulatory CEQ-CCUS-Permitting-Report.pdf. Connection with Carbon Sequestration Projects.
Framework
512 EPA. 2023. Regulatory and Statutory BLM IM 2022–041 Instruction Memorandum, June
Authorities Relevant to Carbon Capture and 8, 2022. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2022-041.
For the reasons detailed below, the Sequestration (CCS) Projects. https://www.epa.gov/ 517 EPA. Underground Injection Control Class VI
UIC Program, the GHGRP, and other system/files/documents/2023-10/regulatory-and- Wells Memorandum. (December 9, 2022). https://
statutory-authorities-relevant-to-carbon-capture- www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/
regulatory requirements comprise a and-sequestration-ccs-projects.pdf. AD.Regan_.GOVS_.Sig_.Class%20VI.12-9-22.pdf.
513 This table serves as a reference of many 518 Per 40 CFR 146.84(a), the area of review is the
507 Wyoming DEQ Class VI Permit Applications.
possible authorities that may affect a CCS project region surrounding the geologic sequestration
https://deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/ (including site selection, capture, transportation, project where USDWs may be endangered by the
groundwater/uic/class-vi/. and sequestration). Many of the authorities listed in injection activity. The area of review is delineated
508 Id. this table would apply only in specific using computational modeling that accounts for the
509 Calpine. (2023). Calpine Carbon Capture, circumstances. physical and chemical properties of all phases of
Bayton, Texas. https://calpinecarboncapture.com/ 514 CEQ. ‘‘Council on Environmental Quality the injected carbon dioxide stream and is based on
wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Calpine-Baytown- Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, available site characterization, monitoring, and
One-Pager-English-1.pdf. and Sequestration.’’ 2021. https:// operational data.
510 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ 519 UIC permitting authorities may require
CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- CEQ-CCUS-Permitting-Report.pdf. corrective action for existing wells within the area
content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- 515 Department of the Interior. (2023). BSEE of review to ensure protection of underground
Report-1.pdf. Budget. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/bsee-budget. sources of drinking water.
activity.520 The EPA promulgated UIC authorized injection zone; if monitoring activity will not endanger USDWs.525
regulations to ensure underground indicates leakage of injected CO2 from The National Academy of Sciences
injection wells are constructed, the injection zone, the leakage may released a report in 2012 on induced
operated, and closed in a manner that is trigger a response per the permittee’s seismicity from CCS and determined
protective of USDWs and to address Class VI Emergency and Remedial that with appropriate site selection, a
potential risks to USDWs associated Response Plan including halting monitoring program, a regulatory
with injection activities.521 The UIC injection, and the permitting authority system, and the appropriate use of
regulations address the major pathways may prescribe additional permit remediation methods, the induced
by which injected fluids can migrate requirements necessary to prevent such seismicity risks of geologic
into USDWs, including along the movement to ensure USDWs are sequestration could be mitigated.526
injection well bore, via improperly protected or take appropriate Furthermore, the Ground Water
completed or plugged wells in the area enforcement action if the permit has Protection Council and Interstate Oil
near the injection well, direct injection been violated.523 Class II EOR permits and Gas Compact Commission have
into a USDW, faults or fractures in the are also designed to ensure the published a ‘‘Potential Induced
confining strata, or lateral displacement protection of USDWs with requirements Seismicity Guide.’’ This report found
into hydraulically connected USDWs. appropriate for the risks of the enhanced that the strategies for avoiding,
States may apply to the EPA to be the recovery operation. In general, the EPA mitigating, and responding to potential
UIC permitting authority in the state believes that the protection of USDWs risks of induced seismicity should be
and receive primary enforcement by preventing leakage of injected CO2 determined based on site-specific
authority (primacy). Where a state has out of the injection zone will also characteristics (i.e., local geology).
not obtained primacy, the EPA is the ensure that CO2 is sufficiently These strategies could include
UIC permitting authority. sequestered in the subsurface, and supplemental seismic monitoring,
Recognizing that CO2 injection, for the therefore will not leak from the altering operational parameters (such as
purpose of geologic sequestration, poses subsurface to the atmosphere. rates and pressures) to reduce the
unique risks relative to other injection The UIC program works with ground motion hazard and risk, permit
activities, the EPA promulgated Federal injection well operators throughout the modification, partial plug back of the
Requirements Under the UIC Program life of the well to confirm practices do well, controlled restart (if feasible),
for Carbon Dioxide GS Wells, known as not pose a risk to USDWs. The program suspending or revoking injection
the Class VI Rule, in December 2010.522 conducts inspections to verify authorization, or stopping injection and
The Class VI Rule created and set compliance with the UIC permit, shutting in a well.527 The EPA’s UIC
requirements for a new class of injection including checking for leaks.524 National Technical Workgroup released
wells, Class VI. The Class VI Rule builds Inspections are only one way that technical recommendations in 2015 to
upon the long-standing protective programs deter noncompliance. address induced seismicity concerns in
framework of the UIC Program, with Programs also evaluate periodic Class II wells and elements of these
requirements that are tailored to address monitoring reports submitted by recommendations have been utilized in
issues unique to large-scale geologic operators and discuss potential issues developing Class VI emergency and
sequestration, including large injection with operators. If a well is found to be remedial response plans for Class VI
volumes, higher reservoir pressures out of compliance with applicable permits.528 529 For example, as identified
relative to other injection formations, requirements in its permit or UIC
the relative buoyancy of CO2, the regulations, the program will identify
525 See 40 CFR 146.82(a)(3)(v) (requiring the
potential presence of impurities in permit applicant to submit and the permitting

specific actions that an operator must authority to consider information on the seismic
captured CO2, the corrosivity of CO2 in take to address the issues. The UIC history including the presence and depth of seismic
the presence of water, and the mobility program may assist the operator in sources and a determination that the seismicity
of CO2 within subsurface geologic returning the well to compliance or use
would not interfere with containment); EPA. (2018).
formations. These additional protective Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
administrative or judicial enforcement Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class
requirements include more extensive to return a well to compliance. VI Implementation Manual for UIC Program
geologic testing, detailed computational Directors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
modeling of the project area and UIC program requirements address Office of Water (4606M) EPA 816–R–18–001.
periodic re-evaluations, detailed potential safety concerns with induced https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/
seismicity. More specifically, through documents/implementation_manual_508_
requirements for monitoring and 010318.pdf.
tracking the CO2 plume and pressure in the UIC Class VI program, the EPA has 526 National Research Council. (2013). Induced
the injection zone, unique financial put in place mechanisms to identify, Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies.
responsibility requirements, and monitor, and reduce risks associated Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
extended post-injection monitoring and with induced seismicity in any areas https://doi.org/10.17226/13355.
527 Ground Water Protection Council and
site care. within or surrounding a sequestration
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. (2021).
UIC Class VI permits are designed to site through permit and program Potential Induced Seismicity Guide: A Resource of
ensure that geologic sequestration does requirements such as site Technical and Regulatory Considerations
not cause the movement of injected CO2 characterization and monitoring, and Associated with Fluid Injection. https://
the requirement for applicants to www.gwpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/
or formation fluids outside the FINAL_Induced_Seismicity_2021_Guide_33021.pdf.
demonstrate that induced seismic 528 EPA. (2015). Minimizing and Managing
520 EPA. EPA Report to Congress: Class VI
Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity
Permitting. 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ 523 See 40 CFR 144.12(b) (prohibition of from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches.
documents/2022-11/ movement of fluid into USDWs); 40 CFR https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/
EPAClassVIPermittingReporttoCongress.pdf. 146.86(a)(1) (Class VI injection well construction documents/induced-seismicity-201502.pdf.
521 See 40 CFR parts 124, 144–147. requirements); 40 CFR 146(a) (Class VI injection 529 EPA. (2018). Geologic Sequestration of Carbon
522 EPA. (2010). Federal Requirements Under the well operation requirements); 40 CFR 146.94 Dioxide: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for (emergency and remedial response). Program Class VI Implementation Manual for UIC
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) 524 EPA. (2020). Underground Injection Control Program Directors. EPA 816–R–18–001. https://
Wells; Final Rule, 75 FR 77230, December 10, 2010 Program. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/
(codified at 40 CFR part 146, subpart H). 2020-04/documents/uic_fact_sheet.pdf. Continued
by the EPA’s UIC National Technical programs and public participation (5) minimize adverse effects to USDWs
Workgroup, sufficient pressure buildup requirements in place to support this and the communities they may serve.538
from disposal activities, the presence of process. The EPA is committed to As a part of the UIC Class VI permit
Faults of Concern (i.e., a fault optimally advancing EJ for overburdened application process, applicants and the
oriented for movement and located in a communities in all its programs, EPA Regions should complete an EJ
critically stressed region), and the including the UIC Class VI program.534 review using the EPA’s EJScreen Tool,
existence of a pathway for allowing the The EPA is also committed to an online mapping tool that integrates
increased pressure to communicate with supporting states’ and tribes’ efforts to numerous demographic, socioeconomic,
the fault contribute to the risk of obtain UIC Class VI primacy and and environmental data sets that are
injection-induced seismicity. The UIC strongly encourages such states and overlain on an applicant’s UIC Area of
requirements, including site Review to identify whether any
tribes to incorporate environmental
characterization (e.g., ensuring the disadvantaged communities are
confining zone 530 is free of faults of justice principles and equity into
proposed UIC Class VI programs.535 The encompassed.539 If the results indicate a
concern) and operating requirements potential EJ impact, applicants and the
(e.g., ensuring injection pressure in the EPA is taking steps to address EJ in
accordance with Presidential Executive EPA Regions should consider potential
injection zone is below the fracture measures to mitigate the impacts of the
pressure), work together to address Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s
UIC Class VI project on identified
these components and reduce the risk of Commitment to Environmental Justice
vulnerable communities and enhance
injection-induced seismicity, for All (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). In
the public participation process to be
particularly any injection-induced 2023, the EPA released Environmental inclusive of all potentially affected
seismicity that could be felt by people Justice Guidance for UIC Class VI communities (e.g., conduct early
at the surface.531 Additionally, the EPA Permitting and Primacy that builds on targeted outreach to communities and
recommends that Class VI permits the 2011 UIC Quick Reference Guide: identify and mitigate any
include an approach for monitoring for Additional Tools for UIC Program communication obstacles such as
seismicity near the site, including Directors Incorporating Environmental language barriers or lack of technology
seismicity that cannot be felt at the Justice Considerations into the Class VI resources).540
surface, and that injection activities be Injection Well Permitting Process.536 537
stopped or reduced in certain situations ER technologies are used in oil and
The 2023 guidance serves as an gas reservoirs to increase production.
if seismic activity is detected to ensure operating framework for identifying,
that no seismic activity will endanger Injection wells used for ER are regulated
analyzing, and addressing EJ concerns through the UIC Class II program.
USDWs.532 This also reduces the
in the context of implementing and Injection of CO2 is one of several
likelihood of any future injection-
overseeing UIC permitting and primacy techniques used in ER. Sometimes ER
induced seismic activity that will be felt
at the surface. programs, including primacy approvals. uses CO2 from anthropogenic sources
Furthermore, during site The EPA notes that while this guidance such as natural gas processing, ammonia
characterization, if any of the geologic is focused on the UIC Class VI program, and fertilizer production, and coal
or seismic data obtained indicate a EPA Regions should apply them to the gasification facilities. Through the ER
substantial likelihood of seismic other five injection well classes process, much of the injected CO2 is
activity, the EPA may require further wherever possible, including class II. recovered from production wells and
analyses, potential planned operational The guidance includes recommended can be separated and reinjected into the
changes, and additional monitoring.533 actions across five themes to address subsurface formation, resulting in the
The EPA has the authority to require various aspects of EJ in UIC Class VI storage of CO2 underground. The EPA’s
seismic monitoring as a condition of the permitting including: (1) identify Class II regulations were designed to
UIC permit if appropriate, or to deny the communities with potential EJ concerns, regulate ER injection wells, among other
permit if the injection-induced (2) enhance public involvement, (3) injection wells associated with oil and
seismicity risk could endanger USDWs. conduct appropriately scoped EJ natural gas production. See e.g., 40 CFR
The EPA believes that meaningful 144.6(b)(2). The EPA’s Class II program
assessments, (4) enhance transparency
engagement with local communities is is designed to prevent Class II injection
throughout the permitting process, and
an important step in the development of activities from endangering USDWs.
geologic sequestration projects and has 534 EPA. (2023). Environmental justice Guidance
The Class II programs of states and
for UIC Class VI Permitting and Primacy. https://
tribes must be approved by the EPA and
documents/implementation_manual_508_ www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-08/ must meet the EPA regulatory
010318.pdf. Memo%20and%20EJ%20Guidance%20for requirements for Class II programs, 42
530 ‘‘Confining zone’’ means a geological
%20UIC%20Class%20VI_August%202023.pdf; see U.S.C. 300h–1, or otherwise represent
formation, group of formations, or part of a also EPA. Letter from the EPA Administrator
formation that is capable of limiting fluid an effective program to prevent
Michael S. Regan to U.S. State Governors. December
movement above an injection zone. 40 CFR 146.3. 9, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ endangerment of USDWs. 42 U.S.C
531 EPA. (2015). Minimizing and Managing
documents/2022-12/AD.Regan_.GOVS_.Sig_ 300h–4.
Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity .Class%20VI.12-9-22.pdf.
from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. 535 EPA. (2023). Targeted UIC program grants for 538 EPA. (2023). Environmental justice Guidance
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/
documents/induced-seismicity-201502.pdf. Class VI Wells. https://www.epa.gov/uic/ for UIC Class VI Permitting and Primacy. https://
532 See EPA. Emergency and Remedial Response underground-injection-control-grants#ClassVI_ www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-08/
Plan: 40 CFR 146.94(a) template. https:// Grants. Memo%20and%20EJ%20Guidance%20for
536 EPA. (2023). Environmental justice Guidance %20UIC%20Class%20VI_August%202023.pdf.

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/err_
plan_template.docx. See also EPA. (2018). Geologic for UIC Class VI Permitting and Primacy. https:// 539 EPA Report to Congress: Class VI Permitting.
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Underground www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-08/ 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/

Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Memo%20and%20EJ%20Guidance%20for 2022-11/
Implementation Manual for UIC Program Directors. %20UIC%20Class%20VI_August%202023.pdf. EPAClassVIPermittingReporttoCongress.pdf.
EPA 816–R–18–001. https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 537 EPA. (2011). Geologic Sequestration of Carbon 540 EPA Report to Congress: Class VI Permitting.
default/files/2018-01/documents/implementation_ Dioxide—UIC Quick Reference Guide. https:// 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/
manual_508_010318.pdf. www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/ 2022-11/
533 40 CFR 146.82(a)(3)(v). documents/epa816r11002.pdf. EPAClassVIPermittingReporttoCongress.pdf.
In promulgating the Class VI ‘‘GHGRP subpart RR’’ and ‘‘GHGRP for establishing the expected baselines
regulations, the EPA recognized that if subpart VV.’’ for monitoring CO2 surface leakage; and,
the business model for ER shifts to focus GHGRP subpart RR applies to ‘‘any a summary of considerations made to
on maximizing CO2 injection volumes well or group of wells that inject a CO2 calculate site-specific variables for the
and permanent storage, then the risk of stream for long-term containment in mass balance equation.549
endangerment to USDWs is likely to subsurface geologic formations’’ 542 and In April 2024, the EPA finalized a
increase. As an ER project shifts away provides the monitoring and reporting new GHGRP subpart, ‘‘Geologic
from oil and/or gas production, mechanisms to quantify CO2 storage and Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide with
injection zone pressure and carbon to identify, quantify, and address Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Using
dioxide volumes will likely increase if potential leakage. The EPA designed ISO 27916’’ (or GHGRP subpart VV).550
carbon dioxide injection rates increase, GHGRP subpart RR to complement the GHGRP subpart VV applies to facilities
and the dissipation of reservoir pressure UIC monitoring and testing that quantify the geologic sequestration
will decrease if fluid production from requirements. See e.g., 40 CFR 146.90– of CO2 in association with EOR
the reservoir decreases. Therefore, the 91. Reporting under GHGRP subpart RR operations in conformance with the ISO
EPA’s regulations require the operator of is required for, but not limited to, all standard designated as CSA/ANSI ISO
a Class II well to obtain a Class VI facilities that have received a UIC Class 27916:2019, Carbon Dioxide Capture,
permit when there is an increased risk VI permit for injection of CO2.543 Under Transportation and Geological Storage—
to USDWs. 40 CFR 144.19.541 While the existing GHGRP regulations, facilities Carbon Dioxide Storage Using Enhanced
EPA’s regulations require the Class II that conduct ER in Class II wells are not Oil Recovery. Facilities that have
well operator to assess whether there is subject to reporting data under GHGRP chosen to submit an MRV plan and
an increased risk to USDWs subpart RR unless they have chosen to report under GHGRP subpart RR must
(considering factors identified in the submit a proposed monitoring, not report data under GHGRP subpart
EPA’s regulations), the permitting reporting, and verification (MRV) plan VV. GHGRP subpart VV is largely
authority can also make this assessment to the EPA and received an approved modeled after the requirements in this
and, in the event that an operator makes plan from the EPA. Facilities ISO standard and focuses on quantifying
changes to Class II operations such that conducting ER and who do not choose storage of CO2. Facilities subject to
the increased risk to USDWs warrants to submit a subpart RR MRV plan to the GHGRP subpart VV must include in
transition to Class VI and the operator EPA would otherwise be required to their GHGRP annual report a copy of
does not notify the permitting authority, report CO2 data under subpart UU.544 their EOR Operations Management Plan
the operator may be subject to SDWA GHGRP subpart RR requires facilities (EOR OMP). The EOR OMP includes a
enforcement and compliance actions to meeting the source category definition description of the EOR complex and
protect USDWs, including cessation of (40 CFR 98.440) for any well or group engineered system, establishes that the
injection. The determination of whether of wells to report basic information on EOR complex is adequate to provide
there is an increased risk to USDWs the mass of CO2 received for injection; safe, long-term containment of CO2, and
would be based on factors specified in develop and implement an EPA- includes site-specific and other
40 CFR 144.19(b), including increase in approved monitoring, reporting, and information including a geologic
reservoir pressure within the injection verification (MRV) plan; report the mass characterization of the EOR complex, a
zone; increase in CO2 injection rates; of CO2 sequestered using a mass balance description of the facilities within the
and suitability of the Class II Area of approach; and report annual monitoring EOR project, a description of all wells
activities.545 546 547 548 Extensive and other engineered features in the
Review (AoR) delineation.
subsurface monitoring is required for EOR project, and the operations history
(c) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program UIC Class VI wells at 40 CFR 146.90 and of the project reservoir.551
(GHGRP) is the primary means of determining if Based on the understanding
the injected CO2 remains in the developed from existing projects, the
The GHGRP requires reporting of authorized injection zone and otherwise security of sequestered CO2 is expected
greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other does not endanger any USDW, and to increase over time after injection
relevant information from large GHG monitoring under a GHGRP subpart RR ceases.552 This is due to trapping
emission sources, fuel and industrial gas MRV Plan complements these mechanisms that reduce CO2 mobility
suppliers, and CO2 injection sites in the requirements. The MRV plan includes over time (e.g., physical CO2 trapping by
United States. Approximately 8,000 five major components: a delineation of a low-permeability geologic seal or
facilities are required to report their monitoring areas based on the CO2 chemical trapping by conversion or
emissions, injection, and/or supply plume location; an identification and adsorption).553 The EPA acknowledges
activity annually, and the non- evaluation of the potential surface the potential for some leakage of CO2 to
confidential reported data are made leakage pathways and an assessment of the atmosphere at sequestration sites,
available to the public around October the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, primarily while injection operations are
of each year. To complement the UIC of surface leakage of CO2 through these active. For example, small quantities of
regulations, the EPA included in the pathways; a strategy for detecting and the CO2 that were sent to the
GHGRP air-side monitoring and quantifying any surface leakage of CO2
reporting requirements for CO2 capture, in the event leakage occurs; an approach 549 40 CFR 98.448(a).
underground injection, and geologic 550 EPA. (2024). Rulemaking Notices for GHG
sequestration. These requirements are 542 See
Reporting. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/
40 CFR 98.440. rulemaking-notices-ghg-reporting.
included in 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR
543 40 CFR 98.440. 551 EPA. (2024). Rulemaking Notices for GHG
and subpart VV, also referred to as 544 As discussed in section X.C.5.b, entities
Reporting. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/
conducting CCS to comply with this rule would be rulemaking-notices-ghg-reporting.
541 EPA. (2015). Key Principles in EPA’s required to send the captured CO2 to a facility that 552 ‘‘Report of the Interagency Task Force on
reports data under subpart RR or subpart VV. Carbon Capture and Storage.’’ 2010. https://
Underground Injection Control Program Class VI 545 40 CFR 98.446.
Rule Related to Transition of Class II Enhanced Oil www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/985209.
546 40 CFR 98.448.
or Gas Recovery Wells to Class VI. https:// 553 See, e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
547 40 CFR 98.446(f)(9) and (10).
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/ Change. (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide
documents/class2eorclass6memo_1.pdf. 548 40 CFR 98.446(f)(12). Capture and Storage.
sequestration site may be emitted from Between 2011, when the Class VI rule decisions for Class VI wells while
leaks in pipes and valves that are went into effect, and 2020, the EPA maintaining a robust and thorough
traversed before the CO2 actually received a total of 8 permit applications review process that ensures USDWs are
reaches the sequestration formation. for Class VI wells. The EPA then protected. The EPA has created
However, the EPA’s robust UIC received 12 Class VI permit applications additional resources for applicants
regulatory protections protect against in 2021, 44 in 2022, and 123 in 2023. including upgrading the Geologic
leakage out of the injection zone. As of March 2024, the EPA has 130 Sequestration Data Tool (GSDT) to guide
Relative to the 46.75 million metric tons Class VI permit applications under applicants through the application
of CO2 reported as sequestered under review (56 permit applications were process.558 The EPA has also created
subpart RR of the GHGRP between 2016 transferred to Louisiana in February resources for permit writers including
to 2022, only 196,060 metric tons were 2024 when the EPA rule granting Class training series and guidance documents
reported as leakage/emissions to the VI primacy to the state became to build capacity for Class VI
atmosphere in the same time period effective). The majority of those 130 permitting.559 Additionally, the EPA
(representing less than 0.5% of the permit applications (63%) were issued internal guidelines to streamline
sequestration amount). Of these submitted to the EPA within the past 12 and create uniformity and consistency
emissions, most were from equipment months. Also, as of March 2024, the in the Class VI permitting process,
leaks and vented emissions of CO2 from EPA has issued eight Class VI permits, which should help to reduce permitting
equipment located on the surface rather including six for projects in Illinois and timeframes. These internal guidelines
than leakage from the subsurface.554 two for projects in Indiana, and has include the expectation that EPA
Furthermore, any leakage of CO2 at a released for public comment four Regions will classify all Class VI well
sequestration facility would be required additional draft permits for proposed applications received on or after
to be quantified and reported under the projects in California. Two of the December 12, 2023, as applications for
GHGRP subpart RR or subpart VV, and permits are in the pre-operation phase, major new UIC injection wells, which
such data are made publicly available one is in the injection phase, and one is requires the Regions to develop project
on the EPA’s website. in the post-injection monitoring phase. decision schedules for reviewing Class
In light of the recent flurry of interest VI permit applications. The guidelines
(5) Timing of Permitting for in this area, the EPA is devoting also set target timeframes for
Sequestration Sites increased resources to the Class VI components of the permitting process,
As previously discussed, the EPA is program, including through increased such as the number of days EPA Regions
the Class VI permitting authority for staffing levels in order to meet the should set for public comment periods
states, tribes, and territories that have increased demand for action on Class VI and for developing responses to
not obtained primacy over their Class VI permit applications.557 Reviewing a comments and final permit decisions.
programs.555 The EPA is committed to Class VI permit application entails a The EPA will continue to evaluate its
reviewing UIC Class VI permits as multidisciplinary evaluation to internal UIC permitting processes to
expeditiously as possible when the determine whether the application identify potential opportunities for
agency is the permitting authority. The includes the required information, is streamlining and other improvements
EPA has the experience to properly technically accurate, and supports a over time. Although the available data
regulate and review permits for UIC risk-based determination that for Class VI wells is limited, the
Class VI injection wells, and technical underground sources of drinking water timeframe for processing Class I wells,
experts of multiple disciplines to review will not be endangered by the proposed which follows a similar regulatory
permit applications submitted to the injection activity. A wide variety of structure, is typically less than 2
EPA. technical experts—from geologists to years.560
The EPA has seen a considerable engineers to physical scientists—review The EPA notes that a Class VI permit
uptick in Class VI permit applications permit applications submitted to the tracker is available on its website.561
over the past few years. The 2018 EPA. The EPA has been working to This tracker shows information for the
passage of revisions and enhancements develop staff expertise and increase 44 projects (representing 130 wells) that
to the IRC section 45Q tax credit that capacity in the UIC program, and the have submitted Class VI applications to
provides tax credits for carbon oxide agency has effectively deployed the EPA, including details such as the
(including CO2) sequestration has led to appropriated resources over the last five current permit review stage, whether a
an increase in Class VI permit years to scale UIC program staff from a project has been sent a Notice of
applications submitted to the EPA. The few employees to the equivalent of more Deficiency (NOD) or Request for
2022 IRA further expanded the IRC than 25 full-time employees across the Additional Information (RAI), and the
section 45Q tax credit and the 2021 IIJA agency’s headquarters and regional applicant’s response time to any NODs
established a $50 million program for offices. We expect that the additional or RAIs. As mentioned above, most of
grants to help states and tribes in resources and staff capacity for the Class the permits submitted to the EPA have
developing and implementing a UIC VI program will lead to increased been submitted within the past 12
Class VI primacy program, leading to efficiencies in the Class VI permitting
even more interest in this area.556 process. 558 EPA. (2023). Geologic Sequestration Data Tool
In addition to increased staffing (GSDT). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/

554 Based on subpart RR data retrieved from the
resources, the EPA has made documents/2023-10/geologic-sequestration-data-
EPA Facility Level Information on Greenhouse tool_factsheet_oct2023.pdf.
considerable improvements to the Class
Gases Tool (FLIGHT), at https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ 559 EPA. (2023). Final Class VI Guidance
ghgp/main.do. Retrieved March 2024. VI permitting process to reduce the time Documents. https://www.epa.gov/uic/final-class-vi-
555 See 40 CFR part 145 (State UIC Program needed to make final permitting guidance-documents.
Requirements), 40 CFR part 147 (State, Tribal, and 560 EPA Report to Congress: Class VI Permitting.
EPA-Administered Underground Injection Control 557 EPA. (2023). Testimony Of Mr. Bruno Pigott, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/
Programs). Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, 2022-11/
556 EPA. (2023). Targeted UIC program grants for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hearing On EPAClassVIPermittingReporttoCongress.pdf.
Class VI Wells https://www.epa.gov/uic/ Carbon Capture And Storage. https://www.epa.gov/ 561 EPA. (2024). Current Class VI Projects under
underground-injection-control-grants#ClassVI_ system/files/documents/2023-11/testimony-pigott- Review at EPA. https://www.epa.gov/uic/current-

Grants. senr-hearing-nov-2-2023_-cleared.pdf. class-vi-projects-under-review-epa.
months. The EPA aims to review submitted a primacy application to the sequestration sites in fourteen
complete Class VI applications and EPA on February 13, 2024.567 Texas and states.571 572 573 As of March 2024, there
issue permits when appropriate within West Virginia are engaging with the EPA are 44 projects with 130 injection wells
approximately 24 months. This to complete pre-application are under review by the EPA.574
timeframe is dependent on several activities.568 If more states apply for and Furthermore, the EPA anticipates that as
factors, including the complexity of the receive Class VI primacy, the number of the demand for commercial
project and the quality and permits in EPA review is expected to be sequestration grows, more commercial
completeness of the submitted reduced. The EPA has also created sites will be developed in response to
application. It is important for the resources for regulators including financial incentives.
applicant to submit a complete training series and guidance documents Comment: Some commenters
application and provide any to build capacity for Class VI permitting expressed concern about leakage of CO2
information requested by the permitting within UIC programs across the U.S. from sequestration sites.
agency in a timely manner so as not to Through state primacy for Class VI Response: The EPA acknowledges the
extend the overall time for the review. programs, state expertise and capacity potential for some leakage of CO2 to the
States may apply to the EPA for can be leveraged to support effective atmosphere at sequestration sites (such
primacy to administer the Class VI and efficient permit application as leaks through valves before the CO2
programs within their states. The reviews. The IIJA established a $50 reaches the injection formation).
primacy application process has four million grant program to support states, However, as detailed in the preceding
phases: (1) pre-application activities, (2) Tribes, and territories in developing and sections of preamble, the EPA’s robust
completeness review and determination, implementing UIC Class VI programs. UIC permitting process is adequate to
(3) application evaluation, and (4) The EPA has allocated $1,930,000 to protect against CO2 escaping the
rulemaking and codification. To date, each state, tribe, and territory that authorized injection zone (and then
three states have been granted primacy submitted letters of intent.569 entering the atmosphere). As discussed
for Class VI wells, including North (6) Comments Received on Geologic in the preceding section, leakage out of
Dakota, Wyoming, and most recently Sequestration and Responses the injection zone could trigger
Louisiana.562 As discussed above, North emergency and remedial response
Dakota has issued 6 Class VI permits The EPA received comments on action including ceasing injection,
since receiving Class VI primacy in geologic sequestration. Those possible permit modification, and
2018, and Wyoming issued its first three comments, and the EPA’s responses, are possible enforcement action.
Class VI permits in December as follows.
Furthermore, the GHGRP subpart RR
2023.563 564 565 The EPA finalized a rule Comment: Some commenters
and subpart VV regulations prescribe
granting Louisiana Class VI primacy in expressed concerns that the EPA has not
demonstrated the adequacy of carbon accounting methodologies for facilities
January 2024 and the state’s program to quantify and report any potential
became effective in February 2024. At sequestration at a commercial scale.
Response: The EPA disagrees that leakage at the surface, and the EPA
that time, EPA Region 6 transferred 56 makes sequestration data and related
commercial carbon sequestration
Class VI permit applications for projects monitoring plans publicly available on
capacity will be inadequate to support
in Louisiana to the state for continued its website. The reported emissions/
this rule. As detailed in section
review and permit issuance if leakage from sequestration sites under
VII.C.1.a.i(D)(1), commercial geologic
appropriate. Prior to receiving primacy, subpart RR is a comparatively small
sequestration capacity is growing in the
the state worked with the EPA in United States. Multiple commercial fraction (less than 0.5 percent) of the
understanding where each application sequestration facilities, other than those associated sequestration volumes, with
was in the evaluation process. funded under EPAct05, are in most of these reported emissions
Currently, the EPA is working with the construction or advanced development, attributable to leaks or vents from
states of Texas, Arizona, and West with some scheduled to open for surface equipment.
Virginia as they are developing their operation as early as 2025.570 These Comment: Some commenters
UIC primacy applications.566 Arizona facilities have proposed sequestration expressed concern over safety due to
capacities ranging from 0.03 to 6 million induced seismicity.
562 On December 28, 2023, the EPA Administrator
tons of CO2 per year. The EPA and states Response: The EPA believes that the
signed a final rule granting Louisiana’s request for
primacy for UIC Class VI junction wells located with approved UIC Class VI programs UIC program requirements adequately
within the state. See EPA. (2023). Underground (including Wyoming, North Dakota, and address potential safety concerns with
Injection Control (UIC) Primary Enforcement Louisiana) are currently reviewing UIC induced seismicity at site-adjacent
Authority for the Underground Injection Control communities. More specifically, through
Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Class VI geologic sequestration well
https://www.epa.gov/uic/primary-enforcement- permit applications for proposed the UIC Class VI program the EPA has
authority-underground-injection-control-program-0. put in place mechanisms to identify,
563 Wyoming Department of Environmental 567 Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality. (2023). Wyoming grants its first three Class Quality. (2024). Underground Injection Control 571 UIC regulations for Class VI wells authorize
VI permits. https://deq.wyoming.gov/2023/12/ (UIC) Program. https://azdeq.gov/UIC. the injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration while
wyoming-grants-its-first-three-class-vi-permits/. 568 EPA. (2023). Underground Injection Control protecting human health by ensuring the protection
564 Ibid. (UIC) Primary Enforcement Authority for the of underground sources of drinking water. The
565 Arnold & Porter. (2023). EPA Provides Underground Injection Control Program. U.S. major components to be included in UIC Class VI
Increased Transparency in Class VI Permitting Environmental Protection Agency. https:// permits are detailed further in section
Process; Now Incorporated in Update to Interactive www.epa.gov/uic/primary-enforcement-authority- VII.C.1.a.i(D)(4).
CCUS State Tracker. https://www.arnoldporter.com/ underground-injection-control-program-0. 572 U.S. EPA Class VI Underground Injection
en/perspectives/blogs/environmental-edge/2023/11/ 569 EPA. (2023). Underground Injection Control Control (UIC) Class VI Wells Permitted by EPA as
ccus-state-legislative-tracker. (UIC) Class VI Grant Program. https://www.epa.gov/ of January 25, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/uic/table-
566 EPA. (2023). Underground Injection Control system/files/documents/2023-11/uic-class-vi-grant- epas-draft-and-final-class-vi-well-permits Last
(UIC) Primary Enforcement Authority for the fact-sheet.pdf. updated January 19, 2024.
573 EPA. (2024). Current Class VI Projects under
Underground Injection Control Program. U.S. 570 Global CCS Institute. (2024). Global Status of
Environmental Protection Agency. https:// CCS 2023. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp- Review at EPA. https://www.epa.gov/uic/current-
www.epa.gov/uic/primary-enforcement-authority- content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Status-of-CCS- class-vi-projects-under-review-epa.
underground-injection-control-program-0. Report-1.pdf. 574 Ibid.
monitor, and mitigate risks associated environmental justice guidance for Class GHGRP subpart RR or GHGRP subpart
with induced seismicity in any areas VI permitting and primacy states that VV. For more information on the
within or surrounding a sequestration many of the expectations are broadly relationship to GHGRP requirements,
site through permit and program applicable, and EPA Regions should see section X.C.5 of this preamble.
requirements, such as site apply them to the other five injection Comment: Commenters expressed
characterization and monitoring, and well classes, including Class II, concerns that UIC regulations allow
the requirement for applicants to wherever possible.579 See section Class II wells to be used for long-term
demonstrate that induced seismic VII.C.1.a.i(D)(4) for a detailed discussion CO2 storage if the operator assesses that
activity will not endanger USDWs.575 of environmental justice requirements a Class VI permit is not required and
See section VII.C.1.a.i(D)(4)(b) for and guidance. asserted that Class II regulations are less
further discussion of mitigating induced Comment: Commenters expressed protective than Class VI regulations.
seismicity risk. Although the UIC Class concern that companies are not always Response: The EPA acknowledges
II program does not have specific in compliance with reporting that Class II wells for EOR may be used
requirements regarding seismicity, it requirements for subpart RR when to inject CO2 including CO2 captured
includes discretionary authority to add required for other Federal programs. from an EGU. However, the EPA
additional conditions to a UIC permit on Response: The EPA recognizes the disagrees that the use of Class II wells
a case-by-case basis. The EPA created a need for geologic sequestration facilities for ER will be less protective of human
document outlining practical to comply with the reporting health than the use of Class VI wells for
approaches for UIC Directors to use to requirements of the GHGRP, and geologic sequestration. Class II wells are
minimize and manage injection-induced acknowledges that there have been used only to inject fluids associated
seismicity in Class II wells.576 instances of entities claiming geologic with oil and natural gas production, and
Furthermore, during site sequestration under non-EPA programs Class II ER wells are used specifically
characterization, if any of the geologic (e.g., to qualify for IRC section 45Q tax for the injection of fluids, including
or seismic data obtained indicate a credits) while not having an EPA- CO2, for the purpose of enhanced
substantial likelihood of seismic approved MRV plan or reporting data recovery of oil or natural gas. The EPA’s
activity, further analyses, potential under subpart RR.580 The EPA does not UIC Class II program is designed to
planned operational changes, and implement the IRC section 45Q tax prevent Class II injection activities from
additional monitoring may be credit program, and it is not privy to endangering USDWs. Any leakage out of
required.577 The EPA has the authority taxpayer information. Thus, the EPA has the designated injection zone could
to require seismic monitoring as a no role in implementing or enforcing pose a risk to USDWs and therefore
condition of the UIC permit if these tax credit claims, and it is unclear, could be subject to enforcement action
appropriate, or to deny the permit if the for example, whether these companies or permit modification. Therefore, the
injection-induced seismicity risk could would have been required by GHGRP EPA believes that UIC protections for
endanger USDWs. regulations to report data under subpart USDWs would also ensure that the
Comment: Some commenters have RR, or if they would have been required injected CO2 is contained in the
expressed concern that the EPA has not only by the IRC section 45Q rules to opt- subsurface formations. The Class II
meaningfully engaged with historically in to reporting under subpart RR. The programs of states and tribes must be
disadvantaged and overburdened EPA disagrees that compliance with the approved by the EPA and must meet
communities who may be impacted by GHGRP would be a problem for this rule EPA regulatory requirements for Class II
environmental changes due to geologic because the rule requires any affected programs, 42 U.S.C. 300h–1, or
sequestration. unit that employs CCS technology that otherwise represent an effective
Response: The EPA acknowledges captures enough CO2 to meet the program to prevent endangerment of
that meaningful engagement with local proposed standard and injects the USDWs. 42 U.S.C 300h–4. The EPA’s
communities is an important step in the captured CO2 underground to report regulations require the operator of a
development of geologic sequestration under GHGRP subpart RR or GHGRP Class II well to obtain a Class VI permit
projects and has programs and public subpart VV. Unlike the IRC section 45Q when operations shift to geologic
participation requirements in place to tax credit program, which is sequestration and there is consequently
support this process. The EPA is an increased risk to USDWs. 40 CFR
implemented by the Internal Revenue
committed to advancing environmental 144.19. UIC Class VI regulations require
Service (IRS), the EPA will have the
justice for overburdened communities that owners or operators must show that
information necessary to discern
in all its programs, including the UIC the injection zone has sufficient volume
whether a facility is in compliance with
Class VI program.578 The EPA’s to contain the injected carbon dioxide
any applicable GHGRP requirements. If
stream and report any fluid migration
the emitting EGU sends the captured
575 EPA. (2018). Geologic Sequestration of Carbon out of the injection zone and into or
CO2 offsite, it must transfer the CO2 to
Dioxide: Underground Injection Control (UIC) between USDWs. 40 CFR 146.83 and 40
Program Class VI Implementation Manual for UIC a facility that reports in accordance with
CFR 146.91. The EPA emphasizes that
Program Directors. EPA 816–R–18–001. https://
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/
while CO2 captured from an EGU can be
EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan to U.S. State
documents/implementation_manual_508_ Governors. December 9, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ injected into a Class II ER injection well,
010318.pdf. system/files/documents/2022-12/AD.Regan_ it cannot be injected into the other two
576 EPA. (2015). Minimizing and Managing .GOVS_.Sig_.Class%20VI.12-9-22.pdf. types of Class II wells, which are Class
Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity 579 EPA. (2023). Environmental Justice Guidance
II disposal wells and Class II wells for
from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. for UIC Class VI Permitting and Primacy. https://
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/ www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-08/
the storage of hydrocarbons. 40 CFR
documents/induced-seismicity-201502.pdf. Memo%20and%20EJ%20 144.6(b).
577 40 CFR 146.82(a)(3)(v). Guidance%20for%20UIC%20Class%20VI_ Comment: Some commenters
578 EPA. (2023). Environmental justice Guidance August%202023.pdf. expressed concern that because few
for UIC Class VI Permitting and Primacy. https:// 580 Letter from U.S. Treasury Inspector General
Class VI permits have been issued, the
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-08/ for Tax Administration (TIGTA). (2020). https://
Memo%20and%20EJ%20 www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
EPA’s current level of experience in
Guidance%20for%20UIC%20Class%20VI_ TIGTA%20IRC%2045Q%20 properly regulating and reviewing
August%202023.pdf; see also EPA. Letter from the Response%20Letter%20FINAL%2004-15-2020.pdf. permits for these wells is limited.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the regulatory regimes at the state level, e.g., Wyoming H.B. No. 89 (2008) (Wyo.
Agency lacks experience to properly except on Federal lands.583 Stat. § 34–1–152); Montana S.B. No. 498
regulate, and review permits for Class VI As discussed in section (2009) (Mont. Code Ann. 82–11–180);
injection wells. We expect that the VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(4) of this preamble, Title North Dakota S.B. No. 2139 (2009) (N.D.
additional resources that have been V of the FLPMA and its implementing Cent. Code § 47–31–03); Kentucky H.B.
allocated for the Class VI program will regulations, 43 CFR part 2800, authorize 259 (2011) (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
lead to increased efficiencies in the the BLM to issue ROWs to geologically § 353.800); West Virginia H.B. 4491
Class VI permitting process and sequester CO2 in Federal pore space, (2022) (W. Va. Code § 22–11B–18);
including BLM ROWs for the necessary California S.B. No. 905 (2022) (Cal. Pub.
timeframes. For a more detailed
physical infrastructure and for the use Res. Code § 71462); Indiana Public Law
discussion of Class VI permitting and
and occupancy of the pore space itself. 163 (2022) (Ind. Code § 14–39–2–3);
timeframes, see sections The BLM has published a policy Utah H.B. 244 (2022) (Utah Code § 40–
VII.C.1.a.i(D)(4)(b) and VII.C.1.a.i(D)(5) defining access to pore space on BLM 6–20.5).
of this preamble. The EPA emphasizes lands, including clarification of Federal Liability during operation is usually
that incomplete or insufficient policy for situations where the surface assumed by the project operator, so
application materials can result in and pore space are under the control of liability concerns primarily arise after
substantially delayed permitting different Federal agencies.584 the period of operations. Research has
decisions. When the EPA receives States have established legislation and previously shown that the
incomplete or insufficient permit regulations defining pore space environmental risk is greatest before
applications, the EPA communicates the ownership and providing clarification to injection stops.589 In terms of long-term
deficiencies, waits to receive additional prospective users of surface pore space. liability and permittee obligations under
materials from the applicant, and then For example, in North Dakota, the the SDWA, the EPA’s Class VI
reviews any new data. This back and surface owner also owns the pore space regulations impose various
forth can result in longer permitting underlying their surface estate.585 North requirements on permittees even after
timeframes. The EPA therefore Dakota state courts have determined injection ceases, including regarding
encourages applicants to contact their that in situations where the surface injection well plugging (40 CFR 146.92),
permitting authority early on so ownership and mineral ownership have post-injection site care (PISC), and site
applicants can gain a thorough been legally severed the mineral estate closure (40 CFR 146.93). The default
understanding of the Class VI permitting is the dominant estate and has the right time period for post-injection site care is
process and the permitting authority’s to use as much of the surface estate as 50 years, during which the permittee
expectations. To assist potential permit reasonably necessary. The North Dakota must monitor the position of the CO2
legislature codified this interpretation in plume and pressure front and
applicants, the EPA maintains a list of
2019.586 Summit Carbon Solutions, demonstrate that USDWs are not being
UIC contacts within each EPA Regional
which is developing a carbon storage endangered. 40 CFR 146.93. The
Office on the Agency’s website.581 The
hub in North Dakota to store an permittee must also generally maintain
EPA has met with more than 100 estimated one billion tons of CO2, financial responsibility sufficient to
companies and other interested parties. indicated that they had secured the cover injection well plugging, corrective
Comment: Some commenters claimed majority of the pore space needed action, emergency and remedial
that various legal uncertainties preclude through long term leases with response, PISC, and site closure until
a finding that geologic sequestration of landowners.587 Wyoming defines the permitting authority approves site
CO2 has been adequately demonstrated. ownership of pore space underlying closure. 40 CFR 146.85(a)&(b). Even
This concern has been raised in surfaces within the state.588 Other states after the former permittee has fulfilled
particular with issues of pore space have also established laws, all its UIC regulatory obligations, it may
ownership and the lack of long-term implementing regulations and guidance still be held liable for previous
liability insurance and noted defining ownership and access to pore regulatory noncompliance, such as
uncertainties regarding long-term space. The EPA notes that many states where the permittee provided erroneous
liability generally. are actively enacting legislation data to support approval of site closure.
addressing pore space ownership. See A former permittee may always be
Response: The EPA disagrees that subject to an order that the EPA
these uncertainties are sufficient to 583 Council on Environmental Quality Report to
Administrator deems necessary to
prohibit the development of geologic Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and protect public health if there is fluid
sequestration projects. An interagency Sequestration. 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUS- migration that causes or threatens
CCS task force examined sequestration- Permitting-Report.pdf. imminent and substantial endangerment
related legal issues thoroughly and 584 National Policy for the Right-of-Way to a USDW. 42 U.S.C. 300i; 40 CFR
concluded that early CCS projects could Authorizations Necessary for Site Characterization, 144.12(e).
proceed under the existing legal Capture, Transportation, Injection, and Permanent The EPA notes that many states are
Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in
framework with respect to issues such Connection with Carbon Sequestration Projects. enacting legislation addressing long
as property rights and liability.582 The BLM IM 2022–041 Instruction Memorandum, June term liability. See e.g., Montana S.B. No.
development of CCS projects may be 8, 2022. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2022-041. 498 (2009) (Mont. Code Ann. 82–11–
585 ND DMR 2023. Pore Space in North Dakota.
more complex in certain regions, due to 183); Texas H.B. 1796 (2009) (Tex.
North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources
distinct pore space ownership https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/ND_DMR_Pore_
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 382.508);
Space_Information.pdf. North Dakota S.B. No. 2095 (2009) (N.D.

581 EPA. (2023). Underground Injection Control 586 Ibid. Cent. Code § 38–22–17); Kansas H.B.
Class VI (Geologic Sequestration) Contact 587 Summit Carbon Solutions. (2021). Summit
Information. https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground- Carbon Solutions Announces Significant Carbon 589 Benson, S.M. (2007). Carbon dioxide capture
injection-control-class-vi-geologic-sequestration- Storage Project Milestones. (2021). https:// and storage: research pathways, progress and
contact-information. summitcarbonsolutions.com/summit-carbon- potential. Presentation given at the Global Climate
582 Report of the Interagency Task Force on solutions-announces-significant-carbon-storage- & Energy Project Annual Symposium, October 1,
Carbon Capture and Storage. 2010. https:// project-milestones/. 2007. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/ccstf-final-report. 588 Wyo. Stat § 34–1–152 (2022). 1ZvfRW92OqvBBAFs69SPHIWoYFGySMgtD/view.
2418 (2010) (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55– (S&L 590 and a review of the available initial pipeline routing analysis, taking
1637(h)); Wyoming S.F. No. 47 (2022) information for installation of CO2 less than 1 year. This exercise involves
(Wyo. Stat. §§ 35–11–319); Louisiana pipelines and sequestration sites.591 using software to review existing right-
H.B. 661 (2009) & H.B. 571 (2023) (La. Additional details on the timeline are in of-way and other considerations to
Stat. Ann. § 30:1109). Because states are the TSD GHG Mitigation Measures for develop an optimized pipeline route.
actively working to address pore space Steam Generating Units, available in the Inputs to that analysis have been made
and liability uncertainties, the EPA does docket. The dates for intermediate steps publicly available by DOE in NETL’s
not believe these to be issues that would are for reference. The specific Pipeline Route Planning Database.592
delay project implementation beyond sequencing of steps may differ slightly, When state plans are submitted 24
the timelines discussed in this and, for some sources, the duration of months after publication of the final
preamble. one step may be shorter while another rule, requirements included within
may be longer, however the total those state plans should be effective at
(E) Compliance Date for Long-Term duration is expected to be the same. The the state level. On that basis, the EPA
Coal-Fired Steam Generating Units resulting timeline is therefore an assumes that sources installing CCS are
accurate representation of the time fully committed, and more substantial
The EPA proposed a January 1, 2030 necessary to install CCS in general. work (e.g., FEED study for the capture
compliance date for long-term coal fired The EPA assumes that feasibility plant, permitting, land use and right-of-
steam generating units subject to a CCS work, amounting to less than 1 year way acquisition) resumes in June 2026.
BSER. That compliance date assumed (June 2024 through June 2025) for each The EPA notes, however, that it would
installation of CCS was concurrent with component of CCS (capture, transport, be possible that a source installing CCS
development of state plans. While and storage) occurs during the state plan would choose to continue these
several commenters were supportive of development period (June 2024 through activities as soon as the initial feasibility
the proposed compliance date, the EPA June 2026). This feasibility work is work is completed even if not yet
also received comments on the limited to initial conceptual design and required to do so, rather than wait for
proposed rule that stated that the other preliminary tasks, and the costs of state plan submission to occur for the
proposed compliance date was not the feasibility work in general are reasons explained in full below.
achievable. Commenters referenced substantially less than other Of the components of CCS, the CO2
longer project timelines for CO2 capture. components of the project schedule. The capture plant is the more technically
Commenters also requested that the EPA EPA determined that it was appropriate involved and time consuming, and
should account for the state plan to assume that this work would take therefore is the primary driver for
process in determining the appropriate place during the state plan development determining the compliance date. The
compliance date. period because it is necessary for EPA assumes substantial work
evaluating the controls that the state commences only after submission due
The EPA has considered the may determine to be appropriate for a
comments and information available date for state plans. The S&L baseline
source and is necessary for determining timeline accounts for 5.78 years (301
and is finalizing a compliance date of the resulting standard of performance weeks) for final design, permitting, and
January 1, 2032, for long-term coal-fired that the state may apply to the source on installation of the CO2 capture plant.
steam generating units. The EPA is also the basis of those controls. In other First, the EPA describes the timeline
finalizing a mechanism for a 1-year words, without such feasibility and that is consistent with the S&L baseline
compliance date extension in cases design work, it would be very difficult for substantial work. Subsequently, the
where a source faces delays outside its for a state to determine whether CCS is EPA describes the rationale for slight
control, as detailed in section X.C.1.d of appropriate for a given source or the adjustments that can be made to that
this preamble. The justification for the resulting standard of performance. timeline based upon an examination of
January 1, 2032 compliance date does While the EPA accounts for up to 1 year actual project timelines.
not require substantial work to be done for feasibility for the capture plant, the In the S&L baseline, substantial work
during the state planning process. S&L baseline schedule estimates this on the CO2 capture plant begins with a
Rather, the justification for the initial design activity can be completed 1-year FEED study (June 2026 to June
compliance date reflects the assumption in 6 months. For the capture plant, 2027). The information developed in the
that only the initial feasibility work feasibility includes a preliminary FEED study is necessary for finalizing
which is necessary to inform the state technical evaluation to review the commercial arrangements. In the S&L
planning process would occur during available utilities and siting footprint for baseline, the commercial arrangements
state plan development, with the start of the capture plant, as well as screening can take up to 9 months (June 2027 to
more substantial work beginning after of the available capture technologies March 2028). Commercial arrangements
the due date for state plan submission, and vendors for the project, with an include finalizing funding as well as
and a longer timeline for installation of associated initial economic estimate. finalizing contracts with a CO2 capture
CCS than at proposal. In total, this For sequestration, in many cases, technology provider and engineering,
allows for 6 years and 7 months for both general geologic characterization of procurement, and construction
initial feasibility and more substantial regional areas has already been companies. The S&L baseline accounts
work to occur after issuance of this rule. conducted by U.S. DOE and regional for 1 year for permitting, beginning
This is consistent with the initiatives; however, the EPA assumes when commercial arrangements are
approximately 6 years from start to an up to 1 year period for a storage nearly complete (December 2027 to
finish for Boundary Dam Unit 3 and complex feasibility study. For the December 2028). After commercial
Petra Nova. pipeline, the feasibility includes the arrangements are complete, a 2-year
The timing for installation of CCS on 590 CO Capture Project Schedule and Operations
period for engineering and procurement
2
existing coal-fired steam generating Memo, Sargent & Lundy (2024). Available in Docket begins (March 2028 to March 2030).
units is based on the baseline project ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072.
591 Transport and Storage Timeline Summary, ICF 592 NETL Develops Pipeline Route Planning
schedule for the CO2 capture plant (2024). Available in Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– Database To Guide CO2 Transport Decisions. May
developed by Sargent and Lundy 2023–0072. 31, 2023. https://netl.doe.gov/node/12580.
Detailed engineering starts after plant will be fully operational by The EPA does not assume that CCS
commercial arrangements are complete January 2032. Therefore, the EPA projects are, in general, subject to NEPA.
because engineers must consider details concludes that CO2 capture can be fully NEPA review is required for reasons
regarding the selected CO2 capture operational by January 1, 2032. To the including sources receiving federal
technology, equipment providers, and extent additional time is needed to take funding (e.g., through USDA or DOE) or
coordination with construction. Shortly into account the particular projects on federal lands. NEPA may
after permitting is complete, 6 months circumstances of a particular source, the also be triggered for a CCS project if
of sitework (March 2029 to September state may take those circumstances into NEPA compliance is necessary for
2029) occur. Sitework is followed by 2 account to provide a different construction of the pipeline, such as
years of construction (July 2029 to July compliance schedule, as detailed in where necessary because of a Clean
2031). Approximately 8 months prior to section X.C.2 of this preamble. Water Act section 404 permit, or for
the completion of construction, a The EPA also notes that there is sequestration. Generally, if one aspect of
roughly 14 month (60 weeks) period for additional time for permitting than a project is subject to NEPA, then the
startup and commissioning begins described in the S&L baseline. The key other project components could be as
(January 2031 to March 2032). permitting that affects the timeline are well. In cases where a project is subject
In many cases, the EPA believes that air permits because of the permits’ to NEPA, an environmental assessment
sources are positioned to install CO2 impact on the ability to construct and (EA) that takes 1 year, can be finalized
capture on a slightly faster timeline than operate the CCS capture equipment, in concurrently during the permitting
the baseline S&L timeline detailed in which the EPA is the expert in. The S&L periods of each component of CCS
the prior paragraph, because CCS baseline assumes permitting starts after (capture, pipeline, and sequestration).
projects have been developed in a the FEED study is complete while However, the EPA notes that the final
shorter timeframe. Including these commercial arrangements are ongoing, timeline can also accommodate a
minor adjustments, the total time for however permitting can begin earlier concurrent 2-year period if an EIS were
detailed engineering, procurement, allowing a more extended period for required under NEPA across all
construction, startup and permitting. Examples of CCS permitting components of the project. The EPA also
commissioning is 4 years, which is being completed while FEED studies are notes that, in some circumstances,
consistent with completed projects on-going include the air permits for NEPA review may begin prior to
(Boundary Dam Unit 3 and Petra Nova) Project Tundra, Baytown Energy Center, completion of a FEED study. For Petra
and project schedules developed in and Deer Park Energy Center. Therefore, Nova, a notice of intent to issue an EIS
completed FEED studies, see the final while the FEED study is on-going, the was published on November 14, 2011,
TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for EPA assumes that a 2-year process for and the record of decision was issued
Steam Generating Units for additional permitting can begin. less than 2 years later, on May 23,
details. In addition, the IRC tax credits The EPA’s compliance deadline 2013,595 while the FEED study was
incentivize sources to begin complying assumes that storage and pipelines for completed in 2014.
earlier to reap economic benefits earlier. the captured CO2 can be installed Based on this detailed analysis, the
Sources that have already completed concurrently with deployment of the EPA has concluded that January 1, 2032,
feasibility or FEED studies, or that have capture system. Substantial work on the is an achievable compliance date for
FEED studies ongoing are likely to be storage site starts with 3 years (June CCS on existing coal-fired steam
able to have CCS fully operational well 2026 to June 2029) for final site generating units that takes into account
in advance of January 1, 2032. Ongoing characterization, pore-space acquisition, the state plan development period, as
projects have planned dates for and permitting, including at least 2 well as the technical and bureaucratic
commercial operation that are much years for permitting of Class VI wells steps necessary to install and implement
earlier. For example, Project Diamond during that period. Lastly, construction CCS and is consistent with other expert
Vault has plans to be fully operational for sequestration takes 1 year (June 2029 estimates and real-world experience.
in 2028.593 While the EPA assumes to June 2030). While the EPA assumes
FEED studies start after the date for state (F) Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam
that storage can be permitted and Generating Units Potentially Subject to
plan submission, in practice sources are constructed in 4 years, the EPA notes
likely to install CO2 capture as This Rule
that there is at least an additional 12
expeditiously as practicable. Moreover, months of time available to complete In this section of the preamble, the
the preceding timeline is derived from construction of the sequestration site EPA estimates the size of the inventory
project schedules developed in the without impacting progress of the other of coal-fired power plants in the long-
absence of any regulatory impetus. components. term subcategory likely subject to CCS
Considering these factors, sources have The EPA assumes the substantial as the BSER. Considering that capacity,
opportunities to slightly condense the work on the pipeline lags the start of the EPA also describes the distance to
duration, overlap, or sequencing of steps substantial work on the storage site by storage for those sources.
so that the total duration for completing 6 months. After the 1 year of feasibility (1) Capacity of Units Potentially Subject
substantial work on the capture plant is work prior to state plan submission, the to This Rule
reduced by 2 months. For example, by general timeline for the CO2 pipeline
expediting the duration for commercial First, the EPA estimates the total
assumes up to 3 years for final routing, capacity of units that are currently
arrangements from 9 months to 7 permitting activities, and right-of-way
months, reasonably assuming sources operating and that have not announced
acquisition (December 2026 to
immediately begin sitework as soon as plans to retire by 2039, or to cease firing

December 2029). Lastly, there are 1.5
permitting is complete, and accounting years for pipeline construction sequestration starts. The EPA assumes initial
for 13 months (rather than 14) for (December 2029 to June 2031).594 pipeline feasibility occurs up-front, with a longer
startup and testing, the CO2 capture period for final routing, permitting, and right-of-
594 The summary timeline for CO pipelines
2 way acquisition.
593 ProjectDiamond Vault Overview. https:// assumes feasibility for pipelines is 1 year, followed 595 Petra Nova W.A. Parish Project. https://
www.cleco.com/docs/default-source/diamond- by 1.5 years for permitting, with the pipeline www.energy.gov/fecm/petra-nova-wa-parish-

vault/project_diamond_vault_overview.pdf. feasibility beginning 1 year after permitting for project.
coal by 2030. Starting from that first until 2039 is reasonable because the Rather, the two sets of sources should be
estimate, the EPA then estimates the same circumstances will likely continue considered to be reasonably
capacity of units that would likely be or accelerate further given the representative of the inventory of
subject to the CCS requirement, based incentives under the IRA. Applying this sources that are likely to remain in
on unit age, industry trends, and level of annual retirement would result operation by 2039, which is sufficient
economic factors. in 45 GW of coal capacity continuing to for purposes of the BSER analysis that
Currently, there are 181 GW of coal- operate by 2039. Alternatively, the TSD follows.
fired steam generating units.596 About also includes a graph that shows what
half of that capacity, totaling 87 GW, (2) Distance to Storage for Units
the fleet would look like assuming that
have announced plans to retire before Potentially Subject to This Rule
coal units without an announced
2039, and an additional 13 GW have retirement date retire at age 53 (the The EPA believes that it is
announced plans to cease firing coal by average retirement age of units over the conservative to assume that all 81 GW
that time. The remaining amount, 81 2000–2022 period). It shows that the of capacity with planned operation
GW, are likely to be the most that could amount of coal-fired capacity that during or after 2039 would need to
potentially be subject to requirements remains in operation by 2039 is 38 GW. construct pipelines to connect to
based on CCS. The EPA also notes that it is often the sequestration sites. As detailed in
However, the capacity of affected case that coal-fired units announce that section VII.B.2 of this preamble, the
coal-fired steam generating units that they plan to retire only a few years in EPA is finalizing an exemption for coal-
would ultimately be subject to a CCS advance of the retirement date. For fired sources permanently ceasing
BSER is likely approximately 40 GW. instance, of the 15 GW of coal-fired operation by January 1, 2032. About 42
This determination is supported by EGUs that reported a 2022 retirement percent (34 GW) of the existing coal-
several lines of analysis of the historical year in DOE’s EIA Form 860, only 0.5 fired steam generation capacity that is
data on the size of the fleet over the past GW of that capacity had announced its currently in operation and has not
several years. Historical trends in the retirements plans when reporting in to announced plans to retire prior to 2039
coal-fired generation fleet are detailed in the same EIA–860 survey 5 years earlier, will be 53 years or older by 2032. As
section IV.D.3 of this preamble. As coal- in 2017.598 Thus, although many coal- discussed in section VII.C.1.a.i(F), from
fired units age, they become less fired units have already announced 2000 to 2022, the average age of a coal
efficient and therefore the costs of their plans to retire before 2039, it is likely unit that retired was 53 years old.
electricity go up, rendering them even that many others may anticipate retiring Therefore, the EPA anticipates that
more competitively disadvantaged. by that date but have not yet announced approximately 34 GW of the total
Further, older sources require additional it. capacity may permanently cease
investment to replace worn parts. Those Finally, the EPA observes that operation by 2032 despite not having
circumstances are likely to continue modeling the baseline circumstances, yet announced plans to do so.
through the 2030s and beyond and absent this final rule, shows additional Furthermore, of the coal-fired steam
become more pronounced. These factors retirements of coal-fired steam generation capacity that has not
contribute to the historical changes in generating units. At the end of 2022, announced plans to cease operation
the size of the fleet. there were 189 GW of coal active in the before 2039 and is further than 100 km
One way to analyze historical changes U.S. By 2039, the IPM baseline projects (62 miles) of a potential saline
in the size of the fleet is based on unit that there will be 42 GW of operating sequestration site, 45 percent (7 GW)
age. As the average age of the coal-fired coal-fired capacity (not including coal- will be over 53 years old in 2032.
fleet has increased, many sources have to-gas conversions). Between 2023– Therefore, it is possible that much of the
ceased operation. From 2000 to 2022, 2039, 95 GW of coal capacity have capacity that is further than 100 km (62
the average age of a unit that retired was announced retirement and an additional miles) of a saline sequestration site and
53 years. At present, the average age of 13 have announced they will cease has not announced plans to retire will
the operating fleet is 45 years. Of the 81 firing coal. Thus, of the 81 GW that have permanently cease operation due to age
GW that are presently operating and that not announced retirement or conversion before 2032 and thus the rule would not
have not announced plans to retire or to gas by 2039, the IPM baseline projects apply to them. Similarly, of the coal-
convert to gas prior to 2039, 56 GW will 39 GW will retire by 2039 due to fired steam generation capacity that has
be 53 years or older by 2039.597 economic reasons. not announced plans to cease operation
Another line of analysis is based on For all these reasons, the EPA before 2039 and is further than 160 km
the rate of change of the size of the fleet. considers that it is realistic to expect (100 miles) of a potential saline
The final TSD, Power Sector Trends, that 42 GW of coal-fired generating will sequestration site, 56 percent (4 GW)
available in the rulemaking docket, be operating by 2039—based on will be over 53 years old in 2032.
includes analysis showing sharp and announced retirements, historical Therefore, the EPA notes that it is
steady decline in the total capacity of trends, and model projections—and possible that the majority of capacity
the coal-fired steam generating fleet. therefore constitutes the affected that is further than 160 km (100 miles)
Over the last 15 years (2009–2023), sources in the long-term subcategory of a saline sequestration and has not
average annual coal retirements have that would be subject to requirements announced plans to retire site will
been 8 GW/year. Projecting that based on CCS. It should be noted that permanently cease operation due to age
retirements will continue at the EPA does not consider the above before 2032 and thus be exempt from
approximately the same pace from now analysis to predict with precision which the requirements of this rule.
The EPA also notes that a majority (56
units will remain in operation by 2039.

596 EIA December 2023 Preliminary Monthly GW) of the existing coal-fired steam
Electric Generator Inventory. https://www.eia.gov/ 598 The survey Form EIA–860 collects generator- generation capacity that is currently in
electricity/data/eia860m/. level specific information about existing and operation and has not announced plans
597 81 GW is derived capacity, plant type, and planned generators and associated environmental to permanently cease operation prior to
retirement dates as represented in EPA NEEDS equipment at electric power plants with 1 megawatt
database. Total amount of covered capacity in this or greater of combined nameplate capacity. Data
2039 will be 53 years or older by 2039.
category may ultimately be slightly less available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/ Of the coal-fired steam generation
(approximately) due to CHP-related exemptions. eia860/. capacity with planned operation during
or after 2039 that is not located within both scenarios, the maximum annual expand the available workforce to meet
100 km (62 miles) of a potential saline commodity requirements to construct future needs.604
sequestration site, the majority (58 and operate the CCS systems are likely Overall, quantitative estimates of
percent or 9 GW) of the units will be 53 to be much less than their respective workforce needs indicates that the total
years or older in 2039.599 Consequently, global production rates. The maximum number of jobs needed for deploying
the EPA believes that many of these requirements are expected to be at least CCS on coal power plants is
units may permanently cease operation one order of magnitude lower than significantly less than the size of the
due to age prior to 2039 despite not at global annual production for all of the existing workforce in adjacent
this point having announced specific commodities considered except MEA, occupations with transferrable skills in
plans to do so, and thereby would likely the electricity generation and fuels
which was estimated to be
not be subject to a CCS BSER. industries. The majority of direct jobs,
approximately 14 percent of global
(G) Resources and Workforce To Install annual production in the 42 GW approximately 90 percent, are expected
CCS to be in the construction of facilities,
scenario and approximately 24 percent
which tend to be project-based. The
Sufficient resources and an available of global annual production in the 73
remaining 10 percent of jobs are
workforce are required for installation GW scenario.603 For steel and cement, expected to be tied to ongoing facility
and operation of CCS. Raw materials the maximum annual requirements are operations and maintenance.605 Recent
necessary for CCS are generally also expected to be at least one order of project-level estimates bear this out. The
available and include common magnitude lower than U.S. annual Boundary Dam CCS facility in Canada
commodities such as steel and concrete production rates. Finally, the DOE employed 1,700 people at peak
for construction of the capture plant, analysis determined that it is unlikely construction.606 A recent workforce
pipelines, and storage wells. that the deployment scenarios would projection estimates average annual jobs
Drawing on data from recently encounter any bottlenecks in the related to investment in carbon capture
published studies, the DOE completed supplies of specialized equipment retrofits at coal power plants could
an order-of-magnitude assessment of the (absorbers, strippers, heat exchangers, range from 1,070 to 1,600 jobs per plant.
potential requirements for specialized and compressors) because of the large A DOE memorandum estimates that
equipment and commodity materials for pool of potential suppliers. 71,400 to 107,100 average annual jobs
retrofitting existing U.S. coal-fueled
The workforce necessary for installing resulting from CCS project
EGUs with CCS.600 Specialized
and operating CCS is readily available. investments—across construction,
equipment analyzed included absorbers,
The required workforce includes project management, machinery
strippers, heat exchangers, and
construction, engineering, installers, sales representatives, freight,
compressors. Commodity materials
analyzed included monoethanolamine manufacturing, and other skilled labor and engineering occupations—would
(MEA) solvent for carbon capture, (e.g., electrical, plumbing, and likely be needed over a five-year
triethylene glycol (TEG) for carbon mechanical trades). The existing construction period 607 to deploy CCS at
dioxide drying, and steel and cement for workforce is well positioned to meet the 604 DOE. Workforce Analysis of Existing Coal
construction of certain aspects of the demand for installation and operation of Carbon Capture Retrofits. https://www.energy.gov/
CCS value chain.601 The DOE analyzed CCS. Many of the skills needed to build policy/articles/workforce-analysis-existing-coal-
one scenario in which 42 GW of coal- and operate carbon capture plants are carbon-capture-retrofits.
605 Ibid.
fueled EGUs are retrofitted with CCS similar to those used by workers in 606 SaskPower, ‘‘SaskPower CCS.’’ https://
and a second scenario in which 73 GW existing industries, and this experience unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/01_
of coal-fueled EGUs are retrofitted with can be leveraged to support the saskatchewan_environment_micheal_monea.pdf.
CCS.602 The analysis determined that in workforce needed to deploy CCS. In For corroboration, we note similar employment
numbers for two EPAct-05 assisted projects: Petra
599 Sequestration potential as it relates to distance
addition, government programs, Nova estimated it would need approximately 1,100
from existing resources is a key part of the EPA’s industry workforce investments, and construction-related jobs and up to 20 jobs for
regular power sector modeling development, using IRC section 45Q prevailing wage and ongoing operations. National Energy Technology
data from DOE/NETL studies. For details, please see apprenticeship provisions provide Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy. W.A.
chapter 6 of the IPM documentation available at:. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-
additional significant support to Sequestration Project, Final Environmental Impact
09/chapter-6-co2-capture-storage-and- workforce development and Statement. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/
transport.pdf. demonstrate that the CCS industry files/EIS-0473-FEIS-Summary-2013_1.pdf. Project
600 DOE. Material Requirements for Carbon Tundra projects a peak labor force of 600 to 700.
likely has the capacity to train and National Energy Technology Laboratory and U.S.
Capture and Storage Retrofits on Existing Coal-
Fueled Electric Generating Units. https:// Department of Energy. Draft Environmental
www.energy.gov/policy/articles/material- 603 Although the assessment assumed that all of Assessment for North Dakota CarbonSAFE: Project
requirements-carbon-capture-and-storage-retrofits- the CCS deployments would utilize MEA-based Tundra. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
existing-coal-fueled. carbon capture technologies, future CCS 2023-08/draft-ea-2197-nd-carbonsafe-chapters-
601 Steel requirements were assessed for carbon deployments could potentially use different 2023-08.pdf.
capture, transport and storage, but cement solvents, or capture technologies that do not use 607 For the purposes of evaluating the actual
requirements were only assessed for capture and solvents, e.g., membranes, sorbents. A number of workforce and resources necessary for installation
storage. technology providers have solvents that are of CCS, the five-year assumption in the DOE memo
602 DOE analyzed the resources—including commercially available, as detailed in section is reasonable. The representative timeline for CCS
specialized equipment, commodity materials, and, VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(3) of this preamble. In addition, a includes an about 3-year period for construction
as discussed below, workforce, necessary for 73 GW 2022 DOE carbon capture supply chain assessment activities (including site work, construction, and
concluded that common amines used in carbon startup and testing) across the components of CCS
of coal capacity to install CCS because that is the

amount that has not announced plans to retire by capture have robust and resilient supply chains that (capture, pipeline, and sequestration), beginning at
January 1, 2040. As indicated in the final TSD, could be rapidly scaled, with low supply chain risk the end of 2028. Many sources are well positioned
Power Sector Trends, a somewhat larger amount— associated with the main inputs for scale-up. See to install CCS, having already completed feasibility
81 GW—has not announced plans to retire or cease U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Supply Chain work, FEED studies, and/or permitting, and could
firing coal by January 1, 2039, and it is this latter Deep Dive Assessment: Carbon Capture, Transport thereby reasonably start construction activities (still
amount that is the maximum that, at least in theory, & Storage. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ 3-years in duration) by the beginning of 2028 or
could be subject to the CCS requirement. DOE’s files/2022-02/Carbon%20Capture earlier and, as a practical matter, would likely do
conclusions that sufficient resources are available %20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20- so notwithstanding the requirements of this rule
also hold true for the larger amount. %20Final.pdf. Continued
a subset of coal power plants. The fired steam generating units potentially determined that there will be sufficient
memorandum further estimates that subject to a CCS BSER. resources for all coal-fired power plants
116,200 to 174,300 average annual jobs that are reasonably expected to be
(H) Determination That CCS Is
would likely be needed if CCS were operating as of January 1, 2039, to
‘‘Adequately Demonstrated’’
deployed at all coal-fired EGUs that install CCS. Nothing in the comments
currently have no firm commitment to As discussed in detail in section alters the EPA’s view of the relevant
retire or convert to natural gas by V.C.2.b, pursuant to the text, context, legal requirements related to the EPA’s
2040.608 For comparison, the DOE legislative history, and judicial determination of time necessary to
memorandum further categorizes precedent interpreting CAA section allow for adoption of the system.
potential workforce needs by 111(a)(1), a technology is ‘‘adequately With all of the above in mind, the
occupation, and estimates 11,420 to demonstrated’’ if there is sufficient preceding sections show that CCS
27,890 annual jobs for construction evidence that the EPA may reasonably technology with 90 percent capture is
trade workers, while the U.S. Energy conclude that a source that applies the clearly adequately demonstrated for
and Employment Report estimates that technology will be able to achieve the coal-fired steam generating units, that
electric power generation and fuels associated standard of performance the 90 percent standard is achievable,612
accounted for more than 292,000 under the reasonably expected operating and that it is reasonable for the EPA to
construction jobs in 2022, which is an circumstances. Specifically, an determine that CCS can be deployed at
order of magnitude greater than the adequately demonstrated standard of the necessary scale in the compliance
potential workforce needs for CCS performance may reflect the EPA’s timeframe.
deployment under this rule. Overall reasonable expectation of what that
particular system will achieve, based on (1) EPAct05
energy-related construction activities
across the entire energy industry analysis of available data from In the proposal, the EPA noted that in
individual commercial scale sources, the 2015 NSPS, the EPA had considered
accounted for nearly 2 million jobs, or
and, if necessary, identifying specific coal-fired industrial projects that had
25 percent of all construction jobs in
available technological improvements installed at least some components of
2022, indicating that there is a very
that are expected to improve CCS technology. In doing so, the EPA
large pool of workers potentially
performance.610 The law is clear in recognized that some of those projects
available.609
establishing that at the time a section had received assistance in the form of
As noted in section VII.C.1.a.i(F), the 111 rule is promulgated, the system that grants, loan guarantees, and Federal tax
EPA determined that the population of the EPA establishes as BSER need not be credits for investment in ‘‘clean coal
sources without announced plans to in widespread use. Instead, the EPA’s technology,’’ under provisions of the
cease operation or discontinue coal- responsibility is to determine that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (‘‘EPAct05’’).
firing by 2039, and that is therefore demonstrated technology can be See 80 FR 64541–42 (October 23, 2015).
potentially subject to a CCS BSER, is not implemented at the necessary scale in a (The EPA refers to projects that received
more than 81 GW, as indicated in the reasonable period of time, and to base assistance under that legislation as
final TSD, Power Sector Trends. The its requirements on this understanding. ‘‘EPAct05-assisted projects.’’) The EPA
DOE CCS Commodity Materials and In this case, the EPA acknowledged in further recognized that the EPAct05
Workforce Memos evaluated material the proposed rule, and reaffirms now, included provisions that constrained
resource and workforce needs for a that sources will require some amount how the EPA could rely on EPAct05-
similar capacity (about 73 GW), and of time to install CCS. Installing CCS assisted projects in determining whether
determined that the resources and requires the building of capture technology is adequately demonstrated
workforce available are more than facilities and pipelines to transport for the purposes of CAA section 111.613
sufficient, in most cases by an order of captured CO2 to sequestration sites, and
magnitude. Considering these factors, the development of sequestration sites. caselaw supports the proposition that CAA section
and the similar scale of the population This is true for both existing coal plants, 111 authorizes the EPA to determine that controls
qualify as the BSER—including meeting the
of sources considered, the EPA therefore which will need to retrofit CCS, and ‘adequately demonstrated’ criterion—even if the
concludes that the workforce and new gas plants, which must incorporate controls require some amount of ‘lead time,’ which
resources available are more than CCS into their construction planning. the court has defined as ‘the time in which the
sufficient to meet the demands of coal- As the EPA explained at proposal, D.C. technology will have to be available.’ ’’ See New
Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas
Circuit caselaw supports this Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed
given the strong economic incentives provided by approach.611 Moreover, the EPA has Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
the tax credit. The representative timeline also Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
makes conservative assumptions about the pre- 610 A line of cases establishes that the EPA may From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
construction activities for pipelines and extrapolate based on its findings and project Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy
sequestration, and for many sources construction of technological improvements in a variety of ways. Rule, 88 FR 33240, 33289 (May 23, 2023) (quoting
those components could occur earlier. Finally, to First, the EPA may reasonably extrapolate from Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
provide greater regulatory certainty and incentivize testing results to predict a lower emissions rate than 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).
the installation of controls, the EPA is finalizing a has been regularly achieved in testing. See Essex 612 The concepts of ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’
limited one-year compliance date extension Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 and ‘‘achievable’’ are closely related. As the D.C.
mechanism for certain circumstances as detailed in (D.C. Cir. 1973). Second, the EPA may forecast Circuit explained in Essex Chem. Corp. v.
section X.C.1.d of the preamble, and it would also technological improvements allowing a lower Ruckelshaus, ‘‘[i]t is the system which must be
be reasonable to assume that, in practice, some emissions rate or effective control at larger plants adequately demonstrated and the standard which
sources use that mechanism. Considering these than those previously subject to testing, provided must be achievable.’’ 486 F.2d 427, 433 (1973).
factors, evaluating workforce and resource the agency has adequate knowledge about the 613 The relevant EPAct05 provisions include the
requirements over a five-year period is reasonable. needed changes to make a reasonable prediction. following: Section 402(i) of the EPAct05, codified
608 DOE. Workforce Analysis of Existing Coal See Sierra Club v. Costle 657 F.2d 298 (1981). at 42 U.S.C. 15962(a), provides as follows: ‘‘No
Carbon Capture Retrofits. https://www.energy.gov/ Third, the EPA may extrapolate based on testing at technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by
policy/articles/workforce-analysis-existing-coal- a particular kind of source to conclude that the reason of the use of the technology, or the
carbon-capture-retrofits. technology at issue will also be effective at a achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or
609 U.S. Department of Energy. United States different, related, source. See Lignite Energy more facilities receiving assistance under this Act,
Energy & Employment Report 2023. https:// Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1999). shall be considered to be adequately demonstrated
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ 611 There, EPA cited Portland Cement v. [ ] for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air
2023%20USEER%20REPORT-v2.pdf. Ruckelshaus, for the proposition that ‘‘D.C. Circuit Act. . . .’’ IRC section 48A(g), as added by EPAct05
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA went on to fired steam generating units with no its profitability will be incentivized to
provide a legal interpretation of those announced retirement or gas conversion recoup the full value of the 12-year tax
constraints. Under that legal prior to 2039. In evaluating costs, the credit.
interpretation, ‘‘these provisions [in the EPA accounts for the IRC section 45Q Therefore for long-term coal-fired
EPAct05] . . . preclude the EPA from tax credit of $85/metric ton (assumes steam generating units—ones that
relying solely on the experience of prevailing wage and apprenticeship
operate after January 1, 2039—the costs
facilities that received [EPAct05] requirements are met), a detailed
of CCS are similar or better than the
assistance, but [do] not . . . preclude discussion of which is provided in
the EPA from relying on the experience section VII.C.1.a.ii(C) of this preamble. representative costs of controls detailed
of such facilities in conjunction with The EPA also accounts for increases in in section VII.C.1.a.ii(D) of this
other information.’’ 614 Id. at 64541–42. utilization that will occur for units that preamble (i.e., costs for SCRs and FGDs
In this action, the EPA is adhering to the apply CCS due to the incentives on EGUs of $10.60 to $18.50/MWh and
interpretation of these provisions that it provided by the IRC section 45Q tax the costs in the 2016 NSPS regulating
announced in the 2015 NSPS. credit. In other words, because the IRC GHGs for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas
Some commenters criticized the legal section 45Q tax credit provides a source category of $98/ton of CO2e
interpretation that the EPA advanced in significant economic benefit, sources reduced (80 FR 56627; September 18,
the 2015 NSPS, and others supported that apply CCS will have a strong 2015)).
the interpretation. The EPA has economic incentive to increase The EPA also evaluated the costs for
responded to these comments in the utilization and run at higher capacity shorter amortization periods,
Response to Comments Document, factors than occurred historically. This considering the $/MWh and $/ton
available in the docket for this assumption is confirmed by the metrics, as well as other cost indicators,
rulemaking. modeling, which projects that sources as described in section VII.C.1.a.ii.(D).
ii. Costs that install CCS run at a high capacity Specifically, with an initial compliance
factor—generally, about 80 percent or
The EPA has analyzed the costs of date of January 1, 2032, sources
even higher. The EPA notes that the
CCS for existing coal-fired long-term operating through the end of 2039 have
NETL Baseline study assumes 85
steam generating units, including costs percent as the default capacity factor at least 8 years to amortize costs. For an
for CO2 capture, transport, and assumption for coal CCS retrofits, noting 80 percent capacity factor and an 8-year
sequestration. The EPA has determined that coal plants in market conditions amortization period, the average costs of
costs of CCS for these sources are supporting baseload operation have CCS for the fleet are $19/ton of CO2
reasonable. The EPA also evaluated demonstrated the ability to operate at reduced or $18/MWh of generation;
costs assuming shorter amortization annual capacity factors of 85 percent or these costs are comparable to those costs
periods. As elsewhere in this section of higher.615 This assumption is also that the EPA has previously determined
the preamble, costs are presented in supported by observations of wind to be reasonable. Sources operating
2019 dollars. In sum, the costs of CCS generators who receive the IRC section through the end of 2040, 2041, and
are reasonable under a variety of 45 production tax credit who continue beyond (i.e., sources with 9, 10, or more
metrics. The costs of CCS are reasonable to operate even during periods of years to amortize the costs of CCS) have
as compared to the costs of other negative power prices.616 Therefore, the even more favorable average costs per
controls that the EPA has required for EPA assessed the costs for CCS MWh and per ton of CO2 reduced.
these sources. And the costs of CCS are retrofitted to existing coal-fired steam Sources ceasing operation by January 1,
reasonable when looking to the dollars generating units assuming an 80 percent 2039, have 7 years to amortize costs. For
per ton of CO2 reduced. The annual capacity factor. Assuming an 80 an 80 percent capacity factor and a 7-
reasonableness of CCS as an emission percent capacity factor and 12-year year amortization period, the fleet
control is further reinforced by the fact amortization period,617 the average costs average costs are $29/ton of CO2
that some sources are projected to of CCS for the fleet are ¥$5/ton of CO2 reduced or $28/MWh of generation;
install CCS even in the absence of any reduced or ¥$4/MWh of generation.
EPA rule addressing CO2 emissions—11 these average costs are less comparable
Assuming at least a 12-year amortization on a $/MWh of generation basis to those
GW of coal-fired EGUs install CCS in period is reasonable because any unit
the modeling base case. costs the EPA has previously
that installs CCS and seeks to maximize determined to be reasonable, but
Specifically, the EPA assessed the
average cost of CCS for the fleet of coal- 615 See Exhibit 2–18. https://netl.doe.gov/
substantially lower than costs the EPA
projects/files/CostAndPerformanceBaseline has previously determined to be
1307(b), provides as follows: ‘‘No use of technology ForFossilEnergyPlantsVolume1Bituminous reasonable on a $/ton of CO2 reduced
(or level of emission reduction solely by reason of CoalAndNaturalGasToElectricity_101422.pdf. basis. The EPA further notes that the
the use of the technology), and no achievement of 616 If those generators were not receiving the tax
any emission reduction by the demonstration of any credit, they otherwise would cease producing
costs presented are average costs for the
technology or performance level, by or at one or power during those periods and result in a lower fleet. For a substantial amount of
more facilities with respect to which a credit is overall capacity factor. As noted by EIA, ‘‘Wind capacity, costs assuming a 7-year
allowed under this section, shall be considered to plants can offer negative prices because of the amortization period are comparable to
indicate that the technology or performance level is revenue stream that results from the federal
adequately demonstrated [ ] for purposes of section production tax credit, which generates tax benefits those costs the EPA has previously
111 of the Clean Air Act. . . .’’ Section 421(a) whenever the wind plant is producing electricity, determined to be reasonable on both a
states: ‘‘No technology, or level of emission and payments from state renewable portfolio or $/MWh basis (i.e., less than $18.50/
reduction, shall be treated as adequately financial incentive programs. These alternative
MWh) and a $/ton basis (i.e. less than

demonstrated for purpose [sic] of section 7411 of revenue streams make it possible for wind
this title, . . . solely by reason of the use of such generators to offer their wind power into the $98/ton CO2e),618 and the EPA
technology, or the achievement of such emission wholesale electricity market at prices lower than concludes that a substantial amount of
reduction, by one or more facilities receiving other generators, and even at negative prices.’’ capacity can install CCS at reasonable
assistance under section 13572(a)(1) of this title.’’ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
614 In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA adopted several detail.php?id=16831.
cost with a 7-year amortization
other legal interpretations of these EPAct05 617 A 12-year amortization period is consistent
provisions as well. See 80 FR 64541 (October 23, with the period of time during which the IRC 618 See the final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures
2015). section 45Q tax credit can be claimed. for Steam Generating Units for additional details.
period.619 Considering that a significant assumes installation of one CO2 capture coal found in Illinois, East Texas,
number of sources can cost reasonably plant for each coal-fired EGU, and that Williston, and Powder River basins.626
install CCS even assuming a 7-year sources without SO2 controls (FGD) or There are two primary cost drivers for
amortization period, the EPA concludes NOX controls (specifically, selective a CO2 sequestration project: the rate of
that sources operating in 2039 should be catalytic reduction—SCR; or selective injection of the CO2 into the reservoir
subject to a CCS BSER,620 and for this non-catalytic reduction—SNCR) add a and the areal extent of the CO2 plume
reason, is finalizing the date of January wet FGD and/or SCR.622 in the reservoir. The rate of injection
1, 2039 as the dividing line between the depends, in part, on the thickness of the
(B) CO2 Transport and Sequestration reservoir and its permeability. Thick,
medium-term and long-term
Costs permeable reservoirs provide for better
subcategories. Moreover, the EPA
underscores that given the strong To calculate the costs of CCS for coal- injection and fewer injection wells. The
economic incentives of the IRC section fired steam generating units for areal extent of the CO2 plume depends
45Q tax credit, sources that install CCS purposes of determining BSER as well on the sequestration capacity of the
will have strong economic incentives to as for EPA modeling, the EPA relied on reservoir. Thick, porous reservoirs with
operate at high capacity for the full 12 transportation and storage costs a good sequestration coefficient will
years that the tax credit is available. consistent with the cost of transporting present a small areal extent for the CO2
As discussed in the RTC section 2.16, and storing CO2 from each power plant plume and have a smaller monitoring
the EPA has also examined the to the nearest saline reservoir.623 For a footprint, resulting in lower monitoring
reasonableness of the costs of this rule power plant composed of multiple coal- costs. NETL’s Quality Guidelines model
in additional ways: considering the total fired EGUs, the EPA’s cost analysis costs for a given cumulative
annual costs of the rule as compared to assumes installation and operation of a sequestration potential.627
past CAA rules for the electricity sector single, common CO2 pipeline. In addition, provisions in the IIJA and
and as compared to the industry’s The EPA notes that NETL has also IRA are expected to significantly
annual revenues and annual capital developed costs for transport and increase the CO2 pipeline infrastructure
expenditures, and considering the storage. NETL’s ‘‘Quality Guidelines for and development of sequestration sites,
effects of this rule on electricity prices. Energy System Studies; Carbon Dioxide which, in turn, are expected to result in
Taking all of these into consideration, in Transport and Sequestration Costs in further cost reductions for the
addition to the cost metrics just NETL Studies’’ provides an estimation application of CCS at new combined
discussed, the EPA concludes that, in of transport costs based on the CO2 cycle EGUs. The IIJA establishes a new
general, the costs of CCS are reasonable Transport Cost Model.624 The CO2 Carbon Dioxide Transportation
for sources operating after January 1, Transport Cost Model estimates costs for Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
2039. a single point-to-point pipeline. program to provide direct loans, loan
Estimated costs reflect pipeline capital guarantees, and grants to CO2
(A) Capture Costs costs, related capital expenditures, and infrastructure projects, such as
The EPA developed an independent operations and maintenance costs.625 pipelines, rail transport, ships and
engineering cost assessment for CCS NETL’s Quality Guidelines also barges.628 The IIJA also establishes a
retrofits, with support from Sargent and provide an estimate of sequestration new Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs
Lundy.621 The EPA cost analysis costs. These costs reflect the cost of site program that includes funds to support
screening and evaluation, permitting four large-scale, regional direct air
619 As indicated in section 4.7.5 of the final TSD, and construction costs, the cost of capture hubs and more broadly support
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Steam injection wells, the cost of injection projects that could be developed into a
Generating Units, 24 percent of all coal-fired steam
generating units in the long-term subcategory would
equipment, operation and maintenance regional or inter-regional network to
have CCS costs below both $18.50/MWh and $98/ costs, pore volume acquisition expense, facilitate sequestration or utilization.629
ton of CO2 with a 7-year amortization period (Table and long-term liability protection. DOE is additionally implementing IIJA
11), and that amount increases to 40 percent for Permitting and construction costs also section 40305 (Carbon Storage
those coal-fired units that, in light of their age and
efficiency, are most likely to operate in the long
reflect the regulatory requirements of Validation and Testing) through its
term (and thus be subject to the CCS-based the UIC Class VI program and GHGRP CarbonSAFE initiative, which aims to
standards of performance) (Table 12). In addition, subpart RR for geologic sequestration of further develop geographically
of the 9 units in the NEEDS data base that have CO2 in deep saline formations. NETL
announced plans to retire in 2039, and that
widespread, commercial-scale, safe
therefore would have a 7-year amortization period
calculates these sequestration costs on sequestration.630 The IRA increases and
if they installed CCS by January 1, 2032, 6 would the basis of generic plant locations in
have costs below both $18.50/MWh and $98/ton of the Midwest, Texas, North Dakota, and 626 National Energy Technology Laboratory
CO2. Montana, as described in the NETL (NETL). (2017). ‘‘FE/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost
620 The EPA determines the BSER based on
energy system studies that utilize the Model (2017),’’ U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/
considering information on the statutory factors, NETL–2018–1871. https://netl.doe.gov/energy-
including cost, on a source category or subcategory analysis/details?id=2403.
622 Whether an FGD and SCR or controls with
basis. However, there may be particular sources for 627 Details on CO transportation and
2
which, based on source-specific considerations, the lower costs are necessary for flue gas pretreatment sequestration costs can be found in the final TSD,
cost of CCS is fundamentally different from the prior to the CO2 capture process will in practice GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam Generating
costs the EPA considered in making its BSER depend on the flue gas conditions of the source. Units.
623 For additional details on CO transport and
determination. If such a fundamental difference 2 628 Department of Energy. ‘‘Biden-Harris
makes it unreasonable for a particular source to storage costs, see the final TSD, GHG Mitigation Administration Announces $2 Billion from
achieve the degree of emission limitation associated Measures for Steam Generating Units. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Finance Carbon
with implementing CCS with 90 percent capture, a 624 Grant, T., et al. (2019). ‘‘Quality Guidelines for Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure.’’ (2022).
state may provide a less stringent standard of Energy System Studies; Carbon Dioxide Transport https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-
performance (and/or longer compliance schedule, if and Storage Costs in NETL Studies.’’ National administration-announces-2-billion-bipartisan-
applicable) for that source pursuant to the RULOF Energy Technology Laboratory. https:// infrastructure-law-finance.
provisions. See section X.C.2 of this preamble for www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=3743. 629 Department of Energy. ‘‘Regional Direct Air
further discussion. 625 Grant, T., et al. ‘‘Quality Guidelines for Energy Capture Hubs.’’ (2022). https://www.energy.gov/
621 Detailed cost information, assessment of System Studies; Carbon Dioxide Transport and oced/regional-direct-air-capture-hubs.
technology options, and demonstration of cost Storage Costs in NETL Studies.’’ National Energy 630 For more information, see the NETL
reasonableness can be found in the final TSD, GHG Technology Laboratory. 2019. https:// announcement. https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/
Mitigation Measures for Steam Generating Units. www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=3743. 12405.
extends the IRC section 45Q tax credit, annual rate of more than 7 percent.635 Similarly, in the 2015 NSPS, the EPA
discussed next. Additional programs support the skilled also recognized that revenues from
construction trade workforce required utilizing captured CO2 for EOR would
(C) IRC Section 45Q Tax Credit
for CCS implementation and reduce the cost of CCS to the sources,
In determining the cost of CCS, the maintenance.636 although the EPA did not account for
EPA is taking into account the tax credit As discussed in section V.C.2.c of this potential EOR revenues for purposes of
provided under IRC section 45Q, as preamble, CAA section 111(a)(1) is clear determining the BSER. Id. At 64563–64.
revised by the IRA. The tax credit is that the cost that the Administrator In other rules, the EPA has considered
available at $85/metric ton ($77/ton) must take into account in determining revenues from sale of the by-products of
and offsets a significant portion of the the BSER is the cost of the controls to emission controls to affect the costs of
capture, transport, and sequestration the source. It is reasonable to take the the emission controls. For example, in
costs noted above. tax credit into account because it the 2016 Oil and Gas Methane Rule, the
Several other aspects of the tax credit reduces the cost of the controls to the EPA determined that certain control
should be noted. A tax credit offsets tax source, which has a significant effect on requirements would reduce natural gas
liability dollar for dollar up to the the actual cost of installing and leaks and therefore result in the
operating CCS. In addition, all sources collection of recovered natural gas that
amount of the taxpayer’s tax liability.
that install CCS to meet the could be sold; and the EPA further
Any credits in excess of the taxpayer’s
requirements of these final actions are determined that revenues from the sale
liability are eligible to be carried back (3
eligible for the tax credit. The legislative of the recovered natural gas reduces the
years in the case of IRC section 45Q)
history of the IRA makes clear that cost of controls. See 81 FR 35824 (June
and then carried forward up to 20
Congress was well aware that the EPA 3, 2016). The EPA made the same
years.631As noted above, the IRA also
may promulgate rulemaking under CAA determination in the 2024 Oil and Gas
enabled additional methods to monetize
section 111 based on CCS and the utility Methane Rule. See 89 FR 16820, 16865
tax credits in the event the taxpayer
of the tax credit in reducing the costs of (May 7, 2024). In a 2011 action
does not have sufficient tax liability,
CCUS (i.e., CCS). Rep. Frank Pallone, concerning a regional haze SIP, the EPA
such as through credit transfer. the chair of the House Energy & recognized that a NOX control would
The EPA has determined that it is Commerce Committee, included a alter the chemical composition of fly
likely that EGUs installing CCS will statement in the Congressional Record ash that the source had previously sold,
meet the 45Q prevailing wage and when the House adopted the IRA in so that it could no longer be sold; and
apprenticeship requirements. First, the which he explained: ‘‘The tax credit[ ] as a result, the EPA further determined
requirements provide a significant for CCUS . . . included in this Act may that the cost of the NOX control should
economic incentive, increasing the also figure into CAA Section 111 GHG include the foregone revenues from the
value of the 45Q credit by five times regulations for new and existing fly ash sales. 76 FR 58570, 58603
over the base value of the credit industrial sources[.] . . . Congress (September 21, 2011). In the 2016
available if the prevailing wage and anticipates that EPA may consider emission guidelines for landfill gas from
apprenticeship requirements are not CCUS . . . as [a] candidate[ ] for BSER municipal solid waste landfills, the EPA
met. This provides a significant for electric generating plants . . . . reduced the costs of controls by
incentive to meet the requirements. Further, Congress anticipates that EPA accounting for revenue from the sale of
Second, the increased cost of meeting may consider the impact of the CCUS electricity produced from the landfill
the requirements is likely significantly . . . tax credit[ ] in lowering the costs of gas collected through the controls. 81
less than the increase in credit value. A [that] measure[ ].’’ 168 Cong. Rec. E879 FR 59276, 19679 (August 29, 2016).
recent EPRI assessment found meeting (August 26, 2022) (statement of Rep. The amount of the IRC section 45Q
the requirements for other types of Frank Pallone). tax credit that the EPA is taking into
power generation projects resulted in In the 2015 NSPS, in which the EPA account is $85/metric ton for CO2 that
significant savings across projects,632 determined partial CCS to be the BSER is captured and geologically stored. This
and other studies indicate prevailing for GHGs from new coal-fired steam amount is available to the affected
wage laws and requirements for generating EGUs, the EPA recognized source as long as it meets the prevailing
construction projects in general do not that the IRC section 45Q tax credit or wage and apprenticeship requirements
significantly affect overall construction other tax incentives could factor into the of IRC section 45Q(h)(3)–(4). The
costs.633 The EPA expects a similar cost of the controls to the sources. legislative history to the IRA specifically
dynamic for 45Q projects. Third, the use Specifically, the EPA calculated the cost stated that when the EPA considers CCS
of registered apprenticeship programs of partial CCS on the basis of cost as the BSER for GHG emissions from
for training new employees is generally calculations from NETL, which industrial sources in CAA section 111
well-established in the electric power included ‘‘a range of assumptions rulemaking, the EPA should determine
generation sector, and apprenticeship including the projected capital costs, the the cost of CCS by assuming that the
programs are widely available to cost of financing the project, the fixed sources would meet those prevailing
generate additional trained workers in and variable O&M costs, the projected wage and apprenticeship requirements.
this field.634 The overall U.S. apprentice fuel costs, and incorporation of any 168 Cong. Rec. E879 (August 26, 2022)
market has more than doubled between incentives such as tax credits or (statement of Rep. Frank Pallone). If
2014 and 2023, growing at an average favorable financing that may be prevailing wage and apprenticeship
available to the project developer.’’ 80 requirements are not met, the value of
631 IRC section 39. FR 64570 (October 23, 2015).637 the IRC section 45Q tax credit falls to
632 https://www.epri.com/research/products/
$17/metric ton. The substantially higher
000000003002027328. 635 https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-
credit available provides a considerable
633 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ statistics.
10.1177/0160449X18766398. 636 https://www.apprenticeship.gov/partner-
incentive to meeting the prevailing wage
634 DOE. Workforce Analysis of Existing Coal finder. and apprenticeship requirements.
Carbon Capture Retrofits. https://www.energy.gov/ 637 In fact, because of limits on the availability of
policy/articles/workforce-analysis-existing-coal- the IRC section 45Q tax credit at the time of the calculation for partial CCS. 80 FR 64558–64
carbon-capture-retrofits. 2015 NSPS, the EPA did not factor it into the cost (October 23, 2015).
Therefore, the EPA assumes that 2011), the EPA estimated the annualized required other industries—specifically,
investors maximize the value of the IRC costs to install and operate wet FGD the oil and gas industry—to reduce their
section 45Q tax credit at $85/metric ton retrofits on existing coal-fired steam climate pollution at this level of cost-
by meeting those requirements. generating units. Using those same cost effectiveness. In this rulemaking, the
equations and assumptions (i.e., a 63 costs of the controls that the EPA
(D) Comparison to Other Costs of
percent annual capacity factor—the identifies as the BSER generally match
Controls and Other Measures of Cost average value in 2011) for retrofitting
Reasonableness up well against both of these $/MWh
wet FGD on a representative 700 to 300 and $/ton metrics for the affected
In assessing cost reasonableness for MW coal-fired steam generating unit subcategories of sources. And looking
the BSER determination for this rule, results in annualized costs of $14.80 to broadly at the range of cost information
the EPA looks at a range of cost $18.50/MWh of generation, and these cost metrics, the EPA
information. As discussed in Chapter 2 respectively.639 In the Good Neighbor concludes that the costs of these rules
of the RTC, the EPA considered the total Plan for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS (2023 are reasonable.
annual costs of the rule as compared to GNP), 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023), the
past CAA rules for the electricity sector EPA estimated the annualized costs to (E) Comparison to Costs for CCS in Prior
and as compared to the industry’s install and operate SCR retrofits on Rulemakings
annual revenues and annual capital existing coal-fired steam generating
expenditures, and considered the effects units. Using those same cost equations In the CPP and ACE Rule, the EPA
of this rule on electricity prices. and assumptions (including a 56 determined that CCS did not qualify as
For each of the BSER determinations, percent annual capacity factor—a the BSER due to cost considerations.
the EPA also considers cost metrics that representative value in that rulemaking) Two key developments have led the
it has historically considered in to retrofit SCR on a representative 700 EPA to reevaluate this conclusion: the
assessing costs to compare the costs of to 300 MW coal-fired steam generating costs of CCS technology have fallen and
GHG control measures to control costs unit results in annualized costs of the extension and increase in the IRC
that the EPA has previously determined $10.60 to $11.80/MWh of generation, section 45Q tax credit, as included in
to be reasonable. This includes respectively.640 the IRA, in effect provide a significant
comparison to the costs of controls at The EPA also compares costs to the stream of revenue for sequestered CO2
EGUs for other air pollutants, such as costs for GHG controls in rulemakings emissions. The CPP and ACE Rule
SO2 and NOX, and costs of controls for for other industries. In the 2016 NSPS relied on a 2015 NETL report estimating
GHGs in other industries. Based on regulating GHGs for the Crude Oil and the cost of CCS. NETL has issued
these costs, the EPA has developed two Natural Gas source category, the EPA updated reports to incorporate the latest
metrics for assessing the cost found the costs of reducing methane information available, most recently in
reasonableness of controls: the increase emissions of $2,447/ton to be reasonable 2022, which show significant cost
in cost of electricity due to controls, (80 FR 56627; September 18, 2015).641 reductions. The 2015 report estimated
measured in $/MWh, and the control Converted to a ton of CO2e reduced incremental levelized cost of CCS at a
costs of removing a ton of pollutant, basis, those costs are expressed as $98/ new pulverized coal facility relative to
measured in $/ton CO2e. The costs ton of CO2e reduced.642 a new facility without CCS at $74/MWh
presented in this section of the The EPA does not consider either of (2022$),643 while the 2022 report
preamble are in 2019 dollars.638 these metrics, $18.50/MWh and $98/ton estimated incremental levelized cost at
In different rulemakings, the EPA has of CO2e, to be bright line standards that $44/MWh (2022$).644 Additionally, the
required many coal-fired steam distinguish between levels of control IRA increased the IRC section 45Q tax
generating units to install and operate costs that are reasonable and levels that credit from $50/metric ton to $85/metric
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) are unreasonable. But they do usefully ton (and, in the case of EOR or certain
equipment—that is, wet or dry indicate that control costs that are
industrial uses, from $35/metric ton to
scrubbers—to reduce their SO2 generally consistent with those levels of
$60/metric ton), assuming prevailing
emissions or SCR to reduce their NOX control costs should be considered
wage and apprenticeship conditions are
emissions. The EPA compares these reasonable. The EPA has required
met. The IRA also enhanced the realized
control costs across technologies—steam controls with comparable costs in prior
rules for the electric power industry and value of the tax credit through the
generating units and combustion elective pay (informally known as direct
turbines—because these costs are the industry has successfully complied
with those rules by installing and pay) and transferability monetization
indicative of what is reasonable for the options described in section IV.E.1. The
power sector in general. The facts that operating the applicable controls. In the
case of the $/ton metric, the EPA has combination of lower costs and higher
the EPA required these controls in prior tax credits significantly improves the
rules, and that many EGUs subsequently cost reasonableness of CCS for purposes
639 For additional details, see https://
installed and operated these controls, www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling/
provide evidence that these costs are documentation-integrated-planning-model-ipm- 643 Cost And Performance Baseline for Fossil
reasonable, and as a result, the cost of base-case-v410. Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and
these controls provides a benchmark to 640 For additional details, see https://
Natural Gas to Electricity, Rev. 3 (July 2015). Note:
assess the reasonableness of the costs of www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/ The EPA adjusted reported costs to reflect $2022.
Updated%20Summer%202021%20 https://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/
the controls in this preamble. In the Reference%20Case%20Incremental CostandPerformanceBaselinefor
2011 CSAPR (76 FR 48208; August 8, %20Documentation%20for%20the FossilEnergyPlantsVolume1aBit
%202015%20Ozone%20NAAQS%20Actions_0.pdf. CoalPCandNaturalGastoElectRev3_070615.pdf.
638 The EPA used the NETL Baseline Report costs 641 The EPA finalized the 2016 NSPS GHGs for 644 Cost And Performance Baseline for Fossil
directly for the combustion turbine model plant the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category at Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and
BSER analysis. Even though these costs are in 2018 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016). The EPA included cost Natural Gas to Electricity, Rev. 4A (October 2022).
dollars, the adjustment to 2019 dollars (1.018 using information in the proposed rulemaking, at 80 FR Note: The EPA adjusted reported costs to reflect
the U.S. GDP Implicit Price Deflator) is well within 56627 (September 18, 2015). $2022. https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/
the uncertainty range of the report and the minor 642 Based on the 100-year global warming CostAndPerformanceBaselineFor
adjustment would not impact the EPA’s BSER potential for methane of 25 used in the GHGRP (40 FossilEnergyPlantsVolume1Bituminous
determination. CFR 98 Subpart A, table A–1). CoalAndNaturalGasToElectricity_101422.pdf.
of determining whether it qualifies as Mitigation Measures for Steam permitting authorities are, in general,
the BSER. Generating Units, available in the required to provide notice and an
docket. Despite decreases in efficiency, opportunity for public comment on
iii. Non-Air Quality Health and
IRC section 45Q tax credit provides an construction projects that require NSR
Environmental Impact and Energy
incentive for increased generation with permits. This provides additional
Requirements
full operation of CCS because the opportunities for affected stakeholders
The EPA considered non-GHG amount of revenue from the tax credit to engage in that process, and it is the
emissions impacts, the water use is based on the amount of captured and EPA’s expectation that the responsible
impacts, the transport and sequestration sequestered CO2 emissions and not the authorities will consider these concerns
of captured CO2, and energy amount of electricity generated. In this and take full advantage of existing
requirements resulting from CCS for final action, the Agency considers the protections. Moreover, the EPA through
steam generating units. As discussed energy penalty to not be unreasonable its regional offices is committed to
below, where the EPA has found and to be relatively minor compared to thoroughly review draft NSR permits
potential for localized adverse the benefits in GHG reduction of CCS. associated with CO2 capture projects
consequences related to non-air quality and provide comments as necessary to
health and environmental impacts or (B) Non-GHG Emissions state permitting authorities to address
energy requirements, the EPA also finds As a part of considering the non-air any concerns or questions with regard to
that protections are in place to mitigate quality health and environmental the draft permit’s consideration and
those risks. Because the non-air quality impacts of CCS, the EPA considered the treatment of non-GHG pollutants.
health and environmental impacts are potential non-GHG emission impacts of In the following discussion, the EPA
closely related to the energy CO2 capture. The EPA recognizes that describes the potential emissions of
requirements, we discuss the latter first. amine-based CO2 capture can, under non-GHG pollutants resulting from
(A) Energy Requirements some circumstances, result in the installation and operation of CO2
increase in emission of certain co- capture plants, the protections in place
For a steam generating unit with 90 pollutants at a coal-fired steam such as the controls and processes for
percent amine-based CO2 capture, generating unit. However, there are mitigating those emissions, as well as
parasitic/auxiliary energy demand protections in place that can mitigate regulations and permitting that may
increases and the net power output these impacts. For example, as require review and implementation of
decreases. In particular, the solvent discussed below, CCS retrofit projects those controls. The EPA first discusses
regeneration process requires heat in the with co-pollutant increases may be these issues in relation to criteria air
form of steam and CO2 compression subject to preconstruction permitting pollutants and precursor pollutants
requires a large amount of electricity. under the New Source Review (NSR) (SO2, NOX, and PM), and subsequently
Heat and power for the CO2 capture program, which could require the provides details regarding hazardous air
equipment can be provided either by source to adopt emission limitations pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic
using the steam and electricity based on applicable NSR requirements. compounds (VOCs).
produced by the steam generating unit Sources obtaining major NSR permits Operation of an amine-based CO2
or by an auxiliary cogeneration unit. would be required to either apply capture plant on a coal-fired steam
However, any auxiliary source of heat Lowest Achievable Emission Rate generating unit can impact the emission
and power is part of the ‘‘designated (LAER) and fully offset any anticipated of criteria pollutants from the facility,
facility,’’ along with the steam including SO2 and PM, as well as
increases in criteria pollutant emissions
generating unit. The standards of precursor pollutants, like NOX. Sources
(for their nonattainment pollutants) or
performance apply to the designated installing CCS may operate more due to
apply Best Available Control
facility. Thus, any CO2 emissions from the incentives provided by the IRC
Technology (BACT) and demonstrate
the connected auxiliary equipment need section 45Q tax credit, and increased
that its emissions of criteria pollutants
to be captured or they will increase the utilization would—all else being
will not cause or contribute to a
facility’s emission rate. equal—result in increases in SO2, PM,
Using integrated heat and power can violation of applicable National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (for and NOX. However, certain impacts are
reduce the capacity (i.e., the amount of mitigated by the flue gas conditioning
electricity that a unit can distribute to their attainment pollutants).646 The EPA
expects facility owners, states, required by the CO2 capture process and
the grid) of an approximately 474 MW- by other control equipment that the
net (501 MW-gross) coal-fired steam permitting authorities, and other
responsible parties will use these units already have or may need to
generating unit without CCS to install to meet other CAA requirements.
approximately 425 MW-net with CCS protections to address co-pollutant
impacts in situations where individual Substantial flue gas conditioning,
and contributes to a reduction in net particularly to remove SO2 and PM, is
efficiency of 23 percent.645 For retrofits units use CCS to comply with these
emission guidelines. critical to limiting solvent degradation
of CCS on existing sources, the and maintaining reliable operation of
ductwork for flue gas and piping for The EPA also expects that the
meaningful engagement requirements the capture plant. To achieve the
heat integration to overcome potential necessary limits on SO2 levels in the
spatial constraints are a component of discussed in section X.E.1.b.i of this
preamble will ensure that all interested flue gas for the capture process, steam
efficiency reduction. The EPA notes that generating units will need to add an
slightly greater efficiency reductions stakeholders, including community
members who might be adversely FGD scrubber, if they do not already
than in the 2016 NETL retrofit report are
impacted by non-GHG pollutants, will have one, and will usually need an
assumed for the BSER cost analyses, as additional polishing column (i.e.,
detailed in the final TSD, GHG have an opportunity to raise this
concern with states and permitting quencher), thereby further reducing the
authorities. Additionally, state emission of SO2. A wet FGD column and
645 DOE/NETL–2016/1796. ‘‘Eliminating the
a polishing column will also reduce the
Derate of Carbon Capture Retrofits.’’ May 31, 2016.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/ 646 Section XI.A of this preamble provides emission rate of PM. Additional
details?id=d335ce79-84ee-4a0b-a27b- additional information on the NSR program and improvements in PM removal may also
c1a64edbb866. how it relates to the NSPS and emission guidelines. be necessary to reduce the fouling of
other components (e.g., heat exchangers) this scenario, the permitting authority Management Pathway report notes that
of the capture process, including may determine that the NSR permit monitoring and emission controls for
upgrades to existing PM controls or, requires the installation of SCR for those such degradation products are currently
where appropriate, the inclusion of units, based on applying the control part of standard operating procedures
various wash stages to limit fly ash technology requirements of major NSR. for amine-based CO2 capture systems.650
carry-over to the CO2 removal system. Alternatively, a state could, as part of its Depending on the solvent properties,
Although PM emissions from the steam state plan, develop enforceable different amounts of aldehydes
generating unit may be reduced, PM conditions for a source expected to including acetaldehyde and
emissions may occur from cooling trigger major NSR that would effectively formaldehyde may form through
towers for those sources using wet limit the unit’s ability to increase its oxidative processes, contributing to total
cooling for the capture process. For emissions in amounts that would trigger HAP and VOC emissions. While a water
some sources, a WESP may be necessary major NSR. Under this scenario, with no wash or acid wash can be effective at
to limit the amount of aerosols in the major NSR requirements applying due limiting emission of amines, a separate
flue gas prior to the CO2 capture to the limit on the emissions increase, system of controls would be required to
process. Reducing the amount of the permitting authority may conclude reduce aldehyde emissions; however,
aerosols to the CO2 absorber will also for the minor NSR permit that the low temperature and likely high
reduce emissions of the solvent out of installation of SCR is not required for water vapor content of the gas emitted
the top of the absorber. Controls to limit the units and the source is to minimize out of absorber may limit the
emission of aerosols installed at the its NOX emission increases using other applicability of catalytic or thermal
outlet of the absorber could be techniques. Finally, a source with some oxidation. Other controls (e.g.,
considered, but could lead to higher lesser increase in NOX emissions may electrochemical, ultraviolet) common to
pressure drops. Thus, emission not trigger major NSR to begin with and, water treatment could be considered to
increases of SO2 and PM would be as with the previous scenario, the reduce the loading of copollutants in the
reduced through flue gas conditioning permitting authority would determine water wash section, although their
and other system requirements of the the NOX control requirements pursuant efficacy is still in development and it is
CO2 capture process, and NSR to its minor NSR program requirements. possible that partial treatment could
permitting would serve as an added Recognizing that potential emission result in the formation of additional
backstop to review remaining SO2 and increases of SO2, PM, and NOX from degradation products. Apart from these
PM increases for mitigation. operating a CO2 capture process are an potential controls, any increase in VOC
NOX emissions can cause solvent area of concern for stakeholders, the emissions from a CCS retrofit project
degradation and nitrosamine formation, EPA plans to review and update as would be mitigated through NSR
depending on the chemical structure of needed its guidance on NSR permitting, permitting. As such VOC increases are
the solvent. Limits on NOX levels of the specifically with respect to BACT not expected to be large enough to
flue gas required to avoid solvent determinations for GHG emissions and trigger major NSR requirements, they
degradation and nitrosamine formation consideration of co-pollutant increases would likely be reviewed and addressed
in the CO2 scrubber vary. For most from sources installing CCS. In its under a state’s minor NSR program.
units, the requisite limits on NOX levels analysis to support this final action, the There is one nitrosamine that is a
to assure that the CO2 capture process EPA accounted for controlling these co- listed HAP regulated under CAA section
functions properly may be met by the pollutant increases by assuming that 112. Carbon capture systems that are
existing NOX combustion controls. coal-fired units that install CCS would themselves a major source of HAP
Other units may need to install SCR to be required to install SCR and/or FGD should evaluate the applicability of
achieve the required NOx level. Most if they do not already have those CAA section 112(g) and conduct a case-
existing coal-fired steam generating controls installed. The costs of these by-case MACT analysis if required, to
units either already have SCR or will be controls are included in the total establish MACT for any listed HAP,
covered by final Federal program compliance cost estimates including listed nitrosamines,
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements through IPM modeling, as well as in the formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde.
regulating interstate transport of NOX BSER cost calculations. Because of the differences in the
An amine-based CO2 capture plant formation and effectiveness of controls,
(as ozone precursors) from EGUs. See 88
FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).647 For units can also impact emissions of HAP and such a case-by-case MACT analysis
VOC (as an ozone precursor) from the should evaluate the performance of
not otherwise required to have SCR, an
coal-fired steam generating unit. controls for nitrosamines and aldehydes
increase in utilization from a CO2
Degradation of the solvent can produce separately, as formaldehyde or
capture retrofit could result in increased
HAP, and organic HAP and amine acetaldehyde may not be a suitable
NOX emissions at the source that,
solvent emissions from the absorber surrogate for amine and nitrosamine
depending on the quantity of the
would contribute to VOC emissions out emissions. However, measurement of
emissions increase, may trigger major
of the top of the CO2 absorber. A nitrosamine emissions may be
NSR permitting requirements. Under
conventional multistage water or acid challenging when the concentration is
647 As of September 21, 2023, the Good Neighbor wash and mist eliminator (demister) at low (e.g., less than 1 part per billion, dry
Plan ‘‘Group 3’’ ozone-season NOX control program the exit of the CO2 scrubber is effective basis).
for power plants is being implemented in the at removal of gaseous amine and amine HAP emissions from the CO2 capture
following states: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, degradation products (e.g., nitrosamine)
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
plant will depend on the flue gas
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Pursuant to

emissions.648 649 The DOE’s Carbon
court orders staying the Agency’s FIP Disapproval amine-based post combustion carbon capture:
648 Sharma, S., Azzi, M., ‘‘A critical review of Lessons learned from field tests,’’ Int’l J. of GHG
action as to the following states, the EPA is not
currently implementing the Good Neighbor Plan existing strategies for emission control in the Control, 13, 72 (2013).
‘‘Group 3’’ ozone-season NOX control program for monoethanolamine-based carbon capture process 650 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Pathways to
power plants in the following states: Alabama, and some recommendations for improved Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management. https://
Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, strategies,’’ Fuel, 121, 178 (2014). liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, 649 Mertens, J., et al., ‘‘Understanding 20230424-Liftoff-Carbon-Management-vPUB_
Utah, and West Virginia. ethanolamine (MEA) and ammonia emissions from update.pdf.
conditions, solvent, size of the source, proactively regulate potential CO2 capture plant that are collocated, to
and process design. The air permit nitrosamine emissions. permit them as separate sources they
application for Project Tundra 651 Response: The EPA carefully should not be under common control or
includes potential-to-emit (PTE) values considered these concerns as it finalized not be defined by the same industrial
for CAA section 112 listed HAP specific its determination of the BSERs for these grouping.
to the 530 MW-equivalent CO2 capture rules. The EPA takes these concerns The EPA would anticipate that, in
plant, including emissions of 1.75 tons seriously, agrees that any impacts to most cases, the operation of the EGU
per year (TPY) of formaldehyde (CASRN local and downwind communities are and the CO2 capture plant will
50–00–0), 32.9 TPY of acetaldehyde important to consider and has done so intrinsically affect one another—
(CASRN 75–07–0), 0.54 TPY of as part of its analysis discussed at typically steam, electricity, and the flue
acetamide (CASRN 60–35–5), 0.018 TPY section XII.E. While the EPA gas of the EGU will be provided to the
of ethylenimine (CASRN 151–56–4), acknowledges that, in some CO2 capture plant. Conditions of the
0.044 TPY of N-nitrosodimethylamine circumstances, there is potential for flue gas will affect the operation of the
(CASRN 62–75–9), and 0.018 TPY of N- some non-GHG emissions to increase, CO2 capture plant, including its
nitrosomorpholine (CASRN 59–89–2). there are several protections in place to emissions, and the steam and electrical
Additional PTE other species that are help mitigate these impacts. The EPA load will affect the operation of the
not CAA section 112 listed HAP were believes that these protections, along EGU. Moreover, the emissions from the
also included, including 0.022 TPY of with the meaningful engagement of EGU will be routed through the CO2
N-nitrosodiethylamine (CASRN 55–18– potentially affected communities, can capture system and emitted out of the
5). PTE values for other CO2 capture facilitate a responsible deployment of top of the CO2 absorber. Even if the EGU
plants may differ. To comply with North this technology that mitigates the risk of and CO2 capture plant are owned by
Dakota Department of Environmental any adverse impacts. separate entities, the CO2 capture plant
Quality (ND–DEQ) Air Toxics Policy, an There is one nitrosamine that is a is likely to be on or directly adjacent to
air toxics assessment was included in listed HAP under CAA section 112 (N- land owned by the owners of the EGU
the permit application. According to Nitrosodimethylamine; CASRN 62–75– and contractual obligations are likely to
that assessment, the total maximum 9). Other nitrosamines would have to be exist between the two owners. While
individual carcinogenic risk was 1.02E– listed before the EPA could establish each of these individual factors may not
6 (approximately 1-in-1 million, below regulations limiting their emission. ultimately determine the outcome of
the ND–DEQ threshold of 1E–5) Furthermore, carbon capture systems whether two nominally-separate
primarily driven by N- are themselves not a listed source facilities should be treated as a single
nitrosodiethylamine and N- category of HAP, and the listing of a stationary source for permitting
nitrosodimethylamine. The hazard source category under CAA section 112 purposes, the EPA expects that in most
index value was 0.022 (below the ND– would first require some number of the cases an EGU and its collocated CO2
DEQ threshold of 1), with formaldehyde sources to exist for the EPA to develop capture plant would meet each of the
being the primary driver. Results of air MACT standards. However, if a new aforementioned NSR regulatory criteria
toxics risk assessments for other CO2 capture facility were to be necessary to make such a determination.
facilities would depend on the permitted as a separate entity (rather Thus, the EPA generally would not
emissions from the facility, controls in than as part of the EGU) then it may be expect an EGU and its CO2 capture plant
place, stack height and flue gas subject to case-by-case MACT under to be permitted as separate stationary
conditions, local ambient conditions, section 112(g), as detailed in the sources.
and the relative location of the exposed preceding section of this preamble.
Comment: Commenters noted that a (C) Water Use
population.
Emissions of amines and nitrosamines source could attempt to permit CO2 Water consumption at the plant
at Project Tundra are controlled by the facilities as separate entities to avoid increases when applying carbon
triggering NSR for the EGU. capture, due to solvent water makeup
water wash section of the absorber
Response: For the CO2 capture plant and cooling demand. Water
column. According to the permit to
to be permitted as a separate entity, the consumption can increase by 36 percent
construct issued by ND–DEQ, limits for source would have to demonstrate to the
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde will be on a gross basis.654 A separate cooling
state permitting authority that the EGU water system dedicated to a CO2 capture
established based on testing after initial and CO2 capture plant are not a single
operation of the CO2 capture plant. The plant may be necessary. However, the
stationary source under the NSR amount of water consumption depends
permit does not include a mechanism program. In determining what
for establishing limits for nitrosamine on the design of the cooling system. For
constitutes a stationary source, the example, the cooling system cited in the
emissions, as they may be below the EPA’s NSR regulations set forth criteria
limit of detection (less than 1 part per CCS feasibility study for SaskPower’s
that are to be used when determining Shand Power station would rely entirely
billion, dry basis). the scope of a ‘‘stationary source.’’ 652
The EPA received several comments on water condensed from the flue gas
These criteria require the aggregation of and thus would not require any increase
related to the potential for non-GHG different pollutant-emitting activities if
emissions associated with CCS. Those in external water consumption—all
they (1) belong to the same industrial while achieving higher capture rates at
comments and the EPA’s responses are grouping as defined by SIC codes, (2)
as follows. lower cost than Boundary Dam Unit
are located on contiguous or adjacent 3.655 Regions with limited water supply
Comment: Some commenters noted
properties, and (3) are under common
that there is a potential for increases in

control.653 In the case of an EGU and 654 DOE/NETL–2016/1796. ‘‘Eliminating the
co-pollutants when operating amine-
Derate of Carbon Capture Retrofits.’’ May 31, 2016.
based CO2 capture systems. One 652 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i) and (ii); 40 CFR https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/
commenter requested that the EPA 51.166(b)(5) and (6). details?id=e818549c-a565-4cbc-94db-
653 The EPA has issued guidance to clarify these 442a1c2a70a9.
651 DCC East PTC Application. https:// regulatory criteria of stationary source 655 International CCS Knowledge Centre. The
ceris.deq.nd.gov/ext/nsite/map/results/detail/- determination. See https://www.epa.gov/nsr/single- Shand CCS Feasibility Study Public Report. https://
8992368000928857057/documents. source-determination. Continued
may therefore rely on dry or hybrid the past 20 years, 500 million metric gradually decrease over an extended
cooling systems. Therefore, the EPA tons of CO2 moved through over 5,000 period of time through 2039, subject to
considers the water use requirements to miles of CO2 pipelines with zero the commitments those units have
be manageable and does not expect this incidents involving fatalities.657 chosen to adopt. Additionally, for the
consideration to preclude coal-fired PHMSA initiated a rulemaking in 2022 long-term units applying CCS, the EPA
power plants generally from being able to develop and implement new has determined that the increase in the
to install and operate CCS. measures to strengthen its safety annualized cost of generation is
oversight of supercritical CO2 pipelines. reasonable. Therefore, the EPA
(D) CO2 Capture Plant Siting Furthermore, UIC Class VI and Class II concludes that these elements of BSER
With respect to siting considerations, regulations under the SDWA, in tandem can be implemented while maintaining
CO2 capture systems have a sizeable with GHGRP subpart RR and subpart VV a reliable electric grid. A broader
physical footprint and a consequent requirements, ensure the protection of discussion of reliability impacts of these
land-use requirement. One commenter USDWs and the security of geologic final rules is available in section XII.F
cited their analysis showing that, for a sequestration. The EPA believes these of this preamble.
subset of coal-fired sources greater than protections constitute an effective
300 MW, 98 percent (154 GW of the framework for addressing potential iv. Extent of Reductions in CO2
existing fleet) have adjacent land health and environmental concerns Emissions
available within 1 mile of the facility, related to CO2 transportation and CCS is an extremely effective
and 83 percent have adjacent land sequestration, and the EPA has taken technology for reducing CO2 emissions.
available within 100 meters of the this regulatory framework into As of 2021, coal-fired power plants are
facility. Furthermore, the cited analysis consideration in determining that CCS the largest stationary source of GHG
did not include land available onsite, represents the BSER for long-term steam emissions by sector. Furthermore,
and it is therefore possible there is even EGUs. emission rates (lb CO2/MWh-gross) from
greater land availability for siting coal-fired sources are almost twice those
(F) Impacts on the Energy Sector
capture equipment. Qualitatively, some of natural gas-fired combined cycle
commenters claimed there is limited Additionally, the EPA considered the units, and sources operating in the long-
land available for siting CO2 capture impacts on the power sector, on a term have the more substantial
plants adjacent to coal-fired steam nationwide and long-term basis, of emissions potential. CCS can be applied
generating units. However, those determining CCS to be the BSER for to coal-fired steam generating units at
commenters provided no data or long-term coal-fired steam generating the source to reduce the mass of CO2
analysis to support their assertion. The units. In this final action, the EPA emissions by 90 percent or more.
EPA has reviewed the analysis provided considers that designating CCS as the Increased steam and power demand
by the first commenter, and the BSER for these units would have limited have a small impact on the reduction in
approach, methods, and assumptions and non-adverse impacts on the long- emission rate (i.e., lb CO2/MWh-gross)
are logical. Further, the EPA has term structure of the power sector or on that occurs with 90 percent capture.
reviewed the available information, the reliability of the power sector. According to the 2016 NETL Retrofit
including the location of coal-fired Absent the requirements defined in this report, 90 percent capture will result in
steam generating units and visual action, the EPA projects that 11 GW of emission rates that are 88.4 percent
inspection of the associated maps and coal-fired steam generating units would lower on a lb/MWh-gross basis and 87.1
plots. Although in some cases longer apply CCS by 2035 and an additional 30 percent lower on a lb/MWh-net basis
duct runs may be required, this would GW of coal-fired steam generating units, compared to units without capture.658
not preclude coal-fired power plants without controls, would remain in After capture, CO2 can be transported
generally from being able to install and operation in 2040. Designating CCS to and securely sequestered.659 Although
operate CCS. Therefore, the EPA has be the BSER for existing long-term coal- steam generating units with CO2 capture
concluded that siting and land-use fired steam generating units may result will have an incentive to operate at
requirements for CO2 capture are not in more of the coal-fired steam higher utilization because the cost to
unreasonable. generating unit capacity applying CCS. install the CCS system is largely fixed
The time available before the and the IRC section 45Q tax credit
(E) Transport and Geologic compliance deadline of January 1, 2032, increases based on the amount of CO2
Sequestration provides for adequate resource captured and sequestered, any increase
As noted in section VII.C.1.a.i(C) of planning, including accounting for the in utilization will be far outweighed by
this preamble, PHMSA oversight of downtime necessary to install the CO2 the substantial reductions in emission
supercritical CO2 pipeline safety capture equipment at long-term coal- rate.
protects against environmental release fired steam generating units. For the 12-
during transport. The vast majority of year duration that eligible EGUs earn v. Promotion of the Development and
CO2 pipelines have been operating the IRC section 45Q tax credit, long- Implementation of Technology
safely for more than 60 years. PHMSA term coal-fired steam generating units The EPA considered the potential
reported a total of 102 CO2 pipeline are anticipated to run at or near base impact on technology advancement of
incidents between 2003 and 2022, with load conditions in order to maximize designating CCS as the BSER for long-
one injury (requiring in-patient the amount of tax credit earned through term coal-fired steam generating units,
hospitalization) and zero fatalities.656 In IRC section 45Q. Total generation from and in this final rule, the EPA considers
coal-fired steam generating units in the

ccsknowledge.com/pub/Publications/Shand_CCS_ medium-term subcategory would 658 DOE/NETL–2016/1796. ‘‘Eliminating the
Feasibility_Study_Public_Report_Nov2018_(2021- Derate of Carbon Capture Retrofits.’’ May 31, 2016.

05-12).pdf. pubs.naruc.org/pub/F1EECB6B-CD8A-6AD4-B05B- https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/
656 NARUC. (2023). Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline E7DA0F12672E. details?id=e818549c-a565-4cbc-94db-
Deployment: Siting, Safety. and Regulation. 657 Congressional Research Service. 2022. Carbon 442a1c2a70a9.
Prepared by Public Sector Consultants for the Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues, CRS Reports, June 659 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
National Association of Regulatory Utility 3, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
Commissioners (NARUC). June 2023. https:// pdf/IN/IN11944. and Storage.
that designating CCS as the BSER will source standard for new coal-fired EGUs With respect to costs, designs for 90
provide for meaningful advancement of in this action, the EPA is retaining the percent capture in general take greater
CCS technology. As indicated above, the ability to propose review in the future. advantage of economies of scale.
EPA’s IPM modeling indicates that 11 Eligibility for the IRC section 45Q tax
vii. Requirement That Source Must
GW of coal-fired power plants install credit for existing EGUs requires design
Transfer CO2 to an Entity That Reports
CCS and generate 76 terawatt-hours capture rates equivalent to 75 percent of
Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
(TWh) per year in the base case, and a baseline emission rate by mass. Even
Program
that another 8 GW of plants install CCS assuming partial capture rates meet that
and generate another 57 TWh per year The final rule requires that EGUs that definition, lower capture rates would
in the policy case. In this manner, this capture CO2 in order to meet the receive fewer returns from the IRC
rule advances CCS technology more applicable emission standard report in section 45Q tax credit (since these are
widely throughout the coal-fired power accordance with the GHGRP tied to the amount of carbon
sector. As discussed in section requirements of 40 CFR part 98, sequestered, and all else being equal
VIII.F.4.c.iv(G) of this preamble, this including subpart PP. GHGRP subpart lower capture rates would result in
rule advances CCS technology for new RR and subpart VV requirements lower amounts of sequestered carbon)
combined cycle base load combustion provide the monitoring and reporting and costs would thereby be higher.
turbines, as well. It is also likely that mechanisms to quantify CO2 storage and
this rule supports advances in the to identify, quantify, and address ii. Natural Gas Co-Firing
technology in other industries. potential leakage. Under existing (A) Reasons Why Not Selected as BSER
GHGRP regulations, sequestration wells
vi. Comparison With 2015 NSPS For permitted as Class VI under the UIC As discussed in section VII.C.2, the
Newly Constructed Coal-Fired EGUs program are required to report under EPA is determining 40 percent natural
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA subpart RR. Facilities with UIC Class II gas co-firing to qualify as the BSER for
determined that the BSER for newly wells that inject CO2 to enhance the the medium-term subcategory of coal-
constructed coal-fired EGUs was based recovery of oil or natural gas can opt-in fired steam generating units. This
on CCS with 16 to 23 percent capture, to reporting under subpart RR by subcategory consists of units that will
based on the type of coal combusted, submitting and receiving approval for a permanently cease operation by January
and consequently, the EPA promulgated monitoring, reporting, and verification 1, 2039. In making this BSER
standards of performance of 1,400 lb (MRV) plan. Subpart VV applies to determination, the EPA analyzed the
CO2/MWh-g. 80 FR 64512 (table 1), facilities that conduct enhanced ability of all existing coal-fired units—
64513 (October 23, 2015). The EPA recovery using ISO 27916 to quantify not only medium-term units—to install
made those determinations based on the geologic storage unless they have opted and operate 40 percent co-firing. As a
costs of CCS at the time of that to report under subpart RR. For this result, all of the determinations
rulemaking. In general, those costs were rule, if injection occurs on site, the EGU concerning the criteria for BSER that the
significantly higher than at present, due must report data accordingly under 40 EPA made for 40 percent co-firing apply
to recent technology cost declines as CFR part 98 subpart RR or subpart VV. to all existing coal-fired units, including
well as related policies, including the If the CO2 is injected off site, the EGU the units in the long-term subcategory.
IRC section 45Q tax credit for CCS, must transfer the captured CO2 to a For example, 40 percent co-firing is
which were not available at that time for facility that reports in accordance with adequately demonstrated for the long-
purposes of consideration during the the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, term subcategory, and has reasonable
development of the NSPS. Id. at 64562 subpart RR or subpart VV. They may energy requirements and reasonable
(table 8). Based on of these higher costs, also transfer the captured CO2 to a non-air quality environmental impacts.
the EPA determined that 16–23 percent facility that has received an innovative It would also be of reasonable cost for
capture qualified as the BSER, rather technology waiver from the EPA. the long-term subcategory. Although the
than a significantly higher percentage of capital expenditure for natural gas co-
capture. Given the substantial b. Options Not Determined To Be the firing is lower than CCS, the variable
differences in the cost of CCS during the BSER for Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam costs are higher. As a result, the total
time of the 2015 NSPS and the present Generating Units costs of natural gas co-firing, in general,
time, the capture percentage of the 2015 In this section, we explain why CCS are higher on a $/ton basis and not
NSPS necessarily differed from the at 90 percent capture best balances the substantially lower on a $/MWh basis,
capture percentage in this final action, BSER factors and therefore why the EPA than for CCS. Were co-firing the BSER
and, by the same token, the associated has determined it to be the best of the for long-term units, the cost that
degree of emission limitation and possible options for the BSER. industry would bear might then be
resulting standards of performance considered similar to the cost for CCS.
necessarily differ as well. If the EPA had i. Partial Capture CCS In addition, the GHG Mitigation
strong evidence to indicate that new Partial capture for CCS was not Measures TSD shows that all coal-fired
coal-fired EGUs would be built, it would determined to be BSER because the units would be able to achieve the
propose to revise the 2015 NSPS to align emission reductions are lower and the requisite infrastructure build-out and
the BSER and emissions standards to costs would, in general, be higher. As obtain sufficient quantities of natural
reflect the new information regarding discussed in section IV.B of this gas to comply with standards of
the costs of CCS. Because there is no preamble, individual coal-fired power performance based on 40 percent co-
plants are by far the highest-emitting
evidence to suggest that there are any firing by January 1, 2030.

firm plans to build new coal-fired EGUs plants in the nation, and the coal-fired The EPA is not selecting 40 percent
in the future, however, it is not at power plant sector is higher-emitting natural gas co-firing as the BSER for the
present a good use of the EPA’s limited than any other stationary source sector. long-term subcategory, however,
resources to propose to update the new CCS at 90 percent capture removes very because it requires substantially less
source standard to align with the high absolute amounts of emissions. emission reductions at the unit-level
existing source standard finalized today. Partial capture CCS would fail to than 90 percent capture CCS. Natural
While the EPA is not revising the new capture large quantities of emissions. gas co-firing at 40 percent of the heat
input to the steam generating unit efficiency improvements as a matter of 1930s 661 and has been used in a variety
achieves 16 percent reductions in best practices. For example, Boundary of industrial applications for decades.
emission rate at the stack, while CCS Dam Unit 3 made upgrades to the Thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines
achieves an 88.4 percent reduction in existing steam generating unit when have been constructed and securely
emission rate. As discussed in section CCS was installed, including installing operated in the U.S. for decades.662 And
IV.B of this preamble, individual coal- a new steam turbine.660 However, the tens of millions of tons of CO2 have
fired power plants are by far the highest- reductions from efficiency been permanently stored deep
emitting plants in the nation, and the improvements would not be additive to underground either for geologic
coal-fired power plant sector is higher- the reductions from CCS because of the sequestration or in association with
emitting than any other stationary impact of the CO2 capture plant on the EOR.663 There are currently at least 15
source sector. Because the unit-level efficiency of source due to the required operating CCS projects in the U.S., and
emission reductions achievable by CCS steam and electricity load of the capture another 121 that are under construction
are substantially greater, and because plant. or in advanced stages of
CCS is of reasonable cost and matches development.664 This broad application
up well against the other BSER criteria, c. Conclusion of CCS demonstrates the successful
the EPA did not determine natural gas Coal-fired EGUs remain the largest operation of all three components of
co-firing to be BSER for the long-term stationary source of dangerous CO2 CCS, operating both independently and
subcategory although, under other emissions. The EPA is finalizing CCS at simultaneously. Various CO2 capture
circumstances, it could be. Determining a capture rate of 90 percent as the BSER methods are used in industrial
BSER requires the EPA to select the for long-term coal-fired steam generating applications and are tailored to the flue
‘‘best’’ of the systems of emission units because this system satisfies the gas conditions of a particular industry
reduction that are adequately criteria for BSER as summarized here. (see the final TSD, GHG Mitigation
demonstrated, as described in section CCS at a capture rate of 90 percent as Measures for Steam Generating Units for
V.C.2; in this case, there are two systems the BSER for long-term coal-fired steam details). Of those capture technologies,
of emission reduction that match up generating units is adequately amine solvent-based capture has been
well against the BSER criteria, but based demonstrated, as indicated by the facts demonstrated for removal of CO2 from
on weighing the criteria together, and in that it has been operated at scale, is the post-combustion flue gas of fossil
light of the substantially greater unit- widely applicable to these sources, and fuel-fired EGUs.
level emission reductions from CCS, the that there are vast sequestration Since 1978, an amine-based system
EPA has determined that CCS is a better opportunities across the continental has been used to capture approximately
system of emission reduction than co- U.S. Additionally, accounting for recent 270,000 metric tons of CO2 per year
firing for the long-term subcategory. technology cost declines as well as from the flue gas of the bituminous coal-
The EPA notes that if a state fired steam generating units at the 63
policies including the tax credit under
demonstrates that a long-term coal-fired MW Argus Cogeneration Plant (Trona,
IRC section 45Q, the costs for CCS are
steam generating unit cannot install and California).665 Amine solvent capture
reasonable. Moreover, any adverse non-
operate CCS and cannot otherwise has been further demonstrated at coal-
air quality health and environmental
reasonably achieve the degree of fired power plants including AES’s
impacts and energy requirements of
emission limitation that the EPA has Warrior Run and Shady Point. And
CCS, including impacts on the power
determined based on CCS, following the since 2014, CCS has been applied at the
sector on a nationwide basis, are limited
process the EPA has specified in its commercial scale at Boundary Dam Unit
and can be effectively avoided or
applicable regulations for consideration 3, a 110 MW lignite coal-fired steam
mitigated. In contrast, co-firing 40
of RULOF, the state would evaluate generating unit in Saskatchewan,
percent natural gas would achieve far Canada.
natural gas co-firing as a potential basis
fewer emission reductions without Impending increases in Canadian
for establishing a less stringent standard
improving the cost reasonableness of the regulatory CO2 emission requirements
of performance, as detailed in section
control strategy. have prompted optimization of
X.C.2 of this document.
These considerations provide the Boundary Dam Unit 3 so that the facility
iii. Heat Rate Improvements basis for finalizing CCS as the best of the now captures 83 percent of its total CO2
Heat rate improvements were not systems of emission reduction for long- emissions. Moreover, from the flue gas
considered to be BSER for long-term term coal-fired power plants. In
steam generating units because the addition, determining CCS as the BSER 661 Bottoms, R.R. Process for Separating Acidic
achievable reductions are very low and promotes advancements in control Gases (1930) United States patent application.
technology for CO2, which is a relevant United States Patent US1783901A; Allen, A.S. and
may result in a rebound effect whereby Arthur, M. Method of Separating Carbon Dioxide
total emissions from the source increase, consideration when establishing BSER from a Gas Mixture (1933) United States Patent
as detailed in section VII.D.4.a of this under section 111 of the CAA. Application. United States Patent US1934472A.
662 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
preamble. i. Adequately Demonstrated
Comment: One commenter requested and Hazardous Material Safety Administration,
that HRI be considered as BSER in CCS with 90 percent capture is www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/
addition to CCS, so that long-term adequately demonstrated based on the gas-distribution-gas-gathering-gas-transmission-
sources would be required to achieve information in section VII.C.1.a.i of this hazardous-liquids.
663 US EPA. GHGRP. https://www.epa.gov/
reductions in emission rate consistent preamble. Solvent-based CO2 capture
ghgreporting/supply-underground-injection-and-
with performing HRI and adding CCS was patented nearly 100 years ago in the geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide.
with 90 percent capture to the source. 664 Carbon Capture and Storage in the United
Response: As described in section 660 IEAGHG Report 2015–06. Integrated Carbon States. CBO. December 13, 2023. https://
VII.D.4.a, the reductions from HRI are Capture and Storage Project at SaskPower’s www.cbo.gov/publication/59345.
very low and many sources have already Boundary Dam Power Station. August 2015. https:// 665 Dooley, J.J., et al. (2009). ‘‘An Assessment of
ieaghg.org/publications/technical-reports/reports- the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide

made HRI, so that additional reductions list/9-technical-reports/935-2015-06-integrated-ccs- Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009.’’
are not available. It is possible that a project-at-saskpower-s-boundary-dam-power- U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
source installing CO2 capture will make station. under Contract DE–AC05–76RL01830.
treated, Boundary Dam Unit 3 percent standard is achievable.670 And projects that even if this rule
consistently captured 90 percent or per Lignite Energy Council, the findings determined 40 percent co-firing to be
more of the CO2 over a 3-year period. from Boundary Dam can be extrapolated the BSER for long-term coal, instead of
The adequate demonstration of CCS is to other, similarly operating power CCS, some additional units would
further corroborated by the EPAct05- plants, including natural gas plants.671 deploy CCS. Therefore, the costs of CCS
assisted 240MW-equivalent Petra Nova Transport of CO2 and geological with 90 percent capture are reasonable.
CCS project at the coal-fired W.A. Parish storage of CO2 have also been
Unit 8, which achieved over 90 percent adequately demonstrated, as detailed in iii. Non-Air Quality Health and
capture from the treated flue gas during VII.C.1.a.i(B)(7) and VII.C.1.a.i(D)(2). Environmental Impacts and Energy
a 3-year period. Additionally, the CO2 has been transported through Requirements
technical improvements put in practice pipelines for over 60 years, and in the The CO2 capture plant requires
at Boundary Dam Unit 3 and Petra Nova past 20 years, 500 million metric tons of substantial pre-treatment of the flue gas
can be put in place on new capture CO2 moved through over 5,000 miles of to remove SO2 and fly ash (PM) while
facilities during initial construction. CO2 pipelines. CO2 pipeline controls other controls and process designs are
This includes redundancies and and PHMSA standards ensure that
isolations for key equipment, and spray necessary to minimize solvent
captured CO2 will be securely conveyed
systems to limit fly ash carryover. degradation and solvent loss. Although
to a sequestration site. Due to the
Projects that have announced plans to CCS has the potential to result in some
proximity of sources to storage, it would
install CO2 capture directly include increases in non-GHG emissions, a
be feasible for most sources to build
these improvements in their design and robust regulatory framework, generally
smaller and shorter source-to-sink
employ new solvents achieving higher implemented at the state level, is in
laterals, rather than rely on a trunkline
capture rates that are commercially place to mitigate other non-GHG
network buildout. In addition to
available from technology providers. As emissions from the CO2 capture plant.
pipelines, CO2 can also be transported
a result, these projects target capture For transport, pipeline safety is
via vessel, highway, or rail. Geological
efficiencies of at least 95 percent, well regulated by PHMSA, while UIC Class
storage is proven and broadly available,
above the BSER finalized here. and of the coal-fired steam generating VI regulations under the SDWA, in
Precedent, building upon the units with planned operation during or tandem with GHGRP subpart RR
statutory text and context, has after 2030, 77 percent are within 40 requirements, ensure the protection of
established that the EPA may make a miles of the boundary of a saline USDWs and the security of geologic
finding of adequate demonstration by reservoir. sequestration. Therefore, the potential
drawing upon existing data from The EPA also considered the non-air quality health and
individual commercial-scale sources, timelines, materials, and workforce environmental impacts do not militate
including testing at these sources,666 necessary for installing CCS, and against designating CCS as the BSER for
and that the agency may make determined they are sufficient. long-term steam EGUs. The EPA also
projections based on existing data to considered energy requirements. While
establish a more stringent standard than ii. Cost the CO2 capture plant requires steam
has been regularly shown,667 in Process improvements have resulted and electricity to operate, the incentives
particular in cases when the agency can in a decrease in the projected costs to provided by the IRC section 45Q tax
specifically identify technological install CCS on existing coal-fired steam credit will likely result in increased
improvements that can be expected to generating units. Additionally, the IRC total generation from the source.
achieve the standard in question.668 section 45Q tax credit provides $85 per Therefore, the energy requirements are
Further, the EPA may extrapolate based metric ton ($77 per ton) of CO2. It is not unreasonable, and there would be
on testing at a particular kind of source reasonable to account for the IRC limited, non-adverse impacts on the
to conclude that the technology at issue section 45Q tax credit because the costs broader energy sector.
will also be effective at a different, that should be accounted for are the
related, source.669 Following this legal 2. Medium-Term Coal-Fired Steam
costs to the source. For the fleet of coal-
standard, the available data regarding Generating Units
fired steam generating units with
performance and testing at Boundary planned operation during or after 2033, The EPA is finalizing its conclusion
Dam, a commercial-scale plant, is and assuming a 12-year amortization
enough, by itself, to support the EPA’s that 40 percent natural gas co-firing on
period and 80 percent annual capacity a heat input basis is the BSER for
adequate demonstration finding for a 90 factor and including source specific
percent standard. In addition to this, medium-term coal-fired steam
transport and storage costs, the average generating units. Co-firing 40 percent
however, in the 9 years since Boundary total costs of CCS are ¥$5/ton of CO2
Dam began operating, operators and the natural gas, on an annual average heat
reduced and ¥$4/MWh. And even for input basis, results in a 16 percent
EPA have developed a clear shorter amortization periods, the $/
understanding of specific technological reduction in CO2 emission rate. The
MWh costs are comparable to or less technology has been adequately
improvements which, if implemented, than the costs for other controls
the EPA can reasonably expect to lead demonstrated, can be implemented at
($10.60–$18.50/MWh) for a substantial reasonable cost, does not have
to a 90 percent capture rate on a regular number of sources. Notably, the EPA’s
and ongoing basis. The D.C. Circuit has significant adverse non-air quality
IPM model projects that even without health and environmental impacts or
established that this information is more this final rule—that is, in the base case, energy requirements, including impacts
than enough to establish that a 90 without any CAA section 111 on the energy sector, and achieves
666 See Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486
requirements—some units would meaningful reductions in CO2
F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Nat’l Asphalt Pavement deploy CCS. Similarly, the IPM model emissions. Co-firing also advances
Ass’n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
667 See id. 670 See, e.g., Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus,
useful control technology, which
668 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (1981). 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. Costle, provides additional, although not
669 Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 657 F.2d 298 (1981). essential, support for treating it as the
(D.C. Cir. 1999). 671 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1999). BSER.
a. Rationale for the Medium-Term Coal- (80 FR 56627; September 18, 2015). Co- fired steam generating units intend to
Fired Steam Generating Unit firing is also cost-reasonable for sources cease operation in the near term affects
Subcategory permanently ceasing operations sooner, what controls are ‘‘best’’ for different
For the development of the emission and that therefore have a shorter subcategories.674 At the outset,
guidelines, the EPA first considered amortization period. As discussed in installation of emission control
CCS as the BSER for existing coal-fired section VII.B.2 of this preamble, with a technology takes time, sometimes
steam generating units. CCS generally two-year amortization period, many several years. Whether the costs of
achieves significant emission reductions units can co-fire with meaningful control are reasonable depends in part
at reasonable cost. Typically, in setting amounts of natural gas at reasonable on the period of time over which the
the BSER, the EPA assumes that cost. Of course, even more can co-fire at affected sources can amortize those
regulated units will continue to operate reasonable costs with amortization costs. Sources that have shorter
indefinitely. However, that assumption periods longer than two years. For operating horizons will have less time to
is not appropriate for all coal-fired example, the EPA has determined that amortize capital costs. Thus, the
steam generating units. 62 percent of 33 percent of sources with an annualized cost of controls may thereby
existing coal-fired steam generating amortization period of at least three be less comparable to the costs the EPA
units greater than 25 MW have already years have costs for 40 percent co-firing has previously determined to be
announced that they will retire or below both of the $/ton and $/MWh reasonable.675
convert from coal to gas by 2039.672 CCS metrics, and 68 percent of those sources In addition, subcategorizing by length
is capital cost-intensive, entailing a have costs for 20 percent co-firing below of period of continued operation is
certain period to amortize the capital both of those metrics. Therefore, similar to two other bases for
costs. Therefore, the EPA evaluated the recognizing that operating horizon subcategorization on which the EPA has
costs of CCS for different amortization affects the cost reasonableness of relied in prior rules, each of which
periods, as detailed in section controls, the EPA is finalizing a separate implicates the cost reasonableness of
VII.C.1.a.ii of the preamble, and subcategory for coal-fired steam controls: The first is load level, noted in
determined that CCS was cost generating units operating in the section V.C.1. of this preamble. For
reasonable, on average, for sources medium-term—those demonstrating that
operating more than 7 years after the they plan to permanently cease 674 The EPA recognizes that section 111(d)
operation after December 31, 2031, and provides that in applying standards of performance,
compliance date of January 1, 2032. a state may take into account, among other factors,
Accordingly, units that cease operating before January 1, 2039—with 40 percent the remaining useful life of a facility. The EPA
before January 1, 2039, will generally natural gas co-firing as the BSER. believes that provision is intended to address
exceptional circumstances at particular facilities,
have less time to amortize the capital i. Legal Basis for Establishing the while the EPA has the responsibility to determine
costs, and the costs for those sources Medium-Term Subcategory how to address the source category as a whole. See
would be higher and thereby less 88 FR 80480, 80511 (November 17, 2023) (‘‘Under
As noted in section V.C.1 of this CAA 111, EPA must provide BSER and degree of
comparable to those the EPA has preamble, the EPA has broad authority emission limitation determinations that are, to the
previously determined to be reasonable. under CAA section 111(d) to identify extent reasonably practicable, applicable to all
Considering this, and the other factors subcategories. As also noted in section designated facilities in the source category. In many
evaluated in determining BSER, the EPA cases, this requires the EPA to create subcategories
V.C.1, the EPA’s authority to of designated facilities, each of which has a BSER
is not finalizing CCS as BSER for units ‘‘distinguish among classes, types, and and degree of emission limitation tailored to its
demonstrating that they plan to sizes within categories,’’ as provided circumstances. . . . However, as Congress
permanently cease operation prior to under CAA section 111(b)(2) and as we recognized, this may not be possible in every
January 1, 2039. instance because, for example, it is not be feasible
interpret CAA section 111(d) to provide [sic] for the Agency to know and consider the
Instead, the EPA is subcategorizing as well, generally allows the Agency to idiosyncrasies of every designated facility or
these units into the medium-term place types of sources into subcategories because the circumstances of individual facilities
subcategory and finalizing a BSER based when they have characteristics that are change after the EPA determined the BSER.’’)
on 40 percent natural gas co-firing on a (internal citations omitted). That a state may take
relevant to the controls that the EPA into account the remaining useful life of an
heat input basis for these units. Co- may determine to be the BSER for those individual source, however, does not bar the EPA
firing natural gas at 40 percent has sources. One element of the BSER is from considering operating horizon as a factor in
significantly lower capital costs than cost reasonableness. See CAA section determining whether subcategorization is
CCS and can be implemented by appropriate. As discussed, the authority to
111(d)(1) (requiring the EPA, in setting subcategorize is encompassed within the EPA’s
January 1, 2030. For sources that expect the BSER, to ‘‘tak[e] into account the authority to identify the BSER. Here, where many
to continue in operation until January 1, cost of achieving such reduction’’). As units share similar characteristics and have
2039, and that therefore have a 9-year noted in section V, the EPA’s announced intended shorter operating horizons, it
amortization period, the costs of 40 is permissible for the EPA to take operating horizon
longstanding regulations under CAA into account in determining the BSER for this
percent co-firing are $73/ton of CO2 section 111(d) explicitly recognize that subcategory of sources. States may continue to take
reduced or $13/MWh of generation, subcategorizing may be appropriate for RULOF factors into account for particular units
which supports their reasonableness sources based on the ‘‘costs of where the information relevant to those units is
because they are comparable to or less fundamentally different than the information the
control.’’ 673 Subcategorizing on the EPA took into account in determining the degree of
than the costs detailed in section basis of operating horizon is consistent emission limitation achievable through application
VII.C.1.a.ii(D) of this preamble for other with a key characteristic of the coal- of the BSER. Should a court conclude that the EPA
controls on EGUs ($10.60 to $18.50/ fired power industry that is relevant for does not have the authority to create a subcategory
MWh) and for GHGs for the Crude Oil based on the date at which units intend to cease
determining the cost reasonableness of operation, then the EPA believes it would be
and Natural Gas source category in the control requirements: A large percentage reasonable for states to consider co-firing as an
2016 NSPS of $98/ton of CO2e reduced of the sources in the industry have alternative to CCS as an option for these units
already announced, and more are through the states’ authority to consider, among
672 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. other factors, remaining useful life.
expected to announce, dates for ceasing
National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v7. 675 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule, 85 FR
December 2023. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector- operation, and the fact that many coal- 64650, 64679 (October 13, 2020) (distinguishes
modeling/national-electric-energy-data-system- between EGUs retiring before 2028 and EGUs
needs. 673 40 CFR 60.22(b)(5), 60.22a(b)(5). remaining in operation after that time).
example, in the 2015 NSPS, the EPA As noted above, creating a commenters opposed these proposed
divided new natural gas-fired subcategory on the basis of operating subcategories. They argued that the
combustion turbines into the horizon does not preclude a state from subcategories were designed to force
subcategories of base load and non-base considering RULOF in applying a coal-fired power plants to retire.
load. 80 FR 64602 (table 15) (October standard of performance to a particular Response: We disagree with
23, 2015). The EPA did so because the source. The EPA’s authority to set BSER comments suggesting that the
control technologies that were ‘‘best’’— for a source category (including subcategories for existing coal-fired
including consideration of feasibility subcategories) and a state’s authority to steam EGUs that the EPA has finalized
and cost reasonableness—depended on invoke RULOF for individual sources in this rule were designed to force
how much the unit operated. The load within a category or subcategory are retirements. The subcategories were not
level, which relates to the amount of distinct. The EPA’s statutory obligation designed for that purpose, and the
product produced on a yearly or other is to determine a generally applicable commenters do not explain their
basis, bears similarity to a limit on a BSER for a source category, and where allegations to the contrary. The
period of continued operation, which that source category encompasses subcategories were designed, at
concerns the amount of time remaining different classes, types, or sizes of industry’s request,677 to ensure that
to produce the product. In both cases, sources, to set generally applicable subcategories of units that can feasibly
certain technologies may not be cost- BSERs for subcategories accounting for and cost-reasonably employ emissions
reasonable because of the capacity to those differences. By contrast, states’ reduction technologies—and only those
produce product—i.e., the costs are authority to invoke RULOF is premised subcategories of units that can do so—
spread over less product produced. on the state’s ability to take into account are required to reduce their emissions
Subcategorization on this basis is also information relevant to individual units commensurate with those technologies.
supported by how utilities manage their that is fundamentally different than the As explained above, in determining the
assets over the long term, and was information the EPA took into account BSER, the EPA generally assumes that a
widely supported by industry in determining BSER generally. As source will operate indefinitely, and
commenters. noted, the EPA may subcategorize on calculates expected control costs on that
The second basis for the basis of cost of controls, and basis. Under that assumption, the BSER
subcategorization on which EPA has operating horizon may factor into the for existing fossil-fuel fired EGUs is
previously relied is fuel type, as also cost of controls. Moreover, through CCS. Nevertheless, the EPA recognizes
noted in section V.C.1 of this preamble. section 111(d)(1), Congress also required that many fossil-fuel fired EGUs have
The 2015 NSPS provides an example of the EPA to develop regulations that already announced plans to cease
this type of subcategorization as well. permit states to consider ‘‘among other operation. In recognition of this unique,
There, the EPA divided new combustion factors, the remaining useful life’’ of a distinguishing factor, the EPA
turbines into subcategories on the basis particular existing source. The EPA has determined whether a different BSER
of type of fuel combusted. Id. interpreted these other factors to would be appropriate for fossil fuel-
Subcategorizing on the basis of the type include costs or technical feasibility fired EGUs that do not intend to operate
of fuel combusted may be appropriate specific to a particular source, even over the long term, and concluded, for
though these are factors the EPA itself the reasons stated above, that natural
when different controls have different
considers in setting the BSER. In other gas co-firing was appropriate for these
costs, depending on the type of fuel, so
words, the factors the EPA may consider sources that intended to cease operation
that the cost reasonableness of the
in setting the BSER and the factors the before 2039. This subcategory is not
control depends on the type of fuel. In
states may consider in applying intended to force retirements, and the
that way, it is similar to subcategorizing
standards of performance are not EPA is not directing any state or any
by operating horizon because in both
distinct. As noted above, the EPA is unit as to the choice of when to cease
cases, the subcategory is based upon the
finalizing these subcategories in operation. Rather, the EPA has created
cost reasonableness of controls.
response to requests by power sector this subcategory to accommodate these
Subcategorizing by operating horizon is
representatives that this rule sources’ intended operation plans. In
also tantamount to the length of time accommodate the fact that there is a
over which the source will continue to fact, a number of industry commenters
class of sources that plan to voluntarily specifically requested and supported
combust the fuel. Subcategorizing on cease operations in the near term.
this basis may be appropriate when subcategories based on retirement dates
Although the EPA has designed the in recognition of the reality that many
different controls for a particular fuel subcategories to accommodate those
have different costs, depending on the operators are choosing to retire these
requests, a particular source may still units and that whether or not a control
length of time when the fuel will present source-specific considerations—
continue to be combusted, so that the technology is feasible and cost-
whether related to its remaining useful reasonable depends upon how long a
cost reasonableness of controls depends life or other factors—that the state may
on that timeframe. Some prior EPA rules unit intends to operate.
consider relevant for the application of Specifically, as noted in section VII.B
for coal-fired sources have made explicit that particular source’s standard of
the link between length of time for of this preamble, in this final action, the
performance, and that the state should
continued operation and type of fuel address as described in section X.C.2 of 677 As described in the proposal, during the early
combusted by codifying federally this preamble. engagement process, industry stakeholders
enforceable retirement dates as the dates requested that the EPA ‘‘[p]rovide approaches that
by which the source must ‘‘cease ii. Comments Received on Existing Coal- allow for the retirement of units as opposed to
burning coal.’’ 676 Fired Subcategories investments in new control technologies, which
could prolong the lives of higher-emitting EGUs;
Comment: The EPA received several this will achieve maximum and durable
676 See 79 FR 5031, 5192 (January 30, 2014) comments on the proposed environmental benefits.’’ Industry stakeholders also
(explaining that ‘‘[t]he construction permit issued subcategories for coal-fired steam suggested that the EPA recognize that some units
by Wyoming requires Naughton Unit 3 to cease may remain operational for a several-year period
burning coal by December 31, 2017, and to be
generating units. Many commenters, but will do so at limited capacity (in part to assure
retrofitted to natural gas as its fuel source by June including industry commenters, reliability), and then voluntarily cease operations
30, 2018’’ (emphasis added)). supported these subcategories. Some entirely. 88 FR 33245 (May 23, 2023).
medium-term subcategory includes a with the emissions stringency of either modifications, including, for example,
date for permanently ceasing operation, the proposed medium term or imminent new fuel supply lines and modifications
which applies to coal-fired plants term subcategory—commenters to existing air ducts. The introduction of
demonstrating that they plan to requested greater flexibility for the near- natural gas as a fuel can reduce boiler
permanently cease operating after term subcategory. Other comments from efficiency slightly, due in large part to
December 31, 2031, and before January NGOs and other groups suggested the relatively high hydrogen content of
1, 2039. The EPA is retaining this various other changes to the subcategory natural gas. However, since the
subcategory because 55 percent of definitions. One commenter requested reduction in coal can result in reduced
existing coal-fired steam generating moving the cease-operation-by date for auxiliary power demand, the overall
units greater than 25 MW have already the medium-term subcategory up to impact on net heat rate can range from
announced that they will retire or January 1, 2038, while eliminating the a 2 percent increase to a 2 percent
convert from coal to gas by January 1, imminent-term subcategory and decrease.
2039.678 Accordingly, the costs of CCS— extending the near-term subcategory to It is common practice for steam
the high capital costs of which require January 1, 2038. generating units to have the capability
a lengthy amortization period from its Response: The EPA is not finalizing to burn multiple fuels onsite, and of the
January 1, 2032, implementation date— the proposed imminent-term or near- 565 coal-fired steam generating units
are higher than the traditional metric for term subcategories. The EPA is operating at the end of 2021, 249 of
cost reasonableness for these sources. finalizing an applicability exemption for them reported consuming natural gas as
As discussed in section VII.C.2 of this sources demonstrating that they plan to a fuel or startup source. Coal-fired steam
preamble, the BSER for these sources is permanently cease operation prior to generating units often use natural gas or
co-firing 40 percent natural gas. This is January 1, 2032, as detailed in section oil as a startup fuel, to warm the units
because co-firing, which has an VII.B of this preamble. The EPA is up before running them at full capacity
implementation date of January 1, 2030, finalizing the cease operating by date of with coal. While startup fuels are
has lower capital costs and is therefore January 1, 2039, for medium-term coal- generally used at low levels (up to
cost-reasonable for sources continuing fired steam generating units. These roughly 1 percent of capacity on an
to operate on or after January 1, 2032. dates are all based on costs of co-firing annual average basis), some coal-fired
It is further noted that this subcategory and CCS, driven by their amortization steam generating units have co-fired
is elective. Furthermore, states also have periods, as discussed in the preceding natural gas at considerably higher
the authority to establish a less stringent sections of this preamble. shares. Based on hourly reported CO2
standard through RULOF in the state emission rates from the start of 2015
plan process, as detailed in section b. Rationale for Natural Gas Co-Firing as through the end of 2020, 29 coal-fired
X.C.2 of this preamble. the BSER for Medium-Term Coal-Fired steam generating units co-fired with
In sum, these emission guidelines do Steam Generating Units natural gas at rates at or above 60
not require any coal-fired steam EGU to In this section of the preamble, the percent of capacity on an hourly
retire, nor are they intended to induce EPA describes its rationale for natural basis.680 The capability of those units on
retirements. Rather, these emission gas co-firing as the final BSER for an hourly basis is indicative of the
guidelines simply set forth presumptive medium-term coal-fired steam extent of boiler burner modifications
standards that are cost-reasonable and generating units. and sizing and capacity of natural gas
achievable for each subcategory of For a coal-fired steam generating unit, pipelines to those units, and implies
existing coal-fired steam EGUs. See the substitution of natural gas for some that those units are technically capable
section VII.E.1 of this preamble of the coal, so that the unit fires a of co-firing at least 60 percent natural
(responding to comments that this rule combination of coal and natural gas, is gas on a heat input basis on average over
violates the major questions doctrine). known as ‘‘natural gas co-firing.’’ The the course of an extended period (e.g.,
Comment: The EPA broadly solicited EPA is finalizing natural gas co-firing at a year). Additionally, during that same
comment on the dates and values a level of 40 percent of annual heat 2015 through 2020 period, 29 coal-fired
defining the proposed subcategories for input as BSER for medium-term coal- steam generating units co-fired natural
coal-fired steam generating units. fired steam generating units. gas at over 40 percent on an annual heat
Regarding the proposed dates for the input basis. Because of the number of
subcategories, one industry stakeholder i. Adequately Demonstrated units that have demonstrated co-firing
commented that the ‘‘EPA’s proposed The EPA is finalizing its above 40 percent of heat input, the EPA
retirement dates for applicability of the determination that natural gas co-firing is finalizing that co-firing at 40 percent
various subcategories are appropriate at the level of 40 percent of annual heat is adequately demonstrated. A more
and broadly consistent with system input is adequately demonstrated for detailed discussion of the record of
reliability needs.’’ 679 More specifically, coal-fired steam generating units. Many natural gas co-firing, including current
industry commenters requested that the existing coal-fired steam generating trends, at coal-fired steam generating
cease-operation-by date for the units already use some amount of units is included in the final TSD, GHG
imminent-term subcategory be changed natural gas, and several have co-fired at Mitigation Measures for Steam
from January 1, 2032, to January 1, 2033. relatively high levels at or above 40 Generating Units.
Industry commenters also stated that the percent of heat input in recent years. (B) Natural Gas Pipeline Development
20 percent utilization limit in the
(A) Boiler Modifications In addition to any potential boiler
definition of the near-term subcategory
Existing coal-fired steam generating modifications, the supply of natural gas
was overly restrictive and inconsistent

units can be modified to co-fire natural is necessary to enable co-firing at
678 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. gas in any desired proportion with coal, existing coal-fired steam boilers. As
National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v7. up to 100 percent natural gas. Generally,
December 2023. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector- the modification of existing boilers to 680 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
modeling/national-electric-energy-data-system- ‘‘Power Sector Emissions Data.’’ Washington, DC:
needs. enable or increase natural gas firing Office of Atmospheric Protection, Clean Air
679 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– typically involves the installation of Markets Division. Available from EPA’s Air Markets
0072–0772. new gas burners and related boiler Program Data website: https://campd.epa.gov.
discussed in the previous section, many the amount of natural gas co-firing Approximately $5 to $10 billion
plants already have at least some access expected under the final rule.681 annually is expected to be invested in
to natural gas. In order to increase Most of these individual laterals are natural gas pipelines through 2035. This
natural gas access beyond current levels, less than 15 miles in length. The report also projects that an average of
plants may find it necessary to construct maximum aggregate amount of pipeline over 1,400 miles of new natural gas
natural gas supply pipelines. capacity, if all coal-fired steam capacity pipeline will be built through 2035,
that could be included in the medium- which is similar to the approximately
The U.S. natural gas pipeline network term subcategory (i.e., all capacity that 1,670 miles that were built on average
consists of approximately 3 million has not announced that it plans to retire from 2013 to 2017. These values are
miles of pipelines that connect natural by 2032) implemented the final BSER by consistent with the average annual
gas production with consumers of co-firing 40 percent natural gas, would expenditure of $5.75 billion on less than
natural gas. To increase natural gas be comparable to pipeline capacity 1,800 miles per year of new pipeline
consumption at a coal-fired boiler constructed recently. The EPA estimates construction that would be necessary for
without sufficient existing natural gas that this maximum total capacity would the entire operational fleet of existing
access, it is necessary to connect the be nearly 14.7 billion cubic feet per day, coal-fired steam generating units to co-
facility to the natural gas pipeline which would require about 3,500 miles fire with natural gas. The actual
transmission network via the of pipeline costing roughly $11.5 pipeline investment for this subcategory
construction of a lateral pipeline. The billion. Over 2 years,682 this maximum would be substantially lower.
cost of doing so is a function of the total total incremental pipeline capacity
would amount to less than 1,800 miles (C) Compliance Date for Medium-Term
necessary pipeline capacity (which is
per year, with a total annual capacity of Coal-Fired Steam Generating Units
characterized by the length, size, and
number of laterals) and the location of roughly 7.35 billion cubic feet per day. The EPA is finalizing a compliance
the plant relative to the existing This represents an estimated annual date for medium-term coal-fired steam
investment of approximately $5.75 generating units of January 1, 2030.
pipeline transmission network. The EPA
billion per year in capital expenditures, As in the timeline for CCS for the long
estimated the costs associated with
on average. By comparison, based on term coal-fired steam generating units
developing new lateral pipeline data collected by EIA, the total annual described in section VII.C.1.a.i(E), the
capacity sufficient to meet 60 percent of mileage of natural gas pipelines EPA assumes here that feasibility work
the net summer capacity at each coal- constructed over the 2017–2021 period occurs during the state plan
fired steam generating unit that could be ranged from approximately 1,000 to development period, and that all
included in this subcategory. As 2,500 miles per year, with a total annual subsequent work occurs after the state
discussed in the final TSD, GHG capacity of 10 to 25 billion cubic feet plan is submitted and thereby effective
Mitigation Measures for Steam per day. This represents an estimated at the state level. The EPA assumes 12
Generating Units, the EPA estimates that annual investment of up to nearly $15 months of feasibility work for the
this lateral capacity would be sufficient billion. The upper end of these natural gas pipeline lateral and 6
to enable each unit to achieve 40 historical annual values is much higher months of feasibility work for boiler
percent natural gas co-firing on an than the maximum annual values that modifications (both to occur over June
annual average basis. could be expected under this final BSER 2024 to June 2025). As with the
The EPA considered the availability measure—which, as noted above, feasibility analysis for CCS, the
represent a conservative estimate that feasibility analysis for co-firing will
of the upstream natural gas pipeline
significantly overstates the amount of inform the state plan and therefore it is
capacity to satisfy the assumed co-firing co-firing that the EPA projects would
demand implied by these new laterals. reasonable to assume units will perform
occur under this final rule. it during the state planning window.
This analysis included pipeline These conservatively high estimates Feasibility for the pipeline includes a
development at all EGUs that could be of pipeline requirements also compare right-of-way and routing analysis.
included in this subcategory, including favorably to industry projections of Feasibility for the boiler modifications
those without announced plans to cease future pipeline capacity additions. includes conceptual studies and design
operating before January 1, 2039. The Based on a review of a 2018 industry basis.
EPA’s assessment reviewed the report, titled ‘‘North America Midstream The timeline for the natural gas
reasonableness of each assumed new Infrastructure through 2035: Significant pipeline permitting and construction is
lateral by determining whether the peak Development Continues,’’ investment in based on a review of recently completed
gas capacity of that lateral could be midstream infrastructure development permitting approvals and
satisfied without modification of the is expected to range between $10 to $20 construction.683 The average time to
transmission pipeline systems to which billion per year through 2035. complete permitting and approval is
it is assumed to be connected. This less than 1.5 years, and the average time
681 In practice, not all sources would necessarily
analysis found that most, if not all, to complete actual construction is less
be subject to a natural gas co-firing BSER in
existing pipeline systems are currently compliance. E.g., some portion of that population than 1 year. Of the 31 reviewed pipeline
able to meet the peak needs implied by of sources could install CCS, so the resulting projects, the vast majority (27 projects)
these new laterals in aggregate, amount of natural gas co-firing would be less. took less than a total of 3 years for
682 The average time for permitting for a natural
assuming that each existing coal-fired permitting and construction, and none
gas pipeline lateral is 1.5 years, and many sources
unit in the analysis co-fired with natural could be permitted faster (about 1 year) so that it took more than 3.5 years. Therefore, it
gas at a level implied by these new is reasonable to assume that many sources could is reasonable to assume that permitting
laterals, or 60 percent of net summer begin construction by June 2027. The average time and construction would take no more
for construction of an individual pipeline is about than 3 years for most sources (June 2026
generating capacity. While this is a 1 year or less. Considering this, the EPA assumes
reasonable assumption for the analysis construction of all of the natural gas pipeline to June 2029), noting that permitting
to support this mitigation measure in laterals in the analysis occurs over a 2-year period
(June 2027 through June 2029), and notes that in 683 Documentation for the Lateral Cost Estimation
the BSER context, it is also a practice some of these projects could be constructed (2024), ICF International. Available in Docket ID
conservative assumption that overstates outside of this period. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0072.
and construction for many sources potential to decrease, the EPA does not natural gas transmission pipelines as
would be faster. anticipate a significant increase in well as the available excess capacity of
The timeline for boiler modifications impact on FOM costs related to co-firing each of those existing pipelines.
based on the baseline duration co-firing with natural gas. The EPA determined the costs of 40
conversion project schedule developed In addition to capital and FOM cost percent co-firing based on the fleet of
by Sargent and Lundy.684 The EPA impacts, any additional natural gas co- coal-fired steam generating units that
assumes that, with the exception of the firing would result in incremental costs existed in 2021 and that do not have
feasibility studies discussed above, related to the differential in fuel cost, known plans to cease operations or
work on the boiler modifications begins taking into consideration the difference convert to gas by 2032, and assuming
after the state plan submission due date. in delivered coal and gas prices, as well that each of those units continues to
The EPA also assumes permitting for the as any potential impact on the overall operate at the same level as it operated
boiler modifications is required and net heat rate. The EPA’s reference case over 2017–2021. The EPA assessed
takes 12 months (June 2026 to June projects that in 2030, the average those costs against the cost
2027). In the schedule developed by delivered price of coal will be $1.56/ reasonableness metrics, as described in
Sargent and Lundy, commercial MMBtu and the average delivered price section VII.C.1.a.ii(D) of this preamble
arrangements for the boiler modification of natural gas will be $2.95/MMBtu. (i.e., emission control costs on EGUs of
take about 6 months (June 2026 to Thus, assuming the same level of $10.60 to $18.50/MWh and the costs in
December 2026). Detailed engineering generation and no impact on heat rate, the 2016 NSPS regulating GHGs for the
and procurement takes about 7 months the additional fuel cost would be $1.39/ Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
(December 2026 to July 2027), and MMBtu on average in 2030. The total
category of $98/ton of CO2e reduced (80
begins after commercial arrangements additional fuel cost could increase or
FR 56627; September 18, 2015)). On
are complete. Site work takes 3 months decrease depending on the potential
average, the EPA estimates that the
(July 2027 to October 2027), followed by impact on net heat rate. An increase in
weighted average cost of co-firing with
4 months of construction (October 2027 net heat rate, for example, would result
40 percent natural gas as the BSER on
to February 2028). Lastly, startup and in more fuel required to produce a given
an annual average basis is
testing takes about 2 months (June 2029 amount of generation and thus
approximately $73/ton CO2 reduced, or
to August 2029), noting that the EPA additional cost. In the final TSD, GHG
$13/MWh. The costs here reflect an
assumes this occurs after the natural gas Mitigation Measures for Steam
Generating Units, the EPA’s cost amortization period of 9 years. These
pipeline lateral is constructed. estimates support a conclusion that co-
Considering the preceding information, estimates assume a 1 percent average
increase in net heat rate. firing is cost-reasonable for sources that
the EPA has determined January 1, 2030 continue to operate up until the January
is the compliance date for medium-term Finally, for plants without sufficient
access to natural gas, it is also necessary 1, 2039, threshold date for the
coal-fired steam generating units. subcategory. The EPA also evaluated the
to construct new natural gas pipelines
ii. Costs (‘‘laterals’’). Pipeline costs are typically fleet average costs of natural gas co-
expressed in terms of dollars per inch of firing for shorter amortization periods
The capital costs associated with the
pipeline diameter per mile of pipeline and has determined that the costs are
addition of new gas burners and other
distance (i.e., dollars per inch-mile), consistent with the cost reasonableness
necessary boiler modifications depend
reflecting the fact that costs increase metrics for the majority of sources that
on the extent to which the current boiler
with larger diameters and longer will operate past January 1, 2032, and
is already able to co-fire with some
pipelines. On average, the cost for therefore have an amortization period of
natural gas and on the amount of gas co-
lateral development within the at least 2 years and up to 9 years. These
firing desired. The EPA estimates that,
contiguous U.S. is approximately estimates and all underlying
on average, the total capital cost
$280,000 per inch-mile (2019$), which assumptions are explained in detail in
associated with modifying existing
can vary based on site-specific factors. the final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures
boilers to operate at up to 100 percent
The total pipeline cost for each coal- for Steam Generating Units. Based on
of heat input using natural gas is
fired steam generating unit is a function this cost analysis, alongside the EPA’s
approximately $52/kW. These costs
of this cost, as well as a function of the overall assessment of the costs of this
could be higher or lower, depending on
necessary pipeline capacity and the rule, the EPA is finalizing that the costs
the equipment that is already installed
location of the plant relative to the of natural gas co-firing are reasonable
and the expected impact on heat rate or
existing pipeline transmission network. for the medium-term coal-fired steam
steam temperature.
While fixed O&M (FOM) costs can The pipeline capacity required depends generating unit subcategory. If a
potentially decrease as a result of on the amount of co-firing desired as particular source has costs of 40 percent
decreasing the amount of coal well as on the desired level of co-firing that are fundamentally
consumed, it is common for plants to generation—a higher degree of co-firing different from the cost reasonability
maintain operation of one coal while operating at full load would metrics, the state may consider this fact
pulverizer at all times, which is require more pipeline capacity than a under the RULOF provisions, as
necessary for maintaining several coal lower degree of co-firing while detailed in section X.C.2 of this
burners in continuous service. In this operating at partial load. It is reasonable preamble. The EPA previously
case, coal handling equipment would be to assume that most plant owners would estimated the cost of natural gas co-
required to operate continuously and develop sufficient pipeline capacity to firing in the Clean Power Plan (CPP). 80
FR 64662 (October 23, 2015). The cost-
therefore natural gas co-firing would deliver the maximum amount of desired
have limited effect on reducing the coal- gas use in any moment, enabling higher estimates for co-firing presented in this
related FOM costs. Although, as noted, levels of co-firing during periods of section are lower than in the CPP, for
coal-related FOM costs have the lower fuel price differentials. Once the several reasons. Since then, the
necessary pipeline capacity is expected difference between coal and
684 Natural Gas Co-Firing Memo, Sargent & Lundy determined, the total lateral cost can be gas prices has decreased significantly,
(2023). Available in Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– estimated by considering the location of from over $3/MMBtu to less than $1.50/
2023–0072. each plant relative to the existing MMBtu in this final rule. Additionally,
a recent analysis performed by Sargent unregulated gas gathering lines.687 FERC overall utility boiler efficiency for each
and Lundy for the EPA supports a is responsible for the regulation of the steam generating unit is uncertain.
considerably lower capital cost for siting, construction, and/or For all of these reasons, the EPA is
modifying existing boilers to co-fire abandonment of interstate natural gas finalizing that natural gas co-firing at
with natural gas. The EPA also recently pipelines, gas storage facilities, and medium-term coal-fired steam
conducted a highly detailed facility- Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. generating units does not result in any
level analysis of natural gas pipeline significant adverse consequences related
(B) Energy Requirements to energy requirements.
costs, the median value of which is
slightly lower than the value used by The introduction of natural gas co- Additionally, the EPA considered
the EPA previously to approximate the firing will cause steam boilers to be longer term impacts on the energy
cost of co-firing at a representative unit. slightly less efficient due to the high sector, and the EPA is finalizing these
hydrogen content of natural gas. Co- impacts are reasonable. Designating
iii. Non-Air Quality Health and firing at levels between 20 percent and natural gas co-firing as the BSER for
Environmental Impact and Energy 100 percent can be expected to decrease medium-term coal-fired steam
Requirements boiler efficiency between 1 percent and generating units would not have
5 percent. However, despite the significant adverse impacts on the
Natural gas co-firing for steam
decrease in boiler efficiency, the overall structure of the energy sector. Steam
generating units is not expected to have
net output efficiency of a steam generating units that currently are coal-
any significant adverse consequences
generating unit that switches from coal- fired would be able to remain primarily
related to non-air quality health and
to natural gas-firing may change only coal-fired. The replacement of some coal
environmental impacts or energy
slightly, in either a positive or negative with natural gas as fuel in these sources
requirements.
direction. Since co-firing reduces coal would not have significant adverse
(A) Non-GHG Emissions consumption, the auxiliary power effects on the price of natural gas or the
demand related to coal handling and price of electricity.
Non-GHG emissions are reduced
when steam generating units co-fire emissions controls typically decreases iv. Extent of Reductions in CO2
with natural gas because less coal is as well. While a site-specific analysis Emissions
combusted. SO2, PM2.5, acid gas, would be required to determine the
One of the primary benefits of natural
mercury and other hazardous air overall net impact of these
gas co-firing is emission reduction. CO2
pollutant emissions that result from coal countervailing factors, generally the
emissions are reduced by approximately
combustion are reduced proportionally effect of co-firing on net unit heat rate
4 percent for every additional 10
to the amount of natural gas consumed, can vary within approximately plus or
percent of co-firing. When moving from
i.e., under this final rule, by 40 percent. minus 2 percent.
100 percent coal to 60 percent coal and
Natural gas combustion does produce The EPA previously determined in
40 percent natural gas, CO2 stack
NOX emissions, but in lesser amounts the ACE Rule (84 FR 32545; July 8,
emissions are reduced by approximately
than from coal-firing. However, the 2019) that ‘‘co-firing natural gas in coal- 16 percent. Non-CO2 emissions are
magnitude of this reduction is fired utility boilers is not the best or reduced as well, as noted earlier in this
dependent on the combustion system most efficient use of natural gas and preamble.
modifications that are implemented to [. . .] can lead to less efficient operation
of utility boilers.’’ That determination v. Technology Advancement
facilitate natural gas co-firing.
was informed by the more limited Natural gas co-firing is already well-
Sufficient regulations also exist supply of natural gas, and the larger established and widely used by coal-
related to natural gas pipelines and amount of coal-fired EGU capacity and fired steam boiler generating units. As a
transport that assure natural gas can be generation, in 2019. Since that result, this final rule is not likely to lead
safely transported with minimal risk of determination, the expected supply of to technological advances or cost
environmental release. PHMSA natural gas has expanded considerably, reductions in the components of natural
develops and enforces regulations for and the capacity and generation of the gas co-firing, including modifications to
the safe, reliable, and environmentally existing coal-fired fleet has decreased, boilers and pipeline construction.
sound operation of the nation’s 2.6 reducing the total mass of natural gas However, greater use of natural gas co-
million mile pipeline transportation that might be required for sources to firing may lead to improvements in the
system. Recently, PHMSA finalized a implement this measure. efficiency of conducting natural gas co-
rule that will improve the safety and Furthermore, regarding the efficient firing and operating the associated
strengthen the environmental protection operation of boilers, the ACE equipment.
of more than 300,000 miles of onshore determination was based on the
gas transmission pipelines.685 PHMSA observation that ‘‘co-firing can c. Options Not Determined To Be the
also recently promulgated a separate negatively impact a unit’s heat rate BSER for Medium-Term Coal-Fired
rule covering natural gas (efficiency) due to the high hydrogen Steam Generating Units
transmission,686 as well as a rule that content of natural gas and the resulting i. CCS
significantly expanded the scope of production of water as a combustion by-
safety and reporting requirements for As discussed earlier in this preamble,
product.’’ That finding does not the compliance date for CCS is January
more than 400,000 miles of previously consider the fact that the effect of co- 1, 2032. Accordingly, sources in the
firing on net unit heat rate can vary medium-term subcategory—which have
685 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission

within approximately plus or minus 2 elected to commit to permanently cease
Pipelines: Repair Criteria, Integrity Management
Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of
percent, and therefore the net impact on operations prior to 2039—would have
Change, and Other Related Amendments (87 FR less than 7 years to amortize the capital
52224; August 24, 2022). 687 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering
costs of CCS. As a result, for these
686 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements,
Pipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other
sources, the overall costs of CCS would
Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Related Amendments (86 FR 63266; November 15, exceed the metrics for cost
Amendments (84 FR 52180; October 1, 2019). 2021). reasonableness that the EPA is using in
this rulemaking, which are detailed in gas. The degree of emission limitation and the EPA is finalizing this approach
section VII.C.1.a.ii(D). For this reason, achievable by applying this BSER can be for those sources.
the EPA is not finalizing CCS as the determined on a rate basis. A capture Natural gas- and oil-fired steam
BSER for the medium-term subcategory. rate of 90 percent results in reductions generating units combust natural gas or
in the emission rate of 88.4 percent on distillate fuel oil or residual fuel oil in
ii. Heat Rate Improvements a boiler to produce steam for a turbine
a lb CO2/MWh-gross basis, and this
Heat rate improvements were not reduction in emission rate can be that drives a generator to create
considered to be BSER for medium-term observed over an extended period (e.g., electricity. In non-continental areas,
steam generating units because the an annual calendar-year basis). existing natural gas- and oil-fired steam
achievable reductions are low and may Therefore, the EPA is finalizing that the generating units may provide base load
result in rebound effect whereby total degree of emission limitation for long- power, but in the continental U.S., most
emissions from the source increase, as term units is an 88.4 percent reduction existing units operate in a load-
detailed in section VII.D.4.a. in emission rate on a lb CO2/MWh-gross following manner. There are
basis over an extended period (e.g., an approximately 200 natural gas-fired
d. Conclusion
annual calendar-year basis). steam generating units and fewer than
The EPA is finalizing that natural gas 30 oil-fired steam generating units in
co-firing at 40 percent of heat input is b. Medium-Term Coal-Fired Steam operation in the continental U.S. Fuel
the BSER for medium-term coal-fired Generating Units costs and inefficiency relative to other
steam generating units because natural As discussed earlier in this preamble, technologies (e.g., combustion turbines)
gas co-firing is adequately the BSER for medium-term coal-fired result in operation at lower annual
demonstrated, as indicated by the facts steam generating units is 40 percent capacity factors for most units. Based on
that it has been operated at scale and is natural gas co-firing. The application of data reported to EIA and the EPA 688 for
widely applicable to sources. 40 percent natural gas co-firing results the contiguous U.S., for natural gas-fired
Additionally, the costs for natural gas in reductions in the emission rate of 16 steam generating units in 2019, the
co-firing are reasonable. Moreover, percent. Therefore, the degree of average annual capacity factor was less
natural gas co-firing can be expected to emission limitation for these units is a than 15 percent and 90 percent of units
reduce emissions of several other air 16 percent reduction in emission rate on had annual capacity factors less than 35
pollutants in addition to GHGs. Any a lb CO2/MWh-gross basis over an percent. For oil-fired steam generating
adverse non-air quality health and extended period (e.g., an annual units in 2019, no units had annual
environmental impacts and energy calendar-year basis). capacity factors above 8 percent.
requirements of natural gas co-firing are Additionally, their load-following
D. Rationale for the BSER for Natural
limited. In contrast, CCS, although method of operation results in frequent
Gas-Fired And Oil-Fired Steam
achieving greater emission reductions, cycling and a greater proportion of time
Generating Units
would be of higher cost, in general, for spent at low hourly capacities, when
the subcategory of medium-term units, This section of the preamble describes generation is less efficient. Furthermore,
and HRI would achieve few reductions the rationale for the final BSERs for because startup times for most boilers
and, in fact, may increase emissions. existing natural gas- and oil-fired steam are usually long, natural gas steam
generating units based on the criteria generating units may operate in standby
3. Degree of Emission Limitation for described in section V.C of this mode between periods of peak demand.
Final Standards preamble. Operating in standby mode requires
Under CAA section 111(d), once the combusting fuel to keep the boiler
1. Subcategorization of Natural Gas- and
EPA determines the BSER, it must warm, and this further reduces the
Oil-Fired Steam Generating Units
determine the ‘‘degree of emission efficiency of natural gas combustion.
limitation’’ achievable by the The EPA is finalizing subcategories Unlike coal-fired steam generating
application of the BSER. States then based on load level (i.e., annual capacity units, the CO2 emission rates of oil- and
determine standards of performance and factor), specifically, units that are base natural gas-fired steam generating units
include them in the state plans, based load, intermediate load, and low load. that have similar annual capacity factors
on the specified degree of emission The EPA is finalizing routine methods do not vary considerably between units.
limitation. Final presumptive standards of operation and maintenance as BSER This is partly due to the more uniform
of performance are detailed in section for intermediate and base load units. qualities (e.g., carbon content) of the
X.C.1.b of this preamble. There is Applying that BSER would not achieve fuel used. However, the emission rates
substantial variation in emission rates emission reductions but would prevent for units that have different annual
among coal-fired steam generating increases in emission rates. The EPA is capacity factors do vary considerably, as
units—the range is, approximately, from finalizing presumptive standards of detailed in the final TSD, Natural Gas-
1,700 lb CO2/MWh-gross to 2,500 lb performance that differ between and Oil-fired Steam Generating Units.
CO2/MWh-gross—which makes it intermediate and base load units due to Low annual capacity factor units cycle
challenging to determine a single, their differences in operation, as frequently, have a greater proportion of
uniform emission limit. Accordingly, detailed in section X.C.1.b.iii of this CO2 emissions that may be attributed to
the EPA is finalizing the degrees of preamble. The EPA proposed a separate startup, and have a greater proportion of
emission limitation by a percentage subcategory for non-continental oil-fired generation at inefficient hourly
change in emission rate, as follows. steam generating units, which operate capacities. Intermediate annual capacity
differently from continental units;
a. Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam factor units operate more often at higher

however, the EPA is not finalizing hourly capacities, where CO2 emission
Generating Units emission guidelines for sources outside rates are lower. High annual capacity
As discussed earlier in this preamble, of the contiguous U.S., as described in factor units operate still more at base
the EPA is finalizing the BSER for long- section VII.B. At proposal, the EPA load conditions, where units are more
term coal-fired steam generating units as solicited comment on a BSER of
‘‘full-capture’’ CCS, defined as 90 ‘‘uniform fuels’’ for low load natural 688 Clean Air Markets Program Data at https://
percent capture of the CO2 in the flue gas- and oil-fired steam generating units, campd.epa.gov.
efficient and CO2 emission rates are relatively low cumulative emission environmental impacts or adverse
lower. reduction potential for these natural gas- impacts on energy requirements. Nor do
Based on these performance and oil-fired steam generating units, the they have adverse impacts on the energy
differences between these load levels, EPA is not determining CCS as the sector from a nationwide or long-term
the EPA, in general, proposed BSER for them. perspective. The EPA’s modeling, which
subcategories based on dividing natural The EPA has reviewed other possible supports this final rule, indicates that by
gas- and oil-fired steam generating units controls but is not finalizing any of 2040, a number of natural gas-fired
into three groups each—low load, them as the BSER for natural gas- and steam generating units will have
intermediate load, and base load. oil-fired units either. Co-firing hydrogen remained in operation since 2030,
The EPA is finalizing subcategories in a boiler is technically possible, but although at reduced annual capacity
for oil-fired and natural gas-fired steam there is limited availability of hydrogen factors. There are no CO2 reductions
generating units, based on load levels. now and in the near future and it should that may be achieved at the unit level,
The EPA proposed the following load be prioritized for more efficient units. but applying routine methods of
levels: ‘‘low’’ load, defined by annual Additionally, for natural gas-fired steam
operation and maintenance as the BSER
capacity factors less than 8 percent; generating units, setting a future
prevents increases in emission rates.
‘‘intermediate’’ load, defined by annual standard based on hydrogen would
Routine methods of operation and
capacity factors greater than or equal to likely have limited GHG reduction
benefits given the low utilization of maintenance do not advance useful
8 percent and less than 45 percent; and
natural gas- and oil-fired steam control technology, but this point is not
‘‘base’’ load, defined by annual capacity
generating units. Lastly, HRI for these significant enough to offset their
factors greater than or equal to 45
percent. types of units would face many of the benefits.
The EPA is finalizing January 1, 2030, same issues as for coal-fired steam At proposal, the EPA also took
as the compliance date for natural gas- generating units; in particular, HRI comment on a potential BSER of
and oil-fired steam generating units and could result in a rebound effect that uniform fuels for low load natural gas-
this date is consistent with the dates in would increase emissions. and oil-fired steam generating units. As
the fuel type definitions. However, the EPA recognizes that noted earlier in this preamble, non-coal
The EPA received comments that natural gas- and oil-fired steam fossil fuels combusted in utility boilers
were generally supportive of the generating units could possibly, over typically include natural gas, distillate
proposed subcategory definitions,689 time, operate more, in response to other fuel oil (i.e., fuel oil No. 1 and No. 2),
and the EPA is finalizing the changes in the power sector. and residual fuel oil (i.e., fuel oil No. 5
subcategory definitions as proposed. Additionally, some coal-fired steam and No. 6). The EPA previously
generating units have converted to 100 established heat-input based fuel
2. Options Considered for BSER percent natural gas-fired, and it is composition as BSER in the 2015 NSPS
The EPA has considered various possible that more may do so in the (termed ‘‘clean fuels’’ in that
methods for controlling CO2 emissions future. The EPA also received several rulemaking) for new non-base load
from natural gas- and oil-fired steam comments from industry stating plans to natural gas- and multi-fuel-fired
generating units to determine whether do so. Moreover, in part because the stationary combustion turbines (80 FR
they meet the criteria for BSER. Co- fleet continues to age, the plants may 64615–17; October 23, 2015), and the
firing natural gas cannot be the BSER for operate with degrading emission rates. EPA is similarly finalizing lower-
these units because natural gas- and oil- In light of these possibilities, identifying emitting fuels as BSER for new low load
fired steam generating units already fire the BSER and degrees of emission
combustion turbines as described in
large proportions of natural gas. Most limitation for these sources would be
section VIII.F of this preamble. For low
natural gas-fired steam generating units useful to provide clarity and prevent
load natural gas- and oil-fired steam
fire more than 90 percent natural gas on backsliding in GHG performance.
generating units, the high variability in
a heat input basis, and any oil-fired Therefore, the EPA is finalizing BSER
for intermediate and base load natural emission rates associated with the
steam generating units that would
gas- and oil-fired steam generating units variability of load at the lower-load
potentially operate above an annual
to be routine methods of operation and levels limits the benefits of a BSER
capacity factor of around 15 percent
maintenance, such that the sources based on routine maintenance and
typically combust natural gas as a large
proportion of their fuel as well. Nor is could maintain the emission rates (on a operation. That is because the high
CCS a candidate for BSER. The lb/MWh-gross basis) currently variability in emission rates would
utilization of most gas-fired units, and maintained by the majority of the fleet make it challenging to determine an
likely all oil-fired units, is relatively across discrete ranges of annual capacity emission rate (i.e., on a lb CO2/MWh-
low, and as a result, the amount of CO2 factor. The EPA is finalizing this BSER gross basis) that could serve as the
available to be captured is low. for intermediate load and base load presumptive standard of performance
However, the capture equipment would natural gas- and oil-fired steam that would reflect application of a BSER
still need to be sized for the nameplate generating units, regardless of the of routine operation and maintenance.
capacity of the unit. Therefore, the operating horizon of the unit. On the other hand, for those units, a
capital and operating costs of CCS A BSER based on routine methods of BSER of ‘‘uniform fuels’’ and an
would be high relative to the amount of operation and maintenance is associated presumptive standard of
CO2 available to be captured. adequately demonstrated because units performance based on a heat input
already operate with those practices. basis, as described in section X.C.1.b.iii
Additionally, again due to lower

utilization, the amount of IRC section There are no or negligible additional of this preamble, is reasonable.
45Q tax credits that owner/operators costs because there is no additional Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a BSER
could claim would be low. Because of technology that units are required to of uniform fuels for low load natural
the relatively high costs and the apply and there is no change in gas- and oil-fired steam generating units,
operation or maintenance that units with presumptive standards depending
689 See, for example, Document ID No. EPA–HQ– must perform. Similarly, there are no on fuel type detailed in section
OAR–2023–0072–0583. adverse non-air quality health and X.C.1.b.iii.
3. Degree of Emission Limitation basis by an analysis of historical systems). Some of the HRI measures
As discussed above, because the BSER emission rate data, taking into (e.g., variable frequency drives) only
for base load and intermediate load consideration operating load and impact heat rate on a net generation
natural gas- and oil-fired steam ambient temperature. The Agency basis by reducing the parasitic load on
generating units is routine operation concluded that EGUs can achieve on the unit and would thereby not be
and maintenance, which the units are, average a 4.3 percent improvement in observable for emission rates measured
by definition, already employing, the the Eastern Interconnection, a 2.1 on a gross basis. Assuming many of the
degree of emission limitation by percent improvement in the Western HRI measures could be applied to the
application of this BSER is no increase Interconnection, and a 2.3 percent same unit, adding together the upper
in emission rate on a lb CO2/MWh-gross improvement in the Texas range of some of the HRI percentages
basis over an extended period of time Interconnection. See 80 FR 64789 could yield an emission rate reduction
(e.g., a year). (October 23, 2015). The Agency then of around 5 percent. However, the
For low load natural gas- and oil-fired applied all three of the building blocks reductions that the fleet could achieve
steam generating units, the EPA is to 2012 baseline data and quantified, in on average are likely much smaller. As
finalizing a BSER of uniform fuels, with the form of CO2 emission rates, the noted, the 2023 Sargent and Lundy HRI
a degree of emission limitation on a heat reductions achievable in Each report notes that, in many cases, units
input basis consistent with a fixed 130 interconnection in 2030, and then have already applied HRI upgrades or
lb CO2/MMBtu for natural gas-fired selected the least stringent as a national that those upgrades would not be
steam generating units and 170 lb CO2/ performance rate. Id. at 64811–19. The applicable to all units. The unit level
MMBtu for oil-fired steam generating EPA noted that building block 1 reductions in emission rate from HRI are
units. The degree of emission limitation measures could not by themselves small relative to CCS or natural gas co-
for natural gas- and oil-fired steam constitute the BSER because the firing. In the CPP and ACE Rule, the
generating units is higher than the quantity of emission reductions EPA viewed CCS and natural gas co-
corresponding values under 40 CFR part achieved would be too small and firing as too costly to qualify as the
because of the potential for an increase BSER; those costs have fallen since
60, subpart TTTT, because steam
in emissions due to increased utilization those rules and, as a result, CCS and
generating units may fire fuels with
(i.e., the ‘‘rebound effect’’). natural gas co-firing do qualify as the
slightly higher carbon contents.
BSER for the long-term and medium-
ii. Updated CO2 Reductions From HRI
4. Other Emission Reduction Measures term subcategories, respectively.
Not Considered BSER The HRI measures include
improvements to the boiler island (e.g., iii. Potential for Rebound in CO2
a. Heat Rate Improvements neural network system, intelligent Emissions
Heat rate is a measure of efficiency sootblower system), improvements to Reductions achieved on a rate basis
that is commonly used in the power the steam turbine (e.g., turbine overhaul from HRI may not result in overall
sector. The heat rate is the amount of and upgrade), and other equipment emission reductions and could instead
energy input, measured in Btu, required upgrades (e.g., variable frequency cause a ‘‘rebound effect’’ from increased
to generate 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of drives). Some regular practices that may utilization. A rebound effect would
electricity. The lower an EGU’s heat recover degradation in heat rate to occur where, because of an
rate, the more efficiently it operates. As recent levels—but that do not result in improvement in its heat rate, a steam
a result, an EGU with a lower heat rate upgrades in heat rate over recent design generating unit experiences a reduction
will consume less fuel and emit lower levels and are therefore not HRI in variable operating costs that makes
amounts of CO2 and other air pollutants measures—include practices such as in- the unit more competitive relative to
per kWh generated as compared to a less kind replacements and regular surface other EGUs and consequently raises the
efficient unit. HRI measures include a cleaning (e.g., descaling, fouling unit’s output. The increase in the unit’s
variety of technology upgrades and removal). Specific details of the HRI CO2 emissions associated with the
operating practices that may achieve measures are described in the final TSD, increase in output would offset the
CO2 emission rate reductions of 0.1 to GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam reduction in the unit’s CO2 emissions
5 percent for individual EGUs. The EPA Generating Units and an updated 2023 caused by the decrease in its heat rate
considered HRI to be part of the BSER Sargent and Lundy HRI report (Heat and rate of CO2 emissions per unit of
in the CPP and to be the BSER in the Rate Improvement Method Costs and output. The extent of the offset would
ACE Rule. However, the reductions that Limitations Memo), available in the depend on the extent to which the unit’s
may be achieved by HRI are small docket. Most HRI upgrade measures generation increased. The CPP did not
relative to the reductions from natural achieve reductions in heat rate of less consider HRI to be BSER on its own, in
gas co-firing and CCS. Also, some than 1 percent. In general, the 2023 part because of the potential for a
facilities that apply HRI would, as a Sargent and Lundy HRI report, which rebound effect. Analysis for the ACE
result of their increased efficiency, updates the 2009 Sargent and Lundy Rule, where HRI was the entire BSER,
increase their utilization and therefore HRI report, shows that HRI achieve less observed a rebound effect for certain
increase their CO2 emissions (as well as reductions than indicated in the 2009 sources in some cases.690 In this action,
emissions of other air pollutants), a report, and shows that several HRI where different subcategories of units
phenomenon that the EPA has termed either have limited applicability or have are to be subject to different BSER
the ‘‘rebound effect.’’ Therefore, the already been applied at many units. measures, steam generating units in a
EPA is not finalizing HRI as a part of Steam path overhaul and upgrade may hypothetical subcategory with HRI as
BSER. achieve reductions up to 5.15 percent, BSER could experience a rebound effect.
with the average being around 1.5 Because of this potential for perverse
i. CO2 Reductions From HRI in Prior percent. Different combinations of HRI GHG emission outcomes resulting from
Rulemakings measures do not necessarily result in deployment of HRI at certain steam
In the CPP, the EPA quantified cumulative reductions in emission rate generating units, coupled with the
emission reductions achievable through (e.g., intelligent sootblowing systems
heat rate improvements on a regional combined with neural network 690 84 FR 32520 (July 8, 2019).
relatively minor overall GHG emission individual sources.’’ Id. at 727 (citing [of EPA’s] regulatory authority’’. Id. at
reductions that would be expected from ‘‘fuel-switching’’ and ‘‘add-on 724. To be sure, this rule’s
this measure, the EPA is not finalizing controls’’). The Court said that determination that CCS is the BSER
HRI as the BSER for any subcategory of generation-shifting as the BSER was imposes compliance costs on coal-fired
existing coal-fired steam generating ‘‘unprecedented’’ because it was power plants. That sources will incur
units. designed to ‘‘improve the overall power costs to control their emissions of
system by lowering the carbon intensity dangerous pollution is an unremarkable
E. Additional Comments Received on of power generation . . . by forcing a consequence of regulation, which, as the
the Emission Guidelines for Existing shift throughout the power grid from Supreme Court recognized, ‘‘may end
Steam Generating Units and Responses one type of energy source to another.’’ up causing an incidental loss of coal’s
1. Consistency With West Virginia v. Id. at 727–28 (internal quotation marks, market share.’’ Id. at 731 n.4.691 Indeed,
EPA and the Major Questions Doctrine emphasis, and citation omitted). The ensuring that sources internalize the full
Court cited statements by the then- costs of mitigating their impacts on
Comment: Some commenters argued
Administrator describing the CPP as human health and the environment is a
that the EPA’s determination that CCS is
‘‘not about pollution control so much as central purpose of traditional
the BSER for existing coal-fired power
it was an investment opportunity for environmental regulation.
plants is invalid under West Virginia v. In particular, for the power sector,
States, especially investments in
EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and the major grid operators constantly shift
renewables and clean energy.’’ Id. at
questions doctrine (MQD). Commenters generation as they dispatch electricity
728. The Court further concluded that
state that for various reasons, coal-fired from sources based upon their costs.
the EPA’s view of its authority was
power plants will not install CCS and virtually unbounded because the ‘‘EPA The EPA’s IPM modeling, which is
instead will be forced to retire their decides, for instance, how much of a based on the costs of the various types
units. They point to the EPA’s IPM switch from coal to natural gas is of electricity generation, projects these
modeling which, they say, shows that practically feasible by 2020, 2025, and impacts. Viewed as a whole, these
many coal-fired power plants retire 2030 before the grid collapses, and how projected impacts show that,
rather than install CCS. They add that, high energy prices can go as a result collectively, coal-fired power plants will
in this way, the rule effectively results before they become unreasonably likely produce less electricity, and other
in the EPA’s requiring generation- exorbitant.’’ Id. at 729. sources (like gas-fired units and
shifting from coal-fired generation to Here, the EPA’s determination that renewable sources) will likely produce
renewable and other generation, and CCS is the BSER does not affect a more electricity, but this pattern does
thus is like the Clean Power Plan (CPP). fundamental revision of the statute, nor not constitute a transformative
For those reasons, they state that the is it unbounded. CCS is not directed at expansion of statutory authority (EPA’s
rule raises a major question, and further improvement of the overall power Power Sector Platform 2023 using IPM;
that CAA section 111(d) does not system. Rather, CCS is a traditional final TSD, Power Sector Trends.)
contain a clear authorization for this ‘‘add-on [pollution] control[ ]’’ akin to These projected impacts are best
type of rule. measures that the EPA identified as understood by comparing the IPM
Response: The EPA discussed West BSER in prior CAA section 111 rules. model’s ‘‘base case,’’ i.e., the projected
Virginia and its articulation of the MQD See id. at 727. It ‘‘focus[es] on electricity generation without any rule
in section V.B.6 of this preamble. improving the performance of in place, to the model’s ‘‘policy case,’’
The EPA disagrees with these individual sources’’—it reduces CO2 i.e., the projected electricity generation
comments. This rule is fully consistent pollution from each individual source— expected to result from this rule. The
with the Supreme Court’s interpretation because each affected source is able to base case projects that many coal-fired
of the EPA’s authority in West Virginia. apply it to its own facility to reduce its units will retire over the next 20 years
The EPA’s determination that CCS—a own emissions. Id. at 727. Further, the (EPA’s Power Sector Platform 2023
traditional, add-on emissions control— EPA determined that CCS qualifies as using IPM; final TSD, Power Sector
is the BSER is consistent with the plain the BSER by applying the criteria Trends). Those projected retirements
text of section 111. As explained in specified in CAA section 111(a)(1)— track trends over the past two decades
detail in section VII.C.1.a, for long-term including adequate demonstration, costs where coal-fired units have retired in
coal-fired steam generating units, CCS of control, and emissions reductions. high numbers because gas-fired units
meets all of the BSER factors: it is See section VII.C.1.a of this preamble. and renewable sources have become
adequately demonstrated, of reasonable Thus, CCS as the BSER does not increasingly able to generate lower-cost
cost, and achieves substantial emissions ‘‘chang[e]’’ the statute ‘‘from one sort of electricity. As more gas-fired and
reductions. That some coal-fired power scheme of regulation into an entirely renewable generation sources deploy in
plants will choose not to install different kind.’’ Id. at 728 (internal the future, and as coal-fired units
emission controls and will instead retire quotation marks, brackets, and citation continue to age—which results in
does not raise major questions concerns. omitted). decreased efficiency and increased
In West Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Commenters contend that costs—the coal-fired units will become
Court held that ‘‘generation-shifting’’ as notwithstanding these distinctions, the increasingly marginal and continue to
the BSER for coal- and gas-fired units choice of CCS as the BSER has the effect retire (EPA’s Power Sector Platform
‘‘effected a fundamental revision of the of shifting generation because modeling 2023 using IPM; final TSD, Power Sector
statute, changing it from one sort of projections for the rule show that coal- Trends.) That is true in the absence of
scheme of regulation into an entirely
fired generation will become less this rule. The EPA’s modeling results
different kind.’’ 597 U.S. at 728 (internal competitive, and gas-fired and also project that even if the EPA had
quotation marks, brackets, and citation renewable-generated electricity will be
omitted). The Court explained that prior more competitive and dispatched more 691 As discussed in section VII.C.1.a.ii.(D), the
CAA section 111 rules were premised frequently. That some coal-fired sources costs of CCS are reasonable based on the EPA’s
$/MWh and $/ton metrics. As discussed in RTC
on ‘‘more traditional air pollution may retire rather than reduce their CO2 section 2.16, the total annual costs of this rule are
control measures’’ that ‘‘focus on pollution does not mean that the rule a small fraction of the revenues and capital costs
improving the performance of ‘‘represents a transformative expansion of the electric power industry.
determined BSER for long-term sources light of these potential significant production is generally less economic
to be 40 percent co-firing, which developments, the EPA is committing to and less competitive than other forms of
requires significantly less capital review and, if appropriate, revise the electricity production. That is, the
investment, and not 90 percent capture requirements of this rule by January 1, retirements that the model predicts
CCS, a comparable number of sources 2041, as described in section VII.F. under this rule, and the structure of the
would retire instead of installing In any event, the modeling projections industry that results, diverge little from
controls. These results confirm that the showing that many sources retire the prior rate of retirements of coal-fired
primary cause for the projected instead of installing controls are in line units over the past two decades. They
retirements is the marginal profitability with the trends for these units in the also diverge little from the rate of
of the sources. absence of the rule—as the coal-fired retirements from sources that have
Importantly, the base-case projections fleet ages and lower-cost alternatives already announced that they will retire,
also show that some coal-fired units become increasingly available, more or from the additional retirements that
install CCS and run at high capacity operators will retire coal-fired units IPM projects will occur in the base case
factors, in fact, higher than they would with or without this rule. In 2045, the (EPA’s Power Sector Platform 2023
have had they not installed CCS. This is average age of coal-fired units that have using IPM; final TSD, Power Sector
because the IRC section 45Q tax credit not yet announced retirement dates or Trends).
significantly reduces the variable cost of coal-to-gas conversion by 2039 will be As discussed above, because much of
operation for qualifying sources. This 61 years old. And, on average, between the coal-fired fleet is operating on the
incentivizes sources to increase 2000 and 2022, even in the absence of edge of viability, many sources would
generation to maximize the tons of CO2 this rule, coal-fired units generally retire instead of installing any
the CCS equipment captures, and retired at 53 years old. Thus, taken as meaningful CO2 emissions control—
thereby increase the amount of the tax a whole, this rule does not dramatically whether CCS, natural gas co-firing, or
credit they receive. In the ‘‘policy case,’’ reduce the expected operating horizon otherwise. Under commenters’ view that
beginning when the CCS requirement of most coal-fired units. Indeed, for such retirements create a major
applies in the 2035 model year,692 some units that install CCS, the generous IRC question, any form of meaningful
additional coal-fired units will likely section 45Q tax credit increases the regulation of these sources would create
install CCS, and also run at high competitiveness of these units, and it a major question and effect a
capacity factors, again, significantly allows them to generate more electricity fundamental revision of the statute.
higher than they would have without with greater profit than the sources That cannot possibly be so. Section
CCS. Other units may retire rather than would otherwise generate if they did not 111(d)(1) plainly mandates regulation of
install emission controls (EPA’s Power install CCS. these units, which are the biggest
Sector Platform 2023 using IPM; final The projected effects of the rule do stationary source of dangerous CO2
TSD, Power Sector Trends). On balance, not show the BSER—here, CCS—is akin
emissions.
the coal-fired units that install CCS to generation shifting, or otherwise
The legislative history for the CAA
collectively generate nearly the same represents an expansion of EPA
further makes clear that Congress
amount of electricity in the 2040 model authority with vast political or
intended the EPA to promulgate
year as do the group of coal-fired units economic significance. As described
regulations even where emissions
in the base case. above at VII.C.1.a.ii, CCS is an
controls had economic costs. At the
The policy case also shows that in the affordable emissions control technology.
time of the 1970 CAA Amendments,
2045 model year, by which time the 12- It is also very effective, reducing CO2
Congress recognized that the threats of
year period for sources to claim the IRC emissions from coal-fired units by 90
air pollution to public health and
section 45Q tax credit will have expired, percent, as described in section
most sources that install CCS retire due VII.C.1.a.i. Indeed, as noted, the IRA tax welfare had grown urgent and severe.
to the costs of meeting the CCS-based credits make CCS so affordable that Sen. Edmund Muskie (D–ME), manager
standards without the benefit of the tax coal-fired units that install CCS run at of the bill and chair of the Public Works
credit. However, in fact, these projected higher capacity factors than they would Subcommittee on Air and Water
outcomes are far from certain as the otherwise. Pollution, which drafted the bill,
modeling results generally do not Considered as a whole, and in context regularly referred to the air pollution
account for numerous potential changes with historical retirement trends, the problem as a ‘‘crisis.’’ As Sen. Muskie
that may occur over the next 20 or more projected impacts of this rule on coal- recognized, ‘‘Air pollution control will
years, any of which may enable these fired generating units do not raise MQD be cheap only in relation to the costs of
units to continue to operate concerns. The projected impacts are lack of control.’’ 693 The Senate
economically for a longer period. merely incidental to the CCS control Committee Report for the 1970 CAA
Examples of potential changes include itself—the unremarkable consequence of Amendments specifically discussed the
reductions in the operational costs of marginally increasing the cost of doing precursor provision to section 111(d)
CCS through technological business in a competitive market. Nor is and noted, ‘‘there should be no gaps in
improvements, or the development of the rule ‘‘transformative.’’ The rule does control activities pertaining to
additional potential revenue streams for not ‘‘announce what the market share of stationary source emissions that pose
captured CO2 as the market for coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must any significant danger to public health
beneficial uses of CO2 continues to be, and then requiring plants to reduce or welfare.’’ 694 Accordingly, some of the
develop, among other possible changed operations or subsidize their
693 Sen. Muskie, Sept. 21, 1970, LH 226.
economic circumstances (including the competitors to get there.’’ 597 U.S. at 694 S.Rep. No. 91–1196, at 20 (Sept. 17, 1970),
possible extension of the tax credits). In 731 n.4. As noted above, coal-fired units 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 420 (discussing section
that install CCS are projected to generate 114 of the Senate Committee bill, which was the
692 Under the rule, sources are required to meet substantial amounts of electricity. The basis for CAA section 111(d)). Note that in the 1977
their CCS-based standard of performance by January retirements that are projected to occur CAA Amendments, the House Committee Report
1, 2032. IPM groups calendar years into 5-year made a similar statement. H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, at
periods, e.g., the 2035 model year and the 2040
are broadly consistent with market 42 (May 12, 1977), 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 2509
model year. January 1, 2032, falls into the 2035 trends over the past two decades, which (discussing a provision in the House Committee bill
model year. show that coal-fired electricity that became CAA section 122, requiring EPA to
EPA’s prior CAA section 111 2. Redefining the Source relying on fuel switching, and noted
rulemakings have imposed stringent Comment: Some commenters that one of the purposes of this
requirements, at significant cost, in contended that the proposed 40 percent amendment was to allow new sources to
order to achieve significant emission natural gas co-firing performance burn high sulfur coal while still
reductions.695 standard violates legal precedent that decreasing emissions, and thus to
Congress’s enactment of the IRA and bars the EPA from setting technology- increase the availability of low sulfur
IIJA further shows its view that reducing based performance standards that would coal for existing sources, which were
air pollution—specifically, in those have the effect of ‘‘redefining the not subject to the ‘‘technological’’
source.’’ They stated that this control requirement.700 In 1990,
laws, GHG emissions to address climate
prohibition against the redefinition of however, Congress removed the
change—is a high priority. As discussed
the source bars the EPA from adopting ‘‘technological’’ language, allowing the
in section IV.E.1, that law provided
the proposed performance standard for EPA to set fuel-switching based
funds for DOE grant and loan programs
medium-term coal-fired EGUs, which standards for both new and existing
to support CCS, and extended and power plants.701
requires such units to operate in a
increased the IRC section 45Q tax credit
manner for which the unit was never The EPA has a tradition of
for carbon capture. It also adopted the
designed to do, namely operate as a promulgating rules based on fuel
Low Emission Electricity Program
hybrid coal/natural gas co-firing switching. For example, the 2006 NSPS
(LEEP), which allocates funds to the generating unit and combusting 40
EPA for the express purpose of using for stationary compression ignition
percent of its fuel input as natural gas internal combustion engines required
CAA regulatory authority to reduce (instead of coal) on an annual basis.
GHG emissions from domestic the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel.702
Commenters argued that co-firing Similarly, in the 2015 NSPS for
electricity generation through use of its would constitute forcing one type of EGUs,703 the EPA determined that the
existing CAA authorities. CAA section source to become an entirely different BSER for peaking plants was to burn
135, added by IRA section 60107. The kind of source, and that the Supreme primarily natural gas, with distillate oil
EPA is promulgating the present Court precluded such a requirement in used only as a backup fuel.704 Nor is
rulemaking with those funds. The West Virginia v. EPA when it stated in this approach unique to CAA section
congressional sponsor of the LEEP made footnote 3 of that case that the EPA has 111; in the 2016 rule setting section 112
clear that it authorized the type of ‘‘never ordered anything remotely like’’ standards for hazardous air pollutant
rulemaking that the EPA is a rule that would ‘‘simply require coal emissions from area sources, for
promulgating today: he stated that the plants to become natural gas plants’’ example, the EPA finalized an
EPA may promulgate rulemaking under and the Court ‘‘doubt[ed that EPA] alternative particulate matter (PM)
CAA section 111, based on CCS, to could.’’ 697 standard that specified that certain oil-
address CO2 emissions from fossil fuel- Response: The EPA disagrees with fired boilers would meet the applicable
fired power plants, which may be these comments.
‘‘impactful’’ by having the ‘‘incidental Standards based on co-firing, as 700 See H. Rep. No. 94–1175, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.
effect’’ of leading some ‘‘companies . . . contemplated in this rule, are based on (May 15, 1976) Part A, at 159 (listing the various
to choose to retire such plants. . . .’’ 696 a ‘‘traditional pollution control purposes of the amendment to Section 111 adding
measure,’’ in particular, ‘‘fuel the term ‘technological’: ‘‘Fourth, by using best
For these reasons, the rule here is control technology on large new fuel-burning
switching,’’ as the Supreme Court
consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognized in West Virginia.698 Rules
stationary sources, these sources could burn higher
decision in West Virginia. The selection sulfur fuel than if no technological means of
based on switching to a cleaner fuel are reducing emissions were used. This means an
of CCS as the BSER for existing coal- authorized under the CAA, an expansion of the energy resources that could be
fired units is a traditional, add-on authorization directly acknowledged by burned in compliance with environmental
control intended to reduce the Congress. Specifically, as part of the
requirements. Fifth, since large new fuel-burning
sources would not rely on naturally low sulfur coal
emissions performance of individual 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress or oil to achieve compliance with new source
sources. That some sources may retire required that the EPA base its standards performance standards, the low sulfur coal or oil
instead of controlling their emissions regulating certain new sources, that would have been burned in these major new
does not otherwise show that the rule sources could instead be used in older and smaller
including power plants, on sources.’’)
runs afoul of the MQD. The modeling ‘‘technological’’ controls, rather than 701 In 1990, Congress removed this reference to a
projections for this rule show that the simply the ‘‘best system.’’ 699 Congress ‘‘technological system’’, and the current text reads
anticipated retirements are largely understood this to mean that new simply: ‘‘The term ‘‘standard of performance’’
consistent with historical trends, and means a standard for emissions of air pollutants
sources would be required to implement which reflects the degree of emission limitation
due to many coal-fired units’ advanced add-on controls, rather than merely achievable through the application of the best
age and lack of competitiveness with system of emission reduction which (taking into
lower cost methods of electricity 697 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S, 697, 728 n.3 account the cost of achieving such reduction and
(2022). any nonair quality health and environmental
generation. 698 See 597 U.S. at 727. impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
699 In 1977, Congress clarified that for purposes determines has been adequately demonstrated.’’ 42
study and then take action to regulate radioactive of CAA section 111(a)(1)(A), concerning standards U.S.C. 7411(a)(1).
air pollutants and three other air pollutants). of performance for new and modified ‘‘fossil fuel-
702 Standards of Performance for Stationary
695 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 313
fired stationary sources’’ a standard or performance Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines,
(D.C. Cir. 1981) (upholding NSPS imposing controls ‘‘shall reflect the degree of emission limitation and 71 FR 39154 (July 11, 2006). In the preamble to the
on SO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants the percentage reduction achievable through final rule, the EPA noted that for engines which had
when the ‘‘cost of the new controls . . . is application of the best technological system of not previously used this new ultra-low sulfur fuel,
substantial. EPA estimates that utilities will have to continuous emission reduction which (taking into additives would likely need to be added to the fuel
spend tens of billions of dollars by 1995 on consideration the cost of achieving such emission to maintain appropriate lubricity. See id. at 39158.
pollution control under the new NSPS.’’). reduction, any nonair quality health and 703 Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas
696 168 Cong. Rec. E868 (August 23, 2022) environmental impact and energy requirements) the Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed
(statement of Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr.); id. E879 Administrator determines has been adequately Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
(August 26, 2022) (statement of Rep. Frank Pallone, demonstrated.’’ Clean Air Act 1977 Revisions Units, 80 FR 64510, (October 23, 2015).
Jr.). (emphasis added). 704 See id. at 64621.
standard if they combusted only ultra- However, the costs of CCS and the economics of continued generation by
low-sulfur liquid fuel.705 overall economic viability of operating affected sources that have installed CCS,
Moreover, the West Virginia Court’s CO2 capture at power plants are the EPA is committing to review and, if
statements in footnote 3 are irrelevant to improving and can be expected to appropriate, revise this rule by January
the question of the validity of a 40 continue to improve in years to come. 1, 2041. This commitment is included
percent co-firing standard. There, the CO2 that is captured from fossil-fuel in the regulations that the EPA is
Court was referring to a complete fired sources is currently beneficially promulgating with this rule. The EPA
transformation of the coal-fired unit to used, including, for example, for will conduct this review based on what
enhanced oil recovery and in the food we learn from monitoring these
a 100 percent gas fired unit—a change
and beverage industry. There is much developments, as noted above.
that would require entirely repowering
research into developing beneficial uses Completing this review and any
the unit. By contrast, increasing co-
for many other industries, including appropriate revisions by that date will
firing at existing coal-fired units to 40
construction, chemical manufacturing, allow time for the states to revise, if
percent would require only minor
graphite manufacturing. The demand for necessary, standards applicable to
changes to the units’ boilers. In fact,
CO2 is expected to grow considerably affected sources, and for the EPA to act
many coal-fired units are already
over the next several decades. As a on those state revisions, by the early to
capable of co-firing some amount of gas result, in the decades to come, affected
without any changes at all, and several mid-2040s. That is when the 12-year
sources may well be able to replace at period for the 45Q tax credit is expected
have fired at 40 percent and above in least some of the revenues from the tax
recent years. Of the 565 coal-fired EGUs to expire for affected sources that
credit with revenues from the sale of comply with the CCS requirement by
operating at the end of 2021, 249 of CO2. We discuss these potential
them reported consuming natural gas as January 1, 2032, and when other
developments in chapter 2 of the significant developments noted above
a fuel or startup source, 162 reported Response to Comments document,
more than one month of consumption of may be well underway.
available in the rulemaking docket.
natural gas at their boiler, and 29 co- In addition, numerous states have VIII. Requirements for New and
fired at over 40 percent on an annual imposed requirements to decarbonize Reconstructed Stationary Combustion
heat input basis in at least one year generation within their borders. Many Turbine EGUs and Rationale for
while also operating with annual utilities have also announced plans to Requirements
capacity factors greater than 10 percent. decarbonize their fleet, including
For more on this, see section IV.C.2 of A. Overview
building small modular (advanced
this preamble; see also the final TSD, nuclear) reactors. Given the relatively This section discusses the
GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam high capital and fixed costs of small requirements for stationary combustion
Generating Units. modular reactors, plans for their turbine EGUs that commence
construction represent an expectation of construction or reconstruction after May
F. Commitment To Review and, If 23, 2023. The requirements are codified
Appropriate, Revise Emission higher future energy prices. This
suggests that, in the decades to come, at in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa. The
Guidelines for Coal-Fired Units EPA explains in section VIII.B of this
least in certain areas of the country,
The EPA recognizes that the IRC 45Q affected sources may be able to maintain document the two basic turbine
tax credit is a key component to the cost a place in the dispatch curve that allows technologies that are used in the power
of CCS, as discussed in section them to continue to generate while they sector and are covered by 40 CFR part
VII.C.1.a.ii(C) of this preamble. The EPA continue to operate CCS, even in the 60, subpart TTTTa. Those are simple
further recognizes that for any affected absence of additional revenues for CO2. cycle combustion turbines and
source, the tax credit is currently We discuss these potential combined cycle combustion turbines.
available for a 12-year period and not developments in the final TSD, Power The EPA also explains how these
subsequently. The tax credit is generally Sector Trends, available in the technologies are used in the three
sufficient to defray the capital costs of rulemaking docket. subcategories: low load turbines,
CCS and much, if not all, of the These developments, which may intermediate load turbines, and base
operating costs during that 12-year occur by the 2040s—the expiration of load turbines. Section VIII.C provides an
period. Following the 12-year period, the 12-year period for the IRC 45Q tax overview of how stationary combustion
affected sources that continue to operate credit, the potential development of the turbines have been previously regulated.
the CCS equipment would have higher CO2 utilization market, and potential Section VIII.D discusses the EPA’s
costs of generation, due to the CCS market supports for low-GHG decision to revisit the standards for new
operating costs, including parasitic load. generation—may significantly affect the and reconstructed turbines as part of the
Under certain circumstances, these costs to coal-fired steam EGUs of statutorily required 8-year review of the
higher costs could push the affected operating their CCS controls. As a NSPS. Section VIII.E discusses changes
sources lower on the dispatch curve, result, the EPA will closely monitor that the EPA is finalizing in both
and thereby lead to reductions in the these developments. Our efforts will applicability and subcategories in the
amount of their generation, i.e., if include consulting with other agencies new 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, as
affected sources are not able to replace with expertise and information, compared to those codified previously
the revenue from the tax credit with including DOE, which currently has a in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. Most
revenue from other sources, or if the program, the Carbon Conversion notably, for new and reconstructed
price of electricity does not reflect any Program, in the Office of Carbon natural gas-fired combustion turbines,
additional costs needed to minimize Management, that funds research into the EPA is finalizing BSER
GHG emissions. CO2 utilization. We regularly consult determinations and standards of
with stakeholders, including industry performance for the three subcategories
705 See National Emission Standards for
stakeholders, and will continue to do so. mentioned above—low load,
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources:
In light of these potential significant intermediate load, and base load.
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, 81 developments and their impacts, Sections VIII.F and VIII.G of this
FR 63112–01 (September 14, 2016). potentially positive or negative, on the document discuss the EPA’s
determination of the BSER for each of combustion turbine EGU is increased, these intermediate or load following
the three subcategories of combustion less fuel is burned to produce the same EGUs is to provide dispatchable backup
turbines and the applicable standards of amount of electricity, with a power to support variable renewable
performance, respectively. For low load corresponding decrease in fuel costs and generating sources (e.g., solar and
combustion turbines, the EPA is lower emissions of CO2 and, generally, wind). A developer’s decision as to
finalizing a determination that the use of other air pollutants. The greater the whether to build a simple cycle turbine
of lower-emitting fuels is the output of electric energy for a given or a combined cycle turbine to serve
appropriate BSER. For intermediate load amount of fuel energy input, the higher intermediate load demand is based on
combustion turbines, the EPA is the efficiency of the electric generation several factors related to the intended
finalizing a determination that highly process. operation of the unit. These factors
efficient simple cycle generation is the Combustion turbines serve various would include how frequently the unit
appropriate BSER. For base load roles in the power sector. Some is expected to cycle between starts and
combustion turbines, the EPA is combustion turbines operate at low stops, the predominant load level at
finalizing a determination that the BSER annual capacity factors and are available which the unit is expected to operate,
includes two components that to provide temporary power during and whether this level of operation is
correspond initially to a two-phase periods of high load demand. These expected to remain consistent or is
standard of performance. The first turbines are often referred to as expected to vary over the lifetime of the
component of the BSER, with an ‘‘peaking units.’’ Some combustion unit. In areas of the U.S. with vertically
immediate compliance date (phase 1), is turbines operate at intermediate annual integrated electricity markets, utilities
highly efficient generation based on the capacity factors and are often referred to determine dispatch orders based
performance of a highly efficient as cycling or load-following units. Other generally on economic merit of
combined cycle turbine and the second combustion turbines operate at high individual units. Meanwhile, in areas of
component of the BSER, with a annual capacity factors to serve base the U.S. inside organized wholesale
compliance date of January 1, 2032 load demand and are often referred to as electricity markets, owner/operators of
(phase 2), is based on the use of CCS base load units. In this rulemaking, the individual combustion turbines control
with a 90 percent capture rate, along EPA refers to these types of combustion whether and how units will operate
with continued use of highly efficient turbines as low load, intermediate load, over time, but they do not necessarily
generation. For base load turbines, the and base load, respectively. control the precise timing of dispatch
standards of performance corresponding Low load combustion turbines for units in any given day or hour. Such
to both components of the BSER would provide reserve capacity, support grid short-term dispatch decisions are often
apply to all new and reconstructed reliability, and generally provide power made by regional grid operators that
sources that commence construction or during periods of peak electric demand. determine, on a moment-to-moment
reconstruction after May 23, 2023. The As such, the units may operate at or basis, which available individual units
EPA occasionally refers to these near their full capacity, but only for should operate to balance supply and
standards of performance as the phase 1 short periods, as needed. Because these demand and other requirements in an
or phase 2 standards. units only operate occasionally, capital optimal manner, based on operating
expenses are a major factor in the costs, price bids, and/or operational
B. Combustion Turbine Technology overall cost of electricity, and often, the characteristics. However, operating
For purposes of 40 CFR part 60, lowest capital cost (and generally less permits for simple cycle turbines often
subparts TTTT and TTTTa, stationary efficient) simple cycle EGUs are contain restrictions on the annual hours
combustion turbines include both intended for use only during periods of of operation that owners/operators
simple cycle and combined cycle EGUs. peak electric demand. Due to their low incorporate into longer-term operating
Simple cycle turbines operate in the efficiency, these units require more fuel plans and short-term dispatch decisions.
Brayton thermodynamic cycle and per MWh of electricity produced and Intermediate load combustion
include three primary components: a their operating costs tend to be higher. turbines vary their generation,
multi-stage compressor, a combustion Because of the higher operating costs, especially during transition periods
chamber (i.e., combustor), and a turbine. they are generally some of the last units between low and high electric demand.
The compressor is used to supply large in the dispatch order. Important Both high-efficiency simple cycle
volumes of high-pressure air to the characteristics for low load combustion turbines and flexible fast-start combined
combustion chamber. The combustion turbines include their low capital costs, cycle turbines can fill this cycling role.
chamber converts fuel to heat and their ability to start quickly and to While the ability to start quickly and
expands the now heated, compressed air rapidly ramp up to full load, and their quickly ramp up is important, efficiency
through the turbine to create shaft work. ability to operate at partial loads while is also an important characteristic.
The shaft work drives an electric maintaining acceptable emission rates These combustion turbines generally
generator to produce electricity. and efficiencies. The ability to start have higher capital costs than low load
Combustion turbines that recover the quickly and rapidly attain full load is combustion turbines but are generally
energy in the high-temperature important to maximize revenue during less expensive to operate.
exhaust—instead of venting it directly periods of peak electric prices and to Base load combustion turbines are
to the atmosphere—are combined cycle meet sudden shifts in demand. In designed to operate for extended
EGUs and can obtain additional useful contrast, under steady-state conditions, periods at high loads with infrequent
electric output. A combined cycle EGU more efficient combined cycle EGUs are starts and stops. Quick-start capability
includes an HRSG operating in the dispatched ahead of low load turbines and low capital costs are less important
Rankine thermodynamic cycle. The and often operate at higher annual than low operating costs. High-
HRSG receives the high-temperature capacity factors. efficiency combined cycle turbines
exhaust and converts the heat to Highly efficient simple cycle turbines typically fill the role of base load
mechanical energy by producing steam and flexible fast-start combined cycle combustion turbines.
that is then fed into a steam turbine that, turbines both offer different advantages The increase in generation from
in turn, drives an electric generator. As and disadvantages when operating at variable renewable energy sources
the thermal efficiency of a stationary intermediate loads. One of the roles of during the past decade has impacted the
way in which dispatchable generating fired turbines, the EPA created a multi-fuel-fired subcategory, further
resources operate.706 For example, the subcategory for base load turbines and binning non-base load combustion
electric output from wind and solar a separate subcategory for non-base load turbines into low load and intermediate
generating sources fluctuates daily and turbines. Base load turbines were load subcategories and establishing a
seasonally due to increases and defined as combustion turbines with capacity factor threshold for base load
decreases in the wind speed or solar electric sales greater than a site-specific combustion turbines.
intensity. Due to this variable nature of electric sales threshold based on the
wind and solar, dispatchable EGUs, design efficiency of the combustion 1. Applicability Requirements
including combustion turbines as well turbine. Non-base load turbines were
In general, the EPA refers to fossil
as other technologies like energy defined as combustion turbines with a
capacity factor less than or equal to the fuel-fired EGUs that would be subject to
storage, are used to ensure the reliability
of the electric grid. This requires site-specific electric sales threshold. For a CAA section 111 NSPS as ‘‘affected’’
dispatchable power plants to have the base load turbines, the EPA set a EGUs or units. An EGU is any fossil
ability to quickly start and stop and to standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross fuel-fired electric utility steam
rapidly and frequently change load— based on efficient combined cycle generating unit (i.e., a utility boiler or
much more often than was previously turbine technology. For non-base load IGCC unit) or stationary combustion
needed. These are important and multi-fuel-fired turbines, the EPA turbine (in either simple cycle or
characteristics of the combustion set a standard based on the use of lower- combined cycle configuration). To be
turbines that provide firm backup emitting fuels that varied from 120 lb considered an affected EGU under the
capacity. Combustion turbines are much CO2/MMBtu to 160 lb CO2/MMBtu, 2015 NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
more flexible than coal-fired utility depending upon whether the turbine TTTT, the unit must meet the following
boilers in this regard and have played burned primarily natural gas or other applicability criteria: The unit must: (1)
an important role during the past lower-emitting fuels. be capable of combusting more than 250
decade in ensuring that electric supply D. Eight-Year Review of NSPS MMBtu/h (260 gigajoules per hour (GJ/
and demand are balanced. h)) of heat input of fossil fuel (either
As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the alone or in combination with any other
preamble, in the final TSD, Power Administrator to ‘‘at least every 8 years, fuel); and (2) serve a generator capable
Sector Trends, and in the accompanying review and, if appropriate, revise [the of supplying more than 25 MW net to
RIA, the EPA’s Power Sector Platform NSPS] . . . .’’ The provision further
a utility distribution system (i.e., for sale
2023 using IPM projects that natural provides that ‘‘the Administrator need
to the grid).707 However, 40 CFR part 60,
gas-fired combustion turbines will not review any such standard if the
subpart TTTT, includes applicability
continue to play an important role in Administrator determines that such
review is not appropriate in light of exemptions for certain EGUs, including:
meeting electricity demand. However, (1) non-fossil fuel-fired units subject to
that role is projected to evolve as readily available information on the
efficacy of such [NSPS].’’ a federally enforceable permit that
additional renewable and non- limits the use of fossil fuels to 10
renewable low-GHG generation and The EPA promulgated the NSPS for
GHG emissions for stationary percent or less of their heat input
energy storage technologies are added to capacity on an annual basis; (2) CHP
the grid. Energy storage technologies combustion turbines in 2015.
Announcements and modeling units that are subject to a federally
can store energy during periods when enforceable permit limiting annual net
generation from renewable resources is projections show that project developers
are building new fossil fuel-fired electric sales to no more than either the
high relative to demand and can provide unit’s design efficiency multiplied by its
electricity to the grid during other combustion turbines and have plans to
continue building additional capacity. potential electric output, or 219,000
periods. Energy storage technologies are MWh, whichever is greater; (3)
projected to reduce the need for base Because the emissions from this added
capacity have the potential to be large stationary combustion turbines that are
load fossil fuel-fired firm dispatchable
and these units are likely to have long not physically capable of combusting
power plants, and the capacity factors of
operating lives (25 years or more), it is natural gas (e.g., those that are not
combined cycle EGUs are forecast to
important to limit emissions from these connected to a natural gas pipeline); (4)
decline by 2040.
new units. Accordingly, in this final utility boilers and IGCC units that have
C. Overview of Regulation of Stationary rule, the EPA is updating the NSPS for always been subject to a federally
Combustion Turbines for GHGs newly constructed and reconstructed enforceable permit limiting annual net
As explained earlier in this preamble, fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion electric sales to one-third or less of their
the EPA originally regulated new and turbines. potential electric output (e.g., limiting
reconstructed stationary combustion E. Applicability Requirements and hours of operation to less than 2,920
turbine EGUs for emissions of GHGs in Subcategorization hours annually) or limiting annual
2015 under 40 CFR part 60, subpart electric sales to 219,000 MWh or less;
TTTT. In 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, This section describes the (5) municipal waste combustors that are
the EPA created three subcategories: two amendments to the specific subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb;
for natural gas-fired combustion applicability criteria for non-fossil fuel- (6) commercial or industrial solid waste
turbines and one for multi-fuel-fired fired EGUs, industrial EGUs, CHP EGUs, incineration units subject to 40 CFR part
combustion turbines. For natural gas- and combustion turbine EGUs not 60, subpart CCCC; and (7) certain
connected to a natural gas pipeline. The
projects under development, as

EPA is also making certain changes to
706 Dispatchable generating sources are those that
discussed in the preamble for the 2015
can be turned on and off and adjusted to provide the applicability requirements for
final NSPS.
power to the electric grid based on the demand for stationary combustion turbines affected
electricity. Variable (sometimes referred to as by this final rule as compared to those
intermittent) generating sources are those that 707 The EPA refers to the capability to combust
supply electricity based on external factors that are

for sources affected by the 2015 NSPS. 250 MMBtu/h of fossil fuel as the ‘‘base load rating
not controlled by the owner/operator of the source The amendments are described below criterion.’’ Note that 250 MMBtu/h is equivalent to
(e.g., wind and solar sources). and include the elimination of the 73 MW or 260 GJ/h heat input.
a. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart The EPA proposed and is finalizing facilities (e.g., an auxiliary boiler
TTTT several amendments to align the providing steam to a primary boiler).
The EPA is amending 40 CFR 60.5508 applicability criteria with the original This language could result in certain
and 60.5509 to reflect that stationary intent to cover only fossil fuel-fired large processes being included as part of
combustion turbines that commenced EGUs. These amendments ensure that the EGU and meeting the applicability
construction after January 8, 2014, or solar thermal EGUs with natural gas criteria. For example, the high-
reconstruction after June 18, 2014, and backup burners, like other types of non- temperature exhaust from an industrial
before May 24, 2023, and that meet the fossil fuel-fired units that derive most of process (e.g., calcining kilns, dryer,
relevant applicability criteria are subject their energy from non-fossil fuel metals processing, or carbon black
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. For sources, are not subject to the production facilities) that consumes
steam generating EGUs and IGCC units, requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart fossil fuel could be sent to a HRSG to
40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, remains TTTT or TTTTa. Amending the produce electricity. If the industrial
applicable for units constructed after applicability language to include heat process uses more than 250 MMBtu/h
January 8, 2014, or reconstructed after input derived from non-combustion heat input and the electric sales exceed
June 18, 2014. The EPA is finalizing 40 sources allows these facilities to avoid the applicability criteria, then the unit
CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, to be the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, could be subject to 40 CFR part 60,
applicable to stationary combustion subpart TTTT or TTTTa, by limiting the subpart TTTT or TTTTa. This is
turbines that commence construction or use of the natural gas burners to less potentially problematic for multiple
reconstruction after May 23, 2023, and than 10 percent of the capacity factor of reasons. First, it is difficult to determine
that meet the relevant applicability the backup burners. Specifically, the the useful output of the EGU (i.e.,
criteria. EPA is amending the definition of non- HRSG) since part of the useful output is
fossil fuel-fired EGUs from EGUs included in the industrial process. In
b. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart capable of ‘‘combusting 50 percent or addition, the fossil fuel that is
TTTT, That Are Also Included in 40 more non-fossil fuel’’ to EGUs capable combusted could have a relatively high
CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa of ‘‘deriving 50 percent or more of the CO2 emissions rate on a lb/MMBtu
The EPA is finalizing that 40 CFR part heat input from non-fossil fuel at the basis, making it potentially problematic
60, subpart TTTT, and 40 CFR part 60, base load rating’’ (emphasis added). The to meet the standard of performance
subpart TTTTa, use similar regulatory definition of base load rating is also using efficient generation. This could
text except where specifically stated. being amended to include the heat input result in the owner/operator reducing
This section describes amendments from non-combustion sources (e.g., solar the electric output of the industrial
included in both subparts. thermal). facility to avoid the applicability
Revising ‘‘combusting’’ to ‘‘deriving’’ criteria. Finally, the compliance costs
i. Applicability to Non-Fossil Fuel-Fired in the amended non-fossil fuel associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
EGUs applicability language ensures that 40 TTTT or TTTTa, could discourage the
The current non-fossil applicability CFR part 60, subparts TTTT and TTTTa, development of environmentally
exemption in 40 CFR part 60, subpart cover the fossil fuel-fired EGUs that the beneficial projects.
TTTT, is based strictly on the original rule was intended to cover, To avoid these outcomes, the EPA is,
combustion of non-fossil fuels (e.g., while minimizing unnecessary costs to as proposed, amending the applicability
biomass). To be considered a non-fossil EGUs fueled primarily by steam provision that exempts EGUs where
fuel-fired EGU, the EGU must be both: generated without combustion (e.g., greater than 50 percent of the heat input
(1) Capable of combusting more than 50 thermal energy supplied through the use is derived from an industrial process
percent non-fossil fuel and (2) subject to of solar thermal collectors). The that does not produce any electrical or
a federally enforceable permit condition corresponding change in the base load mechanical output or useful thermal
limiting the annual heat input capacity rating to include the heat input from output that is used outside the affected
for all fossil fuels combined of 10 non-combustion sources is necessary to EGU.708 Reducing the output or not
percent or less. The current language determine the relative heat input from developing industrial electric generating
does not take heat input from non- fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel sources. projects where the majority of the heat
combustion sources (e.g., solar thermal) ii. Industrial EGUs input is derived from the industrial
into account. Certain solar thermal process itself would not necessarily
installations have natural gas backup (A) Applicability to Industrial EGUs result in reductions in GHG emissions
burners larger than 250 MMBtu/h. As In simple terms, the current from the industrial facility. However,
currently treated in 40 CFR part 60, applicability provisions in 40 CFR part the electricity that would have been
subpart TTTT, these solar thermal 60, subpart TTTT, require that an EGU produced from the industrial project
installations are not eligible to be be capable of combusting more than 250 could still be needed. Therefore,
considered non-fossil units because they MMBtu/h of fossil fuel and be capable projects of this type provide significant
are not capable of deriving more than 50 of selling 25 MW to a utility distribution environmental benefit by providing
percent of their heat input from the system to be subject to 40 CFR part 60, additional useful output with little if
combustion of non-fossil fuels. subpart TTTT. These applicability any additional environmental impact.
Therefore, solar thermal installations provisions exclude industrial EGUs. Including these types of projects would
that include backup burners could meet However, the definition of an EGU also result in regulatory burden without any
the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part includes ‘‘integrated equipment that associated environmental benefit and
60, subpart TTTT, even if the burners provides electricity or useful thermal could discourage project development,
are limited to an annual capacity factor output.’’ This language facilitates the
of 10 percent or less. These EGUs would integration of non-emitting generation 708 Auxiliary equipment such as boilers or
readily comply with the standard of and avoids energy inputs from non- combustion turbines that provide heat or electricity
to the primary EGU (including to any control
performance, but the reporting and affected facilities being used in the equipment) would still be considered integrated
recordkeeping would increase costs for emission calculation without also equipment and included as part of the affected
these EGUs. considering the emissions of those facility.
leading to potential overall increases in less’’ (emphasis added). EGUs that efficiency documentation, as well as
GHG emissions. reduce current generation will continue performance guarantee results that
to be covered as long as they sold more affirmed the design efficiency, may no
(B) Industrial EGUs Electric Sales
than one-third of their potential electric longer exist. Moreover, such
Threshold Permit Requirement
output at some time in the past. The documentation and results may not be
The current electric sales applicability revisions make it possible for an owner/ relevant for current EGU efficiencies, as
exemption in 40 CFR part 60, subpart operator of an existing industrial EGU to changes to original EGU configurations,
TTTT, for non-CHP steam generating provide evidence to the Administrator upon which the original design
units includes the provision that EGUs that the facility has never sold efficiencies were based, render those
have ‘‘always been subject to a federally electricity in excess of the electricity original design efficiencies moot,
enforceable permit limiting annual net sales threshold and to modify their meaning that there would be little
electric sales to one-third or less of their permit to limit sales in the future. reason to maintain former design
potential electric output (e.g., limiting Without the amendment, owners/ efficiency documentation since it would
hours of operation to less than 2,920 operators of any non-CHP industrial not comport with the efficiency
hours annually) or limiting annual EGU capable of selling 25 MW would be associated with current EGU
electric sales to 219,000 MWh or less’’ subject to the existing source CAA configurations. As the three specified
(emphasis added). The justification for section 111(d) requirements even if they methods would rely on documentation
this restriction includes that the 40 CFR have never sold any electricity. from the original EGU configuration
part 60, subpart Da, applicability Therefore, the EPA is eliminating the performance guarantee testing, and
language includes ‘‘constructed for the requirement that existing industrial results from that documentation may no
purpose of . . .’’ and the Agency EGUs must have always been subject to longer exist or be relevant, it is
concluded that the intent was defined a permit restriction limiting net electric appropriate to allow other means to
by permit conditions (80 FR 64544; sales. demonstrate EGU design efficiency. To
October 23, 2015). This applicability reduce potential future compliance
criterion is important both for iii. Determination of the Design
burden, the EPA proposed and is
determining applicability with the new Efficiency
finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subparts
source CAA section 111(b) requirements The design efficiency (i.e., the TTTT and TTTTa, to allow alternative
and for determining whether existing efficiency of converting thermal energy methods as approved by the
steam generating units are subject to the to useful energy output) of a combustion Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
existing source CAA section 111(d) turbine is used to determine the electric Owners/operators of EGUs can petition
requirements. For steam generating sales applicability threshold. In 40 CFR the Administrator in writing to use an
units that commenced construction after part 60, subpart TTTT, the sales criteria alternate method to determine the
September 18, 1978, the applicability of are based in part on the individual EGU design efficiency. The Administrator’s
40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, would be design efficiency. Three methods for discretion is intentionally left broad and
relatively clear as to what criteria determining the design efficiency are can extend to other American Society of
pollutant NSPS is applicable to the currently provided in 40 CFR part 60, Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or
facility. However, for steam generating subpart TTTT.709 Since the 2015 NSPS International Organization for
units that commenced construction was finalized, the EPA has become Standardization (ISO) methods as well
prior to September 18, 1978, or where aware that owners/operators of certain as to operating data to demonstrate the
the owner/operator determined that existing EGUs do not have records of the design efficiency of the EGU. The EPA
criteria pollutant NSPS applicability original design efficiency. These units also proposed and is finalizing a change
was not critical to the project (e.g., would not be able to readily determine to the applicability of paragraph 60.8(b)
emission controls were sufficient to whether they meet the applicability in table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
comply with either the EGU or criteria (and would therefore be subject TTTT, from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘yes’’ and that the
industrial boiler criteria pollutant to CAA section 111(d) requirements for applicability of paragraph 60.8(b) in
NSPS), owners/operators might not have existing sources) in the same way that table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
requested that an electric sales permit 111(b) sources would be able to TTTTa, is ‘‘yes.’’ This allows the
restriction be included in the operating determine if the facility meets the Administrator to approve alternatives to
permit. Under the current applicability applicability criteria. Many of these the test methods specified in 40 CFR
language, some onsite EGUs could be EGUs are CHP units that are unlikely to part 60, subparts TTTT and TTTTa.
covered by the existing source CAA meet the 111(b) applicability criteria
section 111(d) requirements even if they and would therefore not be subject to c. Applicability for 40 CFR Part 60,
have never sold electricity to the grid. any future 111(d) requirements. Subpart TTTTa
To avoid covering these industrial However, the language in the 2015 This section describes applicability
EGUs, the EPA proposed and is NSPS would require them to conduct criteria that are only incorporated into
finalizing amendments to the electric additional testing to demonstrate this. 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, and that
sales exemption in 40 CFR part 60, The requirement would result in burden differ from the requirements in 40 CFR
subparts TTTT and TTTTa, to read, to the regulated community without any part 60, subpart TTTT.
‘‘annual net electric sales have never environmental benefit. The electricity Section 111 of the CAA defines a new
exceeded one-third of its potential generating market has changed, in some or modified source for purposes of a
electric output or 219,000 MWh, cases dramatically, during the lifetime given NSPS as any stationary source
that commences construction or
whichever is greater, and is [the ‘‘always of existing EGUs, especially concerning

been’’ would be deleted] subject to a ownership. As a result of acquisitions modification after the publication of the
federally enforceable permit limiting and mergers, original EGU design proposed regulation. Thus, the
annual net electric sales to one-third or standards of performance apply to EGUs
less of their potential electric output 709 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, currently lists
that commence construction or
(e.g., limiting hours of operation to less ‘‘ASME PTC 22 Gas Turbines,’’ ‘‘ASME PTC 46 reconstruction after the date of proposal
Overall Plant Performance,’’ and ‘‘ISO 2314 Gas
than 2,920 hours annually) or limiting turbines—acceptance tests’’ as approved methods to of this rule—May 23, 2023. EGUs that
annual electric sales to 219,000 MWh or determine the design efficiency. commenced construction after the date
of the proposal for the 2015 NSPS and non-continental areas (i.e., Hawaii, the electric output (i.e., less than 20.0
by May 23, 2023, will remain subject to Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, percent) would meet the applicability
the standards of performance the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and criteria. However, if a CHP unit with
promulgated in the 2015 NSPS. A the Northern Mariana Islands) and non- less than 20.0 percent of the total output
modification is any physical change in, contiguous areas (non-continental areas consisting of electricity were to meet the
or change in the method of operation of, and Alaska) as the EPA did for applicability criteria, the net electric
an existing source that increases the comparable units in the contiguous 48 sales and net energy output would be
amount of any air pollutant emitted to states.713 However, the Agency solicited calculated the same as for a traditional
which a standard applies.710 The NSPS comment on whether owners/operators non-CHP EGU. Even so, it is not clear
general provisions (40 CFR part 60, of new and reconstructed combustion that these CHP units would have less
subpart A) provide that an existing turbines in non-continental and non- environmental benefit per unit of
source is considered a new source if it contiguous areas should be subject to electricity produced than would more
undertakes a reconstruction.711 different requirements. Commenters traditional CHP units. For 40 CFR part
The EPA is finalizing the same generally commented that due to the 60, subpart TTTTa, the EPA proposed
applicability requirements in 40 CFR difference in non-contiguous areas and is finalizing to eliminate the
part 60, subpart TTTTa, as the relative to the lower 48 states, the restriction that CHP units produce at
applicability requirements in 40 CFR proposed requirements should not least 20.0 percent electrical or
part 60, subpart TTTT. The stationary apply to owners/operators of new or mechanical output to qualify for the
combustion turbine must meet the reconstructed combustion turbines in CHP-specific method for calculating net
following applicability criteria: The non-contiguous areas. The Agency has electric sales and net energy output.
stationary combustion turbine must: (1) considered these comments and is In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA did not
be capable of combusting more than 250 finalizing that only the initial BSER issue standards of performance for
MMBtu/h (260 gigajoules per hour (GJ/ component will be applicable to certain types of sources—including
h)) of heat input of fossil fuel (either owners/operators of combustion industrial CHP units and CHPs that are
alone or in combination with any other turbines located in non-contiguous subject to a federally enforceable permit
fuel); and (2) serve a generator capable areas. Therefore, owners/operators of limiting annual net electric sales to no
of supplying more than 25 MW net to base load combustions turbines would more than the unit’s design efficiency
a utility distribution system (i.e., for sale not be subject to the CCS-based multiplied by its potential electric
to the grid).712 In addition, the EPA numerical standards in 2032 and would output, or 219,000 MWh or less,
proposed and is finalizing in 40 CFR continue to comply with the efficiency- whichever is greater. For CHP units, the
part 60, subpart TTTTa, to include based numeric standard. Based on approach in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
applicability exemptions for stationary information reported in the 2022 EIA TTTT, for determining net electric sales
combustion turbines that are: (1) Form EIA–860, there are no planned for applicability purposes allows the
capable of deriving 50 percent or more new combustion turbines in either owner/operator to subtract the
of the heat input from non-fossil fuel at Alaska or Hawaii. In addition, since purchased power of the thermal host
the base load rating and subject to a 2015 no new combustion turbines have facility. The intent of the approach is to
federally enforceable permit condition commenced operation in Hawaii. Two determine applicability similarly for
limiting the annual capacity factor for new combustion turbine facilities third-party developers and CHP units
all fossil fuels combined of 10 percent totaling 190 MW have commenced owned by the thermal host facility.714
(0.10) or less; (2) combined heat and operation in Alaska since 2015. One However, as written in 40 CFR part 60,
power units subject to a federally facility is a combined cycle CHP facility subpart TTTT, each third-party CHP
enforceable permit condition limiting and the other is at an industrial facility unit would subtract the entire electricity
annual net electric sales to no more than and neither facility would likely meet use of the thermal host facility when
219,000 MWh or the product of the the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, determining its net electric sales. It is
design efficiency and the potential subpart TTTTa. Therefore, not finalizing clearly not the intent of the provision to
electric output, whichever is greater; (3) phase-2 BSER for non-continental and allow multiple third-party developers
serving a generator along with other non-contiguous areas will have limited, that serve the same thermal host to all
steam generating unit(s), IGCC, or if any, impacts on emissions or costs. subtract the purchased power of the
stationary combustion turbine(s) where The EPA notes that the Agency has the
the effective generation capacity is 25 thermal host facility when determining
authority to amend this decision in net electric sales. This would result in
MW or less; (4) municipal waste future rulemakings.
combustors that are subject to 40 CFR counting the purchased power multiple
part 60, subpart Eb; (5) commercial or i. Applicability to CHP Units times. In addition, it is not the intent of
industrial solid waste incineration units the provision to allow a CHP developer
For 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, to provide a trivial amount of useful
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart owners/operators of CHP units calculate
CCCC; and (6) deriving greater than 50 thermal output to multiple thermal
net electric sales and net energy output hosts and then subtract all the thermal
percent of heat input from an industrial using an approach that includes ‘‘at
process that does not produce any hosts’ purchased power when
least 20.0 percent of the total gross or determining net electric sales for
electrical or mechanical output that is net energy output consists of electric or
used outside the affected stationary applicability purposes. The EPA
direct mechanical output.’’ It is unlikely
combustion turbine. that a CHP unit with a relatively low 714 For contractual reasons, many developers of
The EPA proposed the same

CHP units sell the majority of the generated
requirements to combustion turbines in 713 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, also includes electricity to the electricity distribution grid.
coverage for owners/operators of combustion Owners/operators of both the CHP unit and thermal
710 40 CFR 60.2. turbines in non-contiguous areas. However, owners/ host can subtract the site purchased power when
711 40 CFR 60.15(a). operators of combustion turbines not capable of determining net electric sales. Third-party
712 The EPA refers to the capability to combust combusting natural gas (e.g., not connected to a developers that do not own the thermal host can
250 MMBtu/h of fossil fuel as the ‘‘base load rating natural gas pipeline) are not subject to the rule. This also subtract the purchased power of the thermal
criterion.’’ Note that 250 MMBtu/h is equivalent to exemption covers many combustion turbines in host when determining net electric sales for
73 MW or 260 GJ/h heat input. non-contiguous areas. applicability purposes.
proposed and is finalizing in 40 CFR electric sales (i.e., utilization) relative to permits do not typically restrict the
part 60, subpart TTTTa, to limit to the the combustion turbines’ potential number of hours of annual operation for
amount of thermal host purchased electric output to an electric distribution combined cycle turbines, reflecting that
power that a third-party CHP developer network on both a 12-operating month these types of combustion turbines are
can subtract for electric sales when and 3-year rolling average basis. The intended to have the ability to provide
determining net electric sales equivalent applicable subcategory is determined base load power.
to the percentage of useful thermal each operating month and a stationary The EPA evaluated the operation of
output provided to the host facility by combustion turbine can switch the three general combustion turbine
the specific CHP unit. This approach subcategories if the owner/operator technologies—combined cycle turbines,
eliminates both circumvention of the changes the way the facility is operated. frame-type simple cycle turbines, and
intended applicability by sales of trivial Subcategorization based on percent aeroderivative simple cycle turbines—
amounts of useful thermal output and electric sales is a proxy for how a when determining the subcategorization
double counting of thermal host- combustion turbine operates and for approach in this rulemaking.717 The
purchased power. determining the BSER and EPA found that, at the same capacity
Finally, to avoid potential double corresponding emission standards. For factor, aeroderivative simple cycle
counting of electric sales, the EPA example, low load combustion turbines turbines have more starts (including
proposed and is finalizing that for CHP tend to spend a relatively high fewer operating hours per start) than
units determining net electric sales, percentage of operating hours starting either frame simple cycle turbines or
purchased power of the host facility be and stopping. However, within each combined cycle turbines. The maximum
determined based on the percentage of subcategory not all combustion turbines number of starts for aeroderivative
thermal power provided to the host operate the same. Some low load simple cycle turbines occurs at capacity
facility by the specific CHP facility. combustion turbines operate with less factors of approximately 30 percent and
starting and stopping, but in general, the maximum number of starts for frame
ii. Non-Natural Gas Stationary
combustion turbines tend to operate simple cycle turbines and combined
Combustion Turbines
with fewer starts and stops (i.e., more cycle turbines both occur at capacity
There is currently an exemption in 40 factors of approximately 25 percent. In
steady-state hours of operation) with
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, for terms of the median hours of operation
increasing percentages of electric sales.
stationary combustion turbines that are per start, the hours per starts increases
The BSER for each subcategory is based
not physically capable of combusting exponentially with capacity factor for
on representative operation of the
natural gas (e.g., those that are not each type of combustion turbine. The
combustion turbines in that subcategory
connected to a natural gas pipeline). rate of increase is greatest for combined
and on what is achievable for the
While combustion turbines not cycle turbines with the run times per
connected to a natural gas pipeline meet subcategory as a whole.
Subcategorization by electric sales is start increasing significantly at capacity
the general applicability of 40 CFR part factors of 40 and greater. This threshold
60, subpart TTTT, these units are not similar, but not identical, to
subcategorizing by heat input-based roughly matches the subcategorization
subject to any of the requirements. The threshold for intermediate load and base
EPA is not including in 40 CFR part 60, capacity factors or annual hours of
operation limits.715 The EPA has load turbines in this final rule. As is
subpart TTTTa, the exemption for discussed later in section VIII.F.3 and
stationary combustion turbines that are determined that, for NSPS purposes,
electric sales is appropriate because it VIII.F.4, technology options including
not physically capable of combusting those related to efficiency and to post
natural gas. As described in the reflects operational limitations inherent
in the design of certain units, and also combustion capture are impacted by the
standards of performance section, way units operate and can be more
owners/operators of combustion that—given these differences—certain
emission reduction technologies are effective for units with fewer stops and
turbines burning fuels with a higher starts.
heat input emission rate than natural more suitable for some units than for
gas would adjust the natural gas-fired others.716 This subcategorization a. Legal Basis for Subcategorization
emissions rate by the ratio of the heat approach is also consistent with As noted in section V.C.1 of this
input-based emission rates. The overall industry practice. For example, preamble, CAA section 111(b)(2)
result is that new stationary combustion operating permits for simple cycle provides that the EPA ‘‘may distinguish
turbines combusting fuels with higher turbines often include annual operating among classes, types, and sizes within
GHG emissions rates than natural gas on hour limitations of 1,500 to 4,000 hours categories of new sources for the
a lb CO2/MMBtu basis must maintain annually. When average hourly capacity purpose of establishing . . . standards
the same efficiency compared to a factors (i.e., duty cycles) are accounted [of performance].’’ The D.C. Circuit has
natural gas-fired combustion turbine for, these hourly restrictions are similar held that the EPA has broad discretion
and comply with a standard of to annual capacity factor restrictions of in determining whether and how to
performance based on the identified approximately 15 percent and 40 subcategorize under CAA section
BSER. percent, respectively. The owners or 111(b)(2). Lignite Energy Council, 198
operators of these combustion turbines F.3d at 933. As also noted in section
2. Subcategorization never intend for them to provide base V.C.1 of this preamble, in prior CAA
In this final rule, the EPA is load power. In contrast, operating section 111 rules, the EPA has
continuing to include both simple and subcategorized on numerous bases,
715 Percent electric sales thresholds, capacity
combined cycle turbines in the
factor thresholds, and annual hours of operation including, among other things, fuel type
definition of a stationary combustion limitations all categorize combustion turbines based and load, i.e., utilization. In particular,
turbine, and like in prior rules for this on utilization. as noted in section V.C.1 of this
source category, the Agency is finalizing 716 While utilization and electric sales are often
preamble, the EPA subcategorized on
three subcategories—low load, similar, the EPA uses electric sales because the
focus of the applicability is facilities that sell the basis of utilization—for base load
intermediate load, and base load electricity to the grid and not industrial facilities
combustion turbines. These where the electricity is generated primarily for use 717 The EPA used manufacturers’ designations for
subcategories are determined based on onsite. frame and aeroderivative combustion turbines.
and non-base load subcategories—in the designed to be simple cycle units rather in the 2015 NSPS also includes
2015 NSPS for GHG emissions from than combined cycle units. This is combustion turbines that operate at
combustion turbines, Standards of because combustion turbines operating intermediate annual capacity factors
Performance for Greenhouse Gas in the intermediate load range also start and are not considered base load EGUs.
Emissions From New, Modified, and and stop and vary their load frequently These intermediate load EGUs provide a
Reconstructed Stationary Sources: (though not as often as low load peaking variety of services, including providing
Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 FR units). Because of the more frequent dispatchable power to support variable
64509 (October 23, 2015), and also in starts and stops, simple cycle generation from renewable sources of
the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal combustion turbines are more electricity. The need for this service has
Combustion Engines; NSPS for economical for project developers when been expanding as the amount of
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, compared to combined cycle electricity from wind and solar
79 FR 48072–01 (August 15, 2014). combustion turbines. Utilization of CCS continues to grow. In the 2015 NSPS,
Subcategorizing combustion turbines technology is not practicable for those the EPA determined the BSER for the
based on utilization is appropriate simple cycle units due to the lack of a non-base load subcategory to be the use
because it recognizes the way differently HRSG. Therefore, the EPA has of lower-emitting fuels (e.g., natural gas
designed combustion turbines actually determined that efficient design and and Nos. 1 and 2 fuel oils). In 2015, the
operate. Project developers do not operation is the BSER for intermediate EPA explained that efficient generation
construct combined cycle combustion load combustion turbines. did not qualify as the BSER due in part
turbine system to start and stop often to While use of CCS is practicable for to the challenge of determining an
serve peak demand. Similarly, project combined cycle combustion turbines, it achievable output-based CO2 emissions
developers do not construct and install is most appropriate for those units that rate for all combustion turbines in this
simple cycle combustion turbines to operate at relatively higher loads (i.e., as subcategory.
operate at higher capacity factors to base load units) that do not frequently In this action, the EPA proposed and
provide base load demand. And start, stop, and change load. Moreover, is finalizing the subcategories in 40 CFR
intermediate load demand may be with current technology, CCS works part 60, subpart TTTTa, that will be
served by higher efficiency simple cycle better on units running at base load applicable to sources that commence
turbine systems or by ‘‘quick start’’ levels. construction or reconstruction after May
combined cycle units. Thus, there are 23, 2023. First, the Agency proposed
b. Electric Sales Subcategorization (Low,
distinguishing features (i.e., different and is finalizing the definition of design
Intermediate, and Base Load
classes, types, and sizes) of turbines that efficiency so that the heat input
Combustion Turbines)
are predominantly used in each of the calculation of an EGU is based on the
utilization-based subcategories. Further, As noted earlier, in the 2015 NSPS, higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel
the amount of utilization and the mode the EPA established separate standards instead of the lower heating value
of operation are relevant for the systems of performance for new and (LHV), as explained immediately below.
of emission reduction that the EPA may reconstructed natural gas-fired base load This has the effect of lowering the
evaluate to be the BSER and therefore and non-base load stationary calculated potential electric output and
for the resulting standards of combustion turbines. The electric sales the electric sales threshold. In addition,
performance. See section VII.C.2.a.i for threshold distinguishing the two the EPA proposed and is finalizing
more discussion of the legal basis to subcategories is based on the design division of the non-base load
subcategorize based upon characteristics efficiency of individual combustion subcategory into separate intermediate
relevant to the controls the EPA may turbines. A combustion turbine qualifies and low load subcategories.
determine to be the BSER. as a non-base load turbine—and is thus
As noted in sections VIII.E.2.b and subject to a less stringent standard of i. Higher Heating Value as the Basis for
VIII.F of this preamble, combustion performance—if it has net electric sales Calculation of the Design Efficiency
turbines that operate at low load have equal to or less than the design The heat rate is the amount of energy
highly variable operation and therefore efficiency of the turbine (not to exceed used by an EGU to generate 1 kWh of
highly variable emission rates. This 50 percent) multiplied by the potential electricity and is often provided in units
variability made it challenging for the electric output (80 FR 64601; October of Btu/kWh. As the thermal efficiency of
EPA to specify a BSER based on 23, 2015). If the net electric sales exceed a combustion turbine EGU is increased,
efficient design and operation and limits that level on both a 12-operating month less fuel is burned per kWh generated
the BSER for purposes of this and 3-calendar year basis, then the and there is a corresponding decrease in
rulemaking to lower-emitting fuels. The combustion turbine is in the base load emissions of CO2 and other air
EPA notes that the subcategorization subcategory and is subject to a more pollutants. The electric energy output as
threshold and the standard of stringent standard of performance. a fraction of the fuel energy input
performance are related. For example, Subcategory applicability can change on expressed as a percentage is a common
the Agency could have finalized a lower a month-to-month basis since practice for reporting the unit’s
electric sales threshold for the low load applicability is determined each efficiency. The greater the output of
subcategory (e.g., 15 percent) and operating month. For additional electric energy for a given amount of
evaluated the emission rates at the discussion on this approach, see the fuel energy input, the higher the
lower capacity factors. In future 2015 NSPS (80 FR 64609–12; October efficiency of the electric generation
rulemaking the Agency could further 23, 2015). The 2015 NSPS non-base load process. Lower heat rates are associated
subcategory is broad and includes
evaluate the costs and emissions with more efficient power generating
impacts of reducing the threshold for combustion turbines that assure grid plants.
combustion turbines subject to a BSER reliability by providing electricity Efficiency can be calculated using the
based on the use of lower emitting fuels. during periods of peak electric demand. HHV or the LHV of the fuel. The HHV
Intermediate load combustion These peaking turbines tend to have low is the heating value directly determined
turbines (i.e., those that operate at loads annual capacity factors and sell a small by calorimetric measurement of the fuel
that are somewhat higher than the low amount of their potential electric in the laboratory. The LHV is calculated
load peaking units) are most often output. The non-base load subcategory using a formula to account for the
moisture in the combustion gas (i.e., When using efficiency to compare the regulated community. To do this, the
subtracting the energy required to effectiveness of different combustion Agency based the numeric value of the
vaporize the water in the flue gas) and turbine EGU configurations and the design efficiency, which is used to
is a lower value than the HHV. applicable GHG emissions control calculate the electric sales threshold, on
Consequently, the HHV efficiency for a technologies, it is important to ensure the LHV efficiency. This had the impact
given EGU is always lower than the that all efficiencies are calculated using of allowing combustion turbines to sell
corresponding LHV efficiency because the same type of heating value (i.e., a greater share of their potential electric
the reported heat input for the HHV is HHV or LHV) and the same basis of output while remaining in the non-base
larger. For U.S. pipeline natural gas, the electric energy output (i.e., MWh-gross load subcategory.
HHV heating value is approximately 10 or MWh-net). Most emissions data are The EPA proposed and is finalizing
percent higher than the corresponding available on a gross output basis and the that the design efficiency in 40 CFR part
LHV heating value and varies slightly EPA is finalizing output-based 60, subpart TTTTa be based on the HHV
based on the actual constituent standards based on gross output. efficiency instead of LHV efficiency and
composition of the natural gas.718 The However, to recognize the superior to not include the 50 percent maximum
EPA default is to reference all environmental benefit of minimizing and 33 percent minimum restrictions.
technologies on a HHV basis,719 and the auxiliary/parasitic loads, the Agency is When determining the potential electric
Agency is basing the heat input including optional equivalent standards output used in calculating the electric
calculation of an EGU on HHV for on a net output basis. To convert from sales threshold in 40 CFR part 60,
purposes of the definition of design gross to net output-based standards, the subpart TTTT, design efficiencies of
efficiency. However, it should be EPA used a 2 percent auxiliary load for greater than 50 percent are reduced to
recognized that manufacturers of simple and combined cycle turbines and 50 percent and design efficiencies of
combustion turbines typically use the a 7 percent auxiliary load for combined less than 33 percent are increased to 33
LHV to express the efficiency of cycle EGUs using 90 percent CCS.722 percent for determining electric sales
combustion turbines.720 threshold subcategorization criteria. The
Similarly, the electric energy output ii. Lowering the Threshold Between the
50 percent criterion was established to
for an EGU can be expressed as either Base Load and Non-Base Load
limit non-base load EGUs from selling
of two measured values. One value Subcategories
greater than 55 percent of their potential
relates to the amount of total electric The subpart TTTT distinction electric sales.723 The 33 percent
power generated by the EGU, or gross between a base load and non-base load criterion was included to be consistent
output. However, a portion of this combustion turbine is determined by with applicability thresholds in the
electricity must be used by the EGU the unit’s actual electric sales relative to electric utility criteria pollutant NSPS
facility to operate the unit, including its potential electric sales, assuming the (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da).
compressors, pumps, fans, electric EGU is operated continuously (i.e., Neither of those criteria are
motors, and pollution control percent electric sales). Specifically, appropriate for 40 CFR part 60, subpart
equipment. This within-facility stationary combustion turbines are TTTTa, and the EPA proposed and is
electrical demand, often referred to as categorized as non-base load and are finalizing a decision that they are not
the parasitic load or auxiliary load, subsequently subject to a less stringent incorporated when determining the
reduces the amount of power that can be standard of performance if they have net electric sales threshold. Instead, as
delivered to the transmission grid for electric sales equal to or less than their discussed later in the section, the EPA
distribution and sale to customers. design efficiency (not to exceed 50 is finalizing a fixed percent electric
Consequently, electric energy output percent) multiplied by their potential sales thresholds and the design
may also be expressed in terms of net electric output (80 FR 64601; October efficiency does not impact the
output, which reflects the EGU gross 23, 2015). Because the electric sales subcategorization thresholds. However,
output minus its parasitic load.721 threshold is based in part on the design the design efficiency is still used when
efficiency of the EGU, more efficient determining the potential electric sales
718 The HHV of natural gas is 1.108 times the LHV
combustion turbine EGUs can sell a and any restriction on using the actual
of natural gas. Therefore, the HHV efficiency is
equal to the LHV efficiency divided by 1.108. For
higher percentage of their potential design efficiency of the combustion
example, an EGU with a LHV efficiency of 59.4 electric output while remaining in the turbine would have the impact of
percent is equal to a HHV efficiency of 53.6 percent. non-base load subcategory. This changing the threshold. If this
The HHV/LHV ratio is dependent on the approach recognizes both the restriction were maintained, it would
composition of the natural gas (i.e., the percentage
of each chemical species (e.g., methane, ethane,
environmental benefit of combustion reduce the regulatory incentive for
propane)) within the pipeline and will slightly turbines with higher design efficiencies manufacturers to invest in programs to
move the ratio. and provides flexibility to the regulated develop higher efficiency combustion
719 Natural gas is also sold on a HHV basis.
community. In the 2015 NSPS, it was turbines.
720 European plants tend to report thermal
unclear how often high-efficiency The EPA also proposed and is
efficiency based on the LHV of the fuel rather than
the HHV for both combustion turbines and steam
simple cycle EGUs would be called finalizing a decision to eliminate the 33
generating EGUs. In the U.S., boiler efficiency is upon to support increased generation percent minimum design efficiency in
typically reported on a HHV basis. from variable renewable generating the calculation of the potential electric
721 It is important to note that net output values
resources. Therefore, the Agency output. The EPA is unaware of any new
reflect the net output delivered to the electric grid determined it was appropriate to combustion turbines with design
and not the net output delivered to the end user.
Electricity is lost as it is transmitted from the point provide maximum flexibility to the efficiencies meeting the general
of generation to the end user and these ‘‘line losses’’

increase the farther the power is transmitted. 40 722 The 7 percent auxiliary load for combined 723 While the design efficiency is capped at 50
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, provides a way to cycle turbines with 90 percent CCS is specific to percent on a LHV basis, the base load rating
account for the environmental benefit of reduced electric output. Additional auxiliary load includes (maximum heat input of the combustion turbine) is
line losses by crediting CHP EGUs, which are thermal energy that is diverted to the CCS system on a HHV basis. This mixture of LHV and HHV
typically located close to large electric load centers. instead of being used to generate additional results in the electric sales threshold being 11
See 40 CFR 60.5540(a)(5)(i) and the definitions of electricity. This additional auxiliary thermal energy percent higher than the design efficiency. The
gross energy output and net energy output in 40 is accounted for when converting the phase 1 design efficiency of all new combined cycle EGUs
CFR 60.5580. emissions standard to the phase 2 standard. exceed 50 percent on a LHV basis.
applicability criteria of less than 33 come to full load relatively quickly, the combustion turbines. Without
percent; and this will likely have no HRSG and steam turbine cannot, and accounting for economies of scale and
cost or emissions impact. combined cycle turbines responding to variable operation, combined cycle
The EPA solicited comment on highly variable load will have turbines can appear to be more cost
whether the intermediate/base load efficiencies similar to simple cycle effective than simple cycle turbines
electric sales threshold should be turbines.725 This has implications for under almost all conditions. In addition,
reduced further to a range that would the appropriate control technologies and without accounting for economies of
lower the base load electric sales corresponding emission reduction scale, large frame simple cycle turbines
threshold for simple cycle turbines to potential. The EPA determined the final can appear to be more cost effective
between 29 to 35 percent (depending on standard of performance based on than higher efficiency aeroderivative
the design efficiency) and to between 40 review of emissions data for recently simple cycle turbines, even if operated
to 49 percent for combined cycle installed combined cycle combustion at a 100 percent capacity factor. These
turbines (depending on the design turbines with 12-operating month cost models are not intended to make
efficiency). The specific approach the capacity factors of 40 percent or greater. direct comparisons, and the EPA
EPA solicited comment on was reducing The EPA considered a capacity factor appropriately accounted for economies
the design efficiency by 6 percent (e.g., threshold lower than 40 percent. of scale when estimating the cost of the
multiplying by 0.94) when determining However, expanding the subcategory to BSER. Since base load combustion
the electric sales threshold. Some include combustion turbines with a 12- turbines tend to operate under steady
commenters supported lowering the operating month electric sales of less state conditions with few starts and
proposed electric sales threshold while than 40 percent would require the EPA stops, startup and shutdown costs and
others supported maintaining the to consider the emissions performance the efficiency impact of operating at
proposed standards. of combined cycle turbines operating at variable loads are not important for
After considering comments, in 40 lower capacity factors and, while it determining the compliance costs of
CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, the EPA would expand the number of sources in base load combustion turbines.
has determined it is appropriate to the base load subcategory, it would also Based on an adjusted model plant
eliminate the sliding scale electric sales result in a higher (i.e., less stringent) comparison, combined cycle EGUs have
threshold based on the design efficiency numerical emission standard for the
a lower LCOE at capacity factors above
and instead base the subcategorization sources in the category.
approximately 40 percent compared to
thresholds on fixed electric sales (also Direct comparison of the costs of
combined cycle turbines relative to simple cycle EGUs operating at the same
referred to sometimes here as capacity
simple cycle turbines can be challenging capacity factors. This supports the final
factor). In 40 CFR part 60 subpart
because model plant costs are often for base load fixed electric sales threshold
TTTTa, the EPA is finalizing that the
combustion turbines of different sizes of 40 percent for simple cycle turbines
fixed electric sales threshold between
and do not account for variable because it would be cost-effective for
intermediate load combustion turbines
operation. For example, combined cycle owners/operators of simple cycle
and base load combustion turbines is 40
turbine model plants are generally for turbines to add heat recovery if they
percent. The 40 percent electric sales
an EGU that is several hundred elected to operate at higher capacity
(capacity factor) threshold reflects the
megawatts while simple cycle turbine factors as a base load unit. Furthermore,
maximum capacity factor for
model plants are generally less than a based on an analysis of monthly
intermediate load simple cycle turbines
hundred megawatts. Direct comparison emission rates, recently constructed
and the minimum prorated efficiency
of the LCOE from these model plants is combined cycle EGUs maintain
approach for base load combined cycle
not relevant because the facilities are consistent emission rates at capacity
turbines that the EPA solicited comment
not comparable. Consider a facility with factors of less than 55 percent (which is
on in proposal.724
a block of 10 simple cycle turbines that the base load electric sales threshold in
The base load electric sales threshold
are each 50 MW (so the overall facility subpart TTTT) relative to operation at
is appropriate for new combustion
capacity is 500 MW). Each simple cycle higher capacity factors. Therefore, the
turbines because, as will be discussed
turbine operates as an individual unit base load subcategory operating range
later, the first component of BSER for
and provides a different value to the can be expanded in 40 CFR part 60,
base load turbines is based on highly
electric grid as compared to a single 500 subpart TTTTa, without impacting the
efficient combined cycle generation.
MW combined cycle turbine. While the stringency of the numeric standard.
Combined cycle units are significantly
minimum load of the combined cycle However, at capacity factors of less than
more efficient than simple cycle
facility might be 200 MW, the block of approximately 40 percent, emission
turbines; and therefore, in general, the
10 simple cycle turbines can provide rates of combined cycle EGUs increase
EPA should be focusing its
from approximately 20 MW to 500 MW relative to their operation at higher
determination of the BSER for base load
to the electric grid. capacity factors. It takes much longer for
units on that more efficient technology.
A more accurate cost comparison a HRSG to begin producing steam that
The electric sales thresholds and the
accounts for economies of scale and can be used to generate additional
emission standards are related because,
estimates the cost of a combined cycle electricity than it takes a combustion
at lower capacity factors, combustion
turbine with the same net output as a engine to reach full power. Under
turbines tend to have more variable
simple cycle turbine. Comparing the operating conditions with a significant
operation (e.g., more starts and stops
modeled LCOE of these combustion number of starts and stops, typical of
and operation at part load conditions)
some intermediate and especially low
that reduces the efficiency of the turbines provides a meaningful

comparison, at least for base load load combustion turbines, there may not
combustion turbine. This is particularly
be enough time for the HRSG to generate
the case for combined cycle turbines 725 This discussion assumes that the combined steam that can be used for additional
because while the turbine engine can cycle turbine incorporates a bypass stack that electrical generation. To maximize
allows the combustion turbine engine to operate
724 The EPA solicited comment on basing the independent of the HRSG/steam turbine. Without a
overall efficiency, combined cycle EGUs
electric sales threshold on a value calculated using bypass stack the combustion turbine engine could often use combustion turbine engines
0.94 times the design efficiency. not come to full load as quickly. that are less efficient than the most
efficient simple cycle turbine engines. 60, subpart TTTT. Therefore, the capacity factor electric sales thresholds
Under operating conditions with Agency does not believe that the of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent,
frequent starts and stops where the concerns expressed by stakeholders and 25 percent. The EPA proposed to
HRSG does not have sufficient time to necessitates any revisions to the find and is finalizing a conclusion that
begin generating additional electricity, a regulatory scheme. In fact, as noted the 10 percent threshold is problematic
combined cycle EGU may be no more above, the EPA is finalizing that the for two reasons. First, simple cycle
efficient than a highly efficient simple electric sales threshold can be lowered turbines operating at that level or lower
cycle EGU. These distinctions in without impairing the availability of have highly variable emission rates, and
operation are thus meaningful for simple cycle turbines where needed, therefore it is difficult for the EPA to
determining which emissions control including to support the integration of establish a meaningful output-based
technologies are most appropriate for variable generation. The EPA believes standard of performance. In addition,
types of units. Once a combustion that the final threshold is not overly only one-third of simple cycle turbines
turbine unit exceeds approximately 40 restrictive since a simple cycle turbine that have commenced operation since
percent annual capacity factor, it is could operate on average for more than 2015 have maintained 12-operating
economical to add a HRSG which 9 hours a day in the intermediate load month capacity factors of less than 10
results in the unit becoming both more subcategory. percent. Therefore, setting the threshold
efficient and less likely to cycle its at this level would bring most new
iii. Low and Intermediate Load simple cycle turbines into the
operation. Such units are, therefore,
Subcategories intermediate load subcategory, which
better suited for more stringent emission
control technologies including CCS. This section discusses the EPA’s would subject them to a more stringent
After the 2015 NSPS was finalized, rationale for subcategorizing non-base emission rate that is only achievable for
some stakeholders expressed concerns load combustion turbines into two simple cycle turbines operating at
about the approach for distinguishing subcategories—low load and higher capacity factors. This could
between base load and non-base load intermediate load. create a situation where simple cycle
turbines. They posited a scenario in turbines might not be able to comply
(A) Low Load Subcategory with the intermediate load standard of
which increased utilization of wind and
The EPA proposed and is finalizing in performance while operating at the low
solar resources, combined with low
40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, a low end of the intermediate load capacity
natural gas prices, would create the
load subcategory to includes factor subcategorization criteria.
need for certain types of simple cycle Based on the EPA’s review of hourly
combustion turbines that operate only
turbines to operate for longer time emissions data, at a capacity factor
during periods of peak electric demand
periods than had been contemplated above 15 percent, GHG emission rates
(i.e., peaking units), which will be
when the 2015 NSPS was being for many simple cycle turbines begin to
separate from the intermediate load
developed. Specifically, stakeholders stabilize. At higher capacity factors,
subcategory. Low load combustion
have claimed that in some regional more time is typically spent at steady
turbines also provide ramping capability
electricity markets with large amounts state operation rather than ramping up
and other ancillary services to support
of variable renewable generation, some and down; and emission rates tend to be
grid reliability. The EPA evaluated the
of the most efficient new simple cycle lower while in steady-state operation.
operation of recently constructed simple
turbines—aeroderivative turbines— Of recently constructed simple cycle
cycle turbines to understand how they
could be called upon to operate at turbines, half have maintained 12-
operate and to determine at what
capacity factors greater than their design operating month capacity factors of 15
electric sales level or capacity factor
efficiency. However, if those new percent or less, two-thirds have
their emissions rate is relatively steady.
simple cycle turbines were to operate at maintained capacity factors of 20
(Note that for purposes of this
those higher capacity factors, they percent or less; and approximately 80
discussion, the terms ‘‘electric sales’’
would become subject to the more percent have maintained maximum
and ‘‘capacity factor’’ are used
stringent standard of performance for capacity factors of 25 percent or less.
interchangeably.) Low load combustion
base load turbines. As a result, The emission rates clearly stabilize for
turbines generally only operate for short
according to these stakeholders, the new most simple cycle turbines operating at
periods of time and potentially at
aeroderivative turbines would have to capacity factors of greater than 20
relatively low duty cycles.726 This type
curtail their generation and instead, percent. Based on this information, the
of operation reduces the efficiency and
less-efficient existing turbines would be EPA proposed the low load electric
increases the emissions rate, regardless
called upon to run by the regional grid sales threshold—again, the dividing line
of the design efficiency of the
operators, which would result in overall to distinguish between the intermediate
combustion turbine or how it is
higher emissions. The EPA evaluated and low load subcategories—to be 20
maintained. For this reason, it is
the operation of simple cycle turbines in percent and solicited comment on a
difficult to establish a reasonable
areas of the country with relatively large range of 15 to 25 percent. The EPA also
output-based standard of performance
amounts of variable renewable solicited comment on whether the low
for low load combustion turbines.
generation and did not find a strong load electric sales threshold should be
To determine the electric sales
correlation between the percentage of determined by a site-specific threshold
threshold—that is, to distinguish
generation from the renewable sources based on three-fourths of the design
between the intermediate load and low
and the 12-operating month capacity efficiency of the combustion
load subcategories—the EPA evaluated
factors of simple cycle turbines. In
turbine.727Under this approach, simple

addition, most of the simple cycle 726 The duty cycle is the average operating
turbines that commenced operation capacity factor. For example, if an EGU operates at 727 The calculation used to determine the electric
between 2010 and 2016 (the most recent 75 percent of the fully rated capacity, the duty cycle sales threshold includes both the design efficiency
simple cycle turbines not subject to 40 would be 75 percent regardless of how often the and the base load rating. Since the base load rating
EGU actually operates. The capacity factor is a stays the same when adjusting the numeric value
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT) have measure of how much an EGU is operated relative of the design efficiency for applicability purposes,
operated well below the base load to how much it could potentially have been adjustments to the design efficiency has twice the
electric sales threshold in 40 CFR part operated. impact. Specifically, using three-fourths of the
cycle turbines selling less than 18 to 22 simple cycle turbine technology. The output from the integrated renewables
percent of their potential electric output proposed approach provided a would be included when determining
(depending on the design efficiency) regulatory incentive for owners/ the design efficiency of the facility.
would still have been considered low operators to purchase the most efficient Since the design efficiency is used when
load combustion turbines. This ‘‘sliding technologies in exchange for additional determining the electric sales threshold
scale’’ electric sales threshold approach compliance flexibility. The use of a this would increase the allowable
is like the approach the EPA used in the prorated efficiency the EPA solicited electric sales for subcategorization
2015 NSPS to recognize the comment on would have lowered the purposes. Including the integrated
environmental benefit of installing the simple cycle and combined cycle renewables when determining the
most efficient combustion turbines for turbine thresholds to approximately 35 design efficiency of the affected facility
low load applications. Using this percent and 50 percent, respectively. has the impact of increasing the
approach, combined cycle EGUs would In this final rule, the BSER for the operational flexibility of owners/
have been able to sell between 26 to 31 intermediate load subcategory is operators of combustion turbines.
percent of their potential electric output consistent with the proposal—high- Commenters generally supported
while still being considered low load efficiency simple cycle turbine maintaining that integrated renewables
combustion turbines. Some commenters technology. While not specifically are part of the affected facility and
supported a lower electric sales identified in the proposal, the BSER for including the output of the renewables
threshold while others supported a the base load subcategory is also when determining the emissions rate of
higher threshold. Based on these consistent with the proposal—the use of the affected facility.729 Therefore, the
comments, the EPA is finalizing the combined cycle technology.728 Agency is finalizing a decision that the
proposed low load electric sales The 12-operating month electric sales rated output of integrated renewables be
threshold of 20 percent of the potential (i.e., capacity factor) thresholds for the included when determining the design
electric sales. The fixed 20 percent stationary combustion turbine efficiency of the affected facility, which
capacity factor threshold represents a subcategories in this final rule are is used to determine the potential
level of utilization at which most simple summarized below in Table 2. electric output of the affected facility,
cycle combustion turbines perform at a and that the output of the integrated
consistent level of efficiency and GHG TABLE 2—SALES THRESHOLDS FOR renewables be included in determining
emission performance, enabling the EPA SUBCATEGORIES OF COMBUSTION the emissions rate of the affected
to establish a standard of performance TURBINE EGUS facility. However, since the design
that reflects a BSER of efficient efficiency is not a factor in determining
operation. The 20 percent capacity 12-Operating month the subcategory thresholds in 40 CFR
factor threshold is also more electric sales part 60, subpart TTTTa, the output of
environmentally protective than the Subcategory threshold the integrated renewables will not be
higher thresholds the EPA considered, (percent of potential included for determining the applicable
electric sales)
since owners and operators of subcategory. If the output from the
combustion turbines operating above a Low Load ...................... ≤20 integrated renewable generation were
20 percent capacity factor would be Intermediate Load ......... >20 and ≤40 included for subcategorization
subject to an output-based emissions Base Load .................... >40 purposes, this could discourage the use
standard instead of a heat input-based of integrated renewables (or
emissions standard based on the use of iv. Integrated Onsite Generation and curtailments) because affected facilities
lower-emitting fuels. This ensures that Energy Storage could move to a subcategory with a
owners/operators of intermediate load more stringent emissions standard that
combined cycle turbines properly Integrated equipment is currently could cause the owner/operator to be
maintain and operate their combustion included as part of the affected facility, out of compliance. The impact of this
turbines. and the EPA proposed and is finalizing approach is that the electric sales
amended regulatory text to clarify that threshold of the combustion turbine
(B) Intermediate Load Subcategory the output from integrated renewables is island itself, not including the
The proposed sliding scale included as output when determining integrated renewables, for an owner/
subcategorization approach essentially the NSPS emissions rate. The EPA also operator of a combustion turbine that
included two subcategories within the proposed that the output from the includes integrated renewables that
proposed intermediate load subcategory. integrated renewable generation is not increase the potential electric output by
As proposed, simple cycle turbines included when determining the net 1 percent would be 1 or 2 percent higher
would be classified as intermediate load electric sales for applicability purposes for the stationary combustion turbine
combustion turbines when operated (i.e., generation from integrated island not considering the integrated
between capacity factors of 20 percent renewables would not be considered renewables, depending on the design
and approximately 40 percent while when determining if a combustion efficiency of the combustion turbine
combined cycle turbines would be turbine is subcategorized as a low, itself, than an identical combustion
classified as intermediate load intermediate, or base load combustion turbine without integrated renewables.
combustion turbines when operated turbine). In the alternative, the EPA In addition, when the output from the
between capacity factors of 20 percent solicited comment on whether instead integrated renewables is considered, the
to approximately 55 percent. Owners/ of exempting the generation from the output from the integrated renewables
operators of combined cycle turbines integrated renewables from counting

operating at the high end of the toward electric sales, the potential 729 The EPA did not propose to include, and is
intermediate load subcategory would not finalizing including, integrated renewables as

728 Under the proposed subcategorization part of the BSER. Commenters opposed a BSER that
only be subject to an emissions standard
approach, for a combustion turbine to be would include integrated renewables as part of the
based on a BSER of high-efficiency subcategorized as an intermediate load combustion BSER. Commenters noted that this could result in
turbine while operating at capacity factors of greater renewables being installed in suboptimal locations
design efficiency reduces the electric sales than 40 percent required the use of a HRSG (e.g., which could result in lower overall GHG
threshold by half. combined cycle turbine technology). reductions.
lowers the emissions rate of the affected regulated community informed the EPA grid reliability and avoiding the need to
facility by approximately 1 percent. that additional clarification of a system declare grid emergencies).
For integrated energy storage emergency is needed to determine and The Agency is including the system
technologies, the EPA solicited document generation during system emergency concept in 40 CFR part 60,
comment on and is finalizing a decision emergencies. The EPA proposed to subpart TTTTa, along with a definition
to include the rated output of the energy include the system emergency approach that clarifies how to determine
storage when determining the design in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, and generation during periods of system
efficiency of the affected facility. solicited comment on amending the emergencies. The EPA agrees with
Similar to integrated renewables, this definition of system emergency to commenters that the definition of
increases the flexibility of owner/ clarify in implementation in 40 CFR system emergency should be clarified
operators to sell larger amounts of part 60, subparts TTTT and TTTTa. and that it should not be limited to
electricity while remaining in the low, Commenters generally agreed with the EGUs not operating when the system
variable, and intermediate load proposal to allow owners/operators of emergency is declared. Based on
subcategories. While energy storage EGUs called upon during a system information provided by entities with
technologies have high capital costs, emergency to operate without impacting reliability expertise, the EPA has
operating costs are low and would the EGUs’ subcategorization (i.e., determined that a system emergency
dispatch prior to the combustion turbine electric sales during system emergencies should be defined to include EEA levels
the technology is integrated with. would not be considered when 2 and 3. These EEA levels generally
Therefore, simple cycle turbines with determining net electric sales), and that correspond to time-limited, well-
integrated energy storage would likely the Agency should clarify how system defined, and relatively infrequent
operate at lower capacity factors than an emergencies are determined and situations in which the system is
identical simple cycle turbine at the documented. experiencing an energy deficiency.
same location. However, while the In terms of the definition of the During EEA level 2 and 3 events, all
energy storage might be charged with system emergency provision, available generation is online and
renewables that would otherwise be commenters stated that ‘‘abnormal’’ be demand-response or other load
curtailed, there is no guarantee that low deleted from the definition, and instead management procedures are in effect, or
emitting generation would be used to of referencing ‘‘the Regional firm load interruption is imminent or in
charge the energy storage. Therefore, the Transmission Organizations (RTO), progress. The EPA believes it is
output from the energy storage is not Independent System Operators (ISO) or appropriate to exclude hours of
considered in either determining the control area Administrator,’’ the operation during such events in order to
NSPS emissions rate or as net electric definition should reference ‘‘the ensure that EGUs are not impeded from
sales for subcategorization applicability balancing authority or reliability maintaining or increasing their output
purposes. In future rulemaking the coordinator.’’ This change would align as needed to respond to a declared
Agency could further evaluate the the regulation’s definition with the energy emergency. Because these events
impact of integrated energy storage on terms used by NERC. Some commenters tend to be short, infrequent, and well-
the operation of simple cycle turbines to also stated that the EPA should specify defined, the EPA also believes any
determine if the number of starts and that electric sales during periods the incremental GHG emissions associated
stops are reduced and increases the grid operator declares energy emergency with operations during these periods
efficiency of simple cycle turbines alerts (EEA) levels 1 through 3 be
relative to simple cycle turbines without would be relatively limited.
included in the definition of system
integrated energy storage. If this is the The EPA has determined not to
emergency.732 In addition, some
case, it could be appropriate to lower include EEA level 1 in the definition of
commenters stated that the definition
the threshold for combustion turbines a ‘‘system emergency.’’ The EPA’s
should be expanded to include the
subject to a lower emitting fuels BSER understanding is that EEA level 1 events
concept of energy emergencies.
because emission rates would be stable often include situations in which an
Specifically, the definition should also
at lower capacity factors. energy deficiency does not yet exist, and
exempt generation during periods when
in which balancing authorities are
v. Definition of System Emergency a load-serving entity or balancing
preparing to pursue various options for
authority has exhausted all other
In 2015, the EPA included a provision either bringing additional resources
resource options and can no longer meet
that electricity sold during hours of online or managing load. The EPA also
its expected load obligations. Finally,
operation when a unit is called upon understands that EEA level 1 events
commenters stated that the definition
due to a system emergency is not tend to be more frequently declared, and
should apply to all EGUs, regardless of
counted toward the percentage electric longer in duration, than level 2 or 3
if they are already operating when the
sales subcategorization threshold in 40 events. Based on this information, the
system emergency is declared. This
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT.730 The EPA believes that including EEA level 1
would avoid regulatory incentive to
Agency concluded that this exclusion is events in the definition of a ‘‘system
come offline prior to a potential system
necessary to provide flexibility, emergency’’ would carry a greater risk of
emergency to be eligible for the electric
maintain system reliability, and increasing overall GHG emissions
sales exemption and would treat all
minimize overall costs to the sector.731 without making a meaningful
EGUs similarly during system
The intent is that the local grid operator contribution to supporting reliability.
emergencies (i.e., not penalize EGUs
will determine the EGUs essential to This approach balances the need to have
that are already operating to maintain
maintaining grid reliability. Subsequent operational flexibility when the grid
to the 2015 NSPS, members of the 732 Commenters noted that grid operators have may be strained to help ensure that all
slightly different terms for grid emergencies, but available generating sources are
730 In 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, electricity
example descriptions include: EEA 1, all available available for grid reliability, while
sold by units that are not called upon to operate due generation online and non-firm wholesale sales balancing with important considerations
to a system emergency (e.g., units already operating curtailed; EEA 2, load management procedures in
when the system emergency is declared) is counted effect, all available generation units online,
about potential GHG emission tradeoffs.
toward the percentage electric sales threshold. demand-response programs in effect; and EEA 3, The EPA is also amending the definition
731 See 80 FR 64612; October 23, 2015. firm load interruption is imminent or in progress. in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, to be
consistent with the definition in 40 CFR from the additional electric sales. In by volume or more methane, and has a
part 60, subpart TTTTa. addition, the time associated with heating value of between 35 and 41
Commenters also added that starting and stopping a CCS system megajoules (MJ) per dry standard cubic
operation during system emergencies would likely result in an EGU operating meter (dscm) (950 and 1,100 Btu per dry
should be subject to alternate standards without the CCS system in operation standard cubic foot). Natural gas
of performance (e.g., owners/operators during periods of non-system typically contains 95 percent methane
are not required to use the CCS system emergencies. This would require the and has a heating value of 1,050 Btu/
during system emergencies to increase owner/operator to overcontrol during lb.735 A potential issue with the multi-
power output). The EPA agrees with other periods of operation to maintain fuel subcategory is that owners/
commenters that since system emissions below the applicable standard operators of simple cycle turbines can
emergencies are defined and historically of performance. Therefore, it is likely an elect to burn 10 percent non-natural gas
rare events, an alternate standard of owner/operator would unnecessarily fuels, such as Nos. 1 or 2 fuel oil, and
performance should apply during these adjust the operation of the CCS system thereby remain in that subcategory,
periods. Carbon capture systems require during EEA levels 2 and 3. regardless of their electric sales. As a
significant amounts of energy to operate. In addition to these measures, DOE
result, they would remain subject to the
Allowing owners/operators of EGUs has authority pursuant to section 202(c)
equipped with CCS systems to of the Federal Power Act to, on its own less stringent standard that applies to
temporarily reduce the capture rate or motion or by request, order, among multi-fuel-fired sources, the lower-
cease capture will increase the other things, the temporary generation emitting fuels standard. This could
electricity available to end users during of electricity from particular sources in allow less efficient combustion turbine
system emergencies. In place of the certain emergency conditions, including designs to operate as base load units
applicable output-based emissions during events that would result in a without having to improve efficiency
standard, the owner/operator of an shortage of electric energy, when the and could allow EGUs to avoid the need
intermediate or base load combustion Secretary of Energy determines that for efficient design or best operating and
turbine would be subject to a BSER doing so will meet the emergency and maintenance practices. These potential
based on the combustion of lower- serve the public interest. An affected circumventions would result in higher
emitting fuels during system source operating pursuant to such an GHG emissions.
emergencies.733 The emissions and order is deemed not to be operating in To avoid these outcomes, the EPA
output would not be included when violation of its environmental proposed and is finalizing a decision
calculating the 12-operating month requirements. Such orders may be not to include the multi-fuel
emissions rate. The EPA considered an issued for 90 days and may be extended subcategory for low, intermediate, and
alternate emissions standard based on in 90-day increments after consultation base load combustion turbines in 40
efficient generation but rejected that for with the EPA. DOE has historically CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa. This
multiple reasons. First, since system issued section 202(c) orders at the means that new multi-fuel-fired turbines
emergencies are limited in nature the request of electric generators and grid that commence construction or
emissions calculation would include a operators such as RTOs in order to reconstruction after May 23, 2023, will
limited number of hours and would not enable the supply of additional
fall within a particular subcategory
necessarily be representative of an generation in times of expected
depending on their level of electric
achievable longer-term emissions rate. emergency-related generation shortfalls.
sales. The EPA also proposed and is
In addition, EGUs that are designed to
c. Multi-Fuel-Fired Combustion finalizing a decision that the
operate with CCS will not necessarily
Turbines performance standards for each
operate as efficiently without the CCS
system operating compared to a similar In 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, subcategory be adjusted appropriately
EGU without a CCS system. Therefore, multi-fuel-fired combustion turbines are for multi-fuel-fired turbines to reflect
the Agency is not able to determine a subcategorized as EGUs that combust 10 the application of the BSER for the
reasonable efficiency-based alternate percent or more of fuels not meeting the subcategories to turbines burning fuels
emissions standard for periods of definition of natural gas on a 12- with higher GHG emission rates than
system emergencies. Due to both the operating month rolling average basis. natural gas. To be consistent with the
costs and time associated with starting The BSER for this subcategory is the use definition of lower-emitting fuels in the
and stopping the CCS system, the of lower-emitting fuels with a 2015 NSPS, the maximum allowable
Agency has determined it is unlikely corresponding heat input-based heat input-based emissions rate is 160 lb
that an owner/operator of an affected standard of performance of 120 to 160 CO2/MMBtu. For example, a standard of
facility would use it where it is not lb CO2/MMBtu, depending on the fuel, performance based on efficient
needed. System emergencies have for newly constructed and reconstructed generation would be 33 percent higher
historically been relatively brief and any multi-fuel-fired stationary combustion for a fuel oil-fired combustion turbine
hours of operation outside of the system turbines.734 Lower-emitting fuels for compared to a natural gas-fired
emergencies are included when these units include natural gas, combustion turbine. This assures that
determining the output-based emissions ethylene, propane, naphtha, jet fuel the BSER, in this case efficient
standard. During short-duration system kerosene, Nos. 1 and 2 fuel oils, generation, is applied, while at the same
emergencies, the costs associated with biodiesel, and landfill gas. The time accounting for the use of multiple
stopping and starting the CCS system definition of natural gas in 40 CFR part fuels.
60, subpart TTTT, includes fuel that
could outweigh the increased revenue

maintains a gaseous state at ISO 735 Note that according to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
733 For owners/operators of combustion turbines conditions, is composed of 70 percent TTTT, combustion turbines co-firing 25 percent
the lower emitting fuels requirement is defined to hydrogen by volume could be subcategorized as
include fuels with an emissions rate of 160 lb CO2/ 734 Combustion turbines co-firing natural gas with multi-fuel-fired EGUs because the percent methane
MMBtu or less. For owners/operators of steam other fuels must determine fuel-based site-specific by volume could fall below 70 percent, the heating
generating units or IGCC facilities the EPA is standards at the end of each operating month. The value could fall below 35 MJ/Sm3, and 10 percent
requiring the use of the maximum amount of non- site-specific standards depend on the amount of co- of the heat input could be coming from a fuel not
coal fuels available to the affected facility. fired natural gas. 80 FR 64616 (October 23, 2015). meeting the definition of natural gas.
d. Rural Areas and Small Utility different set of controls, and those for the intermediate load and base load
Distribution Systems controls formed the basis of subcategories could achieve deeper
As part of the original proposal and corresponding standards of performance reductions in GHG emissions by
during the Small Business Advocacy that applied in two phases. Specifically, implementing CCS and co-firing low-
Review (SBAR) outreach the EPA the EPA proposed that affected facilities GHG hydrogen. This proposed approach
solicited comment on creating a (i.e., facilities that commence also recognized that building the
subcategory for rural electric construction or reconstruction after May infrastructure required to support
cooperatives and small utility 23, 2023) could apply the first widespread use of CCS and low-GHG
component of the BSER (i.e., highly hydrogen technologies in the power
distribution systems (serving 50,000
efficient generation) upon initial startup sector will take place on a multi-year
customers or less). Commenters
to meet the first phase of the standard time scale. Accordingly, new and
expressed concerns that a BSER based
of performance. Then, by 2032, the EPA reconstructed facilities would be aware
on either co-firing hydrogen or CCS may
proposed that affected facilities could of their need to ramp toward more
present an additional hardship on
apply the second component of the stringent phases of the standards, which
economically disadvantaged
BSER (i.e., co-firing 30 percent (by would reflect application of the more
communities and on small entities, and
volume) low-GHG hydrogen) to meet a stringent controls in the BSER. This
that the EPA should evaluate potential
second and more stringent standard of would occur either by co-firing a lower
increased energy costs, transmission
performance. The EPA also solicited percentage (by volume) of low-GHG
upgrade costs, and infrastructure comment on whether the intermediate
encroachment which may directly affect hydrogen by 2032 and a higher
load subcategory should apply a third percentage (by volume) of low-GHG
the disproportionately impacted component of the BSER: co-firing 96
communities. As described in section hydrogen by 2038, or with installation
percent (by volume) low-GHG hydrogen and use of CCS by 2035. The EPA also
VIII.F, the BSER for new stationary by 2038. In addition, the EPA solicited
combustion turbines does not include solicited comment on the potential for
comment on whether the low load an earlier compliance date for the
hydrogen co-firing and CCS qualifies as subcategory should also apply the
the BSER for base load combustion second phase.
second component of BSER, co-firing 30 For the base load subcategory, the
turbines on a nationwide basis. percent (by volume) low-GHG hydrogen, EPA proposed two potential BSER
Therefore, the EPA has determined that by 2032. The Agency proposed that pathways because the Agency believed
a subcategory for rural cooperatives these latter components of the BSER there was more than one viable
and/or small utility distribution systems would continue to include the technology for these combustion
is not appropriate. application of highly efficient turbines to significantly reduce their
F. Determination of the Best System of generation. CO2 emissions. The Agency also found
Emission Reduction (BSER) for New and For the base load subcategory, the value in receiving comments on, and
Reconstructed Stationary Combustion EPA also proposed a multi-component potentially finalizing, both BSER
Turbines BSER and multi-phase standard of pathways to enable project developers
performance. The EPA proposed that to elect how they would reduce their
In this section, the EPA describes the each new base load combustion turbine
technologies it proposed as the BSER for CO2 emissions on timeframes that make
would be required to meet a phase-1 sense for each BSER pathway.736 The
each of the subcategories of new and standard of performance based on the
reconstructed combustion turbines that EPA solicited comment on whether the
application of the first component of the co-firing of low-GHG hydrogen should
commence construction after May 23, BSER—highly efficient generation—
2023, as well as topics for which the be considered a compliance pathway for
upon initial startup of the affected sources to meet a single standard of
Agency solicited comment. In the source. For the second component of the
following section, the EPA describes the performance based on the application of
BSER, the EPA proposed two potential CCS rather than a separate BSER
technologies it is determining are the technology pathways for base load
final BSER for each of the three pathway. The EPA proposed that there
combustion turbines with would be earlier opportunities for units
subcategories of affected combustion corresponding standards of
turbines and explains its basis for to begin co-firing lower amounts of low-
performance. One proposed technology
selecting those controls, and not others, GHG hydrogen than to install and begin
pathway was 90 percent CCS, which
as the final BSER. The controls that the operating 90 percent CCS systems.
base load combustion turbines would
EPA evaluated included combusting However, the Agency proposed that it
install and begin to operate by 2035 to
non-hydrogen lower-emitting fuels (e.g., would likely take longer for those units
meet the phase-2 standard of
natural gas and distillate oil), using to increase their co-firing to significant
performance. A second proposed
highly efficient generation, using CCS, quantities of low-GHG hydrogen.
technology pathway was co-firing low-
and co-firing with low-GHG hydrogen. Therefore, in the proposal, the EPA
GHG hydrogen, which base load
For the low load subcategory, the EPA presented the BSER pathways as
combustion turbines would implement
proposed the use of lower-emitting fuels in two steps: (1) By co-firing 30 percent separate subcategories and solicited
as the BSER. This was consistent with (by volume) low-GHG hydrogen to meet comment on the option of finalizing a
the BSER and performance standards the phase-2 standard of performance by single standard of performance based on
established in the 2015 NSPS for the 2032, and (2) by co-firing 96 percent (by the application of CCS.
non-base load subcategory as discussed For the low load subcategory, the EPA
volume) low-GHG hydrogen to meet a
proposed and is finalizing that the BSER
earlier in section VIII.C. phase 3 standard of performance by

For the intermediate load subcategory, is the use of lower-emitting fuels. For
2038. Throughout, the Agency proposed
the EPA proposed an approach under base load turbines, like intermediate the intermediate load subcategory, the
which the BSER was made up of two load turbines, would remain subject to EPA proposed and is finalizing that the
components: (1) highly efficient the first component of the BSER based 736 The EPA recognizes that standards of
generation; and (2) co-firing 30 percent on highly efficient generation. performance are technology neutral and that a
(by volume) low-GHG hydrogen. Each The proposed approach reflected the standard based on application of CCS could be
component of the BSER represented a EPA’s view that the BSER components achieved by co-firing hydrogen.
BSER is highly efficient generating performance for base load combustion operators of new and reconstructed base
technology—simple cycle technology as turbines—efficient generation in load combustion turbines will be
well as operating and maintaining it combination with 90 percent CCS. required to meet the second phase
efficiently.737 The EPA is not finalizing The EPA is not finalizing low-GHG standards of performance for 12-
a second component of the BSER or a hydrogen co-firing as the second operating month rolling averages that
phase-2 standard of performance for component of the BSER for the begin on or after January 2032, that
intermediate load combustion turbines intermediate load or base load reflect application of both the phase-1
at this time. For the base load combustion turbines at this time. (See and phase-2 components of the BSER.
section VIII.F.5.b for the EPA’s
subcategory, the EPA proposed and is Table 3 of this document summarizes
explanation of this decision.) With
finalizing that the first component of the the final BSER for combustion turbine
respect to the CCS pathway for base
BSER is highly efficient generating load combustion turbines, the EPA is EGUs that commence construction or
technology—combined cycle technology finalizing a second phase of the reconstruction after May 23, 2023. The
as well as operating and maintaining it standards of performance that includes EPA is finalizing standards of
efficiently. The EPA proposed and is a single CCS BSER pathway, which performance based on those BSER for
finalizing a second component of the includes the use of highly efficient each subcategory, as discussed in
BSER or a phase-2 standard of generation and 90 percent CCS. Owners/ section VIII.G.
TABLE 3—FINAL BSER FOR COMBUSTION TURBINE EGUS

Subcategory 1 Fuel 1st Component BSER 2nd Component BSER
Low Load ....................................... All Fuels ........... lower-emitting fuels ....................... N/A.
Intermediate Load ......................... All Fuels ............ Highly Efficient Simple Cycle Gen- N/A.
eration.
Base Load ..................................... All Fuels ........... Highly Efficient Combined Cycle Highly Efficient Combined Cycle Generation Plus
Generation. 90 Percent CCS Beginning in 2032.
1 The low load subcategory is applicable to combustion turbines selling 20 percent or less of their potential electric output, the intermediate
load subcategory is applicable to combustion turbines selling greater than 20 percent and less than or equal to 40 percent of their potential elec-
tric output, and the base load subcategory is applicable to combustion turbines selling greater than 40 percent of their potential electric output.
1. BSER for Low Load Subcategory their design efficiency (not to exceed 50 of lower-emitting fuels results in limited
percent) multiplied by their potential GHG reductions, but further recognized
This section describes the BSER for electric output (80 FR 64601; October that an output-based standard of
the low load (i.e., peaking) subcategory 23, 2015). These are calculated on 12- performance could not reasonably be
at this time, which is the use of lower- operating month and 3-calendar year applied to the subcategory. The EPA
emitting fuels. The Agency proposed rolling average bases. The EPA also explained that a combustion turbine
and is finalizing a determination that determined in the 2015 NSPS that the operating at a low capacity factor could
the use of lower-emitting fuels, which BSER for newly constructed and
the EPA determined to be the BSER for operate with multiple starts and stops,
reconstructed non-base load natural gas- and that its emission rate would be
the non-base load subcategory in the fired stationary combustion turbines is
2015 NSPS, is the BSER for this low highly dependent on how it was
the use of lower-emitting fuels. Id. at operated and not its design efficiency.
load subcategory. As explained in 64515. These lower-emitting fuels are
section VIII.E.2.b, the EPA is narrowing Moreover, combustion turbines with
primarily natural gas with a small low annual capacity factors typically
the definition of the low load allowance for distillate oil (i.e., Nos. 1
subcategory by lowering the electric operated differently from each other,
and 2 fuel oils), which have been widely
sales threshold (as compared to the and therefore had different emission
used in stationary combustion turbine
electric sales threshold for non-base rates. The EPA recognized that, as a
EGUs for decades.
load combustion turbines in the 2015 The EPA also determined in the 2015 result, at the time it would not be
NSPS), so that combustion turbines with NSPS that the standard of performance possible to determine a standard of
higher electric sales would be placed in for sources in this subcategory is a heat performance that could reasonably
the intermediate load subcategory and input-based standard of 120 lb CO2/ apply to all combustion turbines in the
therefore be subject to a more stringent MMBtu. The EPA established this clean- subcategory. For that reason, the EPA
standard based on the more stringent fuels BSER for this subcategory because further recognized, efficient design 738
BSER. of the variability in the operation in and operation would not qualify as the
non-base load combustion turbines and BSER; rather, the BSER should be lower-
a. Background: The Non-Base Load
the challenges involved in determining emitting fuels and the associated
Subcategory in the 2015 NSPS
a uniform output-based standard that all standard of performance should be
The 2015 NSPS defined non-base load new and reconstructed non-base load based on heat input. Since the 2015
natural gas-fired EGUs as stationary units could achieve. NSPS, all newly constructed simple
combustion turbines that (1) burn more Specifically, in the 2015 NSPS, the cycle turbines have been non-base load
than 90 percent natural gas and (2) have EPA recognized that a BSER for the non- units and thus have become subject to
net electric sales equal to or less than base load subcategory based on the use this standard of performance.
737 The EPA sometimes refers to highly efficient 738 Important characteristics for minimizing characteristics do not necessarily always align with
generating technology in combination with the best emissions from low load combustion turbines higher design efficiencies that are determined under
operating and maintenance practices as highly include the ability to operate efficiently while steady-state full-load conditions.
efficient generation. The affected sources must meet operating at part load conditions and the ability to
standards based on this efficient generating rapidly achieve maximum efficiency to minimize
technology upon the effective date of the final rule. periods of operation at lower efficiencies. These
b. BSER highly dependent upon the way the system but is not incorporated in a
Consistent with the rationale of the specific combustion turbine is operated. simple cycle unit. For this reason and
2015 NSPS, the EPA proposed and is For example, a combustion turbine with due to the high costs of CCS for low
finalizing that the use of fuels with an multiple startups and shutdowns and load combustion turbines, the Agency
emissions rate of less than 160 lb CO2/ operation at part loads will have high did not propose and is not finalizing a
MMBtu (i.e., lower-emitting fuels) meets emissions relative to if it were operated determination that CCS qualifies as the
the BSER requirements for the low load at steady-state high-load conditions. BSER for this subcategory of sources.
subcategory at this time. Use of these Important characteristics for reducing The EPA did not propose low-GHG
fuels is technically feasible for GHG emissions from low load hydrogen co-firing as the BSER for low
combustion turbines. Natural gas combustion turbines are the ability to load combustion turbines because not
comprises the majority of the heat input minimize emissions during periods of all new combustion turbines can
for simple cycle turbines and is the startup and shutdown and efficient necessarily co-fire higher percentages of
lowest cost fossil fuel. In the 2015 operation at part loads and while hydrogen, there are potential
NSPS, the EPA determined that natural changing loads. If the combustion infrastructure issues specific to low load
gas comprised 96 percent of the heat turbine is frequently operated at part- combustion turbines, and at the
input for simple cycle turbines. See 80 load conditions with frequent starts and relatively infrequent levels of utilization
FR 64616 (October 23, 2015). Therefore, stops, a combustion turbine with a high that characterize the low load
a BSER based on the use of natural gas design efficiency, which is determined subcategory, a low-GHG hydrogen co-
and/or distillate oil would have at full-load steady-state conditions, firing BSER would not necessarily result
minimal, if any, costs to regulated would not necessarily emit at a lower in cost-effective GHG reductions for all
entities. The use of lower-emitting fuels GHG rate than a combustion turbine low load combustion turbines. As
would not have any significant adverse with a lower design efficiency. In discussed later in this section, the
energy requirements or non-air quality addition, combustion turbines with Agency is not determining that low-
or environmental impacts, as the EPA higher design efficiencies have higher GHG hydrogen co-firing qualifies as the
determined in the 2015 NSPS. Id. at initial costs compared to combustion BSER for combustion turbines. In future
64616. In addition, the use of fuels turbines with lower design efficiencies. rulemaking the Agency could further
meeting this criterion would result in Since the EPA does not have sufficient evaluate the costs and emissions
some emission reductions by limiting information at this time to determine performance of other technologies to
the use of fuels with higher carbon emission reduction for the subcategory reduce emissions from low-load units to
content, such as residual oil, as the EPA it is not possible to determine the cost determine if other technologies qualify
also explained in the 2015 NSPS. Id. effectiveness of a BSER based on high as the BSER.
Although the use of fuels meeting this efficiency simple cycle turbines.741
criterion would not advance technology, The EPA solicited comment on 2. BSER for Intermediate Load
in light of the other reasons described whether, and the extent to which, high- Subcategory
here, the EPA proposed and is finalizing efficiency designs also operate more This section describes the BSER for
that the use of natural gas, Nos. 1 and efficiently at part loads and can start new and reconstructed combustion
2 fuel oils, and other fuels 739 currently more quickly and reach the desired load turbines in the intermediate load
specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart more rapidly than combustion turbines subcategory. For combustion turbines in
TTTT, qualify as the BSER for new and with less efficient design efficiencies. In the intermediate load subcategory, the
reconstructed combustion turbine EGUs addition, the EPA solicited comment on BSER is the use of high-efficiency
in the low load subcategory at this time. the cost premium of high-efficiency simple cycle turbine technology in
The EPA also proposed including low- simple cycle turbines. To the extent the combination with the best operating and
GHG hydrogen on the list of fuels Agency received additional relevant maintenance practices.
meeting the uniform fuels criteria in 40 information, the EPA was considering
CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa. The EPA promulgating design standard a. Lower-Emitting Fuels
is finalizing the inclusion of hydrogen, requirements pursuant to CAA section The EPA did not propose and is not
regardless of the production pathway, 111(h). However, the EPA did not finalizing lower-emitting fuels as the
on the list of fuels meeting the uniform receive comments that changed the BSER for intermediate load combustion
fuels criteria in 40 CFR part 60, subpart proposal conclusions. turbines because, as described earlier in
TTTTa.740 The addition of hydrogen The EPA did not propose the use of this section, it would achieve few GHG
(and fuels derived from hydrogen) to 40 CCS or hydrogen co-firing as the BSER emission reductions compared to highly
CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, simplifies (or as a component of the BSER) for low efficient generation.
the recordkeeping and reporting load combustion turbines. The EPA did
requirements for low load combustion not propose that CCS is the BSER for b. Highly Efficient Generation
turbines that elect to burn hydrogen. simple cycle turbines based on the This section includes a discussion of
For the reasons discussed in the 2015 Agency’s assessment that currently the various highly efficient generation
NSPS and noted above, the EPA did not available post-combustion amine-based technologies used by owners/operators
propose that efficient design and carbon capture systems require that the of combustion turbines. The appropriate
operation qualify as the BSER for the exhaust from a combustion turbine be technology depends on how the
low load subcategory. The emissions cooled prior to entering the carbon combustion turbine is operated, and the
rate of a low load combustion turbine is capture equipment. The most energy EPA has determined it does not have
efficient way to cool the exhaust gas is sufficient information to determine an

739 The BSER for multi-fuel-fired combustion
to use a HRSG, which is an integral appropriate output-based emissions
turbines subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT,
is also the use of fuels with an emissions rate of component of a combined cycle turbine standard for low load combustion
160 lb CO2/MMBtu or less. The use of these fuels turbines. At higher capacity factors,
will demonstrate compliance with the low load 741 The cost effectiveness calculation is highly
subcategory. dependent upon assumptions concerning the
emission rates for simple cycle
740 The EPA is not finalizing a definition of low- increase in capital costs, the decrease in heat rate, combustion turbines are more
GHG hydrogen. and the price of natural gas. consistent, and the EPA has sufficient
information to determine a BSER other not limited to, minimizing steam leaks, longer start times) of the combined cycle
than lower-emitting fuels. minimizing air infiltration, and cleaning turbine. While less common, combined
The use of highly efficient generating and maintaining heat transfer surfaces. cycle turbines can be designed with a
technology in combination with the best A potential drawback of combined relatively simple HRSG that produces
operating and maintenance practices cycle turbines with the highest design either a single or two pressures of steam
has been demonstrated by multiple efficiencies is that the facility is without a reheat cycle. While design
facilities for decades. Notably, over relatively complicated and startup times efficiencies are lower, the combined
time, as technologies have improved, can be relatively long. Combustion cycle turbines are more flexible and
what is considered highly efficient has turbine manufacturers have invested in have the potential to operate similar to
changed as well. Highly efficient fast-start technologies that reduce at least a portion of the simple cycle
generating technology is available and startup times and improve overall turbines in the intermediate load
offered by multiple vendors for both efficiencies. According to the NETL subcategory and provide the same value
simple cycle and combined cycle Baseline Flexible Operation Report, to the grid.
turbines. Both types of combustion while the design efficiencies are the The EPA solicited comment on
turbines can also employ best operating same, the capital costs of fast-start whether additional technologies for new
and maintenance practices, which combined cycle turbines are 1.6 percent simple and combined cycle EGUs that
include routine operating and higher than a comparable conventional could reduce emissions beyond what is
maintenance practices that minimize start combined cycle facility.742 The currently being achieved by the best
fuel use. additional costs include design performing EGUs should be included in
For simple cycle turbines, parameters that significantly reduce the BSER. Specifically, the EPA sought
manufacturers continue to improve the start times. However, fast-start comment on whether pressure gain
efficiency by increasing firing combined cycle turbines are still combustion should be incorporated into
temperature, increasing pressure ratios, significantly less flexible than simple a standard of performance based on an
using intercooling on the air cycle turbines and generally do not efficient generation BSER for both
compressor, and adopting other serve the same role. The startup time to simple and combined cycle turbines. In
measures. These improved designs full load from a hot start takes a simple addition, the EPA sought comment on
allow for improved operating cycle turbine 5 to 8 minutes, while a whether the HRSG for combined cycle
efficiencies and reduced emission rates. combined cycle turbines ranges from 30 turbines should be designed to utilize
Design efficiencies of simple cycle minutes for a fast-start combined cycle supercritical steam conditions or to
turbines range from 33 to 40 percent. turbine to 90 minutes for a conventional utilize supercritical CO2 as the working
Best operating practices for simple cycle start combined cycle turbine. The fluid instead of water; whether useful
turbines include proper maintenance of startup time to full load from a cold start thermal output could be recovered from
the combustion turbine flow path takes a simple cycle turbine 10 minutes, a compressor intercooler and boiler
components and the use of inlet air while a combined cycle turbines ranges blowdown; and whether fuel preheating
cooling to reduce efficiency losses from 120 minutes for a fast-start should be implemented. Commenters
during periods of high ambient combined cycle turbine to 250 minutes generally noted that these technologies
temperatures. for a conventional start combined cycle are promising, but that because the EPA
For combined cycle turbines, high- turbine. In addition, fast-start combined did not sufficiently evaluate the BSER
efficiency technology uses a highly cycle turbines require the use of an criteria in the proposal and none of
efficient combustion turbine engine auxiliary boiler during warm and cold these technologies should be
matched with a high-efficiency HRSG. starts.743 In addition, minimum run incorporated as part of the BSER. The
The most efficient combined cycle EGUs times for simple cycle aeroderivative EPA continues to believe these
use HRSG with three different steam engines and combined cycle EGUs equal technologies are promising, but the
pressures and incorporate a steam one minute and 120 minutes, Agency is not including them as part of
reheat cycle to maximize the efficiency respectively. Minimum downtime for the BSER at this time.
of the Rankine cycle. It is not the same group is five minutes and 60 The EPA also solicited comment on
necessarily practical for owners/ minutes, respectively. Finally, simple whether the use of steam injection is
operators of combined cycle facilities cycle aeroderivative turbines have no applicable to intermediate load
using a turbine engine with an exhaust limit to the number of starts per year. combustion turbines. Steam injection is
temperature below 593 °C or a steam Combined cycle EGUs are limited in the the use of a relatively simple and low-
turbine engine smaller than 60 MW to number of starts, and additional cost HRSG to produce steam, but
incorporate a steam reheat cycle. maintenance costs will occur if the instead of recovering the energy by
Smaller combustion turbine engines, hours/start ratio drops below 25. The expanding the steam through a steam
less than those rated at approximately model combined cycle turbines in the turbine, the steam is injected into the
2,000 MMBtu/h, tend to have lower NETL Baseline Flexible Operation compressor and/or through the fuel
exhaust temperatures and are paired Report use a HRSG with three different nozzles directly into the combustion
with steam turbines of 60 MW or less. steam pressures and a reheat cycle. chamber and the energy is extracted by
These smaller combined cycle units are While the use of this type of HRSG the combustion turbine engine.744
limited to using a HRSG with three increases design efficiencies at steady Advantages of steam injection include
different steam pressures, but without a state conditions, it increases the capital improved efficiency and increased
reheat cycle. This increases the heat rate costs and decreases the flexibility (e.g., output of the combustion turbine as
of the combined cycle unit by
well as reduced NOX emissions.

approximately 2 percent. High 742 ‘‘Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Combustion turbines using steam
efficiency also includes, but is not Energy Plants, Volume 5: Natural Gas Electricity
limited to, the use of the most efficient Generating Units for Flexible Operation.’’ DOE/ 744 A steam injected combustion turbine would be
steam turbine and minimizing energy NETL–2023/3855. May 5, 2023. considered a combined cycle combustion turbine
743 Fast start combined cycle turbine do not use (for NSPS purposes) because energy from the
losses using insulation and blowdown an auxiliary boiler during hot starts and turbine engine exhaust is recovered in a HRSG and
heat recovery. Best operating and conventional start combined cycle turbine do not that energy is used to generate additional
maintenance practices include, but are have auxiliary boilers. electricity.
injection have characteristics in- significant way how the combustion the same level of grid support as
between simple cycle and combined turbine is operated or maintained, and intermediate load simple cycle turbines
cycle combustion turbines. They are the levels of efficiency that the EPA is as a whole. In addition, the amount of
more efficient, but more complex and proposing have been achieved by many GHG reductions that could be achieved
have higher capital costs than simple recently constructed combustion by operating combined cycle EGUs as
cycle combustion turbines without turbines. Therefore, efficient generation intermediate load EGUs is unclear.
steam injection. Conversely, compared technology described in this BSER is Intermediate load combustion turbines
to combined cycle EGUs, simple cycle commercially available and the start and stop so frequently that there
combustion turbines using steam standards of performance are would often not be sufficient periods of
injection are simpler, have shorter achievable. continuous operation where the HRSG
construction times, and have lower would have sufficient time to generate
ii. Costs
capital costs, but have lower steam to operate the steam turbine
efficiencies.745 746 Combustion turbines In general, advanced generation enough to significantly lower the
using steam injection can start quickly, technologies enhance operational emissions rate of the EGU.
have good part-load performance, and efficiency compared to lower efficiency Some commenters agreed with the
can respond to rapid changes in designs. Such technologies present little proposed rationale of the EPA, and
demand, making the technology a incremental capital cost compared to other commenters disagreed and said
potential solution for reducing GHG other types of technologies that may be that combined cycle turbine technology
emissions from intermediate load considered for new and reconstructed is cost effective and lower-emitting than
combustion turbines. A potential sources. In addition, more efficient simple cycle turbine technology and
drawback of steam injection is that the designs have lower fuel costs, which therefore qualifies as the BSER for
additional pressure drop across the offsets at least a portion of the increase intermediate load combustion turbines.
HRSG can reduce the efficiency of the in capital costs. Commenters supporting combined cycle
combustion turbine when the facility is For the intermediate load subcategory, technology as the BSER submitted cost
running without the steam injection the EPA considers that the costs of high- information that indicated that
operating. efficiency simple cycle combustion combined cycle EGUs have lower
The EPA is aware of a limited number turbines are reasonable. As described in capital costs and LCOE than simple
of combustion turbines that are using the subcategory section, the cost of cycle turbines. However, the
steam injection that have maintained combustion turbine engines is commenters compared capital costs of
12-operating month emission rates of dependent upon many factors, but the larger combined cycle turbines to
less than 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross. EPA estimates that that the capital cost
smaller simple cycle turbines and did
Commenters stated that steam injection of a high-efficiency simple cycle turbine
not account for economies of scale. The
does not qualify as the BSER because it is 10 percent more than a comparable
EPA has concluded that the appropriate
has not been adequately demonstrated lower efficiency simple cycle turbine.
cost comparison is for combustion
and the EPA did not include sufficient Assuming all other costs are the same
turbines with the same rated net
analysis of the technology in the and that the high-efficiency simple
output.747 Comparing the costs of
proposal to determine it as the BSER for cycle turbine uses 8 percent less fuel,
different size EGUs is not appropriate
intermediate load combustion turbines. high-efficiency simple cycle combustion
because these EGUs provide different
The EPA continues to believe the turbines have a lower LCOE compared
to standard efficiency simple cycle grid services. In addition, the
technology is promising and it may be commenters did not account for startup
used to comply with the standard of combustion turbines at a 12-operating
month capacity factor of approximately costs and the time required for a steam
performance, but the Agency is not turbine to begin operating when
determining that it is the BSER for 31 percent. At a 20 percent and 15
percent capacity factors, the compliance determining the LCOE.
intermediate load combustion turbines The EPA considered the operation of
at this time. In a potential future costs are $1.5/MWh and $35/metric ton
simple cycle turbine to determine the
rulemaking, the Agency could further and $3.0/MWh and $69/metric ton,
respectively. The EPA has determined potential for simple cycle turbine to add
evaluate the costs and emissions a HRSG while continuing to operate in
that the incremental costs the use of
performance of steam injection to the same manner, providing the same
high efficiency simple cycle turbines as
determine if the technology qualifies as grid services, as current simple cycle
the BSER for intermediate load
the BSER. turbines. As noted previously,
combustion turbines is reasonable. The
i. Adequately Demonstrated EPA notes that the approach the Agency aeroderivative simple cycle turbines
used to estimate these costs have a have shorter run times per start than
The EPA proposed and is finalizing frame type simple cycle turbines at the
that highly efficient simple cycle relatively high degree of uncertainty and
are likely high given the common use of same capacity factor. At an annual
designs are adequately demonstrated capacity factor of 20 percent, the
because highly efficient simple cycle high efficiency simple cycle turbines
without a regulatory driver. median run time per start for
turbines have been demonstrated by aeroderivative and frame simple cycle
multiple facilities for decades, the The EPA considered but is not
finalizing combined cycle unit design turbines is 12 and 16 hours respectively.
efficiency improvements of the most At an annual capacity factor of 30
efficient designs are incremental in for combustion turbines as the BSER for
the intermediate load subcategory percent, the average run times per start
nature and do not change in any increase to 17 and 26 hours for
because it is unclear if combined cycle
turbines could serve the same role as aeroderivative and frame turbines
745 Bahrami, S., et al. (2015). Performance
Comparison between Steam Injected Gas Turbine intermediate load simple cycle turbines respectively. The higher operating times
and Combined Cycle during Frequency Drops. as a whole. Specifically, the EPA does of frame type simple cycle turbines,
Energies 2015, Volume 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ not have sufficient information to
en8087582. 747 The costing approach used by the EPA
746 Mitsubishi Power. Smart-AHAT (Advanced determine that an intermediate load compares a combined cycle turbine using a smaller
Humid Air Turbine). https://power.mhi.com/ combined cycle turbine can start and turbine engine plus a steam turbine to match the
products/gasturbines/technology/smart-ahat. stop with enough flexibility to provide output from a simple cycle turbine.
along with the larger size of frame type performance reflecting this BSER are reconstructed intermediate load
turbines, indicate that combined cycle 1,170 lb CO2/MWh-gross for combustion turbines and to be the first
technology could be applicable to at intermediate load combustion turbines. component BSER for base load
least a portion of intermediate load Between 2015 and 2022, 113 simple stationary combustions, is not the same
combustion turbines. In future cycle turbines, an average of 16 per year, as the ‘‘heat rate improvements’’ (HRI,
rulemakings addressing GHGs from new commenced operation. Of these, 112 or ‘‘efficiency improvements’’) that the
as well as existing combustion turbines, reported 12-operating month capacity EPA determined to be the BSER for
the EPA intends to further evaluate the factors. The EPA estimates that 23 existing coal-fired steam generating
costs and potential emission reductions simple cycle turbines operated at 12- EGUs in the ACE Rule. As noted earlier
of the use of faster starting and lower operating month capacity factors greater in this document, the EPA has
cost HRSG technology for intermediate than 20 percent and potentially would concluded that the suite of HRI in the
load combustion turbines to determine be considered intermediate combustion ACE Rule is not an appropriate BSER for
if the technology does in fact qualify as turbines. To estimate reductions, the existing coal-fired EGUs. In the EPA’s
the BSER. EPA assumed that the number of simple technical judgment, the suite of HRI set
iii. Non-Air Quality Health and cycle turbines constructed between forth in the ACE Rule would provide
Environmental Impact and Energy 2015 and 2022 and the operation of negligible CO2 reductions at best and, in
Requirements those combustion turbines would many cases, may increase CO2
continue on an annual basis.749 For each emissions because of the ‘‘rebound
Use of highly efficient generation simple cycle turbine that operated at a effect,’’ which is explained and
reduces all non-air quality health and capacity greater than 20 percent, the
environmental impacts and energy discussed in section VII.D.4.a.iii of this
EPA determined the percent reduction preamble. Increased CO2 emissions from
requirements assuming it displaces less in emissions, based on the maximum
efficient or higher-emitting generation. the ‘‘rebound effect’’ can occur when a
12-operating months intermediate load coal-fired EGU improves its efficiency
Even when operating at the same input- emission rate, that would be required to
based emissions rate, the more efficient (heat rate), which can move the unit up
comply with the final NSPS for on the dispatch order—resulting in an
a unit is, the less fuel is required to intermediate load turbines. The EPA
produce the same level of output; and, EGU operating for more hours during
then applied that same percent the year than it would have without
as a result, emissions are reduced for all reduction in emissions to the average
pollutants. The use of highly efficient having done the efficiency
operating capacity factor to determine improvements. There is also the
combustion turbines, compared to the the emission reductions from the NSPS.
use of less efficient combustion possibility that a more efficient coal-
Using this approach, the EPA estimates fired EGU could displace a lower
turbines, reduces all pollutants.748 By that the intermediate load standard will
the same token, because improved emitting generating source, further
impact approximately a quarter of new exacerbating the problem.
efficiency allows for more electricity simple cycle turbines. The EPA divided
generation from the same amount of the total amount of calculated Conversely, including ‘‘highly
fuel, it will not have any adverse effects reductions for intermediate load simple efficient generation’’ as a component of
on energy requirements. cycle turbines built between 2015 and the BSER for new and reconstructed
Designating highly efficient does not create this risk of displacing a
2022 and divided that value by 7 (the
generation as part of the BSER for new lower-emitting generating source. A new
number of years evaluated) to get
and reconstructed intermediate load highly efficient stationary combustion
combustion turbines will not have estimated annual reductions. This
approach results in annual reductions of turbine may be dispatched more than it
significant impacts on the nationwide would have been if it were not built as
supply of electricity, electricity prices, 31,000 tons of CO2 as well as 8 tons of
NOX. The emission reductions are a highly efficient turbine, but it is more
or the structure of the electric power likely to displace an existing coal-fired
sector. On a nationwide basis, the projected to result primarily from
building additional higher efficiency EGU or a less efficient existing
additional costs of the use of highly stationary combustion turbine. It would
efficient generation will be small aeroderivative simple cycle turbines
instead of less efficient frame simple be unlikely to displace a renewable
because the technology does not add
cycle turbines. The reduced emissions generating source.
significant costs and at least some of
those costs are offset by reduced fuel come from relatively small reductions in For base load stationary combustion
costs. In addition, at least some of these the emission rates of the intermediate turbines, ‘‘highly efficient generation’’ is
new combustion turbines would be load aeroderivative simple cycle the first component of the BSER—with
expected to incorporate highly efficient turbines. This is a snapshot of projected 90 percent capture CCS being the
generation technology in any event. emission reductions from applying the second component of the BSER. This is
NSPS retroactively to 2022. If more very similar to the Agency’s BSER
iv. Extent of Reductions in CO2 intermediate load simple cycle turbines determination for the NSPS for new
Emissions are built in the future, the emission fossil fuel-fired steam generating units.
The EPA estimated the potential reductions would be higher than this In that final rule, the EPA established
emission reductions associated with a estimate. Conversely, if fewer standards of performance for newly
standard that reflects the application of intermediate load simple cycles are constructed fossil fuel-fired steam
highly efficient generation as BSER for built, the emission reductions would be generating units based on the
the intermediate load subcategory. As lower than the EPA’s estimate. performance of a new highly efficient
discussed in section VIII.G.1, the EPA Importantly, the ‘‘highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC)
determined that the standards of generation’’ which the EPA has EGU implementing post-combustion
determined to be the BSER for new and partial CCS technology, which the EPA
748 The emission reduction comparison is done
determined to be the BSER for these
assuming the same level of operation. Overall 749 This is a simplified assumption that does not
sources.750
emission impacts would be different if the more take into account changing market conditions that
efficient combustion turbine operates more then the could change the makeup and operation of new
baseline. combustion turbines. 750 See 80 FR 64510 (October 23, 2015).
v. Promotion of the Development and a. Lower-Emitting Fuels iii. Non-Air Quality Health and
Implementation of Technology Environmental Impact and Energy
The EPA did not propose and is not Requirements
The EPA also considered the potential finalizing lower-emitting fuels as the
impact of selecting highly efficient Use of highly efficient generation
BSER for base load combustion turbines
simple cycle generation technology as reduces all non-air quality health and
the BSER for the intermediate load because, as described earlier in this
environmental impacts and energy
subcategory in promoting the section, it would achieve few GHG
requirements as compared to use of less
development and implementation of emission reductions compared to highly efficient generation. Even when
improved control technology. New efficient generation. operating at the same input-based
highly efficient simple cycle turbines b. Highly Efficient Generation emissions rate, the more efficient a unit
are more efficient than the average new is, the less fuel is required to produce
simple cycle turbine and a standard i. Adequately Demonstrated the same level of output; and, as a
based on the performance of the most result, emissions are reduced for all
The EPA proposed and is finalizing
efficient, best performing simple cycle pollutants. The use of highly efficient
turbine will promote penetration of the that highly efficient combined cycle
combustion turbines, compared to the
most efficient units throughout the designs are adequately demonstrated
use of less efficient combustion
industry. Accordingly, consideration of because highly efficient combined cycle
turbines, reduces all pollutants. By the
this factor supports the EPA’s proposal EGUs have been demonstrated by
same token, because improved
to determine this technology to be the multiple facilities for decades, and the efficiency allows for more electricity
BSER. efficiency improvements of the most generation from the same amount of
efficient designs are incremental in fuel, it will not have any adverse effects
c. Low-GHG Hydrogen and CCS nature and do not change in any on energy requirements.
The EPA did not propose and is not significant way how the combustion Designating highly efficient
finalizing either CCS or co-firing low- turbine is operated or maintained. Due generation as part of the BSER for new
GHG hydrogen as the first component of to the differences in HRSG efficiencies and reconstructed base load combustion
the BSER for intermediate load for smaller combined cycle turbines, the turbines will not have significant
combustion turbines, for the reasons EPA proposed and is finalizing less impacts on the nationwide supply of
given in sections VIII.F.4.c.iii (CCS) and stringent standards of performance for electricity, electricity prices, or the
VIII.F.5 (low-GHG hydrogen).
smaller base load turbines with base structure of the electric power sector.
d. Summary of BSER Determinations load ratings of less than 2,000 MMBtu/ On a nationwide basis, the additional
The EPA is finalizing that highly h relative to those for larger base load costs of the use of highly efficient
efficient generating technology in turbines. The levels of efficiency that generation will be small because the
combination with the best operating and the EPA is proposing have been technology does not add significant
maintenance practices is the BSER for achieved by many recently constructed costs and at least some of those costs are
intermediate load combustion turbines. combustion turbines. Therefore, offset by reduced fuel costs. In addition,
Specifically, the use of highly efficient efficient generation technology at least some of these new combustion
simple cycle technology in combination described in this BSER is commercially turbines would be expected to
with the best operating and available and the standards of incorporate highly efficient generation
maintenance practices is the BSER for performance are achievable. technology in any event.
intermediate load combustion turbines. iv. Extent of Reductions in CO2
Highly efficient generation qualifies ii. Costs
Emissions
the BSER because it is adequately
demonstrated, it can be implemented at For the base load subcategory, the The EPA used a similar approach to
reasonable cost, it achieves emission EPA considers the cost of high- estimating emission reductions for base
reductions, and it does not have efficiency combined cycle EGUs to be load combustion turbines as
significant adverse non-air quality reasonable. While the capital costs of a intermediate load combustion turbines,
health or environmental impacts or higher efficiency combined cycle EGUs except the Agency reviewed recently
significant adverse energy requirements. are 1.9 percent higher than standard constructed combined cycle EGUs. As
The fact that it promotes greater use of efficiency combined cycle EGUs, fuel discussed in section VIII.G.1, the EPA
advanced technology provides use is 2.6 percent lower.751 The determined that the standard of
additional support; however, the EPA reduction in fuel costs fully offset the performance reflecting this BSER is 800
considers highly efficient generation to capital costs at capacity factors of 40 lb CO2/MWh-gross for base load
the BSER for intermediate load percent or greater over the expected 30- combustion turbines. The Agency
combustion turbines even without year life of the facility. Therefore, a assumed all new combined cycle
taking this factor into account. BSER based on the use of high- turbines would be impacted by the base
efficiency combined cycle combustion load emissions standard. Between the
3. BSER for Base Load Subcategory— beginning of 2015 and the beginning of
First Component turbines for base load combustion
turbines would have minimal, if any, 2022, 129 combined cycle turbines, an
This section describes the first average of 18 per year, commenced
overall compliance costs since the
component of the BSER for newly operation. Of those combined cycle
capital costs would be recovered
constructed and reconstructed turbines, 107 had 12-operating month
combustion turbines in the base load through reduced fuel costs over the emissions data. For each of these 107
subcategory. For combustion turbines in expected 30-year life of the facility. combined cycle turbines that had a
the base load subcategory, the first maximum 12-operating month
component of the BSER is the use of 751 Cost And Performance Baseline for Fossil emissions rate greater than 800 lb CO2/
high-efficiency combined cycle Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and MWh-gross, the EPA determined the
technology in combination with the best Natural Gas to Electricity, Rev. 4A (October 2022), reductions that would occur assuming
operating and maintenance practices. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1893822. the combined cycle turbine reduced its
emissions rate to 800 lb CO2/MWh-gross significant adverse energy requirements. D.C. Circuit caselaw supports the
and continued to operate at its average The fact that it promotes greater use of proposition that CAA section 111
capacity factor. The EPA summed the advanced technology provides authorizes the EPA to determine that
results and divided by 8 (the number of additional support; however, the EPA controls qualify as the BSER—including
years evaluated) to estimate the annual considers highly efficient generation to meeting the ‘‘adequately demonstrated’’
GHG reductions that will result from be a component of the BSER for base criterion—even if the controls require
this final rule. The EPA estimates that load combustion turbines even without some amount of ‘‘lead time,’’ which the
the base load standard will result in taking this factor into account. court has defined as ‘‘the time in which
annual reductions of 313,000 tons of the technology will have to be
CO2 as well as 23 tons of NOX. The 4. BSER for Base Load Subcategory— available.’’ 752 The caselaw’s
reductions increase each year and in Second Component interpretation of ‘‘adequately
year 3 the annual reductions would be a. Authority To Promulgate a Multi-Part demonstrated’’ to accommodate lead
939,000 tons of CO2 and 69 tons of NOX. BSER and Standard of Performance time accords with common sense and
the practical experience of certain types
v. Promotion of the Development and
The EPA’s approach of promulgating of controls, discussed below. Consistent
Implementation of Technology
standards of performance that apply in with this caselaw, the phased
The EPA also considered the potential multiple phases, based on determining implementation of the standards of
impact of selecting highly efficient the BSER to be a set of controls with performance in this rule ensures that
generation technology as the BSER in multiple components, is consistent with facilities have sufficient lead time for
promoting the development and CAA section 111(b). That provision planning and implementation of the use
implementation of improved control authorizes the EPA to promulgate of CCS-based controls necessary to
technology. The highly efficient ‘‘standards of performance,’’ CAA comply with the second phase of the
combustion turbines are more efficient section 111(b)(1)(B), defined, in the standards, and thereby ensures that the
and lower emitting than the average singular, as ‘‘a standard for emissions of standards are achievable. For further
new combustion turbine generation air pollutants which reflects the degree discussion of this point, see section
technology. Determining that highly of emission limitation achievable V.C.2.b.iii.
efficient turbines are a component of the through the application of the [BSER].’’ The EPA has promulgated several
BSER will advance penetration of the CAA section 111(a)(1). CAA section prior rulemakings under CAA section
best performing combustion turbines 111(b)(1)(B) further provides, 111(b) that have similarly provided the
throughout the industry—and will ‘‘[s]tandards of performance . . . shall regulated sector with lead time to
incentivize manufacturers to offer become effective upon promulgation.’’ accommodate the availability of
improved turbines that meet the final In this rulemaking, the EPA is technology, which also serve as
standard of performance associated with determining that the BSER is a set of precedent for the two-phase
application of the BSER. Accordingly, controls that, depending on the implementation approach proposed in
consideration of this factor supports the subcategory, include highly efficient this rule. See 81 FR 59332 (August 29,
EPA’s proposal to determine this generation plus use of CCS. The EPA is 2016) (establishing standards for
technology to be the BSER. determining that affected sources can municipal solid waste landfills with 30-
apply the first component of the BSER— month compliance timeframe for
c. Low-GHG Hydrogen and CCS
highly efficient generation—by the installation of control device, with
The EPA did not propose and is not effective date of the final rule and can interim milestones); 80 FR 13672, 13676
finalizing either CCS or co-firing low- apply both the first and second (March 16, 2015) (establishing stepped
GHG hydrogen as the first component of components of the BSER—highly compliance approach to wood heaters
the BSER for base load combustion efficient generation in combination with standards to permit manufacturers lead
turbines, for the reasons given in 90 percent CCS—in 2032. time to develop, test, field evaluate and
sections VIII.F.4.c.iii (CCS) and VIII.F.5 certify current technologies to meet Step
(low-GHG hydrogen). Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing
2 emission limits); 78 FR 58416, 58420
standards of performance that reflect the
d. Summary of BSER Determinations (September 23, 2013) (establishing
application of this multi-component
multi-phased compliance deadlines for
The EPA is finalizing that highly BSER and that take the form of
revised storage vessel standards to
efficient generating technology in standards of performance that affected
permit sufficient time for production of
combination with the best operating and sources must comply with in two
necessary supply of control devices and
maintenance practices is the BSER for phases. This multi-phase standard of
for trained personnel to perform
first component of the BSER for base performance ‘‘become[s] effective upon
installation); 77 FR 56422, 56450
load combustion turbines. The phase-1 promulgation.’’ CAA section
(September 12, 2012) (establishing
standards of performance are based on 111(b)(1)(B). That is, upon
standards for petroleum refineries, with
the application of that technology. promulgation, affected sources become
3-year compliance timeframe for
Specifically, the use of highly efficient legally subject to the multi-phase
installation of control devices); 71 FR
combined cycle technology in standard of performance and must
39154, 39158 (July 11, 2006)
combination with best operating and comply with it by its terms. Specifically,
(establishing standards for stationary
maintenance practices is the first affected sources must comply with the
compression ignition internal
component of the BSER for base load first phase standards, which are based
combustion engines, with 2- to 3-year
on the application of the first
combustion turbines. compliance timeframe and up to 6 years

Highly efficient generation qualifies component of the BSER, upon initial
for certain emergency fire pump
as the BSER because it is adequately startup of the facility. They must
engines); 70 FR 28606, 28617 (March 18,
demonstrated, it can be implemented at comply with the second phase
2005) (establishing two-phase caps for
reasonable cost, it achieves emission standards, which are based on the
reductions, and it does not have application of both the first and second 752 See Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus,
significant adverse non-air quality components of the BSER, beginning 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (citations
health or environmental impacts or January 2032. omitted).
mercury standards of performance from standards of performance for new iv. CCS
new and existing coal-fired electric sources. (A) Overview
utility steam generating units based on
b. BSER for the Intermediate Load In this section of the preamble, the
timeframe when additional control
Subcategory—Second Component EPA explains its rationale for finalizing
technologies were projected to be
adequately demonstrated).753 Cf. 80 FR that CCS with 90 percent capture is a
The EPA proposed that the second
64662, 64743 (October 23, 2015) component of the BSER for new base
component of the BSER for intermediate
(establishing interim compliance period load combustion turbines. CCS is a
load combustion turbines was co-firing
to phase in final power sector GHG control technology that can be applied
30 percent low-GHG hydrogen in 2032. at the stack of a combustion turbine
standards to allow time for planning As discussed in section VIII.F.5.b, the
and investment necessary for EGU, achieves substantial reductions in
EPA is not determining that low-GHG emissions and can capture and
implementation activities).754 In each hydrogen qualifies as the BSER at this
action, the standards and compliance permanently sequester at least 90
time. Therefore, the Agency is not percent of the CO2 emitted by
timelines were effective upon the final finalizing a second component of the
rule, with affected facilities required to combustion turbines. The technology is
BSER for intermediate load combustion adequately demonstrated, given that it
comply consistent with the phased turbines.
compliance deadline specified in each has been operated on a large scale and
action. c. BSER for Base Load Subcategory— is widely applicable to these sources,
It should be noted that the multi- Second Component and there are vast sequestration
phased implementation of the standards opportunities across the continental
i. Lower-Emitting Fuels U.S. Additionally, the costs for CCS are
of performance that the EPA is
finalizing in this rule, like the delayed The EPA did not propose and is not reasonable in light of recent technology
or multi-phased standards in prior rules finalizing lower-emitting fuels as the cost declines and policies including the
just described, is distinct from the second component of the BSER for tax credit under IRC section 45Q.
promulgation of revised standards of intermediate or base load combustion Moreover, the non-air quality health and
performance under the 8-year review turbines because it would achieve few environmental impacts of CCS can be
provision of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). emission reductions, compared to mitigated, and the energy requirements
As discussed in section VIII.F, the EPA highly efficient generation without or in of CCS are not unreasonably adverse.
has determined that the proposed combination with the use of CCS. The EPA’s weighing of these factors
BSER—highly efficient generation and together provides the basis for finalizing
ii. Highly Efficient Generation 90 percent capture CCS as a component
use of CCS—meet all of the statutory
criteria and are adequately of BSER for these sources. In addition,
For the reasons described above, the this BSER determination aligns with the
demonstrated for the compliance EPA is determining that highly efficient
timeframes being finalized. Thus, the caselaw, discussed in section V.C.2.h of
generation in combination with best the preamble, stating that CAA section
second phase of the standard of operating and maintenance practices
performance applies to affected facilities 111 encourages continued advancement
continues to be a component of the in pollution control technology.
that commence construction after May BSER that is reflected in the second This section incorporates by reference
23, 2023 (the date of the proposal). In phase of the standards of performance the parts of section VII.C.1.a. of this
contrast, when the EPA later reviews for base load combustion turbine EGUs. preamble that discuss the many aspects
and (if appropriate) revises a standard of Highly efficient generation reduces fuel of CCS that are common to both steam
performance under the 8-year review use and, therefore, the amount of CO2 generating units and to new combustion
provision, then affected sources that that must be captured by a CCS system. turbines. This includes the discussion of
commence construction after the date of Since a highly efficient turbine system simultaneous demonstration of CO2
that proposal of the revised standard of would produce less flue gas that would capture, transport, and sequestration
performance will be subject to that need to be treated (compared to a less discussed at VII.C.1.a.i(A); the
standard, but not sources that efficient turbine system), physically discussion of CO2 capture technology
commenced construction earlier. smaller carbon capture equipment may used at coal-fired steam generating units
Similarly, the multi-phased be used—potentially reducing capital, at VII.C.1.a.i(B) (the Agency explains
implementation of the standard of fixed, and operating costs. below why that record is also relevant
performance that the EPA is including
iii. Hydrogen Co-Firing to our BSER analysis for new
in this rule is also distinct from the
combustion turbines); the discussion of
promulgation of emission guidelines for
The EPA proposed a pathway for the CO2 transport at VII.C.1.a.i(C); and the
existing sources under CAA section
second component of the BSER for base discussion of geologic storage of CO2 at
111(d). Emission guidelines only apply
load combustion turbines of co-firing 30 VII.C.1.a.i(D). And the record
to existing sources, which are defined in
percent low-GHG hydrogen in 2032 supporting that transport and
CAA section 111(a)(6) as ‘‘any stationary
increasing to 96 percent low-GHG sequestration of CO2 from coal-fired
source other than a new source.’’
hydrogen co-firing in 2038. As units is adequately demonstrated and
Because new sources are defined
discussed in section VIII.F.5.b of this meets the other requirements for BSER
relative to the proposal of standards
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing a applies as well to transport and
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B),
determination that low-GHG hydrogen sequestration of CO2 from combustion
standards of performance adopted
co-firing qualifies as the BSER.
turbines.
pursuant to emission guidelines will
Therefore, the Agency is not finalizing The primary differences between
only apply to sources constructed before
a second component low-GHG hydrogen using post-combustion capture from a
May 23, 2023, the date of the proposed
co-firing pathway of the BSER for base coal combustion flue gas and a natural
753 Cf. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 583–584
load combustion turbines. As the EPA’s gas combustion flue gas are associated
(D.C. Cir. 2008) (vacating rule on other grounds). standard of performance is technology with the level of CO2 in the flue gas
754 Cf. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) neutral, however, affected sources may stream and the levels of other pollutants
(vacating rule on other grounds). comply with it by co-firing hydrogen. that must be removed. In coal
combustion flue gas, the concentration Power technology is not currently combustion turbines is similar to its
of CO2 is typically approximately 13 to applicable to coal-fired steam generating analysis of those components for
15 volume percent, while the utility boilers—though it could be existing coal-fired steam generating
concentration of CO2 from natural gas- utilized with combustion of gasified units and, therefore, for much the same
fired combined cycle combustion flue coal or other solid fossil fuels (e.g., reasons, the EPA is determining that
gas is approximately 3 to 4 volume petroleum coke). each of those components is adequately
percent.755 Capture of CO2 at dilute For new base load combustion demonstrated, and that CCS as a
concentrations is more challenging but turbines, the EPA proposed that CCS whole—including those components
there are commercially available amine- with a 90 percent capture rate, when combined with the 90 percent
based solvents that can be used with beginning in 2035, meets the BSER CO2 capture component—is adequately
dilute CO2 streams to achieve 90 percent criteria. Some commenters agreed with
demonstrated. In addition, new sources
capture. In addition, flue gas from a the EPA that CCS for base load
may consider access to CO2 transport
coal-fired steam EGU contains a variety combustion turbines satisfies the BSER
criteria. Other commenters claimed that and storage sites in determining where
of non-carbonaceous components that
CCS is not a suitable BSER for new base to build, and the EPA expects that since
must be removed to meet environmental
load combustion turbines. The EPA this rule was proposed, companies
limits (e.g., mercury and other metals,
disagrees with these commenters. siting new base load combustion
particulate matter (fly ash), and acid
As with existing coal-fired steam turbines have taken into consideration
gases (including sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and hydrogen chloride and hydrogen generating units, CCS applied to new the likelihood of a regulatory regime
fluoride). When amine-based post- combined cycle combustion turbines requiring significant emissions
combustion carbon capture is used with has three major components: CO2 reductions.
a coal-fired EGU, the flue gas stream capture, transportation, and The use of CCS at 90 percent capture
must be further cleaned, sometimes sequestration/storage. CCS with 90 can be implemented at reasonable cost
beyond required environmental percent capture has been adequately because it allows affected sources to
standards, to avoid the fouling of demonstrated for combined cycle maximize the benefits of the IRC section
downstream process equipment and to combustion turbines for many of the 45Q tax credit. Finally, any adverse
prevent degradation of the amine same reasons described in section health and environmental impacts and
solvent. Absent pretreatment of the coal VII.C.1.a.i. The Bellingham Energy
energy requirements are limited and, in
combustion flue gas, the amines can Center, a natural gas-fired combined
many cases, can be mitigated or
absorb SO2 and other acid gases to form cycle combustion turbine in south
central Massachusetts, successfully avoided. It should also be noted that a
heat stable salts, thereby degrading the determination that CCS is the BSER for
performance of the solvent. Amine applied post-combustion carbon capture
using the Fluor Econamine FG PlusSM these units will promote further use and
solvents can also experience catalytic development of this advanced
oxidative degradation in the presence of amine-based solvent from 1991–2005
with 85–95 percent CO2 capture.756 The technology. After balancing these
some metal contaminants. Thermal factors, the EPA is determining that
oxidation of the solvent can also occur plant captured approximately 365 tons
of CO2 per day from a 40 MW slip utilization of CCS with 90 percent
but can be mitigated by interstage capture for new base load combustion
cooling of the absorber column. Natural stream 757 and was ultimately shut
down and decommissioned primarily turbine EGUs satisfies the criteria for
gas combustion flue gas typically
due to rising gas prices. BSER.
contains very low (if any) levels of SO2,
As discussed in further detail below,
acid gases, fly ash, and metals. (B) Adequately Demonstrated
additional natural gas-fired combined
Therefore, fouling and solvent
cycle combustion turbine CCS projects The legal test for an adequately
degradation are less of a concern for
are in the planning stage, which demonstrated system, and an achievable
carbon capture from natural gas-fired
confirms that CCS is becoming accepted standard, has been discussed at length
EGUs.
New natural gas-fired combustion across the industry. As discussed above, above. (See sections V.C.2.b and
turbine EGUs also have the option of CCS with 90 percent capture has been VII.C.a.i of this preamble). As
using oxy-combustion technology—such demonstrated for coal-fired steam previously noted, concepts of adequate
as that currently being demonstrated generating units, and that information demonstration and achievability are
and developed by NET Power. As forms part of the basis for the EPA’s
closely related: ‘‘[i]t is the system which
discussed earlier, the NET Power system determination that CCS with 90 percent
must be adequately demonstrated and
uses oxy-combustion (combustion in capture has been have adequately
the standard which must be
pure oxygen) of natural gas and a high- demonstrated for these combustion
turbines. Statements from vendors and achievable,’’ 758 based on application of
pressure supercritical CO2 working fluid the system. An achievable standard
(instead of steam) to produce electricity the experience of industrial applications
of CCS provide further support that means a standard based on the EPA’s
in a combined cycle turbine finding that sufficient evidence exists to
configuration. The combustion products post-combustion CCS with 90 percent
capture is adequately demonstrated for reasonably determine that the affected
are water and high-purity, pipeline- sources in the source category can adopt
ready CO2 which is available for these combustion turbines.
The EPA’s analysis of the a specific system of emission reduction
sequestration or sale to another to achieve the specified degree of
transportation and sequestration
industry. The NET Power technology
components of CCS for new base load emission limitation. The foregoing
does not involve solvent-based CO2 sections have shown that CCS,
separation and capture since pure CO2 756 Fluor Econamine FG PlusSM brochure. https:// specifically using amine post-
is a product of the process. The NET a.fluor.com/f/1014770/x/a744f915e1/econamine-fg- combustion CO2 capture, is adequately
plus-brochure.pdf.
755 NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture Approaches. 757 ‘‘Commercially Available CO Capture
demonstrated for existing coal units,
2
https://netl.doe.gov/research/carbon-management/ Technology’’ Power, (Aug 2009). https://
energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/capture- www.powermag.com/commercially-available-co2- 758 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
approaches. capture-technology/. 427, 433 (1973).
and that a 90 percent capture standard capture, and many of the challenges that (1) CO2 Capture for Combined Cycle
is achievable.759 were faced by earlier commercial scale Combustion Turbines
Pursuant to Lignite Energy Council v. demonstrations on coal-fired units can As discussed in the preceding, new
EPA, the EPA may extrapolate based on be avoided in the application of CCS at stationary combustion turbines can use
data from a particular kind of source to natural gas-fired combustion turbines. amine-based post-combustion capture.
conclude that the technology at issue Additionally, new stationary
Second, the CO2 concentration of
will also be effective at a similar combustion turbines may also utilize
natural gas-fired combined cycle flue
source.760 This standard is satisfied in oxy-combustion, which uses a purified
gas is lower than that of coal flue gas
our case, because of the essential ways oxygen stream from an air separation
(approximately 3-to-4 volume percent
in which CO2 capture at coal-fired steam unit (often diluted with recycled CO2 to
generating units is identical to CO2 for natural gas combined cycle EGUs;
13-to-15 volume percent for coal). For control the flame temperature) to
capture at natural gas-fired combined combust the fuel and produce a nearly
cycle turbines. As detailed in section solvent-based CO2 capture, CO2
concentration is the driving force for pure stream of CO2 in the flue gas, as
VII.C.1.a.i(B), amine-based CO2 capture opposed to combustion with oxygen in
removes CO2 from post-combustion flue mass transfer and the reaction of CO2
with the solvent. However, flue gases air which contains 80 percent nitrogen.
gas by reaction of the CO2 with amine Currently available post-combustion
solvent. The same technology (i.e., the with lower CO2 concentrations can be
readily addressed by the correct sizing amine-based CO2 capture systems
same solvents and processes) that is require that the flue gas be cooled prior
employed on coal-fired steam generating and design of the capture equipment—
and such considerations have been to entering the capture equipment. This
units—and that is employed to capture holds true for the exhaust from either a
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in other made in evaluating the BSER here and
are reflected in the cost analysis in coal-fired utility boiler or from a
industrial processes—can be applied to combustion turbine. The most energy
remove CO2 from the post-combustion VII.C.1.a.ii(A) of this preamble.
Moreover, as is detailed in the following efficient way to cool the flue gas stream
flue gas of natural gas-fired combined is to use a HRSG—which, as explained
cycle EGUs. In fact, the only differences sections of the preamble, amine-based
above, is an integral component of a
in application of amine-based CO2 CO2 capture has been shown to be
combined cycle turbine system—to
capture on a natural gas-fired combined effective at removal of CO2 from the flue
generate additional useful output.762
cycle unit relative to a coal-fired steam gas of natural gas-fired combined cycle CO2 capture has been successfully
generating unit are related to the EGUs. In fact, there is not a technical applied to an existing combined cycle
differences in composition of the limit to removal of CO2 from flue gases turbine and several other projects are in
respective post-combustion flue gases, with low CO2 concentrations—the EPA development, as discussed immediately
and as explained below, these notes that amine solvents have been below.
differences do not preclude achieving shown to be able to remove CO2 to
90 percent capture from a gas-fired concentrations that are less than the (a) CCS on Combined Cycle EGUs
turbine. concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The most prominent example of the
First, while coal flue gas contains Considering these factors, the use of carbon capture technology on a
impurities including SO2, PM, and trace evidence that underlies the EPA’s natural gas-fired combined cycle turbine
minerals that can affect the downstream determination that amine post- EGU was at the 386 MW Bellingham
CO2 process, and thus coal flue gas combustion CO2 capture is adequately Cogeneration Facility in Bellingham,
requires substantial pre-treatment, the demonstrated, and that a 90 percent Massachusetts. The plant used Fluor’s
post-combustion flue gas of natural gas- capture standard is achievable, at coal- Econamine FG PlusSM amine-based CO2
fired combustion turbines has few, if fired steam generating units, also capture system with a capture capacity
any, impurities that would impact the of 360 tons of CO2 per day. The system
applies to natural gas-fired combined
downstream CO2 capture plant. Where was used to produce food-grade CO2
cycle EGUs. Where differences exist,
impurities are present, SO2 in particular and was in continuous commercial
due to differences in flue gas
can cause solvent degradation, and coal- operation from 1991 to 2005 (14 years).
composition, CCS at natural gas-fired
fired sources without an FGD would The capture system was able to
combined cycle combustion turbines
likely need to install one. Filterable PM continuously capture 85–95 percent of
will in general face fewer challenges
(fly ash) from coal, if not properly the CO2 that would have otherwise been
than CCS at coal-fired steam
managed, can cause fouling and scale to emitted from the flue gas of a 40 MW
generators.761 Moreover, in addition to
accumulate on downstream blower fans, slip stream.763 The natural gas
the evidence outlined above, the
heat exchangers, and absorber packing combustion flue gas at the facility
material. Further, additional care in the following sections provide additional
information specific to, including contained 3.5 volume percent CO2 and
solvent reclamation is necessary to 13–14 volume percent oxygen. As
mitigate solvent degradation that could examples of, anime-based capture at
natural gas-fired combined cycle EGUs. mentioned earlier, the flue gas from a
otherwise occur due to the trace coal combustion flue gas stream has a
elements that can be present in coal. For these reasons, the EPA has
determined that CCS at 90 percent typical CO2 concentration of
Because the flue gas from natural gas- approximately 15 volume percent and
fired combustion turbines contains few, capture is adequately demonstrated for
natural gas fired combined cycle EGUs. more dilute CO2 stream are more
if any, impurities that would impact challenging to separate and capture. Just
downstream CO2 capture, the flue gas before the CO2 capture system was shut
761 Many of the challenges faced by Boundary
from natural gas-fired combined cycle

Dam Unit 3—which proved to be solvable—were
EGUs is easier to work with for CO2 caused by the impurities, including fly ash, SO2, 762 The EPA proposed that because the BSER for
and trace contaminants in coal-fired post- non-base load combustion turbines was simple
759 The EPA uses the two phrases (i) BSER is CCS combustion flue gas—which do not occur in the cycle technology, CCS was not applicable.
with 90 percent capture and (ii) CCS with 90 natural gas post-combustion flue gas. As a result, for 763 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Carbon
percent capture is achievable, or similar phrases, CO2 capture for natural gas combustion, flue gas Capture Opportunities for Natural Gas Fired Power
interchangeably. handling is simpler, solvent degradation is easier to Systems. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/
760 Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 prevent, and fewer redundancies may be necessary carbon-capture-opportunities-natural-gas-fired-
(D.C. Cir. 1999). for various components (e.g., heat exchangers). power-systems.
down in 2005 (due to high natural gas facility and sequester up to 1.5 million storage site being developed 62 miles off
price), the system had logged more than metric tons of CO2 annually. A storage the Scottish North Sea coast will serve
120,000 hours of CO2 capture 764 and site being developed 62 miles off the as a destination for the captured
had a 98.5 percent on-stream Scottish North Sea coast will serve as a CO2.778 779
(availability) factor.765 destination for the captured CO2.771 772
The Fluor Econamine FG PlusSM is a (c) Coal-Fired Steam Generating Units
Furthermore, the Global CCS Centre is
propriety carbon capture solution with tracking other international CCS on As detailed in section VII.C.1.a, CCS
more than 30 licensed plants and more combustion turbine projects that are in has been demonstrated on coal-fired
than 30 years of operation. This on-going stages of development.773 power plants, which provides further
technology uses a proprietary solvent to support that CCS on base load combined
capture CO2 from post-combustion (b) NET Power Cycle cycle units is adequately demonstrated.
sources. The process is well suited to In addition, there are several planned Further, 90 percent capture is expected
capture CO2 from large, single-point projects using NET Power’s Allam- to be, in some ways, more
emission sources such as power plants Fetvedt Cycle.774 The Allam-Fetvedt straightforward to achieve for natural
or refineries, including large facilities Cycle is a proprietary process for gas-fired combined cycle combustion
with CO2 capture capacities greater than producing electricity that combusts a turbines than for coal-fired steam
10,000 tons per day.766 On February 6, fuel with purified oxygen (diluted with generators. Many of the challenges faced
2024, Fluor Corporation announced that recycled CO2 to control flame by Boundary Dam Unit 3—which
Chevron New Energies plans to use the temperature) and uses supercritical CO2 proved to be solvable—were caused by
Econamine FG PlusSM carbon capture as the working fluid instead of water/ the impurities, including fly ash, SO2,
technology to reduce CO2 emissions at steam. This cycle is designed to achieve and trace contaminants in coal-fired
Chevron’s Eastridge Cogeneration thermal efficiencies of up to 59 post-combustion flue gas. Such
combustion turbine facility in Kern percent.775 Potential advantages of this impurities naturally occur in coal
County, California. When installed, cycle are that it emits no NOX and (sulfur and trace contaminants) or are a
Fluor’s carbon capture solution is produces a stream of high-purity CO2 776 natural result of combusting coal (fly
expected to reduce the Eastridge that can be delivered by pipeline to a ash), but not in natural gas, and thus
Cogeneration facility’s carbon emissions storage or sequestration site without they do not appear in the natural gas
by approximately 95 percent.767 extensive processing. A 50 MW post-combustion flue gas. As a result,
Moreover, recently, CO2 capture (thermal) test facility in La Porte, Texas for CO2 capture for natural gas
technology has been operated on NGCC was completed in 2018 and has since combustion, flue gas handling is
post-combustion flue gas at the accumulated over 1,500 hours of simpler, solvent degradation is easier to
Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) in runtime. There are several announced prevent, and fewer redundancies may be
Norway.768 TCM can treat a 12 MWe NET Power commercial projects necessary for various components (e.g.,
flue gas stream from a natural gas proposing to use the Allam-Fetvedt heat exchangers).
combined cycle cogeneration plant at Cycle. These include the 280 MW (d) Other Industry
Mongstad power station. Many different Broadwing Clean Energy Complex in
solvents have been operated at TCM As discussed in section
Illinois, and several international
including MHI’s KS–21TM solvent,769 VII.C.1.a.i.(A)(1) of this preamble, CCS
projects.
achieving capture rates of over 98 installations in other industries support
In Scotland, the proposed 900 MW
percent. that capture equipment can achieve 90
Peterhead Power Station combined
Additionally, in Scotland, the percent capture of CO2 from natural gas-
cycle EGU with CCS is in the planning
proposed 900 MW Peterhead Power fired base load combined cycle
stages of development. MHI is
Station combined cycle EGU with CCS combustion turbines.
developing a FEED for the power plant
is in the planning stages of and capture facility.777 It is anticipated (e) EPAct05-Assisted CO2 Capture
development. MHI is developing a FEED that the power plant will be operational Projects at Stationary Combustion
for the power plant and capture by the end of the 2020s and will have Turbines
facility.770 It is anticipated that the the potential to capture 90 percent of
power plant will be operational by the As for steam generating units,
the CO2 emitting from the combined EPAct05-assisted CO2 capture projects
end of the 2020s and will have the cycle facility and sequester up to 1.5
potential to capture 90 percent of the on stationary combustion turbines
million metric tons of CO2 annually. A corroborate that CO2 capture on gas
CO2 emitting from the combined cycle
combustion turbines is adequately
771 Buli, N. (2021, May 10). SSE, Equinor plan
764 https://boereport.com/2022/08/16/fluor/.
demonstrated. Several CCS projects
new gas power plant with carbon capture in
765 ‘‘Technologies for CCS on Natural Gas Power Scotland. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/ with at least 90 percent capture at
Systems’’ Dr. Satish Reddy presentation to USEA, business/sustainable-business/sse-equinor-plan- commercial-scale combined cycle
April 2014, https://usea.org/sites/default/files/ new-gas-power-plant-with-carbon-capture-scotland- turbines are in the planning stages.
event-/Reddy%20USEA%20 2021-05-11/. These projects support that CCS with at
Presentation%202014.pptx. 772 Acorn CCS granted North Sea storage licenses.
766 https://www.fluor.com/market-reach/
least 90 percent capture for these units
September 18, 2023. https://www.ogj.com/energy-
industries/energy-transition/carbon-capture. transition/article/14299094/acorn-granted-licenses- is the industry standard and support the
767 https://newsroom.fluor.com/news-releases/ for-co2-storage. EPA’s determination that CCS is
news-details/2024/Fluors-Econamine-FG-PlusSM- 773 https://status23.globalccsinstitute.com/. adequately demonstrated.
Carbon-Capture-Technology-Selected-to-Reduce- 774 The NET Power Cycle was formerly referred CCS is planned for the existing 550
CO2-Emissions-at-Chevron-Facility/default.aspx. to as the Allam-Fetvedt cycle. https:// MW natural gas-fired combined cycle

768 https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-capture/power- netpower.com/technology/.
generation. 775 Yellen, D. (2020, May 25). Allam Cycle carbon
(two combustion turbines) at the Sutter
769 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, ‘‘Mitsubishi capture gas plants: 11 percent more efficient, all Energy Center in Yuba City,
Heavy Industries Engineering Successfully CO2 captured. Energy Post. https://energypost.eu/ California.780 The Sutter
Completes Testing of New KS–21TM Solvent for CO2 allam-cycle-carbon-capture-gas-plants-11-more-
Capture,’’ https://www.mhi.com/news/211019.html. efficient-all-co2-captured/. 780 Calpine Sutter Decarbonization Project, May
770 MHI and MHIENG Awarded FEED Contract. 776 This allows for capture of over 97 percent of 17, 2023. https://www.smud.org/en/Corporate/
https://www.mhi.com/news/22083001.html. the CO2 emissions. www.netpower.com. Continued
Decarbonization project will use ION as part of OCED’s Carbon Capture from several plants, including an onsite
Clean Energy’s amine-based solvent Demonstration Projects program.785 natural gas CHP plant.
technology at a capture rate of 95 Captured CO2 will be transported and • General Electric Company, GE
percent or more. The project expects to stored at sites along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Research (Niskayuna, New York) was
complete a FEED study in 2024 and, An 1,800 MW natural gas-fired awarded $1,499,992 to develop a design
prior to being selected by DOE for combustion turbine that will be to capture 95 percent of CO2 from
funding award negotiation, planned constructed in West Virginia and will combined cycle turbine flue gas with
commercial operation in 2027. Sutter utilize CCS has been announced. The the potential to reduce electricity costs
Decarbonization is one of the projects project is planned to begin operation by at least 15 percent.
selected by DOE for funding as part of later this decade.786 • SRI International (Menlo Park,
OCED’s Carbon Capture Demonstration There are numerous other EPAct05- California) was awarded $1,499,759 to
Projects program.781 assisted projects related to natural gas- design, build, and test a technology that
The CO2 capture project at the Deer fired combined cycle turbines including can capture at least 95 percent of CO2
Park Energy Center in Deer Park, Texas the following.787 788 789 790 791 These while demonstrating a 20 percent cost
will be designed to capture 95 percent projects provide corroborating evidence reduction compared to existing
or more of the flue gas from the five that capture of at least 90 percent is combined cycle turbine carbon capture.
combustion turbines at the 1,200 MW accepted within the industry. • CORMETECH, Inc. (Charlotte,
natural gas-fired combined cycle power • General Electric (GE) (Bucks, North Carolina) was awarded
plant, using technology from Shell Alabama) was awarded $5,771,670 to $2,500,000 to further develop, optimize,
CANSOLV.782 The CO2 capture project retrofit a combined cycle turbine with and test a new, lower-cost technology to
already has an air permit issued for the CCS technology to capture 95 percent of capture CO2 from combined cycle
project, which includes a reduction in CO2 and is targeting commercial turbine flue gas and improve scalability
the allowable emission limits for NOX deployment by 2030. to large, combined cycle turbines.
from four of the combustion turbines.783 • Wood Environmental & • TDA Research, Inc. (Wheat Ridge,
The CO2 capture facility will include Infrastructure Solutions (Blue Bell, Colorado) was awarded $2,500,000 to
two quencher columns, two absorber Pennsylvania) was awarded $4,000,000 build and test a post-combustion
columns, and one stripping column. to complete an engineering design study capture process to improve the
The Baytown Energy Center in performance of combined cycle turbine
for CO2 capture at the Shell Chemicals
Baytown, Texas is an existing natural flue gas CO2 capture.
Complex. The aim is to reduce CO2
gas-fired combined cycle cogeneration • GE Gas Power (Schenectady, New
emissions by 95 percent using post-
facility providing heat and power to a York) was awarded $5,771,670 to
combustion technology to capture CO2
nearby industrial facility, while perform an engineering design study to
distributing additional electricity to the incorporate a 95 percent CO2 capture
785 Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects
grid. CCS using Shell’s CANSOLV solution for an existing combined cycle
Selections for Award Negotiations. https://
solvent is planned for the equivalent of www.energy.gov/oced/carbon-capture- turbine site while providing lower costs
two of the three combustion turbines at demonstration-projects-selections-award- and scalability to other sites.
the 896 MW natural gas-fired combined negotiations. • Electric Power Research Institute
786 Competitive Power Ventures (2022). Multi-
cycle power plant, with a capture rate (EPRI) (Palo Alto, California) was
Billion Dollar Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power
of 95 percent. The CO2 capture facility Station with Carbon Capture Announced in West
awarded $5,842,517 to complete a study
at Baytown Energy Center also has an Virginia. Press Release. September 16, 2022. https:// to retrofit a 700 MWe combined cycle
air permit in place, and the permit www.cpv.com/2022/09/16/multi-billion-dollar- turbine with a carbon capture system to
application provides some details on the combined-cycle-natural-gas-power-station-with- capture 95 percent of CO2.
process design.784 The CO2 capture carbon-capture-announced-in-west-virginia/.
787 General Electric (GE) (2022). U.S. Department
• Gas Technology Institute (Des
facility will include two quencher of Energy Awards $5.7 Million for GE-Led Carbon
Plaines, Illinois) was awarded
columns, two absorber columns, and Capture Technology Integration Project Targeting to $1,000,000 to develop membrane
one stripping column. To mitigate NOX Achieve 95% Reduction of Carbon Emissions. Press technology capable of capturing more
emissions, the operation of the SCR Release. February 15, 2022. https://www.ge.com/ than 97 percent of combined cycle
news/press-releases/us-department-of-energy-
systems for the combustion turbines awards-57-million-for-ge-led-carbon-capture-
turbine CO2 flue gas and demonstrate
will be adjusted to meet lower NOX technology. upwards of 40 percent reduction in
allowable limits—adjustments may 788 Larson, A. (2022). GE-Led Carbon Capture costs.
include increasing ammonia flow, more Project at Southern Company Site Gets DOE • RTI International (Research
Funding. Power. https://www.powermag.com/ge- Triangle Park, North Carolina) was
frequent SCR repacking and head led-carbon-capture-project-at-southern-company-
cleaning, and, possibly, optimization of site-gets-doe-funding/. awarded $1,000,000 to test a novel non-
the ammonia distribution system. The 789 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2021). DOE aqueous solvent technology aimed at
Baytown CO2 capture project is one of Invests $45 Million to Decarbonize the Natural Gas demonstrating 97 percent capture
the projects selected by DOE for funding Power and Industrial Sectors Using Carbon Capture efficiency from simulated combined
and Storage. October 6, 2021. https://
www.energy.gov/articles/doe-invests-45-million-
cycle turbine flue gas.
Environmental-Leadership/2030-Clean-Energy- decarbonize-natural-gas-power-and-industrial- • Tampa Electric Company (Tampa,
Vision/CEV-Landing-Pages/Calpine-presentation. sectors-using-carbon. Florida) was awarded $5,588,173 to
781 Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects 790 DOE (2022). Additional Selections for Funding conduct a study retrofitting Polk Power
Selections for Award Negotiations. https:// Opportunity Announcement 2515. Office of Fossil
www.energy.gov/oced/carbon-capture-
Station with post-combustion CO2
Energy and Carbon Management. https://
demonstration-projects-selections-award- www.energy.gov/fecm/additional-selections-
capture technology aiming to achieve a
negotiations. funding-opportunity-announcement-2515. 95 percent capture rate.
782 Calpine Carbon Capture. https:// 791 DOE (2019). FOA 2058: Front-End Engineering There are also several announced NET
calpinecarboncapture.com/wp-content/uploads/ Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems Power Allam-Fetvedt Cycle based CO2
2023/05/Calpine-Deer-Park-English.pdf. on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants. Office of
783 Deer Park Energy Center TCEQ Records Online
capture projects that are EPAct05-
Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. https://
Primary ID 171713. www.energy.gov/fecm/foa-2058-front-end-
assisted. These include the 280 MW
784 Baytown Energy Center Air Permit TCEQ engineering-design-feed-studies-carbon-capture- Coyote Clean Power Project on the
Records Online Primary ID 172517. systems-coal-and-natural-gas. Southern Ute Indian Reservation in
Colorado and a 300 MW project located Importantly, natural gas post- determination that 90 percent CO2
near Occidental’s Permian Basin combustion flue gas does not require the capture from natural gas-fired
operations close to Odessa, Texas. same pretreatment as coal post- combustion turbines is adequately
Commercial operation of the facility combustion flue gas. Therefore, amine demonstrated, without consideration of
near Odessa, Texas is expected in 2028. solvents are able to capture CO2 as soon the EPAct05-assisted projects, includes
as the flue gas contacts the lean solvent, (i) the information concerning coal-fired
(f) Range of Conditions
and startup does not have to wait for steam generating units listed in
The composition of natural gas operation of other emission controls. VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(9) 794 (other than the
combined cycle post-combustion flue Furthermore, there are several different information concerning EPAct05-
gas is relatively uniform as the level of process strategies that can be employed assisted coal-fired unit projects and the
impurities is, in general, low. There may to enable capture during cold information concerning natural gas-fired
be some difference in NOX emissions, startup.792 793 These include using an combustion turbines); (ii) the
but considering the sources are new, it additional reserve of lean solvent information that a 90 percent capture
is likely that they will be installed with (solvent without absorbed CO2), standard is achievable at coal-fired
SCR, resulting in uniform NOX dedicated heat storage for reboiler steam generating units, also applies to
concentrations in the flue gas. The EPA preheating, and fast starting steam cycle natural gas-fired combined cycle EGUs
notes that some natural gas combined technologies or high-pressure bypass (i.e., all the information in
cycle units applying CO2 capture may extraction. Each of these three options VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B) (before (1)) and (1)
use exhaust gas recirculation to increase has been modeled to show that 95 (before (a)); (iii) the information
the concentration of CO2 in the flue percent capture rates can be achieved concerning CCS on combined cycle
gas—this produces a higher during startup. The first option simply EGUs (i.e., all the information in
concentration of CO2 in the flue gas. For uses a reserve of lean solvent during VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B)(1)(a)); and (iv) the
those sources that apply that approach, startup so that capture can occur information concerning Net Power (i.e.,
the CO2 capture system can be scaled without needing to wait for the all the information in
smaller, reducing overall costs. stripping column reboiler to heat up. VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B)(1)(b)). All this
Considering these factors, the EPA For hot starts, the startup time of the information by itself is sufficient to
concludes that there are not substantial NGCC is faster, and since the reboiler is support the EPA’s determination that 90
differences in flue gas conditions for already warm, the capture plant can percent CO2 capture from coal-fired
natural gas combined cycle units, and begin operating faster. Shutdowns are steam generating units is adequately
the small differences that could exist short, and high capture efficiencies can demonstrated. Substantial additional
would not adversely impact the be maintained. information from EPAct05-assisted
operation of the CO2 capture equipment. Considering that startup and projects, as described in section
As detailed in section VII.C.1.a.i(B)(7), shutdown for natural gas combined VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B)(1)(e), provides
single trains of CO2 capture facilities cycle units is fast, startups are relatively additional support and confirms that 90
have turndown capabilities of 50 few, and simple process strategies can percent CO2 capture from natural gas-
percent. Effective turndown to 25 be employed so that high capture fired combustion turbines is adequately
percent of throughputs can be achieved efficiencies can be achieved during demonstrated.
by using 2 trains of capture equipment. startup, the EPA has concluded that
CO2 capture rates have also been shown startup and shutdown do not adversely (2) Transport of CO2
to be higher at lower throughputs. impact the achievable CO2 capture rate. In section VII.C.1.a.i.(C) of this
Moreover, during off-peak hours when Considering the preceding document, the EPA described its
electricity prices are lower, additional information, the EPA has determined rationale for finalizing a determination
lean solvent can be produced and held that 90 percent capture is achievable that CO2 transport by pipelines as a
in reserve, so that during high-demand over long periods (i.e., 12-month rolling component of CCS is adequately
hours, the auxiliary demands to the averages) for base load combustion demonstrated for use of CCS with
capture plant stripping column reboiler turbines for all relevant flue gas existing steam generating EGUs. The
be reduced. Considering these factors, conditions, variable load, and startup Agency’s rationale for finalizing the
the capture rate would not be affected and shutdown. same determination—that CO2 transport
by load following operation, and the by pipelines as a component of CCS is
operation of the combustion turbine (g) Summary of Evidence Supporting
BSER Determination Without EPAct05- adequately demonstrated for CCS use
would not be limited by turndown with new combustion turbine EGUs—is
capabilities of the capture equipment. Aassisted Projects
much the same as that described in
As detailed in preceding sections, As noted above, under the EPA’s
section VII.C.1.a.i.(C). As discussed in
simple cycle combustion turbines cycle interpretation of the EPAct05
frequently, and have a number of provisions, the EPA may not rely on 794 Specifically, this includes the information
startups and shutdowns per year. capture projects that received assistance concerning Boundary Dam, coupled with
However, combined cycle units cycle under EPAct05 as the sole basis for a engineering analysis concerning key improvements
less frequently and have fewer startups determination of adequate that can be implemented in future CCS
deployments during initial design and construction
and shutdowns per year. Startups of demonstration, but the EPA may rely on (i.e., all the information in section
combined cycle units are faster than those projects to support or corroborate VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(a) and the information concerning
coal-fired steam generating units other information that supports such a Boundary Dam in section VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(b)); (ii)
determination. The information the information concerning other coal-fired
described in section VII.C.1.a.i(B)(7) of

demonstrations, including the Argus Cogeneration
the preamble. Cold startups of combined described above that supports the EPA’s Plant and AES’s Warrior Run (i.e., all the
cycle units typically take not more than information concerning those sources in section
3 hours (hot startups are faster), and 792 https://ieaghg.org/ccs-resources/blog/new-
VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(1)(a)); (iii) the information concerning
shutdown takes less than 1 hour. During ieaghg-report-2022-08-start-up-and-shutdown- industrial applications of CCS (i.e., all the
protocol-for-power-stations-with-co2-capture. information in section VII.C.1.a.i.(A)(1); and (iv) the
startup, heat input to the unit is lower 793 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ information concerning CO2 capture technology
to slowly raise the temperature of the media/5f95432ad3bf7f35f26127d2/start-up-shut- vendor statements (i.e., all the information in
HRSG. down-times-power-ccus-main-report.pdf. VII.C.1.a.i.(B)(3)).
section VII.C.1.a.i.(C) of this preamble, (3) Geologic Sequestration of CO2 All of the evidence and explanation
CO2 pipelines are available and their In section VII.C.1.a.i.(D) of this that geological sequestration of CO2 is
network is expanding in the U.S., and document, the EPA described its adequately demonstrated and meets the
the safety of existing and new rationale for finalizing a determination other BSER factors that the EPA
supercritical CO2 pipelines is that geologic sequestration (i.e., the described with respect to sequestration
comprehensively regulated by long-term containment of a CO2 stream of CO2 from existing coal-fired steam
PHMSA.795 A new combustion turbine in subsurface geologic formations) is generating units in section VII.C.1.a.i.(D)
may also be co-located with a storage adequately demonstrated as a of this preamble apply with respect to
site, so that minimal transport of the component of the use of CCS with CO2 from new natural gas-fired
CO2 is required. existing coal-fired steam generating combustion turbines. Sequestration is
EGUs. Similar to the previous broadly available (VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(1)(a)). It
Pipeline transport of CO2 captured is adequately demonstrated, with many
from newly constructed or discussion regarding CO2 transport, the
Agency’s rationale for finalizing a examples of projects successfully
reconstructed natural gas-fired injecting and containing CO2 in the
combustion turbine EGUs meets the determination that geologic
sequestration is adequately subsurface (VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(2)). It
BSER requirements based on the same provides secure storage, with a detailed
demonstrated as a component of the use
evidence, and for the same reasons, as set of regulatory requirements to ensure
of CCS with new combustion turbine
does pipeline transport of CO2 captured EGUs is the same as described in the security of sequestered CO2,
from existing coal-fired steam VII.C.1.a.i.(D) for existing coal-fired including the UIC well regulations
generating EGUs, as described in section steam generating EGUs. The storage/ pursuant to SDWA authority, and the
VII.C.1.a.i.(C) of this preamble. This is sequestration sites used to store GHGRP pursuant to CAA authority
because the CO2 that is captured from a captured CO2 from existing coal-fired (VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(4)). The EPA has the
natural gas-fired turbine, compressed, EGUs could also be used to store experience to properly regulate and
and delivered into a pipeline is captured CO2 from newly constructed or review permits for UIC Class VI
indistinguishable from the CO2 that is reconstructed combustion turbine EGUs. injection wells, has made considerable
captured from an existing coal-fired All of the considerations and challenges improvements to its permitting process
steam generating unit. Accordingly, all associated with developing geologic to expedite permitting decisions, and
the evidence and explanation in section storage sites for existing sources are also has granted several states primacy to
VII.C.1.a.i.(C) of this preamble that it is considerations and challenges issue permits, and is supporting that
adequately demonstrated, cost-effective, associated with developing such sites state permitting (VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(5)).
and consistent with the other BSER for newly constructed or reconstructed (b) New Natural Gas-Fired Combustion
factors for an existing coal-fired steam sources. Turbines
generating unit to construct a lateral (a) In General As discussed in section
pipeline from its facility to a VII.C.1.a.i.(D)(1), deep saline formations
sequestration site applies to new natural Geologic sequestration (i.e., the long-
term containment of a CO2 stream in that may be considered for use in
gas-fired turbines. This includes the geologic sequestration (or storage) are
history of CO2 pipeline build-out subsurface geologic formations) is well
proven. Deep saline formations, which common in the continental United
(VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(1)), the recent examples States. In addition, there are numerous
of new pipelines (VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(1)(b)), may be evaluated and developed for
CO2 sequestration are broadly available unmineable coal seams and depleted oil
EPAct05-assisted CO2 pipelines for CCS and gas reserves throughout the country
(VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(1)(c)), the network of throughout the U.S. Geologic
sequestration requires a demonstrated that could potentially be utilized as
existing and planned CO2 trunklines sequestration sites. The DOE estimates
understanding of the processes that
(VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(1)(d)), permitting and that areas of the U.S. with appropriate
affect the fate of CO2 in the subsurface.
rights of way considerations geology have a sequestration potential of
As discussed in section VII.C.1.a.i.(D) of
(VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(2)), and considerations of this preamble, there have been at least 2,400 billion to over 21,000
the security of CO2 transport, including numerous instances of geologic billion metric tons of CO2 in deep saline
PHMSA requirements (VII.C.1.a.i.(C)(3)). sequestration in the U.S. and overseas, formations, unmineable coal seams, and
The only difference between pipeline and the U.S. has developed a detailed oil and gas reservoirs. The EPA’s
transport for the coal-fired steam set of regulatory requirements to ensure scoping assessment found that at least
generation and the gas-fired turbines is the security of sequestered CO2. This 37 states have geologic characteristics
that the coal-fired units are already in regulatory framework includes the UIC that are amenable to deep saline
existence and, as a result, the location well regulations, which are under the sequestration and identified an
and length of their pipelines, as needed authority of the SDWA, and the GHGRP, additional 6 states are within 100
to transport their CO2 to nearby under the authority of the CAA. kilometers of potentially amenable deep
Geologic settings which may be saline formations in either onshore or
sequestration, is already known,
suitable for geologic sequestration of offshore locations. In terms of land area,
whereas new gas-fired turbines are not
CO2 are widespread and available 80 percent of the continental U.S. is
yet sited. We discuss the implications
throughout the U.S. Through an within 100 km of deep saline
for new gas-fired turbines in the next formations.796 While the EPA’s
section. availability analysis of sequestration
geographic availability analyses focus
potential in the U.S. based on resources

from the DOE, the USGS, and the EPA, on deep saline formations, other
795 PHMSA additionally initiated a rulemaking in
the EPA found that there are 43 states geologic formations such as unmineable
2022 to develop and implement new measures to
strengthen its safety oversight of CO2 pipelines with access to, or are within 100 km coal seams or depleted oil and gas
following investigation into a CO2 pipeline failure from, onshore or offshore storage in
in Satartia, Mississippi in 2020. For more 796 For additional information on CO
information, see: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/

deep saline formations, unmineable coal 2
transportation and geologic sequestration
phmsa-announces-new-safety-measures-protect- seams, and depleted oil and gas availability, please see EPA’s final TSD, GHG
americans-carbon-dioxide-pipeline-failures. reservoirs. Mitigation Measures for Steam Generating Units.
reservoirs represent potential additional area and building a lengthy pipeline to Boardman, Oregon 800 serves demand in
CO2 storage options. Therefore, we the geologic sequestration site. Portland, Oregon,801 which is
expect that the vast majority of new base Gas-by-wire and coal-by-wire are approximately 270 km away from the
load combustion turbine EGUs could be possible due to the electricity grid’s source.
sited within 100 km of a sequestration extensive high voltage transmission In the memorandum, Geographic
site. networks that enable electricity to be Availability of CCS for New Base Load
While the potential for some type of transmitted over long distances. See the NGCC Units, we explore in detail the
sequestration exists in large swaths of memorandum, Geographic Availability potential for gas-by-wire and the ability
the continental U.S., we recognize that of CCS for New Base Load NGCC Units, of demand in areas without geologic
there are a few states that do not have which is available in the rulemaking sequestration potential to be served by
geologic conditions suitable for geologic docket for this action. In many of the gas generation located in areas that have
sequestration within or near their areas without reasonable access to access to geologic sequestration. As
borders. If an area does not have a geologic sequestration, utilities, electric discussed in the memorandum, the vast
suitable geologic sequestration site, then cooperatives, and municipalities have a majority of the United States is within
a utility or project developer seeking to history of joint ownership of electricity 100 km of an area with geologic
build a new combustion turbine EGU for generation outside the region or sequestration potential. A review of our
base load generation has two options— contracting with electricity generation scoping assessment indicates that there
either (1) the new EGU may be located in outside areas to meet demand. Some are limited areas of the country that are
near the electricity demand and the CO2 of the areas are in Regional not within 100 km of a potential deep
transported via a CO2 pipeline to a Transmission Organizations (RTOs),797 saline sequestration formation (although
geologic sequestration site, or (2) the which engage in planning as well as some of these areas may be within 100
new EGU may be located closer to a balancing supply and demand in real km of an unmineable coal seam or
geologic sequestration site and the time throughout the RTO’s territory. depleted oil and gas reservoir that could
electricity delivered to customers Accordingly, generating resources in potentially serve as a sequestration site).
through transmission lines. Regarding one part of the RTO can serve load in In many instances, these areas include
option 1, as discussed in VII.C.1.a.i(C), other parts of the RTO, as well as load areas with low population density, areas
the EPA believes that both new and outside of the RTO. that are already served by transmission
existing EGUs are capable of In the coal context, there are many lines that could deliver gas-by-wire,
constructing CO2 pipelines as needed. examples of where coal-fired power and/or include areas that have made
With regard to option 2, we expect that generation in one state has been used to policy or other decisions not to pursue
this option may be preferred for projects supply electricity in other states. For a resource mix that includes new NGCC
where a CO2 pipeline of substantial example, the Prairie State Generating due to state renewable portfolio
length would be required to reach the Plant, a 2-unit 1,600 MW coal-fired
standards or for other reasons.
sequestration site. However, we note power plant in Illinois that is currently
In many of these areas, utilities,
that for new base load combustion considering retrofitting with CCS, serves
electric cooperatives, and municipalities
turbine EGUs, project developers have load in eight different states from the
have a history of obtaining electricity
flexibility with regard to siting such that Midwest to the mid-Atlantic.798 The
from generation in outside areas to meet
they can balance whether to site a new Intermountain Power Project, a coal-
demand. Some of the relevant areas are
unit closer to a potential geologic fired plant located in Delta, Utah, that
in an RTO or ISO, which operate the
sequestration site or closer to a load area is converting to co-fire hydrogen and
transmission system and dispatch
depending on their specific needs. natural gas, serves customers in both
generation to balance supply and
Electricity demand in areas that may Utah and California.799 Additionally,
not have geologic sequestration sites historically nearly 40 percent of the demand regionwide, as well as engage
may be served by gas-fired EGUs that power for the City of Los Angeles was in regionwide planning and cost
are built in areas with geologic provided from two coal-fired power allocation to facilitate needed
sequestration, and the generated plants located in Arizona and Utah. transmission development. Accordingly,
electricity can be delivered through Further, Idaho Power, which serves generating resources in one part of an
transmission lines to the load areas customers in Idaho and eastern Oregon RTO/ISO, such as through an NGCC
through ‘‘gas-by-wire.’’ An analogous has met demand in part from power plant, can serve loads in other parts of
approach, known as ‘‘coal-by-wire’’ has generating at coal-fired power plants the RTO/ISO, as well as serving load
long been used in the electricity sector located in Wyoming and Nevada. This areas outside of the RTO/ISO. As we
for coal-fired EGUs because siting a same concept of siting generation in one consider each of these geographic areas
coal-fired EGU near a coal mine and location to serve demand in another in the memorandum, Geographic
transmitting the generated electricity area and using existing transmission Availability of CCS for New Base Load
long distances to the load area is infrastructure to do so could similarly NGCC Units, we make key points as to
sometimes less expensive than siting the be applied to gas-fired combustion why this final rule does not negatively
coal EGU near the load area and turbine power plants, and, in fact, there impact the ability of these regions to
shipping the coal long distances. The are examples of gas-fired combustion access new NGCC generation to the
same principle may apply to new base turbine EGUs serving demand more extent that NGCC generation is needed
load combustion turbine EGUs such that than 100 km away from where they are to supply demand and/or those regions
it may be more practicable for an project sited. For example, Portland General 800 Portland General Electric, ‘‘Our Power Plants,’’
developer to site a new base load Electric’s Carty Generating Station, a https://portlandgeneral.com/about/who-we-are/
combustion turbine EGU in a location in 436–MW NGCC unit located in how-we-generate-energy/our-power-plants.
close proximity to a geologic 801 See George Plaven, ‘‘PGE power plant rising in
sequestration site and to deliver the 797 In this discussion, the term RTO indicates
E. Oregon,’’ The Columbian (October 10, 2015, 5:55
electricity generated through both ISOs and RTOs. a.m.), https://www.columbian.com/news/2015/oct/
798 https://prairiestateenergycampus.com/about/ 10/pge-power-plant-rising-in-e-oregon/. See also
transmission lines to the load area ownership/. Portland General Electric, ‘‘PGE Service Area,’’
rather than siting the new gas-fired 799 https://www.ipautah.com/participants- https://portlandgeneral.com/about/info/service-
combustion turbine EGU near the load services-area/. area.
want to include new NGCC generation potential technological continue to decrease afterwards.806 As
in their resource mixes. developments.804 part of the plan to reduce the costs of
The flue gas from natural gas-fired CO2 capture, the DOE is funding
(C) Costs multiple projects to further advance
combined cycle turbine differs from that
The EPA has evaluated the costs of of coal-fired EGUs in several ways that CCS technology from various point
CCS for new combined cycle units, impact the cost of CO2 capture. These sources, including combined cycle
including the cost of installing and include that the CO2 concentration in turbines, cement manufacturing plants,
operating CO2 capture equipment as the flue gas is approximately one-third and iron and steel plants.807 It should be
well as the costs of transport and noted that some of these projects may be
of that observed at coal-fired EGUs, the
storage. The EPA has also compared the EPAct05-assisted. The general aim is to
volumetric flow rate on a per MW basis
costs of CCS for new combined cycle lower the costs of the technologies, and
is larger, and the oxygen concentration
units to other control costs, in part to increase investor confidence in the
is approximately 3 times that of a coal-
derived from other rulemakings that the commercial scale applications,
fired EGU. While the higher amount of
EPA has determined to be cost- particularly for newer technologies or
excess oxygen has the potential to proven technologies applied under
reasonable, and the costs are reduce the efficiency of amine-based
comparable. Based on these analyses, unique circumstances. In particular,
solvents that are susceptible to OCED’s Carbon Capture Demonstration
the EPA considers the costs of CCS for oxidation, natural gas post-combustion
new combined cycle units to be Projects are targeted to accelerate
flue gas does not have other impurities continued power sector carbon capture
reasonable. Certain elements of the (SO2, PM, trace metals) that are present commercialization through reducing
transport and storage costs are similar and must be managed in coal flue gas. costs and reducing uncertainties to
for new combustion turbines and Other important factors include that the project development. These cost and
existing steam generating units. In this lower concentrations of CO2 reduce the uncertainty reductions arise from
section, the EPA outlines these costs efficiency of the capture process and reductions in cost of capital, increases
and identifies the considerations that the larger volumetric flow rates in system scale, standardization and
specific to new combustion turbines. require a larger CO2 absorber, which reduction in non-recurring engineering
These costs are significantly reduced by increases the capital cost of the capture costs, maturation of supply chain
the IRC section 45Q tax credit. process. Exhaust gas recirculation ecosystem, and improvements in
(1) Capture Costs (EGR), also referred to as flue gas engineering design and materials over
recirculation (FGR), is a process that time.808
According to the NETL Fossil Energy addresses all these issues. EGR diverts Although current post-combustion
Baseline Report (October 2022 revision), some of the combustion turbine exhaust CO2 capture projects have primarily
before accounting for the IRC section gas back into the inlet stream for the been based on amine capture systems,
45Q tax credit for sequestered CO2, combustion turbine. Doing so increases there are multiple alternate capture
using a 90 percent capture amine-based the CO2 concentration and decreases the technologies in development—many of
post-combustion CO2 capture system O2 concentration in the exhaust stream which are funded through industry
increases the capital costs of a new and decreases the flow rate, producing research programs—that could yield
combined cycle EGU by 115 percent on more favorable conditions for CCS. One reductions in capital, operating, and
a $/kW basis, increases the heat rate by study found that EGR can decrease the auxiliary power requirements and could
13 percent, increases incremental capital costs of a combined cycle EGU reduce the cost of capture significantly
operating costs by 35 percent, and with CCS by 6.4 percent, decrease the or improve performance. More
derates the unit (i.e., decreases the heat rate by 2.5 percent, decrease the specifically, post combustion carbon
capacity available to generate useful LCOE by 3.4 percent, and decrease the capture systems generally fall into one
output) by 11 percent.802 For a base load overall CO2 capture costs by 11 percent of several categories: solvents, sorbents,
combustion turbine, carbon capture relative to a combined cycle EGU membranes, cryogenic, and molten
increases the LCOE by 62 percent (an without EGR.805 The EPA notes that the carbonate fuel cells 809 systems. It is
increase of 27 $/MWh) and has an NETL costs on which the EPA bases its
estimated cost of $81/ton ($89/metric cost calculations for combined cycle 806 For example, see the article CCUS Market
ton) of onsite CO2 reduction.803 The CCS do not assume the use of EGR, but Outlook 2023: Announced Capacity Soars by 50%,
which states, ‘‘New gas power plants with carbon
NETL costs are based on the use of a as discussed below, EGR use is capture, for example, could be cheaper than
second-generation amine-based capture plausible and would reduce those costs. unabated power in Germany as early as next year
system without exhaust gas While the costs considered in the
when coupled with the carbon price.’’ https://
recirculation (EGR) and, as discussed about.bnef.com/blog/ccus-market-outlook-2023-
preceding are based on the current costs announced-capacity-soars-by-50/.
below, do not take into account further of CCS, the EPA notes that the costs of 807 The DOE has also previously funded FEED
cost reductions that can be expected to capture systems can be expected to studies for natural gas-fired combined cycle turbine
occur from efficiency improvements as decrease over the rest of this decade and facilities. These include FEED studies at existing
post-combustion capture systems are combined cycle turbine facilities at Panda Energy
Fund in Texas, Elk Hills Power Plant in Kern
more widely deployed, as well as 804 Recent DOE analysis has compared the NETL County, California, Deer Park Energy Center in
costs with more recent FEED study costs and expert Texas, Delta Energy Center in Pittsburg, California,
802 CCS reduced the net output of the NETL F interviews and determined they are consistent after and utilization of a Piperazine Advanced Stripper
class combined cycle EGU from 726 MW to accounting for differences in inflation, economic (PZAS) process for CO2 capture conducted by The
645 MW. assumptions, and other technology details. Portfolio University of Texas at Austin.
803 Although not our primary approach to Insights: Carbon Capture in the Power Sector, DOE. 808 Portfolio Insights: Carbon Capture in the
assessing costs in this final rule, for consistency https://www.energy.gov/oced/portfolio-strategy. Power Sector report. DOE. https://www.energy.gov/
with the proposal’s assumption capacity factor, 805 Energy Procedia. (2014). Impact of exhaust gas oced/portfolio-strategy.
these calculations use a service life of 30 years, an recirculation on combustion turbines. Energy and 809 Molten carbonate fuel cells are configured for
interest rate of 7.0 percent, a natural gas price of economic analysis of the CO2 capture from flue gas emissions capture through a process where the flue
$3.61/MMBtu, and a capacity factor of 65 percent. of combined cycle power plants. https:// gas from an EGU is routed through the molten
These costs do not include CO2 transport, storage, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ carbonate fuel cell that concentrates the CO2 as a
or monitoring costs. S1876610214001234. side reaction during the electric generation process
expected that as CCS infrastructure operations and maintenance costs.813 814 of-a-Kind facility, as well as
increases, technologies from each of Studies of the cost of capture and ‘‘conservatively model[ing]’’ operating
these categories will become more compression of CO2 from power stations expense reductions at 1 percent, for a
economically competitive. For example, completed 10 years ago averaged around combined overall decrease in the
advancements in solvents that are $95/metric ton ($2020). Comparable levelized cost of energy of about 10
potentially direct substitutes for current studies completed in 2018/2019 percent for the Nth-of-a-Kind facility
amine-solvents will reduce auxiliary estimated capture and compression compared to a First-of-a-Kind facility.818
energy requirements and reduce both costs could fall to approximately $50/ DOE further found this illustrative cost
operating and capital costs, and thereby, metric ton CO2 by 2025. Current target reduction estimate from learning
increase the economic competitiveness pricing for announced projects at coal- through doing to be consistent with
of CCS.810 Planned large-scale projects, fired steam generating units is other studies that use hybrid
pilot plants, and research initiatives will approximately $40/metric ton on engineering-economic and experience-
average, compared to Boundary Dam curve approaches to estimate potential
also decrease the capital and operating
whose actual costs were reported to be decreases in the levelized cost of energy
costs of future CCS technologies.
$105/metric ton, noting that these of 10–11 percent for Nth-of-a-Kind
In general, CCS costs have been estimates do not include the impact of plants compared with First-of-a-Kind
declining as carbon capture technology the 45Q tax credit as enhanced by the plants.819 820 Policies in the IIJA and IRA
advances.811 While the cost of capture IRA. Additionally, IEA suggests this are further increasing investment in CCS
has been largely dependent on the trend will continue in the future as technology that can accelerate the pace
concentration of CO2 in the gas stream, technology advancements ‘‘spill over’’ of innovation and deployment.
advancements in varying individual into other projects to reduce costs.815
CCS technologies tend to drive down Similarly, EIA incorporates a minimum (2) CO2 Transport and Sequestration
the cost of capture for other CCS 20 percent reduction in carbon capture Costs
technologies. The increase in CCS and sequestration costs by 2035 in their NETL’s ‘‘Quality Guidelines for
investment is already driving down the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 modeling Energy System Studies; Carbon Dioxide
costs of near-future CCS technologies. in part to account for the impact of Transport and Sequestration Costs in
The Global CCS Institute has tracked spillover and international learning.816 NETL Studies’’ provides an estimation
publicly available information on The Annual Technology Baseline of transport costs based on the CO2
previously studied, executed, and published by NREL with input from Transport Cost Model.821 The CO2
proposed CO2 capture projects.812 The NETL projects a 10 percent reduction in Transport Cost Model estimates costs for
cost of CO2 capture from low-to-medium capital expenditures from 2021 through a single point-to-point pipeline.
partial pressure sources such as coal- 2032 in the ‘‘Conservative Technology Estimated costs reflect pipeline capital
fired power generation has been Innovation Scenario’’ for natural gas costs, related capital expenditures, and
trending downward over the past carbon capture retrofit projects, under operations and maintenance costs.
decade, and is projected to fall by 50 the assumption that only learning NETL’s Quality Guidelines also
percent by 2025 compared to 2010. This processes lead to future cost reductions provide an estimate of sequestration
and that there are no additional costs. These costs reflect the cost of site
is driven by the familiar learning-
improvements from investments in screening and evaluation, permitting
processes that accompany the
targeted technology research and and construction costs, the cost of
deployment of any industrial
development.817 In a recent case study injection wells, the cost of injection
technology. A review of learning rates of the cost and performance of carbon
(the reduction in cost for a doubling of equipment, operation and maintenance
capture retrofits on existing natural gas costs, pore volume acquisition expense,
production or capacity) for various combined cycle units, based on
energy related technologies similar to and long-term liability protection.
discussions with external technology Permitting and construction costs also
carbon capture (flue gas desulfurization, providers, engineering consultants, asset
selective catalytic reduction, combined reflect the regulatory requirements of
developers, and applicants for DOE the UIC Class VI program and GHGRP
cycle turbines, pulverized coal boilers, awards, DOE used a 25 percent capital
LNG production, oxygen production, subpart RR for geologic sequestration of
cost reduction estimate to illustrate the CO2 in deep saline formations. NETL
and hydrogen production via steam potential future capital costs of an Nth- calculates these sequestration costs on
methane reforming) demonstrated
the basis of generic plant locations in
learning rates of 5 percent to 27 percent 813 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1750583607000163. the Midwest, Texas, North Dakota, and

for both capital expenditures and
814 As an additional example for cost reductions Montana, as described in the NETL
from learning processes via deployment achieved in energy system studies.822
in the fuel cell. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (2018). other complex power generation projects, the most
SureSource Capture. https:// recent sustained deployment of 19 nuclear reactors 818 Portfolio Insights: Carbon Capture in the
www.fuelcellenergy.com/recovery-2/suresource- in South Korea from 1989 through 2008 resulted in
capture/. a 13 percent reduction in capital costs. https:// Power Sector. DOE. 2024. https://www.energy.gov/
810 DOE. Carbon Capture, Transport, & Storage. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ oced/portfolio-strategy.
819 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment. February 24, S0301421516300106.
2022. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ 815 International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020). fenrg.2022.987166/full.
2022-02/Carbon%20Capture%20 CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions—CCUS 820 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf. technology innovation. https://www.iea.org/reports/ article/pii/S1750583607000163.

811 International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020). ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions/a-new-era-for-ccus. 821 Grant, T., et al. ‘‘Quality Guidelines for Energy
CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions—A new era for 816 Energy Information Administration (EIA) System Studies; Carbon Dioxide Transport and
CCUS. https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean- (2023). Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook Storage Costs in NETL Studies.’’ National Energy
energy-transitions/a-new-era-for-ccus. The same is 2023: Electricity Market Module. https:// Technology Laboratory. 2019. https://
true for CCS on coal-fired EGUs. www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/EMM_ www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=3743.
812 Technology Readiness and Costs of CCS Assumptions.pdf. 822 National Energy Technology Laboratory
(2021). Global CCS Institute. https:// 817 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (NETL), ‘‘FE/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model
www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/ (2023). Annual Technology Baseline 2023. https:// (2017),’’ U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/NETL–
2021/03/Technology-Readiness-and-Costs-for-CCS- atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2023/fossil_energy_ 2018–1871, 30 September 2017. https://
2021-1.pdf. technologies. netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=2403.
There are two primary cost drivers for available at $85/metric ton ($77/ton) in the NETL analysis suggest that higher
a CO2 sequestration project: the rate of and offsets a significant portion of the capacity factors may be reasonable and
injection of the CO2 into the reservoir capture, transport, and sequestration as figure 8 in the final TSD, Greenhouse
and the areal extent of the CO2 plume costs noted above. Gas Mitigation Measures, Carbon
in the reservoir. The rate of injection Capture and Storage for Combustion
depends, in part, on the thickness of the (4) Total Costs of CCS
Turbines demonstrates, would result in
reservoir and its permeability. Thick, In a typical NSPS analysis, the EPA even lower costs. The analysis further
permeable reservoirs provide for better amortizes costs over the expected assumes that the turbine operates at a
injection and fewer injection wells. The operating life of the affected facility and capacity of 31 percent during the
areal extent of the CO2 plume depends assumes constant revenue and expenses remaining 18-year period. As explained
on the sequestration capacity of the over that period of time. For a new in the final TSD, Greenhouse Gas
reservoir. Thick, porous reservoirs with combustion turbine, the expected Mitigation Measures Carbon Capture
a good sequestration coefficient will operating life is 30 years. The EPA has and Storage for Combustion Turbines, to
present a small areal extent for the CO2 adjusted that analysis in this rule to avoid impacting the compliance costs
plume and have lower testing and account for the fact that the IRC section due to changes in the overall capacity
monitoring costs. NETL’s Quality 45Q tax credit is available for only the factors with the base case, the EPA kept
Guidelines model costs for a given 12 years after operation is commenced. the overall 30-year capacity factor at the
cumulative storage potential.823 Since the duration of the tax credit is historical average of 51 percent. The
In addition, provisions in the IIJA and less than the expected life of a new base EPA evaluated several operational
IRA are expected to significantly load combustion turbine, the EPA scenarios (as described in the TSD). The
increase the CO2 pipeline infrastructure conducted the costing analysis by scenario with an initial 12-year capacity
and development of sequestration sites, recognizing that the substantial revenue factor of 80 percent and a subsequent
which, in turn, are expected to result in available for sequestering CO2 during 18-year capacity factor of 31 percent (for
further cost reductions for the the first 12 years of operation is a 30-year capacity factor of 51 percent)
application of CCS at a new combined expected to result in higher capacity represents the primary policy case. It
cycle EGUs. The IIJA establishes a new factors for that period, and the potential should be noted that at a 31 percent
Carbon Dioxide Transportation higher operating costs during the capacity factor, the combustion turbine
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation subsequent 18 years when the 45Q tax would be subcategorized as an
program to provide direct loans, loan credit is not available is likely to result intermediate load combustion turbine,
guarantees, and grants to CO2 in lower capacity factors (see final TSD, and therefore would be subject to a less
infrastructure projects, such as Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, stringent standard of performance that is
pipelines, rail transport, ships and Carbon Capture and Storage for based on efficient operation, not on the
barges.824 The IIJA also establishes a Combustion Turbines for more use of CCS.
new Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs discussion).827 828
program which includes funds to This costing approach results in lower
Specifically, the EPA’s cost analysis compliance costs than assuming a
support four large-scale, regional direct assumes that the combined cycle
air capture hubs and more broadly constant capacity factor for the 30-year
turbine operates at a capacity of 80 useful life of the turbine because of
support projects that could be percent over the initial 12-year period.
developed into a regional or inter- increased revenue from generation
This capacity level is generally during the initial 12-year period,
regional network to facilitate consistent with the IPM model
sequestration or utilization.825 DOE is increased revenue from the IRC section
projections of 87 percent (and, in fact, 45Q tax credits during that period, and
additionally implementing IIJA section somewhat more conservative). The 80
40305 (Carbon Storage Validation and lower costs during the last 18 years
percent capacity factor assumption is when the tax credit is not available. As
Testing) through its CarbonSAFE also less than the 85 percent capacity
initiative, which aims to further noted, this is a reasonable approach
factor assumption in the NETL because the economic incentive
development of geographically analysis.829 But notably, the higher
widespread, commercial-scale, safe provided by the tax credit is so
capacity factors in the IPM analysis and significant on a $/ton basis that the EPA
storage.826 The IRA increases and
extends the IRC section 45Q tax credit, 827 In the proposal, the EPA used a constant 65
expects sources to dispatch at higher
discussed next. percent capacity factor, representative of the initial levels while the tax credit is in effect.
(3) IRC Section 45Q Tax Credit
capacity factor of recently constructed combined The EPA calculated two sets of CCS
cycle turbines, and effective 30-year 45Q tax credit costs: the first assumes that the turbine
For the reasons explained in section of $41/ton. For this final rule, the EPA considers the
approach of using a higher capacity factor for the continues to operate the capture system
VII.C.1.a.ii of this preamble, in first 12 years and a lower one for the last 18 years during the last 18 years, and the second
determining the cost of CCS, the EPA is to reflect more accurately actual operating assumes that the turbine does not
taking into account the tax credit conditions, and therefore to be a more realistic basis operate the capture system during the
provided under IRC section 45Q, as for calculating CCS costs.
828 The EPA’s cost approach for CCS for existing last 18 years.830 Assuming continued
revised by the IRA. The tax credit is operation of the capture equipment, the
coal-fired units also assumed that those units would
823 Department of Energy. Regional Direct Air
increase their capacity during the 12-year period compliance costs are $15/MWh and
when the 45Q tax credit was available. See $46/ton ($51/metric ton) for a 6,100
Capture Hubs. (2022). https://www.energy.gov/ preamble section VII.C.1.a.ii, and Greenhouse Gas
oced/regional-direct-air-capture-hubs. Mitigation Measures for Steam Generating Units
MMBtu/h H-Class turbine, which has a
824 DOE. Carbon Dioxide Transportation

TSD section 4.7.5. Because coal-fired power plants net output of approximately 990 MW;
Infrastructure. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/carbon- are existing plants, the EPA calculated CCS costs by and $19/MWh and $57/ton ($63/metric
dioxide-transportation-infrastructure. assuming a 12-year amortization period for the CCS ton) for a 4,600 MMBtu/h F-Class
825 Department of Energy. ‘‘Regional Direct Air equipment, and the EPA did not need to make any
Capture Hubs.’’ (2022). https://www.energy.gov/ assumptions about the operation of the coal-fired
turbine, which has a net output of
oced/regional-direct-air-capture-hubs. unit after the 12-year period.
826 For more information, see the NETL 829 Compliance costs would be lower if higher 830 The CCS and CO TS&M costs are amortized
2
announcement. https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/ capacity factors were used during the first 12 years over the period the equipment is operated—30
12405. of operation. years or 12 years.
approximately 700 MW.831 832 If the approximate these likely improvements, Turbines, section 2.3, Figure 8.835 At the
capture system is not operated while the as follows: Assuming continued lower levels of capacity, costs are higher
combustion turbine is subcategorized as operation of the capture equipment, the than described above (which assumed
an intermediate load combustion compliance costs are $13/MWh and 80 percent capacity during the first 12
turbine, the compliance costs are $40/ton ($44/metric ton) for a years), but even at those lower levels,
reduced to $8/MWh and $43/ton ($47/ 6,100 MMBtu/h H-Class combustion the costs are broadly consistent with the
metric ton) for a 6,100 MMBtu/h H- turbine, and $18/MWh and $54/ton cost-reasonable metrics based on prior
Class combustion turbine, and $12/ ($59/metric ton) for a 4,600 MMBtu/h F- rules, particularly when those costs are
MWh and $60/ton ($66/metric ton) for Class combustion turbine. If the capture reduced by an additional 5 percent to
a 4,600 MMBtu/h F-Class combustion system is not operated while the account for improved efficiency and
turbine. All of these costs are combustion turbine is subcategorized as other factors, as noted above.
comparable to the cost metrics that, in intermediate load combustion Nonetheless, consistent with the EPA’s
based on prior rules, the EPA finds to turbine, the compliance costs are commitment to review, and if
be reasonable in this rulemaking.833 For reduced to $8/MWh and $39/ton ($43/ appropriate, revise the emission
a more detailed discussion of costs, see metric ton) for a 6,100 MMBtu/h H-Class guidelines for coal-fired steam
the TSD—GHG Mitigation Measures— combustion turbine, and $11/MWh and generating units as discussed in section
Carbon Capture and Storage for $56/ton ($61/metric ton) for a VII.F, the EPA also intends to evaluate,
Combustion Turbines, section 2.3, 4,600 MMBtu/h F-Class combustion by 2041, the continued cost-
Figure 12a. turbine. reasonableness of CCS for natural gas-
The EPA considers these CCS cost In addition, the EPA considers all fired combustion turbines in light of
estimates to be conservatively high those costs to be conservative (in favor these potential significant
because they do not take into account of higher costs) because they assume developments, and will consider at that
cost improvements from the potential that the combustion turbine operator time whether a future regulatory action
use of exhaust gas recirculation, which, will not receive any revenues from may be appropriate.
according to one study, could lower captured CO2 after the 12-year period
for the tax credit. In fact, it is plausible (5) Comparison to Other Costs of
LCOE by 3.4 percent, as described in Controls
preamble section VIII.F.4.c.iv.(C)(1). Nor that there will be sources of revenue,
do they consider the potential for potentially including from the sale of The costs for CCS applied to a
additional efficiency improvements for the CO2 for utilization and credits to representative new base load stationary
meet state or corporate clean energy combustion turbine EGU are generally
combined cycle units 834 or CCS
goals, as discussed in RTC section lower than the costs of other controls in
technological advances, as discussed in
2.2.4.3. EPA rules for fossil fuel-fired electric
preamble section VIII.F.4.c.iv.(B)(1)(b),
It should be noted that natural gas- generating units, as well as the costs of
VIII.F.4.c.iv.(C)(1), and RTC section 3.1.
fired combustion turbines with CCS other controls for greenhouse gases, as
The EPA considers that at least some of
may well generate at higher capacity described in section VII.C.1.a.ii(D),
these cost improvements are likely.
factors after the expiration of the 45Q which supports the EPA’s view that the
Accordingly, the EPA also calculated
tax credit than the EPA’s above- CCS costs are reasonable.
the CCS costs based on an assumed 5
described BSER cost analysis assumes.
percent reduction in costs, in order to (D) Non-Air Quality Health and
In fact, the EPA’s IPM model projects
Environmental Impact and Energy
that the natural gas combined cycle
831 The output of the H-Class model combined
Requirements
cycle EGU without CCS is 992 MW. The auxiliary generation that is projected to install
load of CCS reduces the net out to 883 MW. The CCS in the illustrative final rule In this section of the preamble, the
output of the F-Class model combined cycle EGU scenario operates at an average 73 EPA considers the non-air quality health
without CCS is 726 MW. The auxiliary load of CCS percent capacity factor, due to existing and environmental impacts of CCS for
reduces the net out to 645 MW.
832 As we explain in the final TSD, GHG state regulatory requirements, during new combined cycle turbines and
Mitigation Measures—Carbon Capture and Storage the 2045 model year, which is after the concludes there are limited
for Combustion Turbines, sections 2.3–2.5, the expiration of the 45Q tax credit. In consequences related to non-air quality
6,100 MMBtu/h H-Class combustion turbine is the addition, as discussed in RTC section health and environmental impact and
median size of recently constructed combined cycle energy requirements. The EPA first
facilities and the 4,600 MMBtu/h F-Class
2.2.4.3, it is plausible that following the
combustion turbine approximates the size of a 12-year period of the tax credit, by the discusses energy requirements, and then
number of recently constructed combined cycle 2040s, cost improvements in CCS considers non-GHG emissions impacts
facilities as well. CCS costs for smaller sources are operations, more widespread adoption and water use impacts, resulting from
higher but are not prohibitive. GHG Mitigation of CO2 emission limitation requirements the capture, transport, and sequestration
Measures—Carbon Capture and Storage for
Combustion Turbines TSD, section 2.3, Figures 12a in the electricity sector, and greater of CO2.
and 13. As noted in RTC section 3.1, we expect demand for CO2 for beneficial uses will With respect to energy requirements,
costs to decrease due to learning by doing and support continued operation of fossil including a 90 percent or greater carbon
technological development. In addition, since the fuel-fired generation with CCS. capture system in the design of a new
incremental generating costs of larger more efficient
combined cycle turbines are lower relative to Accordingly, the EPA also calculated combined cycle turbine will increase
smaller combined cycle turbines, it is more likely CCS costs assuming that new F-Class the unit’s parasitic/auxiliary energy
that larger more efficient combined cycle turbine and H-Class combustion turbines with demand and reduce its net power
will operate as base load combustion turbines. CCS generate at a constant capacity output. A utility that wants to construct
833 A DOE analysis of a representative NGCC
plant using CCS in the ERCOT market indicates that

factor of at least 60 percent, and up to a combined cycle turbine to provide
operating at high operating capacity could be 80 percent, during their 30-year useful 500 MWe-net of power could build a
profitable today with the IRC 45Q tax credits. life. In this calculation, the EPA
Portfolio Insights: Carbon Capture in the Power amortized the costs of CCS over the 30- 835 The compliance costs assume the same
Sector. DOE. https://www.energy.gov/oced/ year useful life of the turbine. The EPA capacity factors in the base and policy case, that is,
portfolio-strategy. without CCS and with CCS. If combined cycle
834 These additional efficiency improvements are includes these costs in the final TSD, turbine with CCS were to operate at higher capacity
noted in the final TSD, Efficient Generation: GHG Mitigation Measures—Carbon factors in the policy case, compliance costs would
Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Units. Capture and Storage for Combustion be reduced.
500 MWe-net plant knowing that it will cycle units will be equipped with low- would reduce the need for additional
be de-rated by 11 percent (to a 444 NOX burners to control flame cooling water. Therefore, the EPA is
MWe-net plant) with the installation temperature and reduce NOX formation. finalizing a determination that the
and operation of CCS. In the alternative, Additionally, new combined cycle units challenges of additional cooling
the project developer could build a are typically subject to major NSR requirements from CCS are limited and
larger 563 MWe-net combined cycle requirements for NOX emissions, which do not disqualify CCS from being the
turbine knowing that, with the may require the installation of SCR to BSER.
installation of the carbon capture comply with a control technology Stakeholders have shared with the
system, the unit will still be able to determination by the permitting EPA concerns about the safety of CCS
provide 500 MWe-net of power to the authority. See section XI.A of this projects and that historically
grid. Although the use of CCS imposes preamble for additional details disadvantaged and overburdened
additional energy demands on the regarding the NSR program. Although communities may bear a
affected units, those units are able to NOX concentrations may be controlled disproportionate environmental burden
accommodate those demands by scaling by SCR, for some amine solvents NOX associated with CCS projects.839 The
larger, as needed. in the post-combustion flue gas can EPA takes these concerns seriously,
Regardless of whether a unit is scaled react in the CO2 absorber to form agrees that any impacts to historically
larger, the installation and operation of nitrosamines. A conventional multistage disadvantaged and overburdened
CCS itself does not impact the unit’s water wash or acid wash and a mist communities are important to consider,
potential-to-emit any criteria air eliminator at the exit of the CO2 and has done so as part of its analysis
pollutants. In other words, a new base scrubber is effective at removal of discussed at section XII.E. For the
load stationary combustion turbine EGU gaseous amine and amine degradation reasons noted above, the EPA does not
constructed using highly efficient products (e.g., nitrosamine) expect CCS projects to result in
generation (the first component of the emissions.837 838 Acetaldehyde and uncontrolled or substantial increases in
BSER) would not see an increase in formaldehyde can form through emissions of non-GHG air pollutants
emissions of criteria air pollutants as a oxidation of the solvent, however, this from new combustion turbines.
direct result of installing and using 90 can be mitigated by selecting compatible Additionally, a robust regulatory
percent or greater CO2 capture CCS to materials to limit catalytic oxidation framework exists to reduce the risks of
meet the second phase standard of and interstage cooling in the absorber to localized emissions increases in a
performance.836 limit thermal oxidation. manner that is protective of public
Scaling a unit larger to provide heat The use of water for cooling presents health, safety, and the environment.
and power to the CO2 capture an additional issue. Due to their These projects will likely be subject to
equipment would have the potential to relatively high efficiency, combined major NSR requirements for their
increase non-GHG air emissions. cycle EGUs have relatively small emissions of criteria pollutants, and
However, most pollutants would be cooling requirements compared to other therefore the sources would be required
mitigated or controlled by equipment base load EGUs. According to NETL, a to (1) control their emissions of
needed to meet other CAA combined cycle EGU without CCS attainment pollutants by applying BACT
requirements. In general, the emission requires 190 gallons of cooling water per and demonstrate the emissions will not
rates and flue gas concentrations of most MWh of electricity. CCS increases the cause or contribute to a NAAQS
non-GHG pollutants from the cooling water requirements due both to violation, and (2) control their
combustion of natural gas in stationary the decreased efficiency and the cooling emissions of nonattainment pollutants
combustion turbines are relatively low requirements for the CCS process to 290 by applying LAER and fully offset the
compared to the combustion of oil or gallons per MWh, an increase of about emissions by securing emission
coal in boilers. As such, it is not 50 percent. However, because combined reductions from other sources in the
necessary to use an FGD to pretreat the cycle turbines require limited amounts area. Also, as mentioned in section
flue gas prior to CO2 removal in the CO2 of cooling water, the absolute amount of VII.C.1, carbon capture systems that are
scrubber column. The sulfur content of increase in cooling water required due themselves a major source of HAP
natural gas is low relative to oil or coal to use of CCS is relatively small should evaluate the applicability of
and resulting SO2 emissions are compared to the amount of water used CAA section 112(g) and conduct a case-
therefore also relatively low. Similarly, by a coal-fired EGU. A coal-fired EGU by-case MACT analysis if required, to
PM emissions from combustion of without CCS requires 450 gallons or establish MACT for any listed HAP,
natural gas in a combustion turbine are more per MWh and the industry has including listed nitrosamines,
relatively low. Furthermore, the high demonstrated an ability to secure these formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. But, as
combustion efficiency of combustion quantities of water and the EPA has also discussed in section VII.C.1, a
turbines results in relatively low HAP determined that the increased water conventional multistage water or acid
emissions. Additionally, combustion requirements for CCS can be addressed. wash and mist eliminator (demister) at
turbines at major sources of HAP are In addition, many combined cycle EGUs the exit of the CO2 scrubber is effective
subject to the stationary combustion currently use dry cooling technologies at removal of gaseous amine and amine
turbine NESHAP, which includes limits and the use of dry or hybrid cooling degradation products (e.g., nitrosamine)
for formaldehyde emissions for new technologies for the CO2 capture process emissions. Additionally, as noted in
sources that may require installation of
an oxidation catalyst (87 FR 13183; 837 Sharma, S., Azzi, M., ‘‘A critical review of 839 In outreach with potentially vulnerable
March 9, 2022). Regarding NOX existing strategies for emission control in the communities, residents have voiced two primary
monoethanolamine-based carbon capture process concerns. First, there is the concern that their
emissions, in most cases, the and some recommendations for improved communities have experienced historically
combustion turbines in new combined strategies,’’ Fuel, 121, 178 (2014). disproportionate burdens from the environmental
838 Mertens, J., et al., ‘‘Understanding impacts of energy production, and second, that as
836 While the absolute onsite mass emissions ethanolamine (MEA) and ammonia emissions from the sector evolves to use new technologies such as
would not increase from the second component of amine-based post combustion carbon capture: CCS, they may continue to face disproportionate
the BSER, the emissions rate on a lb/MWh-net basis Lessons learned from field tests,’’ Int’l J. of GHG burden. This is discussed further in section XII.E of
would increase by 13 percent. Control, 13, 72 (2013). this preamble.
section VII.C.1.a.i.(C) of this preamble, expected to represent 14 percent of all industrial source, except for coal-fired
PHMSA oversight of supercritical CO2 new generating capacity built in the steam generating units.
pipeline safety protects against U.S. and only a portion of that is natural
(G) Promotion of the Development and
environmental release during transport gas combined cycle capacity.840 Several
Implementation of Technology
and UIC Class VI regulations under the companies have recently announced
SDWA, in tandem with GHGRP plans to move away from new combined The EPA also considered whether
requirements, ensure the protection of cycle turbine projects in favor of more determining CCS to be a component of
USDWs and the security of geologic non-base load combustion turbines, the BSER for new base load combustion
sequestration. renewables, and battery storage. For turbines will advance the technological
The EPA is committed to working example, Xcel recently announced plans development of CCS and concluded that
with its fellow agencies to foster to build new renewable power this factor further corroborates our BSER
meaningful engagement with generation instead of the combined determination. A standard of
communities and protect communities cycle turbine it had initially proposed to performance based on highly efficient
from pollution. This can be facilitated replace the retiring Sherco coal-fired generation in combination with the use
through the existing detailed regulatory plant.841 Finally, while CCS is of CCS—combined with the availability
framework for CCS projects and further adequately demonstrated and cost- of IRC section 45Q tax credits and
supported through robust and reasonable, this final rulemaking allows investments in supporting CCS
meaningful public engagement early in companies that want to build a base infrastructure from the IIJA—should
the technological deployment process. load combined cycle turbine another result in more widespread adoption of
The EPA also expects that the compliance option to meet its CCS. In addition, while solvent-based
meaningful engagement requirements requirements: building a unit that co- CO2 capture has been adequately
discussed in section X.E.1.b.i of this fires low-GHG hydrogen in the demonstrated at the commercial scale, a
preamble will ensure that all interested appropriate amount to meet the CCS-based standard of performance may
stakeholders, including community standard of performance. In fact, incentivize the development and use of
members who might be adversely companies are currently pursuing both better-performing solvents or other
impacted by non-GHG pollutants, will of these options—units with CCS as components of the capture equipment.
have an opportunity to raise this well as units that will co-fire low-GHG Furthermore, the experience gained
concern with states and permitting hydrogen are both in various stages of by utilizing CCS with stationary
authorities. Additionally, state development. For these reasons, combustion turbine EGUs, with their
permitting authorities, and project determining CCS to be the BSER for lower CO2 flue gas concentration
developers are, in general, required to base load units will not cause reliability relative to other industrial sources such
provide public notice and comment on concerns. as coal-fired EGUs, will advance capture
permits for such projects. This provides technology with other lower CO2
additional opportunities for affected (F) Extent of Reductions in CO2 concentration sources. The EIA 2023
stakeholders to engage in that process, Emissions Annual Energy Outlook projects that
and it is the EPA’s expectation that the Designating CCS as a component of almost 862 billion kWh of electricity
responsible entities consider these the BSER for certain base load will be generated from natural gas-fired
concerns and take full advantage of combustion turbine EGUs prevents large sources in 2040.842 Much of that
existing protections. Moreover, the EPA amounts of CO2 emissions. For example, generation is projected to come from
through its regional offices is committed a new base load combined cycle EGU existing combined cycle EGUs and
to thoroughly review permits associated without CCS could be expected to emit further development of carbon capture
with CO2 capture. technologies could facilitate increased
45 million tons of CO2 over its 30-year
(E) Impacts on the Energy Sector operating life, or 1.5 million tons of CO2 retrofitting of those EGUs.
The EPA does not believe that per year. Use of CCS would avoid the (H) Summary of BSER Determination
determining CCS to be BSER for base release of nearly 41 million tons of CO2
As discussed, the EPA is finalizing a
load combustion turbines will cause over the operating life of the combined
determination that the second
reliability concerns, for several cycle EGU, or 1.37 million tons per year.
component of the BSER for base load
independent reasons. First, the EPA is However, due to the auxiliary/parasitic
stationary combustion turbines is the
finalizing a determination that the costs energy requirements of the carbon
utilization of CCS at 90 percent capture.
of CCS are reasonable and comparable capture system, capturing 90 percent of
The EPA has determined that 90 percent
to other control requirements the EPA the CO2 does not result in a
CCS meets the criteria for BSER for new
has required the electric power industry corresponding 90 percent reduction in
base load combustion turbines. It is an
to adopt without significant effects on CO2 emissions. According to the NETL
adequately demonstrated technology
reliability. Second, base load combined baseline report, adding a 90 percent CO2
that can be implemented a reasonable
cycle turbines are only one of many capture system increases the EGU’s
cost. Importantly, use of CCS at 90
options that companies have to build gross heat rate by 7 percent and the
percent capture results in significant
new generation. The EPA expects there unit’s net heat rate by 13 percent. Since
reductions of CO2 as compared to a base
to be considerable interest in building more fuel would be consumed in the
CCS case, the gross and net emissions load combustion turbine without CCS.
intermediate load and low load In addition, the EPA has considered
combustion turbines to meet demand for rates are reduced by 89.3 percent and
88.7 percent respectively. These non-air quality and energy impacts.
dispatchable generation. Indeed, the
amounts of CO2 emissions and Considering all these factors together,

portion of the combustion turbine fleet with particular emphasis on the
that is operating at base load is reductions are larger than for any other
importance of significantly reducing
declining as shown in the EPA’s carbon pollution from these heavily
840 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
reference case modeling (Power Sector utilized sources, the EPA concludes that
detail.php?id=55419.
Platform 2023 using IPM reference case, 841 https://cubminnesota.org/xcel-is-no-longer-
see section IV.F of the preamble). In pursuing-gas-power-plant-proposes-more- 842 Does not include 114 billion kilowatt hours
2023, combined cycle turbines are only renewable-power/. from natural gas-fired CHP projected in AEO 2023.
CCS at 90 percent capture is BSER for have recently commenced construction. construction or reconstruction on or
new base load combustion turbines. In This is consistent with the extended after May 23, 2023, are subject to
addition, selecting CCS at 90 percent project schedule in the Sargent & Lundy standards of performance that are
capture further promotes the report. This is also greater than the implemented initially in two phases.
development and implementation of approximately 6 years from start to New stationary combustion turbines
this critical carbon pollution reduction finish for Boundary Dam Unit 3 and that are designed and constructed for
technology, which confirms the Petra Nova. the purpose of operating in the base
appropriateness of determining it to be As discussed in section VII.C.1.a.i(E), load subcategory (i.e., at a 12-operating
the BSER. the timing for installation of CCS on month capacity factor of greater than 40
The BSER for base load combustion existing coal-fired steam generating percent) that hypothetically commenced
turbines contains two components and units is based on the baseline project construction on May 23, 2023, could,
the EPA is promulgating standards of schedule for the capture plant according to the schedule allowing,
performance to be implemented in two developed by Sargent and Lundy conservatively, up to 7 years to develop
phases with each phase reflecting the (S&L) 843 and a review of the available a CCS project, have a system
degree of emission reduction achievable information for installation of CO2 constructed and on-line by May 23,
through the application of each pipelines and sequestration sites.844 The 2030. However, the EPA is finalizing a
component of the BSER. The first representative timeline for CCS for coal- compliance date of January 1, 2032,
component of the BSER is most efficient fired steam generating units is detailed because some base load combined cycle
generation—an affected new base load in the final TSD, GHG Mitigation stationary combustion projects that
combustion turbine must be constructed Measures for Steam Generating Units, commenced construction between May
(or reconstructed) to meet a phase 1 available in the docket, and the 23, 2023, and the date of this final rule,
emission standard that reflects the anticipated timeline for development of may not have included CCS in the
emission rate of the best performing a CCS project for application at a new original design and planning for the
combustion turbine systems. The phase or reconstructed base load stationary new EGU and, therefore, would be
1 standard of performance for base load combustion turbine would be similar. unlikely to be able to have an
combustion turbines is in effect The explanations the EPA provided in operational CCS system available by
immediately once the source begins section VII.C.1.a.i(E) regarding the May 23, 2030.
operation. The second component of the timeline for long-term coal-fired steam Further, the EPA notes that a delayed
BSER, as just discussed, is use of CCS generating units generally apply to new compliance date (of January 1, 2035)
at a 90 percent capture rate. The phase combustion turbines as well. The EPA was proposed for the phase 2 standards
2 standard of performance for base load expects that the owners or operators of of performance due to overlapping
combustion turbines reflects the affected combustion turbines will be demands on the capacity to design,
implementation of 90 capture CCS on a able to complete the design, planning, construct, and operate carbon capture
highly efficient combined cycle permitting, engineering, and systems as well as pipeline systems that
combustion turbine system. The construction steps for the carbon would potentially be needed to support
compliance date begins January 1, 2032. capture and transport and storage CCS projects for existing steam
systems in a similar amount of time as generating units and other industrial
(I) January 2032 Compliance Date
projects for coal-fired EGUs. sources. As discussed in section
The EPA proposed a compliance date While those considerations apply in VII.C.1.a.i(E), in this action the EPA is
beginning January 1, 2035, for new and finalizing a compliance date of January
general, the EPA notes that the timeline
reconstructed base load stationary 1, 2032 for long term coal-fired steam
for the installation of CCS on coal-fired
combustion turbines subject to the generating EGUs to meet a standard of
steam generating units accounted for the
phase 2 standard of performance based performance based on 90 percent
state plan development process.
on CCS as the BSER. Some commenters capture CCS. This compliance date for
Because there are not state plans
were supportive of the proposed long-term coal-fired steam generating
required for new combustion turbines,
compliance date and some urged the EGUs places fewer demands on the
new sources can commit to beginning
EPA to set an earlier compliance date; capacity to design, construct, and
substantial work earlier (e.g., FEED
the EPA also received comments on the operate carbon capture systems and the
studies, right-of-way acquisition),
proposed rule that stated that the associated infrastructure for those
immediately after the completion of
proposed compliance date was not sources. Therefore, the EPA does not
feasibility work. However, the EPA also
achievable and referenced longer project believe that there is a need to extend the
recognizes that other elements of a state
timelines for CO2 capture. The EPA has compliance date for phase 2 standards
plan (e.g., RULOF), by which a source
considered the comments and for base load combustion turbine EGUs
under specific circumstances could
information available and is finalizing a by 5 years beyond that for existing coal-
have a later compliance date, are not
compliance date of January 1, 2032, for fired steam generating EGUs, as
available to new sources. Therefore,
the phase 2 standard of performance for proposed.
while the timeline for CCS on coal-fired
base-load stationary combustion Considering these factors, the EPA is
steam generating units is based on the
turbines. The EPA is also finalizing a therefore finalizing the compliance date
baseline S&L capture plant schedule of January 1, 2032 for base load
mechanism for a compliance date
(about 6.25 years), the EPA bases the combustion turbine EGUs to meet the
extension of up to 1 year in cases where
timeline for CCS on new combustion phase 2 standard of performance. This
a source faces a delay in the installation
turbines on the extended S&L capture
and startup of controls that are beyond is the same compliance date applicable
plant schedule (7 years). to existing long term coal-fired steam
the control of the EGU owner or
As discussed, base load stationary
operator, as detailed in section VIII.N of generating EGUs that are subject to a
combustion turbines that commence
this preamble. standard of performance based on 90
In total, the January 1, 2032, 843 CO Capture Project Schedule and Operations
percent capture CCS. The EPA assumes
2
compliance date allows for more than 7 Memo, Sargent & Lundy (2024). the timelines for development of the
years for installation of CCS after 844 Transport and Storage Timeline Summary, ICF various components of CCS for an
issuance of this rule for sources that (2024). existing coal-fired steam generating
EGU, as discussed in section Ruckelshaus, for the proposition that volume) low-GHG hydrogen by 2032.
VII.C.1.a.i(E), are very similar for those ‘‘D.C. Circuit caselaw supports the The EPA also proposed that new and
components for a CCS system serving a proposition that CAA section 111 reconstructed base load combustion
new or reconstructed base load authorizes the EPA to determine that turbines could elect either (i) a second
combustion turbine EGU. controls qualify as the BSER—including component of BSER that consisted of
Some commenters argued that meeting the ‘adequately demonstrated’ installing CCS by 2035, or (ii) a second
because the power sector will require criterion—even if the controls require and third component of BSER that
some amount of time before CCS and some amount of ‘lead time,’ which the consisted of co-firing 30 percent (by
associated infrastructure may be court has defined as ‘the time in which volume) low-GHG hydrogen by 2032
installed on a widespread basis, CCS the technology will have to be and co-firing 96 percent (by volume)
cannot be considered adequately available.’ ’’ (footnote omitted). Nothing low-GHG hydrogen by 2038.
demonstrated. This argument is similar in the comments alters the EPA’s view The EPA solicited comment on
to the argument, discussed in section of the relevant legal requirements whether the Agency should finalize
V.C.2.b, that in order to be adequately related to adequate demonstration or both the CCS and low-GHG hydrogen
demonstrated, a technology must be in lead time. co-firing pathways as separate
widespread commercial use. Both subcategories with separate standards of
arguments are incorrect. Under CAA d. BSER for Base Load Subcategory— performance and on whether the EPA
section 111, for a control technology to Third Component should finalize one pathway with the
qualify as the BSER, the EPA must The EPA proposed a third component option of meeting the standard of
demonstrate that it is adequately of the BSER of 96 percent (by volume) performance using either system of
demonstrated for affected sources. The hydrogen co-firing in 2038 for owners/ emission reduction (88 FR 33277, May
EPA must also show that the industry operators of base load combustion 23, 2023). The EPA also solicited
can deploy the technology at scale in turbines that elected to comply with the comment on the option of finalizing a
the compliance timeframe. That the EPA low-GHG hydrogen co-firing pathway. single standard of performance based on
has provided lead time in order to As discussed in the next section, the the application of CCS for the base load
ensure adequate time for industry to EPA is not finalizing the proposed BSER subcategory (88 FR 33283, May 23,
deploy the technology at scale shows pathway of low-GHG hydrogen co-firing 2023).
that the EPA is meeting its statutory at this time. Therefore, the Agency is
b. Explanation for Not Finalizing Low-
obligation, not the inverse. Indeed, it is not finalizing a third component of the
GHG Hydrogen Co-Firing as a BSER
not at all unusual for the EPA to provide BSER for base load combustion turbines.
lead time for industry to deploy new The EPA is not finalizing a low-GHG
5. Technologies Proposed by the EPA hydrogen co-firing component of the
technology. The EPA’s approach is in
But Ultimately Not Determined To Be BSER at this time. The EPA proposed
line with the statutory text and caselaw
encouraging technology-forcing the BSER that co-firing low-GHG hydrogen
standard-setting cabined by the EPA’s The EPA is not finalizing its proposed qualified as a BSER pathway because
obligation to ensure that its standards BSER pathway of low-GHG hydrogen the components of the system met
are reasonable and achievable. co-firing for new and reconstructed base specific criteria, namely that the
CCS is clearly adequately load and intermediate load combustion capability of combustion turbines to co-
demonstrated, and ripe for wider turbines as part of this action. In light fire hydrogen was adequately
implementation. Nevertheless, the EPA of public comments and additional demonstrated and there was a
acknowledged in the proposed rule, and analysis, uncertainties regarding reasonable expectation that the
reaffirms now, that the power sector projected costs prevent the EPA from necessary quantities of low-GHG
will require some amount of lead time determining that low-GHG hydrogen is hydrogen would be nationally available
before individual plants can install CCS a component of the BSER at this time. by 2032 and 2038 at reasonable cost.
as necessary. Deploying CCS requires The next section provides a summary Due to concerns raised by commenters,
the building of capture facilities, of the proposed requirements for low- the EPA conducted additional analysis
pipelines to transport captured CO2 to GHG hydrogen followed by, in section of key components of the low-GHG
sequestration sites, and the VIII.F.5.b, an explanation for why the hydrogen best system and the Agency’s
development of sequestration sites. This Agency is not finalizing its proposed proposed determination that low-GHG
is true for both existing coal-fired steam determination that low-GHG hydrogen hydrogen co-firing qualified as the
generating EGUs, some of which would co-firing is BSER. In section VIII.F.6, the BSER. This additional analysis,
be required to retrofit with CCS under EPA discusses considerations for the discussed further below, indicated that
the emission guidelines included in this potential use of hydrogen. In section the currently estimated cost of low-GHG
final rulemaking, and new gas-fired VIII.F.6.a, the Agency explains why it is hydrogen in 2030 is higher than
combustion turbine EGUs, which must not limiting the hydrogen that may be anticipated at proposal. These higher
incorporate CCS into their construction co-fired in a new or reconstructed cost estimates were key factors in the
planning. combustion turbine to only low-GHG EPA’s decision to revise its 2030 cost
In this final rulemaking, the EPA is hydrogen. In section VIII.F.6.b, the estimate for delivered low-GHG
setting a compliance deadline of January Agency discusses its decision to not hydrogen.
1, 2032 for the CCS-based standard for include a definition of low-GHG While the EPA is not finalizing a
new base load combustion turbines. The hydrogen. BSER determination with regard to co-
firing with low-GHG hydrogen as part of
EPA determined, examining the

evidence and exercising its appropriate a. Proposed Low-GHG Hydrogen Co- this rulemaking and is therefore not
discretion to do so, that this is a Firing BSER making any determination about
reasonable amount of time to allow for The EPA proposed that new and whether such a practice is adequately
CCS buildout at the plant level. As the reconstructed intermediate load demonstrated, the Agency notes that
EPA explained at proposal, D.C. Circuit combustion turbines were subject to a there are multiple models of combustion
caselaw supports this approach. There, second component of the BSER that turbines available from major
the EPA cited Portland Cement v. consisted of co-firing 30 percent (by manufacturers that have successfully
demonstrated the ability to combust reconstructed base load and by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
hydrogen. Manufacturers have stated intermediate load combustion turbines pertaining to clean hydrogen production
that they expect to have additional at this time. tax and energy credits, which proposed
models of combustion turbines available In the proposal, the EPA modeled certain eligibility parameters (88 FR
that will be capable of firing 100 percent low-GHG hydrogen as a fuel available at 89220, December 26, 2023). Until
hydrogen while limiting emissions of a fixed delivered 846 price of $1/kg (or Treasury’s regulations on the IRC
other pollutants (e.g., NOX). The EPA $7.40/MMBtu) in the baseline. This cost section 45V hydrogen production tax
further discusses considerations around decreased to $0.50/kg (or $3.70/MMBtu) credit are final, some analysts only
the technical feasibility of hydrogen co- in the Integrated Proposal case when the estimate future production costs of
firing in new and reconstructed second phase of the new combustion hydrogen, not delivered costs, and do
combustion turbines, and what they turbine standard began in 2032. This not include any projected potential
mean for the potential use of hydrogen fuel was assumed to be ‘‘clean’’ and impacts of the IRA incentives. For
co-firing as a compliance strategy, in eligible for the highest subsidy under example, both McKinsey and
section VIII.F.6 of this preamble. the IRC section 45V hydrogen BloombergNEF project the unsubsidized
While the EPA believes that hydrogen production tax credit and would comply production cost of clean hydrogen to be
co-firing is technically feasible based on with the proposed requirement to use approximately $2/kg by 2030, which
combustion turbine technology, low-GHG hydrogen (88 FR 33314, May could lead to negative to zero prices for
information about how the low-GHG 23, 2023). The EPA’s revised modeling some subsidized hydrogen after
hydrogen production industry will of the power sector for the final rule considering transportation and
develop in the future is not sufficiently used a price of $1.15/kg for delivered storage.848 849 One of the highest
certain for the EPA to be able to low-GHG hydrogen in both the final estimates for the unsubsidized
determine that adequate quantities will baseline and policy cases. For production cost of clean hydrogen is
be available. That is, there remain, at the additional discussion of the EPA’s from the Rhodium Group, which
time of this final rulemaking, revised modeling of the power sector estimates the price to be from $3.39/kg
uncertainties pertaining to how the and increased cost estimate for low- to $4.92/kg in 2030.850 Again, it should
future nationwide availability of low- GHG hydrogen, see the final RIA be noted these estimates do not include
GHG hydrogen will develop. Relatedly, included in the docket for this additional costs for transportation and
estimates of its future costs are more rulemaking. storage. The increased cost projections
uncertain than anticipated at proposal. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2022 for low-GHG hydrogen production are
For low-GHG hydrogen to meet the report, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: partly due to higher costs for capital
BSER criteria as proposed, the EPA Clean Hydrogen, informed the EPA’s equipment, such as electrolyzers. The
would have to be able to determine that revised low-GHG hydrogen cost DOE published a Program Record 851
significant quantities of low-GHG analysis. According to the DOE report, detailing higher costs than previously
hydrogen will be available at reasonable the cost to produce, transport, store, and estimated by levering data from the
costs such that affected sources in the deliver low-GHG or ‘‘clean’’ hydrogen is regional clean hydrogen hubs and other
power sector nationwide could rely on expected to be between $0.70/kg and literature. Costs increases are
it for use by 2032 and 2038. While some $1.15/kg by 2030 with the IRA’s $3/kg predominantly driven by inflation,
analyses 845 show that this will likely be maximum IRC section 45V production supply chain cost increases, and higher
the case, the full set of information tax credit included.847 The report also estimated installation costs. However,
necessary to support such a points out that the power sector is there is a significant range in
determination is not available at this competing with other industrial electrolyzer costs; some companies cite
time. However, the EPA believes this sectors—such as transportation, costs that are significantly lower ($750-
may change as the low-GHG hydrogen ammonia and chemical production, oil $900/kW installed cost) 852 than that
industry continues to develop. The refining, and steel manufacturing—in published in the Program Record.
Agency plans to monitor the terms of potential downstream
development of the industry; if applications of clean hydrogen for the 848 Heid, B.; Sator, A.; Waardenburg, M.; and
appropriate, the EPA will reevaluate its purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Wilthaner, M. (25 Oct 2022). Five charts on
The DOE report also estimates that hydrogen’s role in a net-zero future. McKinsey &
findings and establish standards of Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/
performance that achieve additional $0.40/kg to $0.50/kg is the price the sustainability/our-insights/five-charts-on-
emission reductions. Furthermore, as power sector would be willing to pay for hydrogens-role-in-a-net-zero-future.
noted above, the EPA considers the co- clean hydrogen. 849 Schelling, K. (9 Aug 2023). Green Hydrogen to
firing of hydrogen to be technically Some analyses of future hydrogen Undercut Gray Sibling by End of Decade.
BloombergNEF. https://about.bnef.com/blog/green-
feasible in multiple models of available costs provide estimates that are higher hydrogen-to-undercut-gray-sibling-by-end-of-
combustion turbines. than those of the DOE. For example, decade/.
As noted above, the EPA has revised public commenters estimated the cost of 850 Larsen, J.; King, B.; Kolus, H.; Dasari, N.;
its cost analysis of low-GHG hydrogen delivered ‘‘clean’’ hydrogen to be less Bower, G.; and Jones, W. (12 Aug 2022). A Turning
and determined that, due to the present Point for US Climate Progress: Assessing the
than $3/kg by 2030 before declining to Climate and Clean Energy Provisions in the
uncertainty, estimated future hydrogen $2/kg by 2035. These estimates of Inflation Reduction Act. Rhodium Group. https://
costs are higher than at proposal. The delivered hydrogen costs include the rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-
higher estimated cost of low-GHG IRC section 45V hydrogen production reduction-act/.
851 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (February
hydrogen relative to proposal is the key tax credits contained in the IRA, but
22, 2024). Summary of Electrolyzer Cost Data
factor in the EPA’s decision to not they do not reflect regulations proposed Synthesized from Applications to the DOE Clean
finalize low-GHG hydrogen co-firing as Hydrogen Hubs Program. DOE Hydrogen Program,
a BSER pathway for new and 846 The delivered price includes the cost to Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Program
produce, transport, and store hydrogen. Record. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/
845 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 847 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (March hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/24002-summary-
(November 3, 2023). Impact of IRA’s 45V Clean 2023). Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean electrolyzer-cost-data.pdf.
Hydrogen Production Tax Credit. White paper. Hydrogen. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/ 852 Martin, P. (December 18, 2023). What gives
https://www.epri.com/research/products/ uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to- Bill Gates-backed start-up Electric Hydrogen the

000000003002028407. Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-Hydrogen.pdf. edge over other electrolyzer makers? Hydrogen
6. Considerations for the Potential Use recognizes that, to ensure overall GHG economy and, more specifically, in the
of Hydrogen benefits, it is important any hydrogen power sector. As discussed further
The ability of combustion turbines to used in the power sector be low-GHG below, this decision is against the
co-fire hydrogen can effectively reduce hydrogen. Thus, even though the EPA is backdrop of ongoing developments in
stack GHG emissions. Hydrogen also not finalizing the use of low-GHG the public and private sectors,
offers unique solutions for hydrogen as a component of the BSER Treasury’s regulations implementing a
decarbonization because of its potential for base load or intermediate load tax credit for the production of clean
to provide dispatchable, clean energy combustion turbines, it maintains that hydrogen, multiple Federal government
with long-term storage and seasonal the type of hydrogen used (i.e., the grant and assistance programs, and the
capabilities. For example, hydrogen is method by which the hydrogen was EPA’s investigation into methods to
an energy carrier that can provide long- produced) should be a primary control emissions of air pollutants from
term storage of low-GHG energy that can consideration for any source that hydrogen production.
be co-fired in combustion turbines and decides to co-fire hydrogen. Again, the The EPA’s decision to not require that
used to balance load with the increasing Agency reiterates its concern that any hydrogen used for compliance be
volumes of variable generation. These sources in the power sector that choose low-GHG hydrogen was based primarily
services support the reliability of the to co-fire hydrogen to reduce their GHG on the current market and policy
power system while facilitating the emission rate should co-fire only low- developments regarding hydrogen
integration of variable zero-emitting GHG hydrogen to achieve overall GHG production at this particular point in
energy resources and supporting reductions and important climate time, including the clean hydrogen
decarbonization of the electric grid. One benefits. production tax credits. There are
technology with the potential to reduce In the proposal, the EPA solicited currently multiple private and public
curtailment is energy storage, and some comment on whether it is necessary to efforts to develop, inter alia, greenhouse
power producers envision a role for require low-GHG hydrogen. Similarly, gas accounting practices, verification
hydrogen to supplement natural gas as the EPA also solicited comment as to protocols, reporting conventions, and
a fuel to support the balancing and whether the low-GHG hydrogen other elements that will help determine
reliability of an increasingly requirement could be treated as how low-GHG hydrogen is measured,
decarbonized electric grid. severable from the remainder of the tracked, and verified over the next
Hydrogen is a zero-GHG emitting fuel standard such that the standard could several years. For example, Treasury is
when combusted, so that co-firing it in function without this requirement. The expected to finalize parameters for
a combustion turbine in place of natural EPA also solicited comment on a host of evaluating overall emissions associated
gas reduces GHG emissions at the stack. recordkeeping and reporting topics. with hydrogen production pathways as
For this reason, certain owners/ These pertained to the complexities of it prepares to implement IRC section
operators of combustion turbines in the tracking the sources of quantities of 45V.855 The overall objective of
power sector may elect to co-fire produced low-GHG hydrogen and the Treasury’s parameters is to recognize
hydrogen in the coming years to reduce public interest in such data. that different methods of hydrogen
onsite GHG emissions.853 Co-firing low- production generate different amounts
a. Explanation for Not Requiring
of GHG emissions while encouraging
emitting fuels—sometimes referred to as Hydrogen Used for Compliance To Be
lower-emitting production methods
clean fuels—is a traditional type of Low-GHG Hydrogen
through the multi-tier hydrogen
emissions control. However, the EPA The EPA proposed that the type of production tax credit (IRC section 45V)
recognizes that even though the hydrogen co-fired must be limited to (see 88 FR 89220, December 26, 2023).
combustion of hydrogen is zero-GHG low-GHG hydrogen, and not include In light of these nascent but fast-moving
emitting, its production can entail a other types of hydrogen.854 This efforts, the EPA does not believe it is
range of GHG emissions, from low to requirement was proposed to prevent reasonable or helpful to prescribe its
high, depending on the method. These the anomalous outcome of a GHG own definitions, protocols, and
differences in GHG emissions from the control strategy contributing to an requirements for low-GHG hydrogen at
different methods of hydrogen increase in overall GHG emissions; the this point in time.
production are well-recognized in the provision that only low-GHG hydrogen Furthermore, the Agency anticipates
energy sector (88 FR 33306, May 23, could be used for compliance mirrored that combustion turbines will, despite
2023), and, in fact, hydrogen is the EPA’s proposal that low-GHG not being required to do so, use low-
generally characterized by its hydrogen, in particular, could qualify as GHG hydrogen (to the extent they are
production method and the attendant a component of the BSER. For the co-firing hydrogen as a compliance
level of GHG emissions. reasons explained below, the EPA is not strategy). Depending on market
While the focus of this rule is the finalizing a requirement that any development in the coming decade, it is
reduction of stack GHG emissions from hydrogen that sources choose to co-fire reasonable to expect that any hydrogen
combustion turbines, the EPA also must be low-GHG hydrogen. However, used in the power sector would
the Agency continues to stress, generally be low-GHG hydrogen, even
Insight. https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/
electrolysers/what-gives-bill-gates-backed-start-up-
notwithstanding the lack of requirement without a specific BSER pathway or
electric-hydrogen-the-edge-over-other-electrolyser- under this rule, the importance of low-GHG-only requirement included in
makers-/2-1-1572694. ensuring that any hydrogen used in this final NSPS. For example, several
853 In June 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy
combustion turbines is low-GHG utilities with dedicated access to
(DOE) Loans Program Office issued a $504.4 million
hydrogen. The EPA’s choice to not affordable low-GHG hydrogen are

loan guarantee to finance the Advanced Clean
Energy Storage (ACES) project in Delta, Utah. ACES finalize a low-GHG requirement at this actively developing co-firing projects
expects to utilize a 220 MW bank of electrolyzers time is based in large part on knowledge with the goal of reducing their GHG
and curtailed renewable energy to produce clean of current and future efforts that will
hydrogen that will be stored in salt caverns. The reinforce the availability and role of 855 U.S. Department of the Treasury. (October 5,
hydrogen will fuel an 840 MW combined cycle 2022). Treasury Seeks Public Input on
combustion turbine at the Intermountain Power low-GHG hydrogen in the national Implementing the Inflation Reduction Act’s Clean
Project facility. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/ Energy Tax Incentives. Press release. https://
advanced-clean-energy-storage. 854 88 FR 33240, 33315 (May 23, 2023). home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0993.
emissions. The infrastructure funding in the development of hydrogen co- iii. Infrastructure Funding and Tax
and tax incentives included in the IIJA firing, and specifically in projects Incentives Included in the IIJA and IRA
and the IRA are also driving the designed to co-fire low-GHG hydrogen, In both the IIJA and the IRA, Congress
development of the low-GHG hydrogen in particular, give the EPA confidence provided extensive support for the
supply chain. These rapid changes in that any hydrogen that sources do development of hydrogen produced
the hydrogen marketplace not only choose to co-fire for compliance under through low-GHG methods. This
counsel against the EPA’s locking in its this rule will be low-GHG hydrogen. As support includes investment in
own requirements at this time; they also these efforts progress, a sharper infrastructure through the IIJA, and the
provide confidence that greater understanding of costs will come into provision of tax credits in the IRA to
quantities of low-GHG hydrogen will be focus while significant Federal incentivize the manufacture of hydrogen
available moving forward, even if the funding—through grants, financial through low GHG-emitting methods
precise timing and quantity cannot assistance programs, and tax incentives over the coming decades. For example,
currently be accurately forecast. The included in the IIJA and the IRA the IIJA included the H2Hubs program,
EPA also provides information further discussed below—is intended to the Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing and
below about its intentions to open a support the continued development of a Recycling Program, the Clean Hydrogen
non-regulatory docket to engage nationwide clean hydrogen supply Electrolysis Program, and a non-
stakeholders on potential future chain. regulatory Clean Hydrogen Production
rulemakings for thermochemical-based Standard (CHPS).861 In the IRA,
hydrogen production facilities to For the most part, companies that
have announced that they are exploring Congress enacted or expanded tax
address issues pertaining to GHG, credits to encourage the production and
criteria, and HAP emissions. the use of hydrogen co-firing have stated
that they intend to use low-GHG use of low-GHG hydrogen.862 In
i. Hydrogen Production and Associated hydrogen in the future as greater addition, as discussed in the proposal,
GHGs quantities of the fuel become available IRA section 60107 added new CAA
at lower, stabilized prices. Many section 135, or the Low Emission
Hydrogen is used in industrial
Electricity Program (LEEP). This
processes; in recent years, applications utilities and merchant generators own
provision provides $1 million for the
of hydrogen co-firing have also and are developing low-GHG electricity
EPA to assess the GHG emissions
expanded to include stationary generating sources as well as
reductions from changes in domestic
combustion turbines used to generate combustion turbines, with the intent to
electricity generation and use
electricity. Several commenters produce low-GHG hydrogen for sale and
anticipated to occur annually through
responded to the proposal by stating to use a portion of it to fuel their fiscal year 2031; and further provides
that to fully evaluate the potential GHG stationary combustion turbines.856 857 $18 million for the EPA to promulgate
emission reductions from co-firing low- This emerging trend lends support to additional CAA rules to ensure GHG
GHG hydrogen in a combustion turbine the view that, while acknowledging the emissions reductions that go beyond the
EGU, it is important to consider the uncertainty of the ultimate timing of reductions expected in that assessment.
different processes for producing implementation, there is growing
hydrogen and the GHG emissions CAA section 135(a)(5)–(6).
interest in hydrogen co-firing in the Given the incentives provided in both
associated with each process. The EPA power sector and stakeholders are the IRA and IIJA for low-GHG hydrogen
agrees that the method of hydrogen developing these resources with the production and the current trajectory of
production is critical to consider when intent to increase access to low-GHG hydrogen use in the power sector, by
assessing whether hydrogen co-firing hydrogen as they increase hydrogen 2032, the start date for compliance with
actually reduces overall GHG emissions. utilization in their co-firing the proposed second phase of the NSPS,
As stated previously, the varying levels applications. Additional information low-GHG hydrogen may be more widely
of CO2 emissions associated with provided by commenters and analysis available and possibly the most
different hydrogen production processes by the EPA identified several new common source of hydrogen available
are well-recognized, and stakeholders combustion turbine projects planning to for electricity production. It is also
routinely refer to hydrogen on the basis co-fire low-GHG hydrogen, even though possible that the cost of delivered low-
of the different production processes these low-GHG methods of hydrogen GHG hydrogen will continue to decline
and their different GHG profiles. production are not currently readily toward the DOE’s Hydrogen Shot target.
ii. Technological and Market available on a nationwide basis.858 859 860 These expectations are based on a
Transformation of Low-GHG Hydrogen combination of economies of scale as
Resources 856 Mitsubishi Power. (2020). Intermountain
low-GHG production methods expand,
Power Agency Orders MHPS JAC Gas Turbine
In the proposal, the EPA highlighted Technology for Renewable-Hydrogen Energy Hub.
the increasing availability of low-cost
ongoing efforts—independent of any https://power.mhi.com/regions/amer/news/ input electricity—largely powered by
BSER pathway, requirement, or 200310.html. zero- or low-emitting energy sources—
857 Intermountain Power Agency (2022). https://
performance standard—of combustion
www.ipautah.com/ipp-renewed/. 861 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (September
turbine manufacturers and industry 858 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
22, 2022). Clean Hydrogen Production Standard.
stakeholders to research, develop, and (2023). Initial Study: Scattergood Generating Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
deploy hydrogen co-firing technologies Station Units 1 and 2 Green Hydrogen-Ready https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/
(88 FR 33307, May 23, 2023). Their co- Modernization Project. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ clean-hydrogen-production-standard.
2023050366. 862 These tax credits include IRC section 45V (tax
firing demonstrations are producing
859 https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-
credit for production of hydrogen through low- or
results, such as increasing the 0039_rpt_DWP_02-03-2023.pdf. zero-emitting processes), IRC section 48 (tax credit
percentages (by volume) of hydrogen 860 Hering, G. (2021). First major US hydrogen- for investment in energy storage property, including
that a turbine can combust while burning power plant nears completion in Ohio. S&P hydrogen production), IRC section 45Q (tax credit
answering questions regarding safety, Global Market Intelligence. https:// for CO2 sequestration from industrial processes,
www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest- including hydrogen production); and the use of
performance, reliability, durability, and news/electric-power/081221-first-major-us- hydrogen in transportation applications, IRC
the emission of other pollutants (e.g., hydrogen-burning-power-plant-nears-completion- section 45Z (clean fuel production tax credit), IRC
NOX). Such efforts by industry to invest in-ohio. section 40B (sustainable aviation fuel credit).
and learning by doing as more developing a set of framing questions a. Partial Capture CCS
combustion turbine projects are and opening a non-regulatory docket to Partial capture for CCS was not
developed. The EPA recognizes that the solicit public comment on potential determined to be BSER because the
pace and scale of government programs approaches for regulation of GHGs and emission reductions are lower and the
and private research suggest that the criteria pollutants under CAA section costs would, in general, be higher. As
Agency will gain significant experience 111 and an exploration of the discussed in section IV, individual
and knowledge on this topic in the appropriateness of regulating HAP natural gas-fired combined cycle
future. emissions under CAA section 112 and combustion turbines are the second
iv. EPA Non-Regulatory Docket and on potential section 114 reporting highest-emitting individual plants in the
Stakeholder Engagement on Potential requirements to address this growing nation, and the natural gas-fired power
Regulatory Approaches for Emissions industry. plant sector is higher-emitting than all
From Thermochemical Hydrogen b. Definition of Low-GHG Hydrogen other sectors. CCS at 90 percent capture
Production removes very high absolute amounts of
The EPA proposed to define low-GHG emissions. Partial capture CCS would
In addition to the ongoing industry fail to capture large quantities of
development of and Congressional hydrogen as hydrogen produced with
emissions of less than 0.45 kg CO2e/kg emissions. With respect to costs, designs
support for low-GHG hydrogen, the EPA for 90 percent capture in general take
is also taking steps consistent with the H2, from well-to-gate, which aligned
with the highest of the four tiers of tax greater advantage of economy of scale.
importance of mitigating GHG emissions Eligibility for the IRC section 45Q tax
associated with hydrogen production. credits available for hydrogen
production, IRC section 45V(b)(2)(D). At credit for existing EGUs requires design
On September 15, 2023, the EPA capture rates equivalent to 75 percent of
received a petition from the that GHG emission rate or less,
hydrogen producers are eligible for a tax a baseline emission rate by mass.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Sources with partial capture rates that
along with 13 other health, credit of $3/kg. With these provisions,
Congress indicated its judgement as to do not meet that requirement would not
environmental, and community groups, be eligible for the tax credit and as a
to regulate fossil and other what GHG levels could be attained by
the lowest-GHG hydrogen production, result, for them, the CCS requirement
thermochemical methods of hydrogen would be too expensive to qualify for as
production given the current emissions and its intention to incentivize
production of that type of hydrogen. the BSER. Even assuming partial
from these facilities and the anticipated capture rates meet that definition, lower
growth in the sector spurred by IRA Congress’s views informed the EPA’s
capture rates would receive fewer
incentives. The petition notes that proposal to define low-GHG hydrogen
returns from the IRC section 45Q tax
facilities producing hydrogen for sale for purposes of making the BSER for this
credit (since these are tied to the
produced about 10 MMT of hydrogen CAA section 111 rulemaking consistent
amount of carbon sequestered, and all
and emitted more than 40 MMT of CO2e with IRC section 45V(b)(2)(D).
else equal lower capture rates would
in 2020.863 Regulatory safeguards are The EPA solicited comment broadly result in lower amounts of sequestered
advocated by petitioners to help ensure on its proposed definition for low-GHG carbon) and costs would thereby be
that the anticipated growth in this sector hydrogen, and on alternative higher.
does not result in an unbounded approaches, to help develop reporting
increase in emissions of GHGs, criteria, and recordkeeping requirements that b. Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The would have ensured that co-firing low- CHP, also known as cogeneration, is
petition requests that the EPA list GHG hydrogen minimized GHG the simultaneous production of
hydrogen production facilities as emissions, and that combustion turbines electricity and/or mechanical energy
significant sources of pollution under and useful thermal output from a single
subject to this standard utilized only
CAA sections 111 and 112, and that the fuel. CHP requires less fuel to produce
low-GHG hydrogen. The EPA also
EPA develop both standards of a given energy output, and because less
solicited comment on whether it was
performance for new and modified fuel is burned to produce each unit of
necessary to provide a definition of low-
hydrogen production facilities as well as energy output, CHP has lower-emission
GHG hydrogen in this final rule.
emission guidelines for existing rates and can be more economic than
facilities. The development of emission The EPA is not finalizing a definition
separate electric and thermal generation.
standards for HAP, including but not of low-GHG hydrogen in this action. However, a critical requirement for a
limited to methanol, was also requested Because the Agency is not finalizing co- CHP facility is that it primarily
by petitioners. Petitioners assert that firing with low-GHG hydrogen as a generates thermal output and generates
emissions of CO2, NOX, and PM should component of the BSER for certain electricity as a byproduct and must
be addressed under the EPA’s section combustion turbines and is not therefore be physically close to a
111 authorities, and HAP should be finalizing a requirement that any thermal host that can consistently
addressed by EPA regulations under hydrogen co-fired for compliance by accept the useful thermal output. It can
section 112.864 The EPA is reviewing low-GHG hydrogen, there is no reason be particularly difficult to locate a
the petition. As a predicate to potential to finalize a definition of low-GHG thermal host with sufficiently large
future rulemakings, the Agency is hydrogen at this time. thermal demands such that the useful
7. Other Options for BSER thermal output would impact the
863 Petition for Rulemaking to List and Establish
emissions rate. The refining, chemical
National Emission Standards for Hydrogen

Production Facilities under the Clean Air Act
The EPA considered several other manufacturing, pulp and paper, food
Sections 111 and 112. The petition can be accessed systems of emission reduction as processing, and district energy systems
at https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/ candidates for the BSER for combustion tend to have large thermal demands.
Petition%20for%20Rulemaking%20- turbines but is not determining them to However, the thermal demand at these
%20Hydrogen%20Production%20Facilities%20-
%20CAA%20111%20and%20112%20- be the BSER. They include partial facilities is generally only sufficient to
%20EDF%20et%20al.pdf. capture CCS, CHP and the hybrid power support a smaller EGU, approximately a
864 Id. plant, as discussed below. maximum of several hundred MW. This
would limit the geographically available comparable fossil-only EGU to in California, Arizona, and Nevada with
locations where new generation could accommodate the additional steam load smaller projects in Florida, Hawaii,
be constructed in addition to limiting its during sunny hours. A drawback of Utah, and Colorado. NREL’s 2011
size. Furthermore, even if a sufficiently integrating solar thermal is that the technical report on the solar-augment
large thermal host were in close larger steam turbine will operate at part potential of fossil-fired power plants
proximity, the owner/operator of the loads and reduced efficiency when no examined regions of the U.S. with ‘‘good
EGU would be required to rely on the steam is provided from the solar thermal solar resource as defined by their direct
continued operation of the thermal host panels (i.e., the night and cloudy normal insolation (DNI)’’ and identified
for the life of the EGU. If the thermal weather). This limits the amount of sixteen states as meeting that criterion:
host were to shut down, the EGU could solar thermal that can be integrated into Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado,
be unable to comply with the standard the steam cycle at a fossil fuel-fired Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
of performance. This reality would EGU. Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
likely result in difficulty in securing In the 2018 Annual Energy Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
funding for the construction of the EGU Outlook,865 the levelized cost of Texas, and Utah. The technical report
and could also lead the thermal host to concentrated solar power (CSP) without explained that annual average DNI has
demand discount pricing for the transmission costs or tax credits is $161/ a significant effect on the performance
delivered useful thermal output. For MWh. Integrating solar thermal into a of a solar-augmented fossil plant, with
these reasons, the EPA did not propose fossil fuel-fired EGU reduces the capital higher average DNI translating into the
CHP as the BSER. cost and O&M expenses of the CSP ability of a hybrid power plant to
portion by 25 and 67 percent compared produce more steam for augmenting the
c. Hybrid Power Plant to a stand-alone CSP EGU plant. The technical report used a
Hybrid power plants combine two or respectively.866 This results in an points-based system and assigned the
more forms of energy input into a single effective LCOE for the integrated CSP of most points for high solar resource
facility with an integrated mix of $104/MWh. Assuming the integrated values. An examination of a NREL-
complementary generation methods. CSP is sized to provide 10 percent of the generated DNI map of the U.S. reveals
While there are multiple types of hybrid maximum steam turbine output and the that states with the highest DNI values
power plants, the most relevant type for relative capacity factors of a combined are located in the southwestern U.S.,
this proposal is the integration of solar cycle turbine and the CSP (those with only portions of Arizona,
energy (e.g., concentrating solar capacity factors are 65 and 25 percent, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and
thermal) with a fossil fuel-fired EGU. respectively) the overall annual Texas (plus Hawaii) having solar
Both coal-fired and combined cycle generation due to the concentrating resources that would have been
turbine EGUs have operated using the solar thermal would be 3 percent of the assigned the highest points by the NREL
integration of concentrating solar hybrid EGU output. This would result technical report (7 kWh/m2/day or
thermal energy for use in boiler feed in a 3 percent reduction in the overall greater).
water heating, preheating makeup CO2 emissions and a 1 percent increase Commenters supported not
water, and/or producing steam for use in the LCOE, without accounting for any incorporating hybrid power plants as
in the steam turbine or to power the reduction in the steam turbine part of the BSER, and the EPA is not
boiler feed pumps. efficiency. However, these costs do not including hybrid power plants as part of
One of the benefits of integrating solar account for potential reductions in the the BSER because of gaps in the EPA’s
thermal with a fossil fuel-fired EGU is steam turbine efficiency due to being knowledge about costs, and concerns
the lower capital and operation and oversized relative to a non-hybrid EGU. about the cost-effectiveness of the
maintenance (O&M) costs of the solar A 2011 technical report by the National technology, as noted above.
thermal technology. This is due to the Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
ability to use equipment (e.g., HRSG, G. Standards of Performance
cited analyses indicating that solar
steam turbine, condenser, etc.) already augmentation of fossil power stations is Once the EPA has determined that a
included at the fossil fuel-fired EGU. not cost-effective, although likely less particular system or technology
Another advantage is the improved expensive and containing less project represents BSER, the CAA authorizes
electrical generation efficiency of the risk than a stand-alone solar thermal the Administrator to establish standards
non-emitting generation. For example, plant. Similarly, while commenters of performance for new units that reflect
solar thermal often produces steam at stated that solar augmentation has been the degree of emission limitation
relatively low temperatures and successfully integrated at coal-fired achievable through the application of
pressures, and the conversion of the plants to improve overall unit that BSER. As noted above, the EPA is
thermal energy in the steam to efficiency, commenters did not provide finalizing a two-phase set of standards
electricity is relatively low efficiency. In any new information on costs or of performance, which reflect a two-
a hybrid power plant, the lower quality indicate that such augmentation is cost- component BSER, for base load
steam is heated to higher temperatures effective. combustion turbines. Under this
and pressures in the boiler (or HRSG) In addition, solar thermal facilities approach, for the first phase of the
prior to expansion in the steam turbine, require locations with abundant standards, which applies as of the
where it produces electricity. Upgrading sunshine and significant land area in effective date the final rule, the BSER is
the relatively low-grade steam produced order to collect the thermal energy. highly efficient generation and best
by the solar thermal facility in the boiler Existing concentrated solar power operating and maintenance practices.
improves the relative conversion During this phase, owners/operators of
projects in the U.S. are primarily located

efficiencies of the solar thermal to EGUs will be subject to a numeric
electricity process. The primary 865 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2018, February 6, standard of performance that is
incremental costs of the non-emitting 2018. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. representative of the performance of the
866 B. Alqahtani and D. Patiño-Echeverri, Duke
generation in a hybrid power plant are best performing EGUs in the
University, Nicholas School of the Environment,
the costs of the mirrors, additional ‘‘Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Power Plants:
subcategory. For the second phase of the
piping, and a steam turbine that is 10 to Paving the Way for Thermal Solar,’’ Applied Energy standards, beginning in 2035, the BSER
20 percent larger than that in a 169:927–936 (2016). for base load turbines includes 90
percent capture CCS. The affected EGUs including fuel oil during natural gas commenters noted multiple units that
will be subject to an emissions rate that curtailments. Owners/operators of the EPA used in the analysis to support
reflects continued use of highly efficient combustion turbines burning fuels other the proposed base load standards were
generation and best operating and than natural gas would not necessarily permitted near or above 800 lb CO2/
maintenance practices, coupled with be able to comply with the proposed MWh. Commenters stated that the
CCS. In addition, the EPA is finalizing standards for base load and intermediate original equipment manufacturer would
a single component BSER, applicable load natural gas-fired combustion not be able to provide a warranty that
from May 23, 2023, for low and turbines using highly efficient the proposed 12-month rolling
intermediate load combustion turbines. generation. Therefore, the Agency emissions rate is achievable due to the
proposed that owners/operators of varying operating conditions.
1. Phase-1 Standards
combustion turbines burning fuels other Commenters recommended the EPA
The first component of the BSER is than natural gas may elect to use the raise the emissions standard to 850 or
the use of highly efficient combined ratio of the heat input-based emissions 900 lb CO2/MWh-gross for large base
cycle technology for base load EGUs in rate of the specific fuel(s) burned to the load combustion turbines. In addition,
combination with the best operating and heat input-based emissions rate of commenters suggested that the EPA
maintenance practices, the use of highly natural gas to determine a source- incorporate scaling for smaller units to
efficient simple cycle technology in specific standard of performance for the 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross, and the
combination with the best operating and operating period. For example, the beginning of the sliding scale should be
maintenance practices for intermediate NSPS emissions rate for a large base at least 2,500 MMBtu/h.
load EGUs, and the use of lower- load combustion turbine burning 100
emitting fuels for low load EGUs. a. Base Load Phase-1 Emission
percent distillate oil during the 12-
The EPA proposed that for base load Standards
operating month period would be 1,070
combustion turbines, the first- lb CO2/MWh-gross.868 Considering the public comments, the
component BSER supports a standard of Some commenters stated that the EPA re-evaluated the phase-1 standard
770 lb CO2/MWh-gross for large natural proposed base load emissions standard of performance for base load
gas-fired EGUs, i.e., those with a base based on highly efficient generation is combustion turbines. To determine the
load rating heat input greater than 2,000 not adequately demonstrated, and that impact of duty cycle and temperature,
MMBtu/h; 900 lb CO2/MWh-gross for site conditions and certain operating the EPA binned hourly data by load and
small natural gas-fired EGUs, i.e., those parameters are outside of the control of season. This allowed the Agency to
with a base load rating of 250 MMBtu/ the owner/operator. These commenters isolate the impact of ambient
h; and between 900 and 770 lb CO2/ explained that the emissions rate of a temperature and duty cycle separately.
MWh-gross, based on the base load combustion turbine is dependent on The EPA evaluated the impact of
rating of the EGU, for natural gas-fired external and site-specific factors, rather ambient temperature by comparing the
EGUs with base load ratings between than the design efficiency. Factors such average emissions for all hours between
250 MMBtu/h and 2,000 MMBtu/h.867 as warmer climates, elevation, water 70 to 80 percent load during different
The EPA proposed that the most conservation measures (e.g., the use of seasons. For the combined cycle
efficient available simple cycle dry cooling), and automatic generation turbines evaluated, the difference
technology—which qualifies as the control negatively impacted efficiency. between the summer and winter average
BSER for intermediate load combustion They emphasized that operating units at emission rates was minimal, typically in
turbines—supports a standard of 1,150 partial loads would be necessary for the single digits and less than a 1
lb CO2/MWh-gross for natural gas-fired maintaining grid reliability, especially percent difference in emission rates.
EGUs. For new and reconstructed low as more renewables are incorporated, Since the seasonal temperature
load combustion turbines, the EPA and the proposed limit is only differences are much larger than
proposed to find that the use of lower- achievable under ideal operating regional variations, the EPA determined
emitting fuels—which qualifies as the conditions. Commenters noted that the that regional ambient temperature has
BSER—supports a standard that ranges emission standards should account for minimal impact on the emissions rate of
from 120 lb CO2/MMBtu to 160 lb CO2/ start and stop cycles, back-up fuel use, combined cycle EGUs. Owners/
MMBtu depending on the fuel burned. degradation, and compliance tolerance. operators of combined cycle EGUs are
The EPA proposed these standards to Commenters stated that the lack of either using inlet cooling effectively to
apply at all times and compliance to be flexibility would force units to operate manage the efficiency losses of the
determined on a 12-operating month at nameplate capacity, even when it was combustion turbine engine or increased
rolling average basis. unnecessary and could result in generation from the Rankine cycle
The EPA proposed that these increased emissions. In addition, some portion (i.e., HRSG and steam turbine)
standards of performance are achievable commenters stated that duct burners of the combined cycle turbine is
specifically for natural gas-fired base could be an alternative to simple cycle offsetting efficiency losses in the
load and intermediate load combustion turbines for peaking generation, even combustion turbine engine.869 In
turbine EGUs. However, combustion though they were less efficient than addition, the variation in emissions rate
turbine EGUs burn a variety of fuels, combined cycle turbines without duct by load (described below) is much larger
burners. They recommended the Agency than temperature and therefore the
867 As proposed, a new small natural gas-fired
consider excluding emissions and heat operating load is a more important
base load EGU would determine the facility input from duct burners from the factor than ambient temperature
emissions rate by taking the difference in the base
emissions standard. Furthermore, impacting CO2 emission rates.

load rating and 250 MMBtu/h, multiplying that Based on the emissions data
number by 0.0743 lb CO2/(MW * MMBtu), and
subtracting that number from 900 lb CO2/MWh- 868 The heat input-based emission rates of natural submitted to the EPA, combined cycle
gross. The emissions rate for a natural gas-fired base gas and distillate oil are 117 and 163 lb CO2/
load combustion turbine with a base load rating of MMBtu, respectively. The ratio of the heat input- 869 As the efficiency of the combustion turbine
1,000 MMBtu/h is 900 lb CO2/MWh-gross minus based emission rates (1.39) is multiplied by the engine is reduced at higher ambient temperatures
750 MMBtu/h (1,000 MMBtu/h–250 MMBtu/h) natural gas-fired standard of performance (770 lb relatively more heat is in the exhaust entering the
times 0.0743 lb CO2/(MW * MMBtu), which results CO2/MWh) to get the applicable emissions rate HRSG. This can increase the output from the steam
in an emissions rate of 844 lb CO2/MWh-gross. (1,070 lb CO2/MWh). turbine.
CO2 emission are lowest at between been demonstrated by the existing footprint that can be particularly
approximately 80 to 90 percent load. combined cycle EGU fleets. Since an important for combustion turbines
Emission rates are relatively stable at NSPS is a never-to-exceed standard, the enclosed in a building. In addition, a
higher loads and down to approximately EPA proposed and is finalizing a single shaft configuration has higher net
70 percent load—typically 1 or 2 conclusion that use of long-term data efficiencies when operated at part load
percent higher than the lowest are more appropriate than shorter term than a multi-shaft configuration. Basing
emissions rate. Emissions can increase data in determining an achievable the standard of performance strictly on
dramatically at lower loads and could standard. These long-term averages the performance of multi-shaft
impact the ability of an owner/operator account for degradation and variable combined cycle EGUs could limit the
to comply with the base load standard. operating conditions, and the EGUs ability of owners/operators to construct
The EPA considered two approaches to should be able to maintain their current new combined cycle EGUs in space-
address potential compliance issues for emission rates, as long as the units are constrained areas (typically urban
owners/operators of base load properly maintained. While annual areas 870) and combined cycle EGUs
combustion turbines operating at lower emission rates indicate a particular with the best performance when
duty cycles. The first approach was to standard is achievable for certain EGUs operated as intermediate load EGUs.871
calculate emission rates using only in the short term, they are not Either of these outcomes could result in
hourly data when the combined cycle necessarily representative of emission greater overall emissions from the
turbine was operating at an hourly load rates that can be maintained over an power sector. An advantage of multi-
of 70 percent or higher. However, this extended period using highly efficient shaft configurations is that the turbine
has minimal impact on the calculated generating technology in combination engine can be installed initially and run
base load emissions rate. This is because with best operating and maintenance as a simple cycle EGU, with the HRSG
of 2 reasons. First, the majority of practices. and steam turbines added at a later date,
operating hours for base load To determine the 12-operating month all of which allows for more flexibility
combustion turbines are at 70 percent average emissions rate that is achievable for the regulated community. In
load or higher. In addition, the 12- by application of the BSER, the EPA addition, a single large steam turbine in
operating month averages are proposed and is finalizing an approach a 2–1 or 3–1 configuration can generate
determined by the overall sum of the to calculating 12-month CO2 emission electricity more efficiently than
CO2 emissions divided by the overall rates by dividing the sum of the CO2 multiple smaller steam turbines,
output during the 12-operating month emissions by the sum of the gross increasing the overall efficiency of
period and not the average of the electrical energy output over the same comparably sized combined cycle EGUs.
individual hourly rates. The impact of period. The EPA did this separately for According to Gas Turbine World 2021,
this approach is that low load hours combined cycle EGUs and simple cycle multi-shaft combined cycle EGUs have
have smaller impacts on the 12- EGUs to determine the emissions rate design efficiencies that are 0.7 percent
operating month average relative to high for the base load and intermediate load higher than single shaft combined cycle
load hours. Therefore, the EPA subcategories, respectively. Commenters EGUs using the same turbine engine.872
determined that using only higher load generally supported the 12-month The efficiency of the Rankine cycle
hours to determine the base load rolling average for emission standard (i.e., HRSG plus the steam turbine) is
emission rates would not address compliance. determined in part by the ability to cool
The average maximum 12-operating the working fluid (e.g., steam) after it
potential issues for owners/operators of
month base load emissions rate for large has been expanded through the turbine.
base load combustion turbines operating
combined cycle turbines that began All else equal, the lower the
at relative low duty cycles (i.e., low
operation since 2015 is 810 lb CO2/ temperature that can be achieved, the
hourly capacity factors). MWh-gross. The range of the maximum more efficient the Rankine cycle. The
The second approach the EPA 12-operating month emissions rate for Okeechobee Clean Energy Center used a
considered, and is finalizing, is individual units is 720 to 920 lb CO2/ recirculating cooling system, which can
estimating the emissions rate of MWh-gross. The lowest emissions rate achieve lower temperatures than EGUs
combined cycle turbines at the lower was achieved by an individual unit at using dry cooling systems and therefore
end of the base load threshold—where the Okeechobee Clean Energy Center. would be more efficient and have a
more hours of low load operation could This facility is a large 3-on-1 combined lower emissions rate. However dry
potentially be included in the 12- cycle EGU that commenced operation in cooling systems have lower water
operating month average—and 2019 and uses a recirculating cooling requirements and therefore could be the
establishing a standard of performance tower for the steam cycle. Each turbine preferred technology in arid regions or
that is achievable at lower percent of is rated at 380 MW and the three HRSGs
potential electric sales for the base load feed a single steam turbine of 550 MW. 870 Generating electricity closer to electricity
subcategory. To determine what The EPA did not propose to use the demand can reduce stress on the electric grid,
emission rates are currently achieved by emissions rate of this EGU to determine reducing line losses and freeing up transmission
existing high-efficiency combined cycle the standard of performance for capacity to support additional generation from
variable renewable sources. Further, combined
EGUs, the EPA reviewed 12-operating multiple reasons. The Okeechobee cycle EGUs located in urban areas could be
month generation and CO2 emissions Clean Energy Center uses a 3-on-1 designed as CHP EGUs, which have potential
data from 2015 through 2023 for all multi-shaft configuration but, many environmental and economic benefits.
combined cycle turbines that submitted combined cycle EGUs use a 1-on-1 871 Power sector modeling projects that combined
cycle EGUs will operate at lower capacity factors in

continuous emissions monitoring configuration. Combined cycle EGUs the future. Combined cycle EGUs with lower base
system (CEMS) data to the EPA’s using a 1-on-1 configuration can be load efficiencies but higher part load efficiencies
emissions collection and monitoring designed such that both the combustion could have lower overall emission rates.
plan system (ECMPS). The data were turbine and steam turbine are arranged 872 According to the data in Gas Turbine World
sorted by the lowest maximum 12- on one shaft and drive the same 2021, while there is a design efficiency advantage
of going from a 1-on-1 configuration to a 2-on-1
operating month emissions rate for each generator. This configuration has configuration (assuming the same turbine engine),
unit to identify long-term emission rates potential capital cost and maintenance there is no efficiency advantage of 3-on-1
on a lb CO2/MWh-gross basis that have costs savings and a smaller plant configurations compared to 2-on-1 configurations.
in areas where water requirements trend in increasing emission rates at highly efficient combined cycle
could have significant ecological lower 12-operating month capacity technology.
impacts. Therefore, the EPA proposed factors to estimate the emissions rate at With respect to small combined cycle
and is finalizing that the efficient capacity factors at which an individual combustion turbines, the best
generation standard for base load EGUs facility has never operated. This performing unit identified by the EPA is
should account for the use of cooling approach allowed the EPA to estimate the Holland Energy Park facility in
technologies with reduced water the emissions rate at a 40 percent 12- Holland, Michigan, which commenced
requirements. operating month capacity factor for the operation in 2017 and uses a 2-on-1
Finally, the Okeechobee Clean Energy best performing combined cycle configuration and a cooling tower.876
Center operates primarily at high duty turbines. This allows the estimation of The 50 MW turbine engines have
cycles where efficiency is the highest the emissions rate at the lower end of individual heat input ratings of 590
and since it is a relatively new facility the base load subcategory using higher MMBtu/h and serve a single 45 MW
efficiency degradation might not be capacity factor data.874 The EPA did not steam turbine. The facility has
accounted for in the emissions analysis. correct the achievable emissions rate for maintained a 12-operating month, 99
Therefore, the EPA is not determining combined cycle turbines where the percent confidence emissions rate of
that the performance of the Okeechobee relationship indicated emission rates 870 lb CO2/MWh-gross. The emissions
Clean Energy Facility is appropriate for declined at lower 12-operating month standard for a base load combustion
a nationwide standard. capacity factors. turbine of this size is 880 lb CO2/MWh-
The proposed emissions rate of 770 lb gross. The normalized emissions rate
CO2/MWh-gross has been demonstrated As noted in the proposal, one of the accounting for the use of recirculating
by approximately 15 percent of recently best performing large combined cycle cooling towers, a 2–1 configuration, and
constructed large combined cycle EGUs. EGUs that has maintained a 12- operation at a 40 percent capacity factor
As noted in the proposal, these operating-month base load emissions is 900 lb CO2/MWh-gross. While this is
combustion turbines include combined rate of 770 lb CO2/MWh-gross is the higher than the final emissions standard
cycle EGUs using 1-on-1 configurations, Dresden plant, located in Ohio.875 This in this rule, there are efficient
dry cooling, and combustion turbines on 2-on-1 combined cycle facility uses a generation technologies that are not
the lower end of the large base load recirculating cooling tower. The turbine being used at the Holland Energy Park.
subcategory. In addition, this emissions engines are rated at 2,250 MMBtu/h, For example, a commercially available
rate has been demonstrated by using which demonstrates that the standard of HRSG that uses supercritical CO2
combustion turbines from multiple performance for large base load instead of steam as the working fluid is
manufacturers and from one facility that combustion turbines is achievable at a available. This HRSG would be
commenced operation in 2011— heat input rating of 2,000 MMBtu/h. As significantly more efficient than the
demonstrating the long-term noted, a 2-on-1 configuration and a HRSG that uses dual pressure steam,
achievability of the proposed emissions cooling tower are more efficient than a which is common for small combined
standard. However, as noted by 1-on-1 configuration and dry cooling. cycle EGUs.877 When these efficiency
commenters the majority of recently Normalizing for these factors and improvements are accounted for, a
constructed combined cycle turbines are accounting for operation at a 12- similar combined cycle EGU would be
not achieving an emissions rate of 770 operating month capacity factor of 40 able to maintain an emissions rate of
lb CO2/MWh-gross and combustion percent increases the achievable 880 lb CO2/MWh-gross. In addition, the
turbine manufacturers might not be demonstrated emissions rate to 800 lb normalization approach assumes a
willing to guarantee this emissions level CO2/MWh-gross. However, the Dresden worst-case scenario. Hybrid cooling
in operating making it challenging to Energy Facility does not use the most technologies are available and offer
build a new combined cycle EGU. efficient combined cycle design performance similar to that of wet
To account for differences in the currently available. Multiple more cooling towers. This long-term data
performance of the best performing efficient designs have been developed
combustion turbines and design options accounts for degradation and variable
since the Dresden Energy Facility operating conditions and demonstrates
that result in less efficient operation, the commenced operation a decade ago that
EPA normalized the reported emission that a base load combustion turbine
more than offset these efficiency losses. EGU with a turbine rated at 590
rates for combined cycle EGUs.873 Therefore, the EPA has determined that
Specifically, for the reported emissions MMBtu/h should be able to maintain an
the Dresden combined cycle EGU emissions rate of 880 lb CO2/MWh-
rates of combined cycle turbines with demonstrates that an emissions rate of
cooling towers was increased by 1.0 gross.878 Therefore, estimating that
800 lb CO2/MWh-gross is achievable for
percent to account for potential new all new large combined cycle EGUs with 876 The Holland Park Energy Center is a CHP
units using dry cooling. Similarly, the an acceptable compliance margin. system that uses hot water in the cooling system for
emissions rate of 2–1 and 3–1 combined Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a phase a snow melt system that uses a warm water piping
cycle turbines were increased by 1.4 1 standard of performance of 800 lb system to heat the downtown sidewalks to clear the
percent to account for potential new snow during the winter. Since this useful thermal
CO2/MWh-gross for large base load output is low temperature, it likely only results in
units using a 1–1 configuration. In combustion turbines (i.e., those with a a small reduction of the electrical efficiency of the
addition, for the best performing base load rating heat input greater than EGU. If the useful thermal output were accounted
combined cycle turbines, the EPA 2,000 MMBtu/h) based on the BSER of for, the emissions rate of the Holland Energy Park
plotted the 12-operating month would be lower. The facility ID (ORISPL) is 59093
10 and 11.
emissions rate against the 12-operating
874 The most efficient combined cycle turbines 877 If the combustion turbine engine exhaust
month heat input-based capacity factor. tend to operate strictly as base load combustion temperature is 500 °C or greater, a HRSG using 3
Based on this data, the EPA used the turbines, well above the base load subcategorization pressure steam without a reheat cycle could
threshold. potentially provide an even greater increase in
873 A similar normalization approach was used by 875 The Dresden Energy Facility is listed as being efficiency (relative to a HRSG using 2 pressure
the EPA in previous EGU GHG NSPS rulemakings located in Muskingum County, Ohio, as being steam without a reheat cycle).
to benchmark the performance of coal-fired EGUs owned by the Appalachian Power Company, as 878 To estimate an achievable emissions rate for
when determining an achievable efficiency-based having commenced commercial operation in late an efficient combined cycle EGU at 250 MMBtu/h
standard of performance. 2011. The facility ID (ORISPL) is 55350 1A and 1B. Continued
emission rates will be slightly higher for NOX emissions. The EPA did not compliance levels than the version with
smaller combustion turbines, the EPA is propose and is not finalizing to use the the alternate NOX control technology.
finalizing a phase 1 standard of emissions rate of this EGU to determine This standard of performance has been
performance of 900 lb CO2/MWh-gross the standard of performance for demonstrated by 40 percent of recently
for small base load combustion turbines multiple reasons. Simple cycle turbine installed intermediate load simple cycle
(i.e., those with a base load rating of 250 efficiency tends to increase with size turbines and the Agency has determined
MMBtu/h) based on the BSER of highly and the simple cycle turbines at the that with proper maintenance is
efficient combined cycle technology. Scattergood Facility are the largest achievable with combustion turbines
aeroderivative turbines available. from multiple manufacturers, with and
b. Intermediate Load Emission
Establishing a standard of performance without intercooling, and is finalizing a
Standards
based on emission rates that only large standard of 1,170 lb CO2/MWh-gross for
For the intermediate load standards of aeroderivative turbines could achieve intermediate load combustion turbines.
performance, some commenters stated would limit the ability to develop new The EPA considered, but rejected,
that an emissions standard of 1,150 lb firm combustion turbine based finalizing an emissions standard of
CO2/MWh-gross is only achievable for generating capacity in smaller than 100 1,190 lb CO2/MWh-gross. This standard
simple cycle except under ideal MW increments. This could result in the of performance has been achieved by
operating conditions. Since the local electric grid operating in a less essentially all LMS 100 and SGT–A65
emissions standard is not achievable in overall efficient manner, increasing intermediate load simple cycle turbines
practice, these commenters stated that overall GHG emissions. In addition, the and 70 percent of recently installed
the majority of new simple cycle largest available aeroderivative simple intermediate load simple cycle turbines
turbines would be prevented from cycle turbines can use either water but would not require the most efficient
operating as variable or intermediate injection or dry low NOX combustion to available versions of new intermediate
load units. Similar to comments on the reduce emissions of NOX. For this load simple cycle turbines and does not
base load emissions standard, particular design, the use of water represent the BSER.
commenters stated the standard of injection has higher design efficiencies 2. Phase-2 Standards
performance should account for ambient than the dry low NOX option. Water
conditions, operation at part load, injection has similar ecological impacts The EPA proposed that 90 percent
automatic generation control, and as water used for cooling towers, the CCS (as part of the CCS pathway)
variable loads. If the intermediate load EPA has determined in this case it is qualifies as the second component of
standard is not achievable in practice, it the BSER for base load combustion
important to preserve the option for new
could result in the operation of less turbines. For the base load combustion
intermediate load combustion turbines
efficient generation in other operating turbines, the EPA reduced the emissions
to use dry low NOX combustion.
modes and an increase in overall GHG rate by 89 percent to determine the CCS
The proposed emissions rate of 1,150 based phase-2 standards.879 The CCS
emissions. They also explained this
lb CO2/MWh-gross was achieved by 20 percent reduction is based on a CCS
could force simple cycle turbines to
percent of recently constructed system capturing 90 percent of the
always operate at nameplate capacity,
intermediate load simple cycle turbines. emitting CO2 being operational anytime
even when it was not necessary, which
However, only two-thirds of LMS 100 the combustion turbine is operating.
would also lead to increased emissions.
simple cycle turbines installed to date Similar to the phase-1 emission
These commenters requested that the
have maintained an intermediate load standards, the EPA proposed and is
EPA raise the variable and intermediate
emissions rate of 1,150 lb CO2/MWh- finalizing a decision that standard of
load emissions standard to 1,250 to
gross. In addition, only one-third of the performance for base load combustion
1,300 lb CO2/MWh-gross.
Siemens STG–A65 simple cycle turbines be adjusted based on the
Considering the public comments, the
turbines and only 10 percent of General uncontrolled emission rates of the fuels
EPA re-evaluated the standard of
Electric LM6000 simple cycle relative to natural gas. For 100 percent
performance for intermediate load
combustion turbine have maintained distillate oil-fired combustion turbines,
combustion turbines using the same
this emissions rate. Both of these are the emission rates would be 120 lb CO2/
approach as for combined cycle
common aeroderivative turbines and MWh-gross.
turbines, except using the performance
since they do require an intercooler The EPA solicited comment on the
of simple cycle EGUs. The average
have potential space consideration range of reduction in emission rate of 75
maximum 12-operating operating month
advantages compared to the LMS100. to 90 percent. In addition, the EPA
intermediate load emissions rate for
Finalizing the proposed emissions solicited comment on whether carbon
simple cycle turbines that began
standard could restrict new capture equipment has lower
operation since 2015 is 1,210 lb CO2/
intermediate load simple cycle turbine availability/reliability than the
MWh-gross. The range of the maximum
to the use of intercooling, limiting combustion turbine or the CCS
12-operating month emissions rate for
application to locations that can support equipment takes longer to startup than
individual units is 1,080 to 1,470 lb
a cooling tower. An intermediate load the combustion turbine itself there
CO2/MWh-gross. The lowest emissions
emissions rate of 1,170 lb CO2/MWh- would be periods of operation where the
rate was achieved by an individual unit
at the Scattergood Generating Station. gross has been achieved by three- CO2 emissions would not be controlled
This facility includes 2 large quarters of both the LMS100 and STG– by the carbon capture equipment. For
aeroderivative simple cycle turbines A65 installations and 20 percent of the same reasons as for coal-fired EGUs,
(General Electric LMS 100) that LM6000 installations. In addition, this the EPA has determined 90 percent CCS
commenced operation in 2015. Each emissions rate has been demonstrated
turbine is rated at approximately 100 by a frame simple turbine. The EPA 879 The 89 percent reduction from CCS accounts
MW and use water injection to reduce notes that the more efficient versions of for the increased auxiliary load of a 90 percent post
the combustion turbines—water combustion amine-based capture system. Due to
rounding, the proposed numeric standards of
the EPA assumed a linear relationship for combined
injection in the case of the LMS 100 and performance do not necessarily match the standards
cycle efficiency with turbine engines with base load DLN in the case of the STG–A65—have that would be determined by applying the percent
ratings of less than 2,000 MMBtu/h. higher design efficiencies and higher reduction to the phase-1 standards.
has been demonstrated and appropriate combustion turbine. In 2013, an HRSG constructed combined cycle turbines,
for base load combustion turbines, see and additional equipment was added to the compliance costs for reconstructed
section VII.C. convert Unit 12 to a combined cycle combined cycle turbines are
combustion turbine.885 Another is approximately 10 percent higher than
H. Reconstructed Stationary
Energy Center Dover, located in Dover, for comparable newly constructed
Combustion Turbines
Delaware, which in addition to a coal- combined cycle turbine. Assuming
All the major manufacturers of fired steam turbine, originally had two continued operation of the capture
combustion turbines sell upgrade 44 MW simple cycle combustion equipment, the compliance costs are
packages that increase both the output turbines. Also in 2013, the unit added $17/MWh and $51/ton ($56/metric ton)
and efficiency of existing combustion an HRSG to one of the existing simple for a 6,100 MMBtu/h H-Class
turbines. An owner/operator of a cycle combustion turbines, connected combustion turbine, and $21/MWh and
reconstructed combustion turbine the existing steam generator to it, and $63/ton ($69/metric ton) for a 4,600
would be able to use one of these retired the remaining coal-related MMBtu/h F-Class combustion turbine. If
upgrade packages to comply with the equipment to convert that combustion the capture system is not operated while
intermediate load emission standards in turbine to a combined cycle one.886 the combustion turbine is
this final rule. Some examples of these Some other examples include the Los subcategorized as in intermediate load
upgrades include GE’s Advanced Gas Esteros Critical Energy Facility in San combustion turbine, the compliance
Path, Siemens’ Hot Start on the Fly, and Jose, California, which converted from a costs are reduced to $10/MWh and $50/
Solar Turbines’ Gas Compressor four-turbine simple cycle peaking ton ($55/metric ton) for a 6,100 MMBtu/
Restaging. The Advanced Gas Path facility to a combined-cycle one in 2013, h H-Class combustion turbine, and $13/
option includes retrofitting existing and the Tracy Combined Cycle Power MWh and $67/ton ($73/metric ton) for
turbine components with improved Plant.887 The Tracy facility, located in a 4,600 MMBtu/h F-Class combustion
materials to increase durability, air Tracy, California, was built in 2003 with turbine.
sealing, and overall efficiency.880 Hot two simple cycle combustion turbines A reconstructed stationary
Start on the Fly upgrades include and in 2012 was converted to combined combustion turbine is not required to
implementing new software to allow for cycle with the addition of a steam meet the standards if doing so is
the gas and steam turbine to start-up turbine.888 deemed to be ‘‘technologically and
simultaneously, which greatly improves In the previous sections, the EPA economically’’ infeasible.890 This
start times, and in some cases could do explained the background of and provision requires a case-by-case
so by up to 20 minutes.881 Compressor requirements for new and reconstructed reconstruction determination in the
restaging involves analyzing the current stationary combustion turbines and light of considerations of economic and
operation of an existing combustion evaluated various control technology technological feasibility. However, this
turbine and adjusting its gas compressor configurations to determine the BSER. case-by-case determination considers
characteristics including transmission, Because the BSER is the same for new the identified BSER, as well as
injection, and gathering, to operate in and reconstructed stationary technologies the EPA considered, but
the most efficient manner given the combustion turbines, the Agency used rejected, as BSER for a nationwide rule.
other operating conditions of the the same emissions analysis for both One or more of these technologies could
turbine.882 In addition, steam injection new and reconstructed stationary be technically feasible and of reasonable
is a retrofittable technology that is combustion turbines. For each of the cost, depending on site-specific
estimated to be available for a total cost subcategories, the EPA proposed and is considerations and if so, would likely
of all the equipment needed for steam finalizing a conclusion that the BSER result in sufficient GHG reductions to
injection of $250/kW.883 Due to the results in the same standard of comply with the applicable
differences in materials used and performance for new stationary reconstructed standards. Finally, in
necessary additional infrastructure, a combustion turbines and reconstructed some cases, equipment upgrades, and
steam injection system can be up to 60 stationary combustion turbines. For best operating practices would result in
percent smaller than a similar HRSG, CCS, consistent with the NETL sufficient reductions to achieve the
which is valuable for retrofit Combined Cycle CCS Retrofit Report, reconstructed standards.
purposes.884 the EPA approximated the cost to add
CCS to a reconstructed combustion I. Modified Stationary Combustion
For owners/operators of base load Turbines
combustion turbines, however, HRSG turbine by increasing the capital costs of
have been added to multiple existing the carbon capture equipment by 9 CAA section 111(a)(4) defines a
simple cycle turbines to convert to percent relative to the costs of adding ‘‘modification’’ as ‘‘any physical change
combined cycle technology. There have CCS to a newly constructed combustion in, or change in the method of operation
been multiple examples of this kind of turbine and decreasing the net of, a stationary source’’ that either
conversion from simple cycle to efficiency by 0.3 percent.889 Using the ‘‘increases the amount of any air
combined cycle. One such example is same costing assumptions for newly pollutant emitted by such source or . . .
Unit 12 at Riverton Power Plant in results in the emission of any air
Riverton, Kansas, which was originally 885 https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/ pollutant not previously emitted.’’
built in 2007 as a 143 MW simple cycle
newsempire-district-starts-riverton-plants- Certain types of physical or operational
combined-cycle-expansion-231013/. changes are exempt from consideration
886 https://news.delaware.gov/2013/07/26/
880 https://www.gevernova.com/content/dam/
repowered-nrg-energy-center-dover-unveiled-gov-
as a modification. Those are described
gepower-new/global/en_US/downloads/gas-new- markell-congressional-delegation-dnrec-sec-omara- in 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14(e).

site/resources/advanced-gas-path-brochure.pdf. other-officials-join-with-nrg-to-announce-cleaner- In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA did not
881 https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/ natural-gas-facility/. finalize standards of performance for
home/stories/trianel-power-plant-upgrades.html. 887 https://www.calpine.com/los-esteros-critical-
882 https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/
stationary combustion turbines that
energy-facility.
Caterpillar/CM20191213-93d46-8e41d. 888 https://www.middleriverpower.com/#portfolio.
conduct modifications; instead, the EPA
883 ‘‘GTI’’ (2019). Innovative Steam Technologies. 889 ‘‘Cost and Performance of Retrofitting NGCC concluded that it was prudent to delay
https://otsg.com/industries/powergen/gti/. Units for Caron Capture—Revision 3.’’ DOE/NETL–
884 Ibid. 2023/3845. March 17, 2023. 890 40 CFR 60.15(b)(2).
issuing standards until the Agency also overrides 40 CFR 60.8(c) in table 3 Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–
could gather more information (80 FR and requires that sources comply with 610 (2016).
64515; October 23, 2015). There were the standard(s) at all times. In reviewing
K. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
several reasons for this determination: NSPS subpart TTTT and proposing the
few sources had undertaken NSPS new NSPS subpart TTTTa, the EPA Because the NSPS reflects the
modifications in the past, the EPA had proposed to retain in subpart TTTTa the application of the best system of
little information concerning them, and requirements that sources comply with emission reduction under conditions of
available information indicated that few the standard(s) at all times in table 3 of proper operation and maintenance, in
owners/operators of existing the new subpart TTTTa to override the doing the NSPS review, the EPA also
combustion turbines would undertake general provisions for SSM exemption evaluates and determines the proper
NSPS modifications in the future; and related provisions. The EPA proposed testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
since the Agency eliminated proposed and is finalizing that all standards in reporting requirements needed to ensure
subcategories for small EGUs in the subpart TTTTa apply at all times. compliance with the NSPS. This section
2015 NSPS, questions were raised as to In developing the standards in this includes a discussion on the current
whether smaller existing combustion rule, the EPA has taken into account testing and monitoring requirements of
turbines that undertake a modification startup and shutdown periods and, for the NSPS and any additions the EPA is
could meet the final performance the reasons explained in this section of including in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross. the preamble, is not establishing TTTTa.
It continues to be the case that the alternate standards for those periods.
EPA is aware of no evidence indicating 1. General Requirements
The EPA analysis of achievable
that owners/operators of combustion standards of performance used CEMS The EPA proposed to allow three
turbines intend to undertake actions data that includes all period of approaches for determining CO2
that could qualify as NSPS operation. Since periods of startup, emissions: a CO2 CEMS and stack gas
modifications in the future. The EPA shutdown, and malfunction were not flow monitor; hourly heat input, fuel
did not propose or solicit comment on excluded from the analysis, the EPA is characteristics, and F factors 891 for
standards of performance for not establishing alternate standard for EGUs firing oil or gas; or Tier 3
modifications of combustion turbines those periods of operation. calculations using fuel use and carbon
and is not establishing any in this final content. The first two approaches are in
Periods of startup, normal operations,
rule. use for measuring CO2 by units affected
and shutdown are all predictable and
J. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction by the Acid Rain program (40 CFR part
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
75), to which most, if not all, of the
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
EGUs affected by NSPS subpart TTTT
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the predictable nor routine. Instead, they
are already subject, while the last
D.C. Circuit vacated portions of two are, by definition, sudden, infrequent,
approach is in use for stationary fuel
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section and not reasonably preventable failures
combustion sources reporting to the
112 regulations governing the emissions of emissions control, process, or
GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart C).
of HAP during periods of SSM. monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA believes continuing the use
Specifically, the court vacated the SSM The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as
of approaches already in use by other
exemption contained in 40 CFR not requiring emissions that occur
programs represents a cost-effective
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding during periods of malfunction to be
means of obtaining quality assured data
that the SSM exemption violates the factored into development of CAA
requisite for determining carbon dioxide
requirement under section 302(k) of the section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA
mass emissions. MPS reporting software
CAA that some CAA section 112 section 111 or in caselaw requires that
required by this subpart for reporting
standard apply continuously. The EPA the EPA consider malfunctions when
emissions to the EPA expects hourly or
has determined the reasoning in the determining what standards of
daily CO2 emission values and has
court’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA performance reflect the degree of
thousands of electronic checks to
applies equally to CAA section 111 emission limitation achievable through
validate data using the Acid Rain
because the definition of emission or ‘‘the application of the best system of
program requirements (40 CFR part 75).
standard in CAA section 302(k), and the emission reduction’’ that the EPA
ECMPS does not currently
embedded requirement for continuous determines is adequately demonstrated.
accommodate or validate data under
standards, also applies to the NSPS. While the EPA accounts for variability
GHGRP’s Tier 3 approach. Because
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the in setting standards of performance,
most, if not all, of the EGUs that will be
EPA is finalizing standards in this rule nothing in CAA section 111 requires the
affected by this final rule are already
that apply at all times. The NSPS Agency to consider malfunctions as part
affected by Acid Rain program
general provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(c) of that analysis. The EPA is not required
monitoring requirements, the cost and
currently exclude opacity requirements to treat a malfunction in the same
burden for EGU owners or operators are
during periods of startup, shutdown, manner as the type of variation in
already accounted for by other
and malfunction and the provision in 40 performance that occurs during routine
rulemakings. Therefore, this aspect of
CFR 60.8(c) contains an exemption from operations of a source. A malfunction is
the final rule is designed to have
non-opacity standards. These general a failure of the source to perform in a
minimal, if any, cost or burden
provision requirements would ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no
associated with CO2 testing and
automatically apply to the standards set statutory language compels the EPA to
monitoring. In addition, there are no

in an NSPS, unless the regulation consider such events in setting CAA
changes to measurement and testing
specifically overrides these general section 111 standards of performance.
requirements for determining electrical
provisions. The NSPS subpart TTTT (40 The EPA’s approach to malfunctions in
output, both gross and net, as well as
CFR part 60, subpart TTTT) does not the analogous circumstances (setting
contain an opacity standard, thus, the ‘‘achievable’’ standards under CAA 891 An F factor is the ratio of the gas volume of
requirements at 40 CFR 60.11(c) are not section 112) has been upheld as the products of combustion to the heat content of
applicable. The NSPS subpart TTTT reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. the fuel.
thermal output, to existing between the EGU’s monitoring system that employs CCS technology that
requirements. and the independent monitoring system captures enough CO2 to meet the
However, the EPA requested comment was approximately 2 percent for CO2 proposed standard and injects the
on whether continuous CO2 CEMS and concentration and slightly greater than 2 captured CO2 underground must report
stack gas flow measurements should be percent for stack gas flow. under GHGRP subpart RR or GHGRP
the sole means of compliance for this subpart VV. If the emitting EGU sends
rule. Such a switch would increase costs 2. Requirements for Sources
the captured CO2 offsite, it must transfer
for those EGU owners or operators who Implementing CCS
the CO2 to a facility that reports in
are currently relying on the oil- or gas- The CCS process is also subject to accordance with GHGRP subpart RR or
fired calculation-based approaches. By monitoring and reporting requirements GHGRP subpart VV. This does not
way of reference, the annualized cost under the EPA’s GHGRP (40 CFR part change any of the requirements to
associated with adoption and use of 98). The GHGRP requires reporting of obtain or comply with a UIC permit for
continuous CO2 and flow measurements facility-level GHG data and other facilities that are subject to the EPA’s
where none now exist is estimated to be relevant information from large sources UIC program under the Safe Drinking
about $52,000. To the extent that the and suppliers in the U.S. The ‘‘suppliers Water Act.
rule were to mandate continuous CO2 of carbon dioxide’’ source category of The EPA also notes that compliance
and stack gas flow measurements in the GHGRP (GHGRP subpart PP) with the standard is determined
accordance with what is currently requires those affected facilities with exclusively by the tons of CO2 captured
allowed as one option and that an EGU production process units that capture a by the emitting EGU. The tons of CO2
lacked this instrumentation, its owner CO2 stream for purposes of supplying sequestered by the geologic
or operator would need to incur this CO2 for commercial applications or that sequestration site are not part of that
annual cost to obtain such information capture and maintain custody of a CO2 calculation, though the EPA anticipates
and to keep the instrumentation stream in order to sequester or that the quantity of CO2 sequestered will
calibrated. Commenters encouraged the otherwise inject it underground to be substantially similar to the quantity
EPA to maintain the flexibility for EGUs report the mass of CO2 captured and captured. However, to verify that the
to use hourly heat input measurements, supplied. Facilities that inject a CO2 CO2 captured at the emitting EGU is
fuel characteristics, and F factors as is stream underground for long-term sent to a geologic sequestration site, the
allowed under the Acid Rain program. containment in subsurface geologic Agency is leveraging regulatory
Commenters argued that in addition to formations report quantities of CO2 reporting requirements under the
the incremental costs, some facilities sequestered under the ‘‘geologic GHGRP. The EPA also emphasizes that
have space constraints that could make sequestration of carbon dioxide’’ source this final rule does not involve
the addition of stack gas flow monitors category of the GHGRP (GHGRP subpart regulation of downstream recipients of
difficult or impractical. In this final RR). In April 2024, to complement captured CO2. That is, the regulatory
rule, the EPA allows the use of hourly GHGRP subpart RR, the EPA finalized standard applies exclusively to the
heat input, fuel characteristics, and F the ‘‘geologic sequestration of carbon emitting EGU, not to any downstream
factors as an alternative to CO2 CEMS dioxide with enhanced oil recovery user or recipient of the captured CO2.
and stack gas flow monitors for EGUs (EOR) using ISO 27916’’ source category The requirement that the emitting EGU
that burn oil or gas. of the GHGRP (GHGRP subpart VV) to transfer the captured CO2 to an entity
One commenter argued that the part provide an alternative method of subject to the GHGRP requirements is
75 data requirements, which are reporting geologic sequestration in thus exclusively an element of
required for several emission trading association with EOR.892 893 894 enforcement of the EGU standard. This
programs including the Acid Rain CCS as the BSER, as detailed in avoids duplicative monitoring,
program, are punitive and that the data section VIII.F.4.c.iv of this preamble, is reporting, and verification requirements
are biased high. Other commenters determined to be adequately between this rule and the GHGRP, while
argued that the part 75 CO2 data are demonstrated based solely on geologic also ensuring that the facility injecting
biased low. EPA disagrees that the data sequestration that is not associated with and sequestering the CO2 (which may
requirements are punitive. Most, if not EOR. However, EGUs also have the not necessarily be the EGU) maintains
all, of the EGUs subject to this subpart compliance option to send CO2 to EOR responsibility for these requirements.
are already reporting the data under the facilities that report under GHGRP Similarly, the existing regulatory
Acid Rain program. Oil- and gas-fired subpart RR or GHGRP subpart VV. The requirements applicable to geologic
EGUs that are not subject to the Acid EPA is requiring that any affected unit sequestration are not part of this final
Rain program but are subject to a Cross- rule.
State Air Pollution Rule program are 892 EPA. (2024). Rulemaking Notices for GHG
already reporting most of the necessary Reporting. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ L. Recordkeeping and Reporting
data elements (e.g., hourly heat input
rulemaking-notices-ghg-reporting. Requirements
893 International Standards Organization (ISO)
and F factors) for SO2 and/or NOX standard designated as CSA Group (CSA)/American The current rule (subpart TTTT of 40
emissions. The additional data and National Standards Institute (ANSI) ISO CFR part 60) requires EGU owners or
effort necessary to calculate CO2 27916:2019, Carbon Dioxide Capture, operators to prepare reports in
Transportation and Geological Storage—Carbon
emissions is minor. The EPA also Dioxide Storage Using Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-
accordance with the Acid Rain
disagrees that the data are biased EOR) (referred to as ‘‘CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019’’). Program’s ECMPS. Such reports are to
significantly high or low. Each CO2 894 As described in 87 FR 36920 (June 21, 2022), be submitted quarterly. The EPA
believes all EGU owners and operators
CEMS and stack gas flow monitor must both subpart RR and subpart VV (CSA/ANSI ISO
27916:2019) require an assessment and monitoring have extensive experience in using the
undergo regular quality assurance and of potential leakage pathways; quantification of
quality control activities including inputs, losses, and storage through a mass balance ECMPS and use of a familiar system
periodic relative accuracy test audits approach; and documentation of steps and ensures quick and effective rollout of
where the EGU’s monitoring system is approaches used to establish these quantities. the program in this final rule. Because
Primary differences relate to the terms in their
compared to an independent monitoring respective mass balance equations, how each
all EGUs are expected to be covered by
system. In a May 2022 study conducted defines leakage, and when facilities may and included in the ECMPS, minimal, if
by the EPA, the average difference discontinue reporting. any, costs for reporting are expected for
this final rule. In the unlikely event that As indicated, the EPA is finalizing a infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines) that
a specific EGU is not already covered by provision that will allow the owner/ is necessary for implementation of the
and included in the ECMPS, the operators of new or reconstructed base control technology. The owner/operator
estimated annual per unit cost would be load stationary combustion turbine of an affected new stationary
about $8,500. EGUs to request a limited Phase 2 combustion turbine EGU remains
The current rule’s recordkeeping compliance extension based on a case- subject to the January 1, 2032 Phase 2
requirements at 40 CFR part 60.5560 by-case demonstration of necessity. compliance date unless and until the
rely on a combination of general Under these provisions, the owner or Administrator grants a compliance
provision requirements (see 40 CFR operator of an affected source may apply extension.
60.7(b) and (f)), requirements at subpart for a Phase 2 compliance date extension
F of 40 CFR part 75, and an explicit list As discussed in sections VII.C.1.a.i.(E)
of up to 1 year to comply with the
of items, including data and and VII.C.2.b.i(C), the EPA has
applicable emissions control
calculations; the EPA is retaining those determined compliance timelines for
requirements, which if approved by the
existing subpart TTTT of 40 CFR part 60 EPA, would require compliance with these new sources that are consistent
requirements in the new NSPS subpart Phase 2 standards of performance no with achieving emission reductions as
TTTTa of 40 CFR part 60. The annual later than January 1, 2033. This expeditiously as practicable given the
cost of those recordkeeping mechanism is only available for time it takes to install and startup the
requirements will be the same amount situations in which an affected source BSER technologies for compliance with
as is required for subpart TTTT of 40 encounters a delay in installation or the Phase 2 standards of performance.
CFR part 60 recordkeeping. As the startup of a control technology that The Phase 2 compliance dates are
recordkeeping in subpart TTTT of 40 makes it impossible to commence designed to accommodate the process
CFR part 60 will be replaced by similar compliance with Phase 2 standards of steps and timeframes that the EPA
recordkeeping in subpart TTTTa of 40 performance by January 1, 2032 (i.e., the reasonably anticipates will apply to
CFR part 60, this annual cost for Phase 2 compliance date specified in affected EGUs. This extension
recordkeeping will be maintained. section VIII.F.4 of this preamble). mechanism acknowledges that
The EPA will grant a request for a circumstances entirely outside the
M. Compliance Dates control of the owners or operators of
Phase 2 compliance extension of up to
Owners/operators of affected sources 1 year only where a source demonstrates affected EGUs may extend the
that commenced construction or that it has taken all steps possible to timeframe for installation or startup of
reconstruction after May 23, 2023, must install and start up the necessary control technologies beyond the
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part controls and still cannot comply with timeframe that the EPA has determined
60, subpart TTTTa, upon startup of the the Phase 2 standards of performance by is reasonable as a general matter. Thus,
new or reconstructed affected facility or the January 1, 2032 compliance date due so long as this extension mechanism is
the effective date of the final rule, to circumstances entirely beyond its limited to circumstances that cannot be
whichever is later. This compliance control. Any request for a Phase 2 reasonably controlled or remedied by
schedule is consistent with the compliance extension must be received the owners or operators of the affected
requirements in section 111 of the CAA. by the EPA at least 180 days before the EGUs and that make it impossible to
N. Compliance Date Extension January 1, 2032 Phase 2 compliance achieve compliance with Phase 2
date. The owner/operator of the standards of performance by the January
Several industry commenters noted requesting source must provide 1, 2032 compliance date, its use is
the potential for delay in installation documentation of the circumstances consistent with achieving compliance as
and utilization of emission controls— that precipitated the delay (or an expeditiously as practicable.
especially CCS—due to supply chain anticipated delay) and demonstrate that
constraints, permitting challenges, The EPA believes that a 1-year
those circumstances are entirely beyond
environmental assessments, or delays in extension on top of the lead time
the control of the owner/operator and
development of necessary that the owner/operator has no ability to already provided by the 2032
infrastructure, among other reasons. remedy the delay. These circumstances compliance date should be sufficient to
Commenters requested that the EPA may include, but are not limited to, address any compliance delays and to
include a mechanism to extend the delays related to permitting, delays in allow all base load units to timely
compliance date for affected EGUs that delivery or construction of parts install CSS. New or reconstructed base
are installing emission controls. These necessary for installation or load stationary combustion turbines that
commenters explained that an extension implementation of the control are granted a 1-year Phase 2 compliance
mechanism could provide greater technology, or development of date extension and still are not able to
regulatory certainty for owners and necessary infrastructure (e.g., CO2 install or startup the control
operators. pipelines). technologies necessary to meet the
After considering these comments, the The request must include Phase 2 standard of performance by the
EPA believes that it is reasonable to documentation that demonstrates that extended Phase 2 compliance date of
provide a consistent and transparent the necessary controls cannot be January 1, 2033 may adjust their
means of allowing a limited extension of installed or started up by the January 1, operation to the intermediate load
the Phase 2 compliance deadline where 2032 Phase 2 compliance date. This may subcategory (i.e., 12-operating-month
an affected new or reconstructed base include information and documentation capacity factor between 20–40 percent).
load stationary combustion EGU has Such sources must then comply with
obtained from a control technology

demonstrated such an extension is vendor or engineering firm applicable standards of performance for
needed for installation and utilization of demonstrating that the necessary the intermediate load stationary
controls. This mechanism is intended to controls cannot be installed or started combustion turbine subcategory until
address unavoidable delays in up by the applicable Phase 2 the necessary controls are installed and
implementation—not to provide more compliance date, documentation of any operational such that the source can
time to assess the NSPS compliance permit delays, or documentation of comply with the Phase 2 standard of
strategy for the affected EGU. delays in construction or permitting of performance.
IX. Requirements for New, Modified, 2542 (January 13, 2021) (‘‘SCF Rule’’). operating practices for new sources in
and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired However, the D.C. Circuit vacated the this source category. Moreover, the EPA
Steam Generating Units SCF Rule on April 5, 2021.897 The BSER is presently considering whether to
analysis and that portion of the 2018 revise the 2015 Rule to take into account
A. 2018 NSPS Proposal Withdrawal
Proposal have not been finalized and are improvements in CCS technology and
1. Background being withdrawn in this final action. the existing tax credits under the IRA.
As discussed in section V.B, the EPA The 2018 Proposal stated that the For a more in-depth, technical
promulgated NSPS for GHG emissions Agency was proposing to find that discussion of the rationale underlying
from fossil fuel-fired steam generating partial CCS is not the BSER on grounds this action, please refer to the technical
units in 2015 (‘‘2015 NSPS’’).895 The that it is too costly and that the 2015 memorandum in the docket titled, 2018
2015 NSPS finalized partial CCS as the Rule did not show that the technology Proposal Withdrawal.
BSER and finalized standards of had sufficient geographic scope to
qualify as the BSER for newly B. Additional Amendments
performance to limit emissions of GHG
manifested as CO2 from newly constructed coal-fired EGUs. The EPA The EPA proposed and is finalizing
constructed, modified, and instead proposed that the BSER for multiple less significant amendments.
reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs (i.e., newly constructed coal-fired EGUs These amendments are either strictly
utility boilers and integrated gasification would be the most efficient available editorial and will not change any of the
combined cycle (IGCC) units). In the steam cycle (i.e., supercritical steam requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
same document, the Agency also conditions for large units and subcritical TTTT, or will add additional
finalized CO2 emission standards for steam conditions for small units) in compliance flexibility. The amendments
newly constructed and reconstructed combination with the best operating are also incorporated into the final
stationary combustion turbine EGUs. 80 practices instead of partial CCS. In subpart TTTTa. For additional
FR 64510 (October 23, 2015). These addition, for newly constructed coal- information on these amendments, see
final standards were codified in 40 CFR fired EGUs firing moisture-rich fuels the redline strikeout version of the rule
part 60, subpart TTTT. (i.e., lignite), the BSER would also showing the amendments in the docket
On December 20, 2018, the EPA include pre-combustion fuel drying for this action.
published a proposal to revise certain using waste heat from the process. The First, the EPA proposed and is
parts of the 2015 Rule, titled ‘‘Review of 2018 Proposal also would have revised finalizing editorial amendments to
Standards of Performance for the standards of performance for define acronyms the first time they are
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, reconstructed EGUs, the maximally used in the regulatory text. Second, the
Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary stringent standards for coal-fired EGUs EPA proposed and is finalizing adding
Sources: Electric Utility Generating undergoing large modifications (i.e., International System of Units (SI)
Units.’’ 83 FR 65424 (December 20, modifications resulting in an increase in equivalent for owners/operators of
2018) (‘‘2018 Proposal’’). In Fall 2020, hourly CO2 emissions of more than 10 stationary combustion turbines
after reviewing comments on the 2018 percent), and for base load and non-base complying with a heat input-based
Proposal, the EPA developed a draft load operating conditions that reflected standard. Third, the EPA proposed and
final rule and sent that package to the the Agency’s revised BSER is finalizing correcting errors in the
Office of Management and Budget determination. The 2018 Proposal did current 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT,
(OMB) for interagency review under not revise the BSER for any other regulatory text referring to part 63
Executive Order 12866 (‘‘2020 OMB sources as determined in the 2015 Rule. instead of part 60. Fourth, as a practical
Review Package’’). The 2020 OMB It also included minor amendments to matter owners/operators of stationary
Review Package, if finalized, would the applicability criteria for combined combustion turbines subject to the heat
have amended the BSER for new coal- heat and power (CHP) and non-fossil input-based standard of performance
fired EGUs and required a pollutant- EGUs and other miscellaneous technical need to maintain records of electric
specific significant contribution finding changes in the regulatory requirements. sales to demonstrate that they are not
(SCF) prior to regulating a source 2. Withdrawal of the 2018 Proposal subject to the output-based standard of
category. The review of the BSER performance. Therefore, the EPA
In this action, under CAA section proposed and is finalizing adding a
portion of the package was delayed 896
111(b), the Agency is withdrawing the specific requirement that owner/
and the pollutant-specific SCF portion
2018 Proposal and the proposed operators maintain records of electric
of the 2020 OMB Review Package was
determination that the BSER for coal- sales to demonstrate they did not sell
finalized on January 13, 2021 in a final
fired steam generating units should be electricity above the threshold that
rule, titled ‘‘Pollutant-Specific
highly efficient generation technology would trigger the output-based
Contribution Finding for Greenhouse
combined with best operating practices. standard. Next, the EPA proposed and is
Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and
The EPA no longer believes there is a finalizing updating the ANSI, ASME,
Reconstructed Stationary Sources:
basis for finding that highly efficient and ASTM International (ASTM) test
Electric Utility Generating Units, and
generation technology combined with methods to include more recent
Process for Determining Significance of
best operating practices are the BSER for versions of the test methods. Finally, the
Other New Source Performance
coal-fired steam generating units. As EPA proposed and is finalizing adding
Standards Source Categories.’’ 86 FR
described at length in this preamble, additional compliance flexibilities for
895 80 FR 64510 (October 23, 2015).
CCS technology is adequately EGUs either serving a common electric
896 As part of the interagency review process, an demonstrated for coal-fired steam generator or using a common stack.
error in the partial CCS costing report that the EPA generating units and so it is not
used to update the costs of partial CCS between the appropriate to impose the less effective C. Eight-year Review of NSPS for Fossil
2018 Proposal and 2020 OMB Review Package was emission control of highly efficient Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units
identified. The error included in the original 2020
OMB Review Package had the impact of increasing generation combined with best 1. Modifications
the cost of partial CCS. The corrected report
resulted in partial CCS costs that were similar to 897 State of California v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 21–1035), In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA issued
those included in the 2018 Proposal. Document No. 1893155 (April 5, 2021). final standards for a steam generating
unit that implements a ‘‘large associated requirements for large that undertake large modifications after
modification,’’ defined as a physical modifications. May 23, 2023, is a unit-specific
change, or change in the method of Because the EPA has not promulgated emission limit determined by an 88.4
operation, that results in an increase in a NSPS for small modifications, any percent reduction in the unit’s best
hourly CO2 emissions of more than 10 existing steam generating unit that historical annual CO2 emission rate
percent when compared to the source’s undertakes a change that increases its (from 2002 to the date of the
highest hourly emissions in the hourly CO2 emissions rate by 10 percent modification). The EPA proposed and is
previous 5 years. Such a modified steam or less will continue to be treated as an finalizing that an owner/operator of a
generating unit is required to meet a existing source that is subject to the modified steam generating unit comply
unit-specific CO2 emission limit CAA section 111(d) requirements being with the emissions rate upon startup of
determined by that unit’s best finalized today. the modified affected facility or the
demonstrated historical performance (in With respect to large modifications, effective date of the final rule,
the years from 2002 to the time of the the EPA explained in the 2015 NSPS whichever is later. The EPA proposed
modification). The 2015 NSPS did not that they are rare, but there is record and is finalizing the same testing,
include standards for a steam generating evidence indicating that they may monitoring, and reporting requirements
unit that implements a ‘‘small occur.900 Because the EPA is finalizing as are currently in 40 CFR part 60,
modification,’’ defined as a change that requirements for existing coal-fired subpart TTTT.
results in an increase in hourly CO2 steam generating units that are, on their The EPA did not propose, and is not
emissions of less than or equal to 10 face, more stringent than the finalizing, any review or revision of the
percent when compared to the source’s requirements for large modifications, 2015 standard for large modifications of
highest hourly emissions in the the EPA believes it is appropriate to oil- or gas-fired steam generating units
previous 5 years.898 review and revise the latter because the we are not aware of any
In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA explained requirements to minimize the existing oil- or gas-fired steam
its basis for promulgating this rule as anomalous incentive that an existing generating EGUs that have undertaken
follows. The EPA has historically been source could have to undertake a large such modifications or have plans to do
notified of only a limited number of modification for the purpose of avoiding so, and, unlike an existing coal-fired
NSPS modifications involving fossil the more stringent requirements that it steam generating EGUs, existing oil- or
fuel-fired steam generating units and would be subject to if it remained an gas-fired steam units have no incentive
therefore predicted that very few of existing source. Accordingly, the EPA to undertake such a modification to
these units would trigger the proposed and is finalizing amending the avoid the requirements we are including
modification provisions and be subject BSER for large modifications for coal- in this final rule for existing oil- or gas-
to the proposed standards. Given the fired steam generating units to mirror fired steam generating units.
limited information that we have about the BSER for the subcategory of long-
past modifications, the Agency has term coal-fired steam generating units 2. New Construction and Reconstruction
concluded that it lacks sufficient that is, the use of CCS with 90 percent The EPA promulgated NSPS for GHG
information to establish standards of capture of CO2. The EPA believes that emissions from fossil fuel-fired steam
performance for all types of it is reasonable to assume that any generating units in 2015. In the
modifications at steam generating units existing source that invests in a physical proposal, the EPA proposed that it did
at this time. Instead, the EPA has change or change in the method of not need to review the 2015 NSPS
determined that it is appropriate to operation that would qualify as a large because at that time, the EPA did not
establish standards of performance at modification expects to continue to have information indicating that any
this time for larger modifications, such operate past 2039. Accordingly, the EPA such units will be constructed or
as major facility upgrades involving, for has determined that CCS with 90
reconstructed. However, the EPA has
example, the refurbishing or percent capture qualifies as the BSER
recently become aware that a new coal-
replacement of steam turbines and other for such a source for the same reasons
fired power plant is under consideration
equipment upgrades that result in that it qualifies as the BSER for existing
in Alaska. In November 2023, DOE
substantial increases in a unit’s hourly sources that plan to operate past
announced a $9 million cooperative
CO2 emissions rate. The Agency has December 31, 2039. The EPA discusses
agreement for the Alaska Railbelt
determined, based on its review of these reasons in section VII.C.1.a of this
Carbon Capture and Storage (ARCCS)
public comments and other publicly preamble. The EPA has determined that
project, to be led by researchers at the
available information, that it has CCS with 90 percent capture qualifies as
University of Alaska Fairbanks. The
adequate information regarding the the BSER for large modifications, and
not the controls determined to be the ARCCS project would study the
types of modifications that could result
BSER in the 2015 NSPS, due to the viability of a carbon storage complex in
in large increases in hourly CO2
recent reductions in the cost of CCS. Southcentral Alaska, likely at the
emissions, as well as on the types of
By the same token, the EPA is mostly-depleted Beluga River gas field
measures available to control emissions
finalizing that the degree of emission west of Anchorage’’ in the Cook Inlet
from sources that undergo such
limitation associated with CCS with 90 Basin, which could store captured CO2.
modifications, and on the costs and
percent capture is an 88.4 percent According to reports, the privately
effectiveness of such control measures,
reduction in emission rate (lb CO2/ owned Flatlands Energy Corp. is
upon which to establish standards of
MWh-gross basis), the same as finalized considering constructing a 400 MW
performance for modifications with
coal- and biomass-fired power plant in
large emissions increases at this time.899 for existing sources with CCS with 90
percent capture. See section VII.C.3.a of the Susitna River valley region, which,
The EPA did not reopen any aspect of
this preamble. Based on this degree of if built, would be one of the sources of
these determinations concerning
emission limitation, the EPA proposed captured CO2.901
modifications in the 2015 NSPS, except,
as noted below, for the BSER and and is finalizing that the standard of 901 DOE Funding Opportunity Announcement,
performance for steam generating units ‘‘DOE Invests More Than $444 Million for
898 80 FR 64514 (October 23, 2015). CarbonSAFE Project,’’ (November 15, 2023), https://
899 Id. at 64597–98. 900 Id. at 64598. netl.doe.gov/node/13090; University of Alaska
In light of this development, the EPA The Holcomb 2 project was intended Authority Rule (TAR) adopted by the
is not finalizing its proposal not to to be a single 895 MW coal-fired EGU EPA, Tribes may seek authority to
review the 2015 NSPS. Instead, the EPA and received permits in 2009 (after implement a plan under CAA section
will continue to consider whether to earlier proposals sought approval for 111(d) in a manner similar to that of a
review the 2015 NSPS and will monitor development of more than one unit). In state. See 40 CFR part 49, subpart A.
the development of this potential new 2020, after developers announced they Tribes may, but are not required to, seek
construction project in Alaska as well as would no longer pursue the Holcomb 2 approval for treatment in a manner
any other potential projects to newly expansion project, the air permits were similar to that of a state for purposes of
construct or reconstruct a coal-fired allowed to expire, effectively canceling developing a Tribal Implementation
power plant. If the EPA does decide to the project. Plan (TIP) implementing the emission
review the 2015 NSPS, it would propose For these reasons, the EPA proposed guidelines. If a Tribe obtains approval
to revise them for coal-fired steam and is finalizing a decision to remove and submits a TIP, the EPA will
generating units. these projects under the applicability generally use similar criteria and follow
exclusions in subpart TTTT. similar procedures as those described
D. Projects Under Development
X. State Plans for Emission Guidelines for state plans when evaluating the TIP
During the 2015 NSPS rulemaking, submission and will approve the TIP if
for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs
the EPA identified the Plant Washington appropriate. The EPA is committed to
project in Georgia and the Holcomb 2 A. Overview working with eligible Tribes to help
project in Kansas as EGU ‘‘projects This section provides information them seek authorization and develop
under development’’ based on related to state plan development, plans if they choose. Tribes that choose
representations by developers that the including methodologies for to develop plans will generally have the
projects had commenced construction establishing presumptively approvable same flexibilities available to states in
prior to the proposal of the 2015 NSPS standards of performance for affected this process.
and, thus, would not be new sources EGUs, flexibilities for complying with In section X.B of this document, the
subject to the final NSPS (80 FR 64542– standards of performance, and EPA describes the foundational
43; October 23, 2015). The EPA did not components that must be included in
set a performance standard at the time requirement that state plans achieve an
state plans as well as the process for equivalent level of emission reduction
but committed to doing so if new submission. This section also addresses
information about the projects became to the degree of emission limitation
significant comments on and any achievable through application of the
available. These projects were never changes to the proposed emission
constructed and are no longer expected BSER as determined by the EPA.
guidelines regarding state plans that the Section X.C describes the presumptive
to be constructed. EPA is finalizing in this action. methodology for calculating the
The Plant Washington project was to State plan submissions under these standards of performance for affected
be an 850 MW supercritical coal-fired emission guidelines are governed by the EGUs based on subcategory assignment,
EGU. The Environmental Protection requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart as well as requirements related to
Division (EPD) of the Georgia Ba (subpart Ba).906 The EPA finalized
Department of Natural Resources issued invoking RULOF to apply a less
revisions to certain aspects of 40 CFR stringent standard of performance than
air and water permits for the project in part 60, subpart Ba, in November 2023,
2010 and issued amended permits in results from the EPA’s presumptive
Adoption and Submittal of State Plans methodology. Section X.C also describes
2014.902 903 904 In 2016, developers filed for Designated Facilities: Implementing
a request with the EPD to extend the requirements for increments of progress
Regulations Under Clean Air Act for affected EGUs in certain
construction commencement deadline Section 111(d) (final subpart Ba).907
specified in the amended permit, but subcategories and for establishing
Unless expressly amended or milestones and reporting obligations for
the director of the EPD denied the superseded in these emission
request, effectively canceling the affected EGUs that plan to permanently
guidelines, the provisions of subpart Ba cease operations, as well as testing and
approval of the construction permit and apply. This section explicitly addresses
revoking the plant’s amended air quality monitoring requirements. In section
any instances where the EPA is adding X.D, the EPA describes how states are
permit.905 to, superseding, or otherwise varying permitted to include flexibilities such as
the requirements of subpart Ba for the emission trading and averaging as
Fairbanks, Institute of Northern Engineering, ‘‘Cook purposes of these particular emission
Inlet Region Low Carbon Power Generation With compliance measures for affected EGUs
Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage Feasibility
guidelines. in their state plans. Finally, section X.E
Study,’’ https://ine.uaf.edu/media/391133/cook- As noted in the preamble of the describes what must be included in
inlet-low-carbon-power-feasibility-study-uaf- proposed action, under the Tribal state plans, including plan components
pcorfinal.pdf; Herz, Nathaniel, ‘‘Could a new
Alaska coal power plant be climate friendly? An 906 40
specific to these emission guidelines
CFR 60.20a–60.29a.
$11 million study aims to find out,’’ Northern 907 88 FR 80480 (November 17, 2023). At the time
and requirements for conducting
Journal (December 29, 2923), republished in meaningful engagement, as well as the
of promulgation of these emission guidelines, the
Anchorage Daily News, https://www.adn.com/
business-economy/energy/2023/12/29/could-a-new-
November 2023 updates to the CAA section 111(d) timing of state plan submission and EPA
implementing regulations are subject to litigation in review of state plans and plan revisions.
alaska-coal-power-plant-be-climate-friendly-an-11-
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. West Virginia v.
million-study-aims-to-find-out/.
902 https://www.gpb.org/news/2010/07/26/judge-
EPA, D.C. Circuit No. 24–1009. The outcome of that In this section of the preamble, the
litigation will not affect any of the distinct term ‘‘affected EGU’’ means any existing
rejects-coal-plant-permits. requirements being finalized in these emission

903 https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-
guidelines, which are not directly dependent on
fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit
release/court-rules-ga-failed-to-set-safe-limits-on- those procedural requirements. Moreover, that meets the applicability criteria
pollutants-from-coal-plant/. regardless of the outcome of that litigation, the described in section VII.B of this
904 https://permitsearch.gaepd.org/
necessary regulatory framework will exist for states preamble. Affected EGUs are covered by
permit.aspx?id=PDF-OP-22139. to develop and submit state plans that include
905 https://www.southernenvironment.org/wp- standards of performance for affected EGUs
the emission guidelines being finalized
content/uploads/legacy/words_docs/EPD_Plant_ pursuant to these emission guidelines and prior in this action under 40 CFR part 60
Washington_Denial_Letter.pdf. implementing regulations. subpart UUUUb.
B. Requirement for State Plans To discretion to establish the applicable finally, this section describes emission
Maintain Stringency of the EPA’s BSER standards of performance for affected testing and monitoring requirements.
Determination EGUs in their state plans, the structure Affected EGUs that meet the
As explained in section V.C of this and purpose of CAA section 111 and the applicability requirements discussed in
preamble, CAA section 111(d)(1) EPA’s regulations require that those section VII.B must be addressed in the
requires the EPA to establish plans achieve an equivalent level of state plan. For each affected EGU within
requirements for state plans that, in emission reductions as applying the the state, the state plan must include a
turn, must include standards of EPA’s presumptive standards of standard of performance and
performance for existing sources. Under performance to each of those sources compliance schedule. That is, each
CAA section 111(a)(1), a standard of (again, after accounting for any individual unit must have its own,
performance is ‘‘a standard for application of RULOF). Section X.C of source-specific standard of performance
emissions of air pollutants which this preamble addresses how states and compliance schedule. Coal-fired
reflects the degree of emission maintain the level of emission reduction affected EGUs must have increments of
limitation achievable through the when establishing standards of progress in the state plan and, if they
application of the best system of performance, and section X.D of this plan to permanently cease operation
emission reduction which . . . the preamble addresses how states maintain and to rely on such cessation of
Administrator determines has been the level of emission reduction when operation for purposes of these emission
adequately demonstrated.’’ That is, the incorporating compliance flexibilities. guidelines, an enforceable commitment
EPA has the responsibility to determine Additionally, consistent with the and reporting obligations and
the BSER for a given category or understanding that the purpose of CAA milestones. State plans must also
subcategory of sources and to determine section 111 is for affected sources to specify the test methods and procedure
the degree of emission limitation reduce their emissions through cleaner for determining compliance with the
achievable through application of the operation, the Agency is also clarifying standards of performance.
that emissions reductions from sources While a presumptive methodology for
BSER to affected sources.908 The level of
not affected by the final emission standards of performance and other
emission reductions required of existing
guidelines may not be counted towards requirements were proposed for existing
sources under CAA section 111 is
compliance with either a source-specific combustion turbine EGUs, the EPA is
reflected in the EPA’s presumptive
or aggregate standard of performance. In not finalizing emission guidelines for
standards of performance,909 which
other words, state plans may not such EGUs at this time; therefore, the
achieve emission reductions under
account for emission reductions at non- following discussion will not address
these emission guidelines through
affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs, emission the proposed combustion turbine EGU
requiring cleaner performance by
reductions due to the operation or requirements or comments pertaining to
affected sources.
installation of other electricity- these proposed requirements. In
States use the EPA’s presumptive
generating resources not subject to these addition, the EPA is not finalizing the
standards of performance to establish
emission guidelines for the purposes of imminent- and near-term coal-fired
requirements for affected sources in
demonstrating compliance with affected subcategories for coal-fired steam
their state plans. In general, the
EGUs’ standards of performance. generating units; therefore, the
standards of performance that states
following discussion will not address
establish for affected sources must be no C. Establishing Standards of these proposed subcategories or
less stringent than the presumptive Performance comments pertaining to these proposed
standards of performance in the
This section addresses several topics subcategories. Similarly, the EPA is not
applicable emission guidelines.910 Thus, finalizing emission guidelines for states
related to standards of performance in
in order for the EPA to find a state plan state plans. First, this section describes and territories in non-contiguous areas,
‘‘satisfactory,’’ that plan must address affected EGUs’ eligibility for the and is therefore not finalizing the
each affected EGU within the state and subcategories in the final emission proposed subcategories for non-
must achieve at least the level of guidelines and how to calculate continental oil-fired steam generating
emission reduction that would result if presumptive standards of performance, units or associated requirements nor
each affected EGU was achieving its including calculating unit-specific addressing comments pertaining to
presumptive standard of performance, baseline emission performance. Second, these subcategories in this section.
after accounting for any application of it summarizes compliance date
RULOF.911 That is, while states have the 1. Application of Presumptive
information as well as how states can Standards
908 See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697,
provide for a compliance date extension
mechanism in their state plans. Third, This section of the preamble describes
720 (2022) (‘‘In devising emissions limits for power
plants, EPA first ‘determines’ the ‘best system of this section describes how states may the EPA’s approach to providing
emission reduction’ that—taking into account cost, consider RULOF to apply a less presumptive standards of performance
health, and other factors—it finds ‘has been
stringent standard of performance or a for each of the subcategories of affected
adequately demonstrated.’ The Agency then EGUs under these emission guidelines,
quantifies ‘the degree of emission limitation longer compliance schedule to a
achievable’ if that best system were applied to the particular affected EGU. Fourth, it including establishing baseline emission
covered source.’’) (internal citations omitted). explains how states must establish performance. As explained in section
909 See 40 CFR 60.22a(b)(5).
certain increments of progress for X.B of this preamble, CAA section
910 40 CFR 60.24a(c).
affected EGUs installing control 111(a)(1) requires that standards of
911 As explained in section X.C.2 of this
performance reflect the degree of
preamble, states may invoke RULOF to apply a less technology to comply with standards of
stringent standard of performance to a particular performance, as well as milestones and emission limitation achievable through
affected EGU when the state demonstrates that the reporting obligations for affected EGUs application of the BSER, as determined
EGU cannot reasonably achieve the degree of demonstrating that they plan to by the EPA. For each subcategory of
emission limitation determined by the EPA. In this affected EGUs, the EPA has determined
case, the state plan may not necessarily achieve the permanently cease operations. And,
same stringency as each source achieving the EPA’s
a BSER and degree of emission
presumptive standards of performance because would have standards of performance less stringent limitation and is providing, in these
affected EGUs for which RULOF has been invoked than the EPA’s presumptive standards. emission guidelines, a methodology for
establishing presumptively approvable methodology for establishing baseline chosen by states when reviewing state
standards of performance (also referred emission performance for an affected plan submissions, the EPA intends to
to as ‘‘presumptive standards of EGU will result in a value that is unique defer to a state’s reasonable exercise of
performance’’ or ‘‘presumptive to each affected EGU. To establish discretion as to which 8-quarter period
standards’’). Appropriate use of these baseline emission performance for an is representative.
methodologies will result in standards affected EGU in all the subcategories The EPA is finalizing the use of 8
of performance that achieve the except the low load natural gas- and oil- quarters during the 5-year period prior
requisite degree of emission limitation fired subcategories, the EPA is finalizing to the date the final rule is published in
and therefore meet the statutory a determination that a state will use the the Federal Register as the relevant
requirements of section 111(a)(1) and CO2 mass emissions and corresponding period for the baseline methodology for
the corresponding regulatory electricity generation data for a given several reasons. First, each affected EGU
requirement that standards of affected EGU from any continuous 8- has unique operational characteristics
performance must generally be no less quarter period from 40 CFR part 75 that affect the emission performance of
stringent that the corresponding reporting within the 5-year period the EGU (load, geographic location,
emission guidelines.912 40 CFR immediately prior to the date the final hours of operation, coal rank, unit size,
60.24a(c). rule is published in the Federal etc.), and the EPA believes each affected
Thus, a state, when establishing Register. For affected EGUs in either the EGU’s emission performance baseline
standards of performance for affected low load natural gas-fired subcategory should be representative of the source-
EGUs in its plan, must identify each or the low load oil-fired subcategory, the specific conditions of the affected EGU
affected EGU in the state and specify EPA is finalizing a determination that a and how it has typically operated.
into which subcategory each affected Additionally, allowing a state to choose
state will use the CO2 mass emissions
EGU falls. The state would then use the (likely in consultation with the owners
and corresponding heat input for a
corresponding methodology for the or operators of affected EGUs) the 8-
given affected EGU from any continuous
given subcategory to establish the quarter period for assessing baseline
8-quarter period from 40 CFR part 75
presumptively approvable standard of performance can avoid situations in
reporting within the 5-year period
performance for each affected EGU. which a prolonged period of atypical
immediately prior to the date the final
As discussed in section X.C.2 of this operating conditions would otherwise
rule is published in the Federal
preamble, states may apply less skew the emissions baseline. Relatedly,
Register. This period is based on the the EPA believes that, by using total
stringent standards of performance to NSR program’s definition of ‘‘baseline
particular affected EGUs in certain mass CO2 emissions and total electric
actual emissions’’ for existing electric generation or heat input for an affected
circumstances based on consideration of steam generating units. See 40 CFR
RULOF. States also have the authority to EGU over an 8-quarter period, any
52.21(b)(48)(i). Eight quarters of 40 CFR relatively short-term variability of data
deviate from the methodology provided part 75 data corresponds to a 2-year
in these emission guidelines for due to seasonal operations or periods of
period, but the EPA is finalizing this startup and shutdown, or other
presumptively approvable standards in continuous 8-quarter period as it
order to apply a more stringent standard anomalous conditions, will be averaged
corresponds to quarterly reporting into the calculated level of baseline
of performance (e.g., a state decides that according to 40 CFR part 75.
an affected EGU in the medium-term emission performance. The baseline-
Functionally, the EPA expects states to setting approach also aligns with the
coal-fired subcategory should comply utilize the most representative
with a standard of performance reporting and compliance requirements
continuous 8-quarter period of data in the final emission guidelines. Using
corresponding to co-firing 50 percent from the 5-year period immediately
natural gas instead of 40 percent). total mass CO2 emissions and total
preceding the date the final rule is electric generation or heat input
Application of a standard of published in the Federal Register. For
performance that is more stringent than provides a simple and streamlined
the 8 quarters of data, a state would approach for calculating baseline
provided by the EPA’s presumptive divide the total CO2 emissions (in the
methodology does not require emission performance without the need
form of pounds) over that continuous to sort and filter non-representative
application of the RULOF provisions.913 time period by either the total gross data; any minor amount of non-
a. Establishing Baseline Emission electricity generation (in the form of representative data will be subsumed
Performance for Presumptive Standards MWh) or, for affected EGUs in either the and accounted for through implicit
low load natural gas-fired subcategory averaging over the course of the 8-
For each subcategory, the or the low load oil-fired subcategory, the
methodology to calculate a standard of quarter period. Moreover, by not sorting
total heat input (in the form of MMBtu) or filtering the data, this approach
performance entails establishing a over that same time period to calculate
baseline of CO2 emissions and reduces the need for discretion in
baseline CO2 emission performance in assessing whether the data is
corresponding electricity generation or either lb of CO2 per MWh or lb of CO2 appropriate to use. Commenters
heat input for an affected EGU and then
per MMBtu. As an example, a state generally supported the proposed
applying the degree of emission
establishing baseline emission methodology for setting a baseline,
limitation achievable through the
performance for an affected EGU in the particularly saying that they prefer not
application of the BSER (as established
medium-term coal-fired subcategory in to have to sort or filter any data.
in section VII.C of this preamble). The
the year 2023 would start by evaluating The EPA believes that using this
the CO2 emissions and electricity
912 Should a state decide to establish a standard

baseline-setting approach as the basis
of performance for an affected EGU using a generation data for the affected EGU for for establishing presumptively
methodology other than that provided by the EPA 2018 through 2022 and choose a approvable standards of performance
in these emission guidelines, the state would have continuous 8-quarter period that it will provide certainty for states, as well
to demonstrate that the resulting standard of deems to be the most appropriate as transparency and a streamlined
performance achieves equivalent emission
reductions as application of the EPA’s presumptive representation of the operation of that process for state plan development.
standard of performance. affected EGU. While the EPA will While this approach is specifically
913 88 FR 80529–31 (November 17, 2023). evaluate the choice of baseline periods designed to be flexible enough to
accommodate unit-specific instrument.914 Upon EPA approval of first compliance period will be January
circumstances, states retain the ability the state plan, that commitment will 1, 2030, through December 31, 2030. For
to deviate from this methodology. The become federally- and citizen- units with a compliance date of January
EPA believes that the instances in enforceable. 1, 2032, the first compliance period will
which a state may need to use an For affected oil- and natural gas-fired be January 1, 2032, through December
alternate baseline-setting methodology steam generating units, subcategories 31, 2032. The compliance
will be limited to anticipated changes in are defined by load level and the type demonstration must occur by March 1 of
operation, (i.e., circumstances in which of fuel fired. There are three the following year (i.e., for the 2030
historical emission performance is not subcategories for natural gas- and oil- compliance period, by March 1, 2031).
representative of future emission fired steam generating units (base load, In addition, the EPA is finalizing a
performance). States that wish to vary intermediate load, and low load). requirement that standards of
the baseline calculation for an affected Because subcategory applicability is performance must be established as
EGU based on anticipated changes in determined retrospectively, as opposed either a rate or, for affected EGUs in
operation of that EGU, when those to prospectively, and because the certain subcategories, a mass of
changes result in a less stringent standards of performance for oil- and emissions. If a state chooses to allow
standard of performance, must use the natural gas-fired affected EGUs are mass-based compliance for certain
RULOF mechanism, which is designed based on BSERs that do not require add- affected EGUs it must first calculate the
to address such contingencies. on controls, it is not necessary to require rate-based emission limitation that
these sources to take enforceable corresponds to the presumptive
Comment: Commenters sought
utilization commitments limiting them standard of performance, and then
clarification as to whether the
to just one subcategory in order to explain how it translated that rate-based
methodology referred to the previous 5 implement and enforce their standards. emission limitation into the mass that
calendar years or the 5-year period For steam generating units that meet the constitutes an affected EGU’s standard
ending on the most recent quarter definition of natural gas- or oil-fired, of performance. See section X.D of this
reported under 40 CFR part 75 prior to and that either retain the capability to preamble for more information on
publication of the final emission fire coal after the date this final rule is demonstrating compliance where states
guidelines. published in the Federal Register, that are incorporating compliance
Response: The EPA clarifies that the fired any coal during the 5-year period flexibilities.
methodology refers to the 5-year period prior to that date, or that will fire any
ending on the most recent quarter i. Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam
coal after that date and before January
reported under 40 CFR part 75 prior to Generating Units
1, 2030, the plan must include a
publication of the final emission requirement to remove the capability to This section describes the EPA’s
guidelines in the Federal Register. fire coal before January 1, 2030. methodology for establishing
The EPA is finalizing a requirement presumptively approvable standards of
b. Presumptive Standards for Fossil performance for long-term coal-fired
that compliance be demonstrated
Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units steam generating units. Affected coal-
annually. For affected EGUs in all
As described in section VII of this subcategories except the low load fired steam generating units that do not
preamble, the EPA is finalizing separate natural gas- and oil-fired subcategory, meet the specifications of the medium-
subcategories of existing fossil fuel-fired an affected EGU must demonstrate term coal-fired EGU subcategory are
steam generating units based on fuel compliance based on the lb CO2/MWh necessarily long-term units, and have a
type (i.e., coal-fired, natural gas-fired, or emission rate derived by dividing the BSER of CCS with 90 percent capture
oil-fired). Fuel type is based on the total reported CO2 mass emissions by and a degree of emission limitation of
status of the source on January 1, 2030, the total reported electric generation 90 percent capture of the mass of CO2
and annual fuel use reporting is during the compliance period in the flue gas (i.e., the mass of CO2 after
required after that date as a part of (corresponding to 1 calendar year), the boiler but before the capture
compliance. The EPA is further creating which is consistent with the expression equipment) over an extended period of
a subcategory for coal-fired steam of the degree of emission limitation for time and an 88.4 percent reduction in
generating units operating in the each subcategory in sections VII.C.3 and emission rate on a lb CO2/MWh-gross
medium term, and further VII.D.3. For affected EGUs in the low basis over an extended period of time
subcategorizing natural gas- and oil- load natural gas- and oil-fired (i.e., an annual calendar-year basis). The
fired steam generating units by load subcategory, an affected EGU must EPA is finalizing a determination that
level. demonstrate compliance based on the lb where states use the methodology
CO2/MMBtu emission rate derived by described here to establish standards of
Consistent with CAA section dividing the total reported CO2 mass performance for affected EGUs in this
111(d)(1)’s requirement that state plans emissions by the total reported heat subcategory, those established standards
provide for the implementation and input during the compliance period will be presumptively approvable when
enforcement of standards of (again, corresponding to 1 calendar included in a state plan submission.
performance, for affected EGUs in the year), consistent with the expression of Establishing a standard of
medium-term subcategory, states must the degree of emission limitation for the performance for an affected coal-fired
include sources’ enforceable subcategory in section VII.D.3.915 In EGU in this subcategory consists of two
commitments to cease operating before other words, for units with a steps: establishing a source-specific
January 1, 2039, in their plans. The state level of baseline emission performance
compliance date of January 1, 2030, the

plan must specify the calendar date by (as described in section X.C.1.a of this
which the affected EGU plans to cease 914 40 CFR 60.26a. preamble); and applying the degree of
operation; to be included in a state plan, 915 Ifthe state plan incorporates compliance emission limitation, based on the
a commitment to cease operations by flexibilities like emission averaging and trading, an application of the BSER, to that level of
such a date must be enforceable by the affected EGU must demonstrate compliance
consistent with the expression of the respective
baseline emission performance.
state, whether through state rule, agreed flexibility. See section X.D of this preamble for Implementation of CCS with a capture
order, permit, or other legal more information. rate of 90 precent translates to a degree
of emission limitation comprising of an EGU’s level of baseline emission ensure that any issues with
88.4 percent reduction in CO2 emission performance is 2,000 lbs CO2 per MWh, implementation are identified in a
rate compared to the baseline level of it will have a presumptively approvable timely and efficient manner. These
emission performance. Using the standard of performance of 1,680 CO2 milestones are described in detail in
complement of 88.4 percent (i.e., 11.6 lbs per MWh (2,000 lbs CO2 per MWh section X.C.4 of this preamble. Affected
percent) and multiplying it by the multiplied by 0.84). EGUs in this subcategory would also be
baseline level of emission performance For medium-term coal-fired steam required to comply with the federally
results in the presumptively approvable generating units that have an amount of enforceable increments of progress
standard of performance. For example, co-firing that is reflected in the baseline described in section X.C.3 of this
if a long-term coal-fired EGU’s level of operation, the EPA is finalizing a preamble.
baseline emission performance is 2,000 requirement that states account for such
preexisting co-firing in adjusting the iii. Natural Gas-Fired Steam Generating
lbs CO2 per MWh, it will have a
degree of emission limitation. If, for Units and Oil-Fired Steam Generating
presumptively approvable standard of
example, an EGU co-fires natural gas at Units
performance of 232 lbs CO2 per MWh
(2,000 lbs CO2 per MWh multiplied by a level of 10 percent of the total annual This section describes the EPA’s final
0.116). heat input during the applicable 8- methodology for presumptively
The EPA is also finalizing a quarter baseline period, the approvable standards of performance for
requirement that affected coal-fired corresponding degree of emission the following subcategories of affected
EGUs in the long-term subcategory limitation would be adjusted to a 12 natural gas-fired and oil-fired steam
comply with federally enforceable percent reduction in CO2 emission rate generating units: low load natural gas-
increments of progress, which are on a lb CO2/MWh-gross basis compared fired steam generating units,
described in section X.C.3 of this to the baseline level of emission intermediate load natural gas-fired
preamble. performance (i.e., an additional 30 steam generating units, base load
percent of natural gas by heat input) to natural gas-fired steam generating units,
ii. Medium-Term Coal-Fired Steam low load oil-fired steam generating
reflect the preexisting level of natural
Generating Units units, intermediate load oil-fired steam
gas co-firing. This results in a standard
This section describes the EPA’s of performance based on the degree of generating units, and base load oil-fired
methodology for establishing emission limitation achieving an steam generating units. The final
presumptively approvable standards of additional 30 percent co-firing beyond definitions of these subcategories are
performance for medium-term coal-fired the 10 percent that is accounted for in discussed in section VII.D.1 of this
steam generating units. Affected coal- the baseline. The EPA believes this preamble. The final presumptive
fired steam generating units that plan to approach is a more straightforward standards of performance are based on
commit to permanently cease operations mathematical adjustment than adjusting degrees of emission limitation that units
before January 1, 2039, have a BSER of the baseline to appropriately reflect a are currently achieving, consistent with
40 percent natural gas co-firing on a preexisting level of co-firing. the proposed BSER of routine methods
heat input basis. The EPA is finalizing The standard of performance for the of operation and maintenance, which
a determination that where states use medium-term coal-fired subcategory is amounts to a proposed degree of
the methodology described here to based on the degree of emission emission limitation of no increase in
establish standards of performance for limitation that is achievable through emission rate.
an affected EGU in this subcategory, application of the BSER to the affected For natural gas-fired steam generating
those established standards of EGUs in the subcategory and consists units, the EPA proposed fixed
performance would be presumptively exclusively of the rate-based emission presumptive standards of 1,500 lb CO2/
approvable when included in a state limitation. However, the BSER MWh-gross for intermediate load units
plan submission. determination for this subcategory is (solicited comment on values between
Establishing a standard of predicated on the assumption that 1,400 and 1,600 lb/MWh-gross) and
performance for an affected EGU in this affected EGUs within it will 1,300 lb CO2/MWh-gross for base load
subcategory consists of two steps: permanently cease operations prior to units (solicited comment on values
establishing a source-specific level of January 1, 2039. If a state decides to between 1,250 and 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-
baseline emission performance (as place an affected EGU in the medium- gross). For oil-fired steam generating
described in section X.C.1.a); and term coal-fired subcategory, the state units, the EPA proposed fixed
applying the degree of emission plan must include that EGU’s presumptive standards of 1,500 lb CO2/
limitation, based on the application of commitment to permanently cease MWh-gross for intermediate load units
the BSER, to that level of baseline operating as an enforceable requirement. (solicited comment on values between
emission performance. Implementation The state plan must also include 1,400 and 2,000 lb/MWh-gross) and
of natural gas co-firing at a level of 40 provisions that provide for the 1,300 lb CO2/MWh-gross for base load
percent of total annual heat input implementation and enforcement of this units (solicited comment on values
translates to a level of stringency of a 16 commitment, including requirements between 1,250 and 1,800 lb CO2/MWh-
percent reduction in emission rate on a for monitoring, reporting, and gross).
lb CO2/MWh-gross basis over an recordkeeping. The EPA is finalizing presumptive
extended period of time (i.e., an annual Affected coal-fired EGUs that are standards of performance for affected
calendar-year basis) compared to the relying on commitments to cease natural gas-fired and oil-fired steam
operating must comply with the generating units in lieu of
baseline level of emission performance.

Using the complement of 16 percent milestones and reporting requirements methodologies that states would use to
(i.e., 84 percent) and multiplying it by as specified under these emission establish presumptive standards of
the baseline level of emission guidelines. The EPA intends these performance. This is largely because of
performance results in the milestones to assist affected EGUs in the low variability in emissions data at
presumptively approvable standard of ensuring they are completing the intermediate and base load for these
performance for the affected EGU. For necessary steps to comply with their units and relatively consistent
example, if a medium-term coal-fired state plan requirements and to help performance between these units at
those load levels, as discussed in baseline emission rate, with some The EPA refers to January 1, 2030,
section VII.D of this preamble and additional flexibilities to account for and January 1, 2032, as ‘‘compliance
detailed in the final TSD, Natural Gas- changes in load.916 The commenter also dates,’’ ‘‘final compliance dates,’’ and
and Oil-fired Steam Generating Units, requested that, if the EPA were to ‘‘initial compliance dates’’ in various
which supports the establishment of a finalize presumptive standards, then the parts of this preamble. In each case, the
generally applicable standard of higher values that the EPA solicited EPA means that this is the date on
performance. comment on for natural gas-fired units which affected EGUs must start
For intermediate load natural gas- should be finalized. The commenter monitoring and reporting their
fired units (annual capacity factors similarly requested that, if the EPA were emissions and other relevant data for
greater than or equal to 8 percent and to finalize presumptive standards, then purposes of demonstrating compliance
less than 45 percent), annual emission the higher values that the EPA solicited with their standards of performance
rates are less than 1,600 lb CO2/MWh- comment on for oil-fired units should be under these emission guidelines.
gross for more than 95 percent of units. finalized—however, the commenter also Affected EGUs demonstrate compliance
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the noted that its two sources that are on a calendar year basis, i.e., the
presumptive standard of performance of currently oil-firing operate below an 8 compliance period for affected EGUs is
an annual calendar-year emission rate of percent annual capacity factor and 1 calendar year. Therefore, affected
1,600 lb CO2/MWh-gross for these units. would therefore not be subject to the EGUs will not have to demonstrate that
For base load natural gas-fired units intermediate load or base load they are achieving their standards of
(annual capacity factors greater than or presumptive standard. performance on January 1, 2030, or
equal to 45 percent), annual emission Response: The EPA is finalizing January 1, 2032, as that demonstration
rates are less than 1,400 lb CO2/MWh- presumptive standards for natural gas- is made only at the end of the
gross for more than 95 percent of units. fired steam generating units of 1,400 lb compliance period, i.e., at the end of the
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the CO2/MWh-gross for base load units and calendar year. But, again, these are the
presumptive standard of performance of 1,600 lb CO2/MWh-gross for dates on which affected EGUs in the
an annual calendar-year emission rate of intermediate load units. The EPA is relevant subcategories must start
1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross for these units. finalizing the same standards for oil- monitoring and reporting for purposes
In the continental U.S., there are few fired steam generating units for the of their future compliance
if any oil-fired steam generating units reasons discussed in the preceding text. demonstrations with their standards of
that operate with intermediate or high Few, if any, oil-fired units operate as performance.
utilization. Liquid-oil-fired steam intermediate load or base load units, as
generating units with 24-month capacity d. Compliance Date Extension
acknowledged by the commenter. Those
factors less than 8 percent do qualify for Mechanism
oil-fired units that have operated near
a work practice standard in lieu of the threshold for intermediate load have The EPA is finalizing provisions that
emission requirements under the MATS typically fired a large proportion of allow states to include a mechanism to
(40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU). If natural gas and operated at emission extend the compliance date for certain
oil-fired units operated at higher annual rates consistent with the final affected EGUs in their state plans. This
capacity factors, it is likely they would presumptive standards. mechanism is only available for
do so with substantial amounts of situations in which an affected EGU
natural gas-firing and have emission c. Compliance Dates encounters a delay in installation of a
rates that are similar to steam generating This section summarizes information control technology that makes it
units that fire only natural gas at those on the compliance dates, or the first impossible to commence compliance by
levels of utilization. There are a few date on which the standard of the date specified in section X.C.1.c of
natural gas-fired steam generating units performance applies, that the EPA is this preamble. The owner or operator
that are near the threshold for qualifying finalizing for each subcategory. As must provide documentation of the
as oil-fired units (i.e., firing more than discussed in section X.C.1.b, circumstances that precipitated the
15 percent oil in a given year) but that compliance is required to be delay (or the anticipated delay) and
on average fire more than 90 percent of demonstrated on an annual (i.e., demonstrate that those circumstances
their heat input from natural gas. calendar year) basis. were or are entirely beyond the owner
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the The EPA proposed a compliance date or operator’s control and that the owner
same presumptive standards of of January 1, 2030, for all affected steam or operator has no ability to remedy the
performance for oil-fired steam generating units. As discussed in delay. These circumstances may
generating units as for natural gas-fired section VII.C.1.a.i(E) of this preamble, include, but are not limited to,
units (1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross for base the EPA received comments that this permitting-related delays or delays in
load units and 1,600 lb CO2/MWh-gross compliance date was not achievable for delivery or construction of parts
for intermediate load units). sources in the long-term coal-fired EGU necessary for installation or
Lastly, the EPA is finalizing uniform subcategory that would be installing implementation of the control
fuels as the BSER for low load natural CCS. In response to those comments, the technology.
gas and oil-fired steam generating units. EPA reevaluated the information and The EPA received extensive comment
The EPA is finalizing degrees of timeline for CCS installation and is requesting a mechanism to extend the
emission limitation defined by 130 lb finalizing a compliance date of January compliance date for affected EGUs
CO2/MMBtu for low load natural gas- 1, 2032, for the long-term coal-fired installing a control technology to
address situations in which the owner
fired steam generating units and 170 lb subcategory. The Agency is finalizing a
CO2/MMBtu for low load oil-fired steam compliance date of January 1, 2030, for or operator of the affected EGU
generating units, and presumptively units in the medium-term coal-fired encounters a delay outside of their
approvable standards consistent with subcategory as well as for natural gas- control. Several industry commenters
those values. and oil-fired steaming generating units. noted the potential for such delays due
Comment: One commenter stated that to, among other reasons, supply chain
the EPA should instead allow states to 916 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– constraints, permitting processes, and/
define standards using a source’s 0072–0806. or environmental assessments as well as
delays in deployment of supporting documentation, time limitation). Within outstanding at the time of the
infrastructure like pipelines. These these parameters, states should consider demonstration. These requirements for
commenters explained that an extension state-specific circumstances related to documentation are intended to ensure,
mechanism could provide greater the implementation and enforcement of inter alia, that the owner or operator has
regulatory certainty for owners and this mechanism in their state plans. made all reasonable efforts to achieve
operators. In light of this feedback and Importantly, in order to provide timely compliance and that the
acknowledgment that there may be compliance date extensions that do not circumstances for granting an extension
circumstances outside of owners/ require a state plan revision available to are not speculative but are rather based
operators’ control that impact their affected EGUs, states must include the on delays the affected EGU is currently
ability to meet the compliance dates in mechanism in their proposed state plans experiencing or is reasonably certain to
these emission guidelines, the EPA that are provided for public comment experience.
believes that it is reasonable to provide and meaningful engagement (as well as The extended compliance date must
a consistent and transparent means of in the final state plan submitted to the be as expeditiously as practicable and
allowing a limited extension of the EPA), and the circumstances for and the maximum time allowed for this
compliance deadline where an affected consequences of using this mechanism extension is 1 year beyond the
EGU has demonstrated such an must be clearly spelled out and compliance date specified for the
extension is needed for installation of bounded. States are not required to affected EGU by the state plan. Several
controls. This mechanism is intended to include this mechanism in their state commenters suggested that a 1-year
address delays in implementation—not plans; absent its inclusion, states must extension was appropriate. If the delay
to provide more time to assess the submit a state plan revision in order to is anticipated to be longer than 1 year,
compliance strategy (i.e., the type of extend a compliance schedule that has states can provide for the use of this
technology or subcategory assignment) been approved into a plan. mechanism for up to 1 year but should
for the affected EGU, as some also initiate a state plan revision if
First, state plans must provide that a
commenters suggested; those decisions necessary to provide an updated
compliance date extension through this
are to be made at the time of state plan compliance date through consideration
mechanism is available only for affected
approval. of RULOF, subject to EPA approval of
EGUs that are installing add-on controls.
The compliance date extension the plan revision.
Affected EGUs that intend to comply The state air pollution control agency
mechanism is consistent with both CAA
without installing additional control is charged with approving or
section 111 and these emission
guidelines. Consistent with the statutory technologies—including, but not limited disapproving a compliance date
purpose of remedying dangerous air to, oil and gas-fired steam generating extension request based on its written
pollution, state plans must generally EGUs—should not experience the types determination that the affected EGU has
provide for compliance with standards of installation or implementation delays or has not made each of the necessary
of performance as expeditiously as that this mechanism is intended to demonstrations and provided all of the
practicable but no later than specified in address. Second, state plan mechanisms necessary documentation. All
the emission guidelines. 40 CFR must provide that to receive a documentation for the extension request
60.24a(c). As discussed in sections compliance date extension, the owner or must be submitted by the owner or
VII.C.1.a.i.(E) and VII.C.2.b.i(C), the EPA operator of an affected EGU is required operator of the affected EGU to the state
has determined compliance timelines in to demonstrate to the state air pollution air pollution control agency no later
these emission guidelines consistent control agency, and provide supporting than 6 months prior to the compliance
with achieving emission reductions as documentation to establish, the basis for date provided in these emission
expeditiously as practicable given the and plans to address the delay. For each guidelines. The owner or operator of the
time it takes to install the BSER affected EGU, this demonstration must affected EGU must also notify the
technologies for the respective include (1) confirmation that the relevant EPA Regional Administrator of
subcategories. The compliance dates are affected EGU has met the relevant their compliance date extension request
designed to accommodate the process increments of progress up to the point at the time of the submission of the
steps and timeframes that the EPA of the delay, including any permits request. The owner or operator of the
reasonably anticipates will apply to obtained and/or contracts entered into affected EGU must also post their
affected EGUs. This extension for the installation of control application for the compliance date
mechanism acknowledges that technology, (2) documentation, such as extension request to the Carbon
circumstances entirely outside the invoices or correspondence with Pollution Standards for EGUs website,
control of the owners or operators of permitting authorities, vendors, etc., of as discussed in section X.E.1.b.ii of this
affected EGUs may extend the the circumstances of the delay and that preamble, when they submit the request
timeframe for installation of control the delay is due to the action, or lack to the state air pollution control agency.
technologies beyond what the EPA thereof, of a third party (e.g., supplier or The state air pollution control agency
reasonably expects for the subcategories permitting authority), and that the must notify the relevant EPA Regional
as a general matter. Thus, so long as this owner or operator of the affected EGU Administrator of any determination on
extension mechanism is limited to has itself acted consistent with an extension request and the new
circumstances that cannot be reasonably achieving timely compliance (e.g., in compliance date for any affected EGU(s)
controlled or remedied by states or applying for permits with all necessary with an approved extension at the time
affected EGUs and that make it information or contracting in sufficient of the determination on the extension
time to perform in accordance with
impossible to achieve compliance by the request. The owner or operator of the

dates specified in these emission required schedules), and (3) plans for affected EGU must also post the state’s
guidelines, its use is consistent with addressing the circumstances and determination on the compliance
achieving compliance as expeditiously remedying the delay as expeditiously as extension request to the Carbon
as practicable. practicable, including updated dates for Pollution Standards for EGUs website,
The EPA is establishing parameters, the final increment of progress as discussed in section X.E.1.b.ii of this
described in this subsection, for the corresponding to the compliance date as preamble, upon receipt of the
features of this mechanism (e.g., well as any other increments that are determination, and, if the request is
approved, update information on the separate rulemaking, to clarify the degree of emission limitation in the
website related to the compliance date general implementing regulations applicable emission guideline, not
and increments of progress dates within governing the application of RULOF. whether it can implement the system of
30 days of the receipt of the state’s The Agency further explained that the emission reduction the EPA determined
approval. revised RULOF regulations, as finalized is the BSER. That is, if a designated
in that separate rulemaking, would facility cannot implement the BSER but
2. Remaining Useful Life and Other apply to these emission guidelines. The can reasonably achieve the specified
Factors revisions to the implementing degree of emission limitation using a
Under CAA section 111(d), the EPA is regulations’ RULOF provisions were different system of emission reduction,
required to promulgate regulations finalized in November 2023, with some the state cannot use RULOF to apply a
under which states submit plans that changes in response to public comments less stringent standard of performance
‘‘establish[] standards of performance relative to proposal. As provided by 40 to that facility.
for any existing source’’ and ‘‘provide CFR 60.20a(a) and (a)(1) and indicated If a state has demonstrated, pursuant
for the implementation and enforcement in the proposal, the RULOF provisions to 40 CFR 60.24a(e), that a particular
of such standards of performance.’’ in 40 CFR 60.24a, as revised in the facility cannot reasonably achieve the
While states establish the standards of November 2023 final rule, will govern degree of emission limitation or
performance, there is a fundamental the use of RULOF to provide less compliance schedule determined by the
obligation under CAA section 111(d) stringent standards of performance or EPA in these emission guidelines, the
that such standards reflect the degree of longer compliance schedules under state may then apply a less stringent
emission limitation achievable through these emission guidelines. The EPA is standard of performance or longer
the application of the BSER, as not superseding any provision of the compliance schedule. The process for
determined by the EPA.917 The EPA RULOF regulations at 40 CFR 60.24a in doing so is laid out in 40 CFR 60.24a(f).
identifies this degree of emission these emission guidelines. Critically, standards of performance and
limitation as part of its emission As explained in the preamble to the compliance schedules pursuant to
guideline. 40 CFR 60.22a(b)(5). Thus, as final rule, Adoption and Submittal of RULOF must be no less stringent, or no
described in section X.C.2 of this State Plans for Designated Facilities: longer, than is necessary to address the
preamble, the EPA is providing Implementing Regulations Under Clear fundamental difference between the
methodologies for states to follow in Air Act Section 111(d), the EPA has information the EPA considered and the
determining and applying interpreted the RULOF provision of particular facility that was the basis for
presumptively approvable standards of CAA section 111(d)(1) as allowing states invoking RULOF under 40 CFR
performance to affected EGUs in each of to apply a standard of performance that 60.24a(e). In determining a less stringent
the subcategories covered by these is less stringent than the degree of standard of performance, the state must,
emission guidelines. In general, the emission limitation in the applicable to the extent necessary, evaluate the
standards of performance that states emission guideline, or a longer systems of emission reduction identified
establish for designated facilities must compliance schedule, to a particular in the emission guidelines using the
be no less stringent than the facility based on that facility’s factors and evaluation metrics the EPA
presumptively approvable standards of remaining useful life and other factors. considered in assessing those systems,
performance specified in these emission The use of RULOF to deviate from an including technical feasibility, the
guidelines. 40 CFR 60.24a(c). emission guideline is available only amount of emission reductions, the cost
However, CAA section 111(d)(1) also when there are fundamental differences of achieving such reductions, any non-
requires that the EPA’s regulations between the circumstances of a air quality health and environmental
permit the states, in applying a standard particular facility and the information impacts, and energy requirements.
of performance to any particular the EPA considered in determining the States may also consider, as justified,
designated facility, to ‘‘take into degree of emission limitation or the other factors specific to the facility that
consideration, among other factors, the compliance schedule, and those were the basis for invoking RULOF
remaining useful life of the existing fundamental differences make it under 40 CFR 60.24a(e), as well as
source to which the standard applies.’’ unreasonable for the facility to achieve additional systems of emission
The EPA’s implementing regulations the degree of emission limitation or reduction.
meet the compliance schedule in the The RULOF provision at 40 CFR
under 40 CFR 60.24a allow a state to
emission guideline. This 60.24a(g) states that, where the basis of
consider a particular designated
‘‘fundamentally different’’ standard is a less stringent standard of performance
facility’s remaining useful life and other
consistent with the statutory purpose of is an operating condition within the
factors (‘‘RULOF’’) in applying to that control of a designated facility, the state
reducing dangerous air pollution under
facility a standard of performance that is plan must include such operating
CAA section 111; the statutory
less stringent than the presumptive level condition as an enforceable
framework under which, to achieve that
of stringency in the applicable emission requirement. The state plan must also
purpose, the EPA is directed to
guideline, or a compliance schedule that include requirements, such as for
determine the degree of emission under
is longer than prescribed by that monitoring, reporting, and
CAA section 111(a)(1); and the
emission guideline. recordkeeping, for the implementation
understanding that RULOF is intended
In the proposal, the EPA indicated as a limited variance from the EPA’s and enforcement of the condition. This
that it had recently proposed, in a determination to address unusual is relevant in the case of, for example,
917 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 720 (2022)

circumstances at particular facilities.918 less stringent standards of performance
(‘‘In devising emissions limits for power plants, The relevant consideration for states that are based on a particular designated
EPA first ‘determines’ the ‘best system of emission contemplating the use of RULOF to facility’s remaining useful life or
reduction’ that—taking into account cost, health, apply a less stringent standard of utilization.
and other factors—it finds ‘has been adequately performance is whether a designated Finally, the general implementing
demonstrated.’ The Agency then quantifies ‘the
degree of emission limitation achievable’ if that best facility can reasonably achieve the regulations provide that states may
system were applied to the covered source.’’) always adopt and enforce, as part of
(internal citations omitted). 918 See, e.g., 88 FR 80512 (November 17, 2023). their state plans, standards of
performance that are more stringent representative in the plan (or plan given to states to establish standards of
than the degree of emission limitation revision) development process. 40 CFR performance gives the EPA only a
determined by the EPA and compliance 60.23a(i). The application of a less limited role in reviewing states’ RULOF
schedules that require final compliance stringent standard of performance or demonstrations.
more quickly than specified in the longer compliance schedule pursuant to Response: The provisions that will
applicable emission guidelines. 40 CFR RULOF can impact the effects a state govern states’ use of RULOF under these
60.24a(i). States do not have to use the plan has on pertinent stakeholders, emission guidelines are contained in the
RULOF provisions in 40 CFR 60.24a(e)– which include, but are not limited to, part 40, subpart Ba CAA section 111(d)
(h) to apply a more stringent standard of industry, small businesses, and implementing regulations. Following
performance or faster compliance communities most affected by and/or proposal of these emission guidelines,
schedule. vulnerable to the impacts of a state plan the EPA finalized revisions to the
The EPA notes that there were a or plan revision. See 40 CFR 60.21a(l). subpart Ba RULOF provisions in a
number of RULOF provisions proposed Therefore, the potential application of separate rulemaking. Any comments on
as additions to the general less stringent standards of performance these generally applicable provisions,
implementation regulations in subpart or longer compliance schedule should including the EPA’s authority to
Ba and discussed in the proposed be part of a state’s meaningful promulgate and implement them and
emission guidances that the EPA did not engagement on a state plan or plan consistency with the cooperative
finalize as part of that separate revision. federalism framework of CAA section
rulemaking. Any proposed RULOF Similarly, the EPA emphasized in the 111(d), are outside the scope of this
requirements that were not finalized in preamble to the November 2023 final action. The EPA has, however,
40 CFR 60.24a are likewise not being rule revising subpart Ba that states carry considered and responded to comments
finalized in this action and do not apply the burden of making any that concern the application of these
as requirements under these emission demonstrations in support of less- generally applicable RULOF provisions
guidelines. However, two stringent standards of performance under these particular emission
considerations in particular remain pursuant to RULOF in developing their guidelines.
relevant to states’ development of plans plans. As a general matter, states always Comment: Several commenters spoke
despite not being finalized as bear the responsibility of reasonably to the role of RULOF given the structure
requirements: consideration of documenting and justifying the of the proposed subcategories for coal-
communities most impacted by and standards of performance in their plans. fired steam generating affected EGUs.
vulnerable to the health and In order to find a standard of Some commenters supported the EPA’s
environmental impacts of an affected performance satisfactory, the EPA must statement that, given the four proposed
EGU that is invoking RULOF, and the be able to ascertain, based on the subcategories based on affected EGUs’
need to engage in reasoned decision information and analysis included in intended operating horizons, the
making that is supported by information the state plan submission, that the Agency did not anticipate that states
and a rationale that is included in the standard meets the statutory and would be likely to need to invoke
state plan.919 regulatory requirements.921 RULOF based on a particular affected
As explained in the preamble to the Comment: Multiple commenters EGU’s remaining useful life. In contrast,
November 2023 final rule revising expressed support for the EPA’s other commenters stated that the EPA
subpart Ba, consideration of health and proposed approach to RULOF, was attempting to unlawfully preempt
environmental impacts is inherent in including its framework for ensuring state consideration of RULOF. Some
consideration of two factors, the non-air that less stringent standards of noted that, regardless of the approach to
quality health and environmental performance and longer compliance subcategorization, a particular source
impacts and amount of emission schedules are limited to unique may still present source-specific
reduction, that the EPA considers under circumstances that reflect fundamental considerations that a state may consider
CAA section 111(a)(1). Therefore, a state differences from the circumstances that relevant when applying a standard of
considering whether a variance from the the EPA considered, and that such performance. One commenter referred
EPA’s degree of emission limitation is standards do not undermine the overall to RULOF as a way for states to
appropriate will necessarily consider effectiveness of the emission guidelines. ‘‘modify’’ subcategories to address the
the potential impacts and benefits of These commenters also noted that the circumstances of particular affected
control to communities impacted by an proposed RULOF approach is consistent EGUs.
affected EGU that is potentially with CAA section 111(d). However, Response: As explained in section
receiving a less stringent standard of other commenters argued that the EPA VII.C of this preamble, the structure of
performance.920 Additionally, as lacks authority to put restrictions on the subcategories for coal-fired steam
discussed in section X.E.1.b.i of this how states consider RULOF to apply generating affected EGUs under these
preamble, the general implementing less stringent standards of performance final emission guidelines differs from
regulations for CAA section 111(d) in or longer compliance schedules. Some the four subcategories that the EPA
subpart Ba require states to submit, with commenters stated that the EPA’s proposed. The EPA is finalizing just two
their state plans or plan revisions, framework for the consideration of subcategories for coal-fired EGUs: the
documentation that they have RULOF runs counter to section 111’s long-term subcategory and the medium-
conducted meaningful engagement with framework of cooperative federalism term subcategory. Under these
pertinent stakeholders and/or their and that the EPA has a limited role of circumstances, the justification for the
EPA’s statement at proposal that it is
determining BSER for the source

919 The other RULOF provisions that the EPA category while the statute reserves unlikely that states would need to
proposed as additions to 40 CFR 60.24a but did not significant authority for the states to invoke RULOF based on a coal-fired
finalize are related to setting imminent and establish and implement standards of steam generating affected EGU’s
outermost dates for the consideration of remaining remaining useful life no longer applies.
useful life and consideration of RULOF to apply
performance. One commenter
more stringent standards of performance. See 88 FR elaborated that the broad discretion Consistent with 40 CFR 60.24a(e) and
80480, 80525, 80529 (November 17, 2023). the Agency’s explanation in the
920 88 FR 80528 (November 17, 2023). 921 See id. at 80527. proposal, states have the ability to
consider, inter alia, a particular source’s invoke RULOF for a particular affected RULOF analyses as part of their state
remaining useful life when applying a EGU, a state must demonstrate that it is planning processes. The EPA therefore
standard of performance to that unreasonable for that EGU to reasonably believes that states will have sufficient
source.922 achieve the applicable degree of time to consider RULOF and conduct
Moreover, the EPA is clarifying that emission limitation or compliance any RULOF analyses under these
RULOF may be used to particularize the schedule. Given the diversity of sizes, emission guidelines.
compliance obligations for an affected ages, locations, process designs,
a. Threshold Requirements for
EGU when a state demonstrates that it operating conditions, etc., of affected
Considering RULOF
is unreasonable for that EGU to achieve EGUs, it is highly unlikely that the
the applicable degree of emission circumstances that result in one affected The general implementing regulations
limitation or compliance schedule EGU being unable to reasonably achieve of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba, provide
determined by the EPA. Invocation of the applicable presumptive standard or that a state may apply a less stringent
RULOF does not have the effect of compliance schedule would apply to standard of performance or longer
modifying the subcategory structure or any other affected EGU. Further, the compliance schedule than otherwise
creating a new subcategory for a RULOF provisions of subpart Ba required under the applicable emission
particular affected EGU. That EGU provide clarity for and guidance to guidelines based on consideration of a
remains in the applicable subcategory. states as to what constitutes a particular source’s remaining useful life
As explained elsewhere in this section satisfactory less-stringent standard of and other factors. To do so, the state
of the preamble, the particularized performance under these emission must demonstrate for each designated
compliance obligations must differ as guidelines. facility (or class of such facilities) that
little as possible from the presumptive While the EPA is not providing the facility cannot reasonably achieve
standard of performance and presumptively approvable the degree of emission limitation
compliance schedule for the circumstances or analyses for RULOF in determined by the EPA (i.e., the
subcategory into which the affected these emission guidelines, it is presumptively approvable standard of
EGU falls under these emission providing information and analysis that performance) based on: (1)
guidelines. states can leverage in making any Unreasonable cost resulting from plant
Comment: One commenter requested determinations pursuant to the RULOF age, location, or basic process design, (2)
that the EPA identify situations in provisions. As explained elsewhere in physical impossibility or technical
which it is reasonable to deviate from this section of the preamble, the EPA infeasibility of installing the necessary
the presumptive standards of expects that states will be able to control equipment, or (3) other factors
performance in the emission guidelines particularize the information it is specific to the facility. In order to
and include presumptively approvable providing in section VII of this preamble determine that one or more of these
approaches for states to use when and the final Technical Support circumstances has been met, the state
invoking RULOF. The commenter noted Documents for the circumstances of any must demonstrate that there are
that this would reduce the regulatory affected EGUs for which they are fundamental differences between the
burden on states developing and considering RULOF, thereby decreasing information specific to a facility (or
submitting plans. Another commenter, the analytical burdens. class of such facilities) and the
however, stated that the EPA should not Comment: Several commenters stated information the EPA considered in the
provide any presumptively approvable that the proposed emission guidelines applicable emission guidelines that
standard, criteria, or analytic approach did not provide adequate time for make achieving the degree of emission
for states seeking to use RULOF. This RULOF analyses. limitation or compliance schedule in
Response: As noted above, the EPA those guidelines unreasonable for the
commenter explained that the premise
expects states to leverage the facility.
of source-specific variances under
information it is providing in section VII For each subcategory of affected EGUs
RULOF is that they reflect of this preamble and the final Technical in these emission guidelines, the EPA
circumstances that are unique to a Support Documents in conducting any determined the degree of emission
particular unit and fundamental RULOF analyses under these emission limitation achievable through
differences from the general case, and guidelines. In particular, the Agency application of the BSER by considering
that it would be inappropriate to offer believes states will be able to use the information relevant to each of the
a generic rubric for approving variances information it is providing on available factors in CAA section 111(a)(1):
separate from the particularized facts of control technologies for affected EGUs, whether a system of emission reduction
each case. technical considerations, and costs
Response: The EPA is not identifying is adequately demonstrated for the
given different amortization periods and subcategory, the costs of a system of
circumstances in which it would be particularize it for the purpose of
reasonable to deviate from its emission reduction, the non-air quality
conducting any analyses pursuant to 40 health and environmental impacts and
determinations or providing CFR 60.24a(e) and (f). Additionally, as
presumptively approvable approaches energy requirements associated with a
discussed in section X.C.2.b of this system of emission reduction, and the
to invoking RULOF in these emission preamble, the regulatory provisions for
guidelines. For this source category— extent of emission reductions from a
RULOF under subpart Ba provide a system.923 As noted above, the relevant
fossil-fuel fired steam generating framework for determining less
EGUs—in particular, the circumstances consideration for invoking RULOF is
stringent standards of performance that whether an affected EGU can reasonably
and characteristics of affected EGUs and have the practical effect of minimizing
the control strategies the EPA has achieve the presumptive standard of
states’ analytical burdens. Given the
identified as BSER are extremely EPA’s consideration of affected EGU’s 923 The EPA also considered expanded use and
context- and source-specific. In order to circumstances and operational development of technology in determining the
characteristics in designing these BSER for each subcategory. However, as this
922 See 88 FR 33383 (invoking RULOF based on consideration is not necessarily relevant at the scale
a particular coal-fired EGU’s remaining useful life
emission guidelines, the Agency does of a particular source for which a less stringent
‘‘is not prohibited under these emission not anticipate that states will be in the standard of performance is being considered, it is
guidelines’’). position of conducting numerous not addressed here.
performance for the applicable comparison to both the EPA’s determined are or could be reasonable
subcategory, as opposed to whether it information and across affected EGUs for sources would also not be an
can implement the BSER. In and states.924 For example, appropriate basis for invoking RULOF.
determining the BSER the EPA found consideration of pipeline length needed Thus, costs that are not fundamentally
that certain costs, impacts, and energy for a particular affected EGU is best different from, e.g., $18.50/MWh (the
requirements were, on balance, reflected through consideration of the cost for installation of wet-FGD on a 300
reasonable for affected EGUs; it is cost of that pipeline. In particular, MW coal-fired steam generating unit,
therefore reasonable to assume that the consideration of the remaining useful used for cost comparison in section
same costs, impacts, and energy life of a particular affected EGU should VIII.D.1.a.ii of this preamble) would not
requirements would be equally be considered with regard to its impact be an appropriate basis for invoking
reasonable in the context of other on costs. In determining the BSER, the RULOF under these emission
systems of reduction, as well. Therefore, EPA considers costs and specifically guidelines. On the other hand, costs that
the information the EPA considered in annualized costs associated with constitute outliers, e.g., that are greater
relation to each of these factors is the payment of the total capital investment than the 95th percentile of costs on a
baseline for consideration of RULOF associated with the BSER. An affected fleetwide basis (assuming a normal
regardless of the system of emission EGU’s remaining useful life and distribution) would likely represent a
reduction being considered. associated length of the capital recovery valid demonstration of a fundamental
The EPA is providing presumptive period can have a significant impact on difference and could be the basis of
standards of performance in these annualized costs. States invoking invoking RULOF.
emission guidelines in the form of rate- RULOF based on an affected EGU’s Importantly, the costs evaluated in
based emission limitations. Thus, the remaining useful life should BSER determinations are, in general,
focus for states considering whether a demonstrate that the annualized costs of based on average values across the fleet
particular affected EGU has met the applying the degree of emission of steam generating units. Those BSER
threshold for a less stringent standard of limitation achievable through cost analysis values represent the
performance pursuant to RULOF is application of the BSER for a source average of a distribution of costs
whether that affected EGU can with a short remaining useful life are including costs that are above or below
reasonably achieve the applicable rate- fundamentally different from the costs the average representative value. On
based presumptive standard of that the EPA found were reasonable. For that basis, implicit in the determination
performance in these emission purposes of determining the annualized that those average representative values
guidelines. costs for an affected EGU with a shorter are reasonable is the determination that
Within each of the statutory factors it remaining useful life, the EPA considers a significant portion of the unit-specific
considered in determining the BSER, the amortization period to begin at the costs around those average
the Agency considered information compliance date for the applicable representative values are also
using one or more evaluation metrics. subcategory. reasonable, including some portion of
For example, for both the long-term and States considering the use of RULOF those unit-specific costs that are above
medium-term coal-fired steam to provide a less stringent standard of but not significantly different than the
generating EGUs the EPA considered performance for a particular EGU must average representative values. That is,
cost in terms of dollars/ton CO2 reduced demonstrate that the information the cost values the EPA considered in
and increases in levelized costs relevant to that EGU is fundamentally determining the BSER should not be
expressed as dollars per MWh different from the information the EPA considered bright-line upper thresholds
electricity generation. Under the non-air considered. For example, in between reasonable and unreasonable
quality health and environmental determining the degree of emission costs. Moreover, the examples in this
impacts and energy requirements factor, limitation achievable through the discussion are provided merely for
the EPA considered non-greenhouse gas application of co-firing for medium-term illustrative purposes; because each
emissions and energy requirements in coal-fired steam generating EGUs, the RULOF demonstration must be
terms of parasitic load and boiler EPA found that costs of $71/ton CO2 evaluated based on the facts and
efficiency, in addition to evaluation reduced and $13/MWh are reasonable. circumstances relevant to a particular
metrics specific to the systems being A state seeking to invoke RULOF for an affected EGU, the EPA is not setting any
evaluated for each subcategory. For the affected coal-fired steam generating EGU generally applicable thresholds or
full range of factors, evaluation metrics, based on unreasonable cost of control providing presumptively approvable
and information the EPA considered resulting from plant age, location, or approaches for determining what
with regard to the long-term and basic process design would therefore, constitutes a fundamental difference in
medium-term coal-fired steam pursuant to 40 CFR 60.24a(e), cost or any other consideration under
generating EGU subcategories, see demonstrate that the costs of achieving these emission guidelines. The Agency
section VII.D.1 and VII.D.2 of this the applicable degree of emission will assess each use of RULOF in a state
preamble. limitation for that particular affected plan against the applicable regulatory
Although the considerations for requirements; however, the EPA is
EGU are fundamentally different from
invoking RULOF described in 40 CFR providing examples in this preamble in
$71/ton CO2 reduced and/or $13/MWh.
60.24a(e) are broader than just Any costs that the EPA has response to comments requesting that it
unreasonable cost of control, much of determined are reasonable for any BSER provide further clarity and guidance on
the information the EPA considered in for affected EGUs under these emission what constitutes a satisfactory use of
determining the BSER, and therefore guidelines would not be an appropriate RULOF.
many of the circumstances states might basis for invoking RULOF. Additionally, Under 40 CFR 60.24a(e)(1)(iii), states
consider in determining whether to costs that are not fundamentally may also consider ‘‘other factors specific
invoke RULOF, are reflected in the cost different from costs that the EPA has to the facility.’’ Such ‘‘other factors’’
consideration. Where possible, states may include both factors (categories of
should reflect source-specific 924 The EPA reiterates that states are not information) that the EPA did not
considerations in terms of cost, as it is precluded from considering information and factors consider in determining the degree of
an objective and replicable metric for other than costs under 40 CFR 60.24a(e)(ii) and (iii). emission limitation achievable through
application of the BSER and additional reasonable for a particular affected EGU ii. Invoking RULOF for Medium-Term
evaluation metrics (ways of considering in this subcategory to achieve the degree Coal-Fired Steam Generating EGUs
a category of information) that the EPA of emission limitation using CCS as the As for the long-term coal-fired steam
did not consider in its analysis. To control strategy, the state would generating EGU subcategory, the EPA
invoke RULOF based on consideration consider whether that affected EGU’s also considered evaluation metrics and
of ‘‘other factors,’’ a state must circumstances are fundamentally information specific to the BSER,
demonstrate that a factor makes it different from the evaluation metrics natural gas co-firing, for the medium-
unreasonable for the affected EGU to and information the EPA considered in term subcategory. Again, similar to the
achieve the applicable degree of these emission guidelines. If a state is long-term subcategory, certain generally
emission limitation in these emission considering whether it is reasonable for applicable metrics and information that
guidelines. an affected EGU to achieve the degree of the EPA considered, e.g., overall costs
The general implementing regulations emission limitation for long-term coal-
and energy requirements, will be
of subpart Ba provide that states may fired steam generating EGUs through
relevant regardless of the control
invoke RULOF for a class of facilities. In some other control strategy, certain of
the preamble to the subpart Ba final strategy a state is considering for an
the evaluation metrics and information
rule, the EPA explained that ‘‘invoking affected EGU in the medium-term
the EPA considered, such as overall
RULOF and providing a less-stringent subcategory. To the extent a state is
costs and energy requirements, would
standard [of] performance or longer considering whether it is reasonable for
be relevant while other metrics or
compliance schedule for a class of a particular affected EGU to reasonably
information may or may not be.
facilities is only appropriate where all As discussed above, the EPA achieve the presumptive standard of
the facilities in that class are similarly considered costs in terms of $/ton CO2 performance using natural gas co-firing
situated in all meaningful ways. That is, reduced and $/MWh. The Agency broke as a control, the state should evaluate
they must not only share the down its cost consideration for CCS into whether there is a fundamental
circumstance that is the basis for capture costs and CO2 transport and difference between the circumstances of
invoking RULOF, they must also share sequestration costs, as discussed in that EGU and the information the EPA
all other characteristics that are relevant sections VIII.D.1.a.ii.(A) and (B) of this considered. In considering costs for
to determining whether they can preamble. The EPA also considered the natural gas co-firing, the Agency took
reasonably achieve the degree of availability of the IRC section 45Q tax into account costs associated with
emission limitation determined by the credit in evaluating the cost of CCS for adding new gas burners and other boiler
EPA in the applicable EG. For example, affected EGUs, and finally, evaluated modifications, fuel cost, and new
it would not be reasonable to create a the impacts of two different capacity natural gas pipelines. In considering
class of facilities for the purpose of factor assumptions on costs. Similarly, non-air quality health and
RULOF on the basis that the facilities do the Agency considered a number of environmental impacts and energy
not have space to install the EPA’s BSER evaluation metrics specific to CCS requirements, the EPA addressed losses
control technology if some of them are under the non-air quality health and in boiler efficiency due to co-firing, as
able to install a different control environmental impacts and energy well as non-greenhouse gas emissions
technology to achieve the degree of requirements factors, in addition to and impact on the structure of the
emission limitation in the EG.’’ 925 considering non-greenhouse gas energy sector. States may also consider
Given that individual fossil fuel-fired emissions and parasitic/auxiliary energy other factors and circumstances that are
steam generating EGUs are very unlikely demand increases and the net power relevant to determining the
to be similarly situated with regard to output decreases. In particular, the EPA reasonableness of achieving the
all of the characteristics relevant to considered water use, CO2 capture plant applicable degree of emission
determining the reasonableness of siting, transport and geologic limitation.
meeting a degree of emission limitation, sequestration, and impacts on the iii. Invoking RULOF To Apply a Longer
the EPA believes it would not likely be energy sector in terms of long-term Compliance Schedule
reasonable for a state to invoke RULOF structure and reliability of the power
for a class of facilities under these sector. A state may also consider other Under 40 CFR 60.24a(c), ‘‘final
emission guidelines. That is, because factors and circumstances that the EPA compliance,’’ i.e., compliance with the
there are relatively few affected EGUs in did not consider in its evaluation of applicable standard of performance,
each subcategory and because each EGU CCS, to the extent such factors or ‘‘shall be required as expeditiously as
is likely to have a distinct combination circumstances are relevant to the practicable but no later than the
of size, operating process, footprint, reasonableness of achieving the compliance times specified’’ in the
geographic location, etc., it is highly associated degree of emission limitation. applicable emission guidelines, unless a
unlikely that the same threshold As detailed in section VII.D.1.a.i of state has demonstrated that a particular
analysis would apply to two or more this preamble, the EPA has determined designated facility cannot reasonably
units. that CCS is adequately demonstrated for comply with the specific compliance
long-term coal-fired steam generating time per the RULOF provision at 40 CFR
i. Invoking RULOF for Long-Term Coal- EGUs. The Agency evaluated the 60.24a(e). The EPA, in these emission
Fired Steam Generating EGUs components of CCS both individually guidelines, has detailed the amount of
In determining the BSER for the long- and in concurrent, simultaneous time needed for states and affected
term coal-fired steam generating EGUs, operation. If a state believes a particular EGUs in the long-term and medium-
term coal-fired steam generating EGU
the EPA considered several evaluation affected EGU cannot reasonably

metrics specific to CCS. However, implement CCS based on physical subcategories to comply with standards
affected EGUs are not required to impossibility or technical infeasibility, of performance using CCS and natural
implement CCS to comply with their the state must demonstrate that the gas co-firing, respectively, in sections
standards of performance. To the extent circumstances of that individual EGU VII.C.1 and VII.C.2 of this preamble.
a state is considering whether it is are fundamentally different from the These compliance times are based on
information on CCS that the EPA information available for and applicable
925 88 FR 80517 (November 17, 2023). considered in these emission guidelines. to the subcategories as a whole. The
Agency anticipates that some affected account for source- and state-specific circumstances specific to the facility.’’
EGUs will be able to comply more characteristics. The commenters argued States are uniquely situated to have
expeditiously than on these generally that the EPA’s general implementing knowledge about unit-specific
applicable timelines. Similarly, there regulations at 40 CFR 60.24a(c) considerations. If a unit-specific factor
may be circumstances in which a recognize that states may consider or circumstance is fundamentally
particular EGU cannot reasonably factors that make application of a less different from the information the EPA
comply with its standard of stringent standard of performance or considered and that difference makes it
performance by the compliance date longer compliance time significantly unreasonable for the affected EGU to
specified in these emission guidelines. more reasonable, and commenters stated achieve that degree of emission
In order to provide a longer compliance that those factors should include, inter limitation or compliance schedule,929 it
schedule, the state must demonstrate alia, cost, feasibility, infrastructure is grounds for applying a less stringent
that there is a fundamental difference development, NSR implications, standard of performance or longer
between the information the EPA fluctuations in performance depending compliance schedule. The EPA will
considered for the subcategory as a on load, state energy policy, and review states’ RULOF analyses and
whole and the circumstances of a potential reliability issues. The determinations for consistency with the
particular EGU. These circumstances commenters stated that states have the applicable regulatory requirements at 40
should not be speculative; the state authority to account for consideration of CFR 60.24a(e)–(h).
must substantiate the need for a longer other factors in various ways and that Comment: Multiple commenters
compliance schedule with the EPA must defer to state choices, weighed in on the subject of cost
documentation supporting that need provided those choices are reasonable metrics. Two commenters stated that the
and justifying why a certain component and consistent with the statute. EPA should not require states to
or components of implementation will Response: Comments on states’ use of consider costs using the same metrics
take longer than the EPA considered in RULOF vis-à-vis the EPA’s that it considered in the emission
these emission guidelines. If a state determinations pursuant to CAA section guidelines. These commenters
anticipates that a process or activity will 111(a)(1) in the applicable emission explained that the unique circumstances
take longer than is typical for similarly guidelines are outside the scope of this of each unit mean that different metrics
situated EGUs within and outside the rulemaking.926 Similarly, comments on may be appropriate and should be
state or longer than it has historically, the EPA’s authority to review states’ use allowed as long as the state plan
the state should provide an explanation of RULOF in state plans and the scope provides a justification. Other
of why it expects this to be the case as of that review are outside the scope of commenters, however, supported the
well as evidence corroborating the this rulemaking.927 The EPA is also proposed requirement for states to
reasons and need for additional time. clarifying that, while the commenters consider costs using the same metrics as
Consistent with 40 CFR 60.24a(c) and are correct that the general the EPA. Similarly, commenters differed
(e), states should not use the RULOF implementing regulations at 40 CFR on the example in the proposed rule
provision to provide a longer 60.24a(c) recognize that states may preamble that costs that are greater than
compliance schedule unless there is a invoke RULOF to provide a less the 95th percentile of costs on a
demonstrated, documented reason at the stringent standard of performance or fleetwide basis would likely be
time of state plan submission that a longer compliance schedule, they also fundamentally different from the
particular source will not be able to provide that, unless the threshold for fleetwide costs that the EPA considered
the use of RULOF in 40 CFR 60.24a(e) in these emission guidelines. While one
achieve compliance by the date
has been met, ‘‘standards of commenter believed that the 95th
specified in these emission guidelines.
performance shall be no less stringent percentile may not be an appropriate
The EPA notes that it is providing a
than the corresponding emission threshold in all circumstances and
number of flexibilities in these final
guideline(s) . . . and final compliance should not be treated as an absolute,
emission guidelines for states and
shall be required as expeditiously as another commenter argued that the EPA
sources if they find, subsequent to state
practicable but no later than the should formalize the 95th percentile
plan submission, that additional time is
compliance times specified’’ in the threshold as a requirement for states
necessary for compliance; states should
emission guidelines. The threshold for seeking to invoke RULOF based on
consider these flexibilities in
invoking RULOF is when a state unreasonable cost.
conjunction with the potential use of Response: The EPA believes that, in
demonstrates that a particular affected
RULOF to provide a longer compliance order to evaluate whether there is a
EGU cannot reasonably achieve the
schedule. A source-specific compliance fundamental difference between the cost
degree of emission limitation
date pursuant to RULOF must be no information the EPA considered in these
determined by the EPA, based on one or
later than necessary to address the emission guidelines and the cost
more of the circumstances at 40 CFR
fundamental difference; that is, it must information for a particular affected
60.24a(e)(i)–(iii), because there are
be as close to the compliance schedule EGU, it is necessary for states to
fundamental differences between the
provided in these emission guidelines evaluate costs using the same metrics
information the EPA considered in the
as reasonably possible. Considerations that the EPA considered. However,
emission guidelines and the information
specific to providing a longer states are not precluded from
specific to the affected EGU. The
compliance schedule to address considering additional cost metrics
‘‘significantly more reasonable’’
reliability are addressed in section alongside the two metrics used in these
standard does not apply to RULOF
X.C.2.e.i of this preamble.
determinations under these emission emission guidelines: $/ton of CO2

Comment: Several commenters stated guidelines.928 reduced and $/MWh of electricity
that the EPA must respect the broad The EPA agrees that states have
authority granted to states under the authority to consider ‘‘other 929 ‘‘Other factors’’ may include facility-specific
CAA and that while the EPA’s circumstances and factors that the EPA did not
anticipate and consider in the applicable emission
information on various factors is helpful 926 See 88 FR 80509–17 (November 17, 2023). guideline that make achieving the EPA’s degree of
to states, states may readily deviate from 927 See id. at 80526–27. emission limitation unreasonable for that facility.
the emission guidelines in order to 928 40 CFR 60.20a(a). 88 FR 80480, 80521 (November 17, 2023).
generated. States should justify why any that, respectively, is no less stringent or the degree of emission limitation due to
additional cost metrics are relevant to no longer than necessary to address the fundamental differences between the
determining whether a particular fundamental difference that was the circumstances of that particular EGU
affected EGU can reasonably achieve the basis for invoking RULOF. That is, the and the circumstances the EPA
applicable degree of emission standard of performance or compliance considered in the emission guidelines, it
limitation. schedule must be as close to the EPA’s may not be necessary for the state to
The EPA did not state that a cost that degree of emission limitation or evaluate other systems of emission
is greater than the 95th percentile of compliance schedule as reasonably reduction to determine the less stringent
fleetwide costs would necessarily justify possible for that particular EGU. standard of performance. In this
invocation of RULOF. Nor did the EPA The EPA notes that the proposed instance, the state and affected EGU
intend to suggest that such costs are the emission guidelines would have would determine the degree of emission
only way states can demonstrate that the included requirements for how states limitation the EGU can reasonably
costs for a particular affected EGU are determine less stringent standards of achieve, consistent with the
fundamentally different. While it may performance, including what systems of requirement that it be no less stringent
be an appropriate benchmark in some emission reduction states must evaluate than necessary. That degree of emission
cases, there are other ways for states to and the order in which they must be limitation would be the basis for the less
demonstrate that the cost for a particular evaluated. These proposed requirements stringent standard of performance. For
affected EGU is an outlier. That is, the were intended to ensure that states example, assume an affected EGU in the
EPA is not requiring that the unit- reasonably consider the controls that long-term coal-fired steam generating
specific costs be above the 95th may qualify as a source-specific EGU subcategory is intending to install
percentile in order to demonstrate that BSER.930 However, the final RULOF CCS and the state has demonstrated that
they are fundamentally different from provisions in subpart Ba for determining it is not reasonably possible for the
the costs the Agency considered in these less stringent standards of performance capture equipment at that particular
emission guidelines. As discussed differ from the proposed subpart Ba EGU to achieve 90 percent capture of
elsewhere in this section of the provisions in a way that obviates the the mass of CO2 in the flue gas
preamble, the diversity in circumstances need for the separate requirements (corresponding to an 88.4 percent
of individual affected EGUs under these proposed in these emission guidelines. reduction in emission rate), but it can
emission guidelines makes it infeasible First, as opposed to determining a reasonably achieve 85 percent capture.
for the EPA to a priori define a bright source-specific BSER for sources that If the source cannot reasonably achieve
line for what constitutes reasonable have met the threshold requirements for an 88.4 percent reduction in emission
versus unreasonable costs for individual RULOF, states determine the standard of rate using any other system of emission
units in these emission guidelines. performance that is no less stringent reduction, the state may apply a less
Comment: One commenter noted that than the EPA’s degree of emission stringent standard of performance that
the EPA should only approve the use of limitation than necessary to address the corresponds to 85 percent capture
RULOF to provide a longer compliance fundamental difference. Second, the without needing to evaluate further
schedule where there is clearly process for determining such a standard systems of emission reduction.
documented evidence (e.g., receipts, of performance that the EPA finalized at In other cases, however, an affected
invoices, actual site work) that a source 40 CFR 60.24a(f)(1) involves evaluating, EGU may not be implementing the
is making best endeavors to achieve to the extent necessary, the systems of BSER and may not be able to reasonably
compliance as expeditiously as possible. emission reduction that the EPA achieve the applicable degree of
Response: The EPA believes this kind identified in the applicable emission emission limitation (i.e., the
of evidence is strong support for guidelines using the factors and presumptive standard of performance)
providing a longer compliance evaluation metrics that the Agency using any control strategy. In such
schedule. The Agency further believes considered in assessing those systems. situations, the state must determine the
that states should show that the need to Because the final RULOF provisions of standard of performance that is no less
provide a longer compliance schedule is subpart Ba create essentially the same stringent than necessary by evaluating
notwithstanding best efforts on the parts process as the provisions the EPA the systems of emission reduction the
of all relevant parties to achieve timely proposed for determining a less EPA considered in these emission
compliance. The EPA is not, however, stringent standard of performance under guidelines, using the factors and
precluding the possibility that states these emission guidelines, the EPA has evaluation metrics the EPA considered
could reasonably justify a longer determined it is not necessary to finalize in assessing those systems. States may
compliance schedule based on other those provisions here. also consider additional systems of
types of information or evidence. The EPA anticipates that states emission reduction that the EPA did not
invoking RULOF for affected EGUs will identify but that the state believes are
b. Calculation of a Standard of
do so because an EGU is in one of two available and may be reasonable for a
Performance That Accounts for RULOF
circumstances: it is implementing the particular affected EGU.
If a state has demonstrated that a control strategy the EPA determined is The requirement at 40 CFR
particular affected EGU is unable to the BSER but cannot achieve the degree 60.24a(f)(1) provides that a state must
reasonably achieve the applicable of emission limitation in the emission evaluate these systems of emission
degree of emission limitation or guideline using that control (or any reduction to the extent necessary to
compliance schedule under these other system of emission reduction); or determine the standard of performance
emission guidelines per 40 CFR
it is not implementing the BSER and that is as close as reasonably possible to

60.24a(e), it may then apply a less cannot reasonably achieve the degree of the presumptive standard of
stringent standard of performance or emission limitation using any system of performance under these emission
longer compliance schedule according emission reduction. guidelines. It will most likely not be
to the process laid out in 40 CFR If an affected EGU will be necessary for a state to consider all of
60.24a(f). Pursuant to that process, the implementing the BSER but cannot meet the systems that the EPA identified for
state must determine the standard of a given affected EGU. For example, if
performance or compliance schedule 930 See 88 FR 33384 (May 23, 2023). the state has already determined it is not
reasonably possible for an affected EGU particular EGU. For example, if a state pursuant to RULOF are, by their nature,
to implement one of these control determined that it is physically source-specific, the EPA is not
strategies, at any stringency, as part of impossible or technically infeasible providing particular increments of
its demonstration under 40 CFR and/or unreasonably costly for a long- progress for sources for which RULOF
60.24a(e) that a less stringent standard term coal-fired affected EGU to has been invoked in these emission
of performance is warranted, the state construct a CO2 pipeline because the guidelines. Therefore, states must
does not need to evaluate that system EGU is located on a remote island, the provide increments of progress for
again. Similarly, if a state starts by state could consider that information in RULOF sources in their state plans that
evaluating the system that achieves the evaluating additional systems of comply with the generally applicable
greatest emission reductions and emission reduction, as well. requirements in 40 CFR 60.24a(d) and
determines the affected EGU can The general implementing regulations 40 CFR 60.21a(h).
implement that system, it is most likely at 40 CFR 60.24a(f)(2) provide that any Additionally, 40 CFR 60.24a(h)
not necessary for the state to consider less stringent standards of performance requires that a less stringent standard of
the other systems on the list in order to that a state applies pursuant to RULOF performance must meet all other
determine that the resulting standard of must be in the form required by the applicable requirements of both the
performance is no less stringent than applicable emission guideline. The general implementing regulations and
necessary. The Agency anticipates that presumptive standards of performance these emission guidelines.
states will leverage the information the the EPA is providing in these emission
i. Determining a Less-Stringent Standard
EPA has provided regarding systems of guidelines are rate-based emission
of Performance for Long-Term Coal
emission reduction in these emission limitations. In order to ensure that a
Fired Steam Generating EGUs
guidelines, as well as the wealth of source-specific standard of performance
other technical, cost, and related is no less stringent than the EPA’s The EPA identified four potential
information on various control systems presumptive standard than necessary, systems of emission reduction for long-
in the record for this final action, in the source-specific standard pursuant to term coal-fired steam generating EGUs:
conducting their evaluations under 40 RULOF must be determined and CCS with 90 percent CO2 capture, CCS
CFR 60.24a(f). In many cases, it will be expressed in the form of a rate-based with partial CO2 capture/lower capture
possible for states to use information the emission limitation. That is, the systems rates, natural gas co-firing, and HRI. If
EPA has provided as a starting point of emission reduction that states a state has demonstrated, pursuant to 40
and particularize it for the evaluate pursuant to 40 CFR 60.24a(f)(1) CFR 60.24a(e), that a particular affected
circumstances of an individual affected must be systems for reducing a source’s coal-fired EGU in the long-term
EGU.931 emission rate and the state must apply subcategory can install and operate CCS
For systems of emission reduction a standard of performance expressed as but cannot reasonably achieve an 88.4
that have a range of potential an emission rate, in lb CO2/MWh,932 percent degree of emission limitation
stringencies, states should start by that is no less stringent than necessary. using CCS or any other systems of
evaluating the most stringent iteration As discussed in section X.D.1.b of this emission reduction, under the process
that is potentially feasible for the preamble, the EPA is not providing that laid out in 60.24a(f)(1) the state would
particular affected EGU. If that level of affected EGUs with standards of proceed to evaluate CCS with lower
stringency is not reasonable, the state performance pursuant to consideration rates of CO2 capture. The state would
should also evaluate other stringencies of RULOF can use mass-based or rate- identify the most stringent degree of
as may be needed to determine the based compliance flexibilities under emission limitation the affected EGU
standard of performance that is no less these emission guidelines. can reasonably achieve using CCS and
stringent than the applicable degree of The general implementing regulations that degree of emission limitation would
emission limitation in these emission also provide that any compliance become the basis for the source’s less
guidelines than necessary. schedule extending more than twenty stringent standard of performance.933
In evaluating the systems of emission months past the state plan submission If a state has demonstrated, pursuant
reduction identified in these emissions deadline must include legally to 40 CFR 60.24a(e), that a particular
guidelines, states must also consider the enforceable increments of progress. 40 affected coal-fired EGU cannot
factors and evaluation metrics that the CFR 60.24a(d). Due to the timelines the reasonably install and operate CCS as a
EPA considered in assessing those EPA is finalizing under these emission control strategy and cannot otherwise
systems, including technical feasibility, guidelines, any affected EGU with achieve the presumptive standard of
the amount of emission reductions, any compliance obligations pursuant to performance, the state would proceed to
non-air quality health and consideration of RULOF will have a evaluate natural gas co-firing and HRI as
environmental impacts, and energy compliance schedule that triggers the potential control strategies. Because 40
requirements. 40 CFR 60.24a(f)(1). They need for increments of progress in state CFR 60.24a(f)(1) requires that a standard
may also consider, in evaluating plans. Because compliance obligations of performance be no less stringent than
systems of emission reduction, other necessary to address the fundamental
factors specific to the facility that 932 The presumptive standards of performance for differences that were the basis for
constitute a fundamental difference coal-fired steam-generating affected EGUs and base invoking RULOF, states would start by
load and intermediate load natural gas- and oil-fired evaluating natural gas co-firing at 40
between the information the EPA steam generating affected EGUs are in units of lb
considered and the circumstances of the CO2/MWh; thus, any standards of performance percent. If the affected EGU cannot
particular affected EGU and that were pursuant to consideration of RULOF must be
determined in these units, as well. The presumptive 933 40 CFR 60.24a(f) requires that a standard of
the basis of invoking RULOF for that standard of performance for low-load natural gas- performance pursuant to consideration of RULOF
fired and oil-fired affected EGUs are in units of lb be no less stringent than necessary to address the
931 See, e.g., sections VII.C.1–4 of this preamble, CO2/MMBtu. While the EPA does not expect that fundamental difference identified under 40 CFR
the final TSD, GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam states will use the RULOF provisions to provide 60.24a(e). If a particular affected EGU can install
Generation Units, the CO2 Capture Project Schedule less stringent standards of performance for these and operate CCS but only at such a low CO2 capture
and Operations Memo, Documentation for the sources because their BSER is based on uniform rate that it could reasonably achieve greater
Lateral Cost Estimation, Transport and Storage fuels, should a state do so, the standard of stringency based on natural gas co-firing, the state
Timeline Summary, and the Heat Rate Improvement performance would be determined in units of lb would apply a standard of performance based on
Method Costs and Limitations Memo. CO2/MMBtu. natural gas co-firing.
reasonably co-fire at 40 percent, the the need for, and length of, any provide for the implementation and
state would proceed to evaluate lower compliance schedule extensions under enforcement of the operating conditions,
levels of natural gas co-firing unless it the RULOF provisions. For states that including requirements for monitoring,
has demonstrated that the EGU cannot are applying less stringent standards of reporting, and recordkeeping. The EPA
reasonably co-fire any amount of natural performance that are based on a system notes that there may be circumstances
gas. If that is the case, the state would of emission reduction other than the in which an affected EGU’s
then evaluate HRI as a control strategy. BSER for that subcategory, states should circumstances change after a state has
The EPA notes that states may also apply a compliance schedule consistent submitted its state plan; states may
consider additional systems of emission with installation and implementation of always submit plan revisions if needed
reduction that may be available and that system that is as expeditious as to alter an enforceable requirement
reasonable for particular EGUs. practicable.934 therein.
Comment: One commenter asserted Comment: One commenter stated that
ii. Determining a Less-Stringent that the 2023 proposed rule indicated if a state does not accept the
Standard of Performance for Medium- that states invoking RULOF would be presumptive standards of performance
Term Coal Fired Steam Generating required to evaluate certain controls, in for a facility, it must establish federally
EGUs a certain order, as appropriate for enforceable retirement dates and
The EPA identified three potential subcategories of affected EGUs. The operating conditions for that facility.
systems of emission reduction for commenter stated that the EPA must The commenter asserted that the CAA
affected coal-fired steam generating defer to states’ consideration of other does not authorize the EPA to constrain
EGUs in the medium-term subcategory: systems of emission reduction that the states’ discretion by requiring them to
CCS, natural gas co-firing, and HRI. The EPA has determined are not the BSER, impose such restrictions as the price for
EPA explained in section VII.D.2.b.i of including the manner in which the exercising the RULOF authority granted
this preamble that the cost effectiveness states choose to consider those systems. by Congress. The commenter suggested
of CCS is less favorable for medium- Response: The EPA is not finalizing that the EPA eliminate the requirement
term steam generating EGUs based on the proposed requirements in these to include enforceable retirement dates
the short periods they have to amortize emission guidelines that would have and restrictions on operations in
capital costs and utilize the IRC section specified the systems of emission conjunction with a RULOF
45Q tax credit. The EPA therefore reduction that states must consider determination and stated that states
believes that it would be reasonable for when invoking RULOF and the order in should retain discretion to decide
states determining a less stringent which they consider them. The EPA is whether and when, based on RULOF, it
standard of performance for an affected instead providing that states’ analyses is necessary to impose such restrictions
EGU in the medium-term subcategory to and determinations of less stringent on sources.
forgo evaluating CCS as a potential standards of performance pursuant to Response: The EPA clarifies that
control strategy. States would therefore RULOF must be conducted in states are in no way required to impose
start by evaluating lower levels of accordance with the generally enforceable retirement dates or
natural gas co-firing, unless a state has applicable requirements of the part 60, operating restrictions on affected EGUs
demonstrated pursuant to 40 CFR subpart Ba implementing regulations; under these emission guidelines. It is
60.24a(e) that the particular EGU cannot specifically, 40 CFR 60.24a(f). While the entirely within a state’s control to
reasonably install and implement requirements under this regulation for decide whether such a requirement is
natural gas co-firing as a system of determining less stringent standards of appropriate for a source. If a state
emission reduction. If that is the case, performance pursuant to RULOF are determines that it is, in fact, appropriate
the state would evaluate HRI as the similar to the requirements proposed to codify an affected EGU’s intention to
basis for a standard of performance that under these emission guidelines, they cease operating or limit its operations as
is no less stringent than necessary. are also, as described above, more an enforceable requirement, the state
The EPA expects that any coal-fired flexible because they provide (1) that may use such considerations as the
steam generating EGU to which a less states must consider other systems of basis for applying, as warranted, a less
stringent standard of performance is emission reduction to the extent stringent standard of performance to
being applied will be able to reasonably necessary to determine the standard of that source. This allowance is provided
implement some system of emission performance that is no less stringent under the subpart Ba general
reduction; at a minimum, the Agency than the EPA’s degree of emission implementing regulations, 40 CFR
believes that all sources could institute limitation than necessary, and (2) that 60.24a(g).
approaches to maintain their historical states may consider other systems of
heat rates. emission reduction, in addition to those d. More Stringent Standards of
the EPA identified in the applicable Performance in State Plans
iii. Determining a Longer Compliance
emission guidelines. States always have the authority and
Schedule
ability to include more stringent
Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.24a(f)(1), a c. Contingency Requirements
standards of performance and faster
longer compliance schedule pursuant to Per the general implementing compliance schedules as federally
consideration of RULOF must be no regulations at 40 CFR 60.24a(g), if a state enforceable requirements in their state
longer than necessary to address the invokes RULOF based on an operating plans. They do not need to use the
fundamental difference identified condition within the control of an RULOF provisions to do so. See 40 CFR
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.24a(e). For states
affected EGU, such as remaining useful 60.24a(i).

that are providing extensions to the life or a specific level of utilization, the
schedules in the EPA’s emission state plan must include such operating e. Interaction of RULOF and Other State
guidelines, implementation of this condition or conditions as an Plan Flexibilities and Mechanisms
requirement is straightforward. States enforceable requirement. The state plan The EPA discusses the ability of
should provide any information and must also include provisions that affected EGUs with standards of
analyses discussed in other sections of performance determined pursuant to 40
this preamble as relevant to justifying 934 See 40 CFR 60.24a(c). CFR 60.24a(f) to use compliance
flexibilities under these emission the Agency believes there will remain would trigger non-compliance with at
guidelines in section X.D of this very few, if any, circumstances in which least one of the mandatory reliability
preamble. states will need to provide standards approved by FERC or cause
particularized compliance obligations the loss of load expectation to increase
i. Use of RULOF To Address Reliability
for an affected EGU based on a need to beyond the level targeted by regional
The EPA, in determining the degree of address reliability. However, there may system planners as part of their
emission limitation achievable through be isolated instances in which a established procedures for that
application of the BSER for coal-fired particular affected EGU cannot particular region. Specifically, this
steam generating EGUs, analyzed reasonably comply with the applicable requires a clear demonstration that each
potential impacts of the BSERs on requirements due to a source-specific unit for which use of RULOF is being
resource adequacy in addition to reliability issue. Such unit-specific considered would be needed to
considering multiple studies on how reliability considerations may constitute maintain the targeted level of resource
reliability could be impacted by these an ‘‘[o]ther circumstance[] specific to adequacy.935 The analysis must also
emission guidelines. In doing so, the the facility’’ that makes it unreasonable include a projection of the period of
Agency considered potential large-scale for a particular EGU to achieve the time for which the particular affected
(regional and national) and long-term degree of emission limitation or EGU is expected to be reliability critical.
impacts on the reliability of the compliance schedule the EPA has States must also provide an analysis by
electricity system under CAA section provided in these emission guidelines. the relevant reliability Planning
111(a)(1)’s ‘‘energy requirements’’ 40 CFR 60.24a(e)(1)(iii). The EPA is Authority 936 that corroborates the
factor. In evaluating CCS as a control therefore confirming that states may use asserted reliability risk and confirms
strategy for long-term coal-fired steam the RULOF provisions in 40 CFR 60.24a that one or both of the circumstances
generating EGUs, the Agency to apply a less stringent standard of would result from requiring the
determined that CCS as the BSER would performance or longer compliance particular affected EGU to comply with
have limited and non-adverse impacts schedule to a particular affected EGU its applicable requirements, and also
on the long-term structure of the power based on reliability considerations. The confirms the period of time for which
sector or on reliability of the power EPA emphasizes that the RULOF the EGU is projected to be reliability
sector. See section VII.C.1.a.iii.(F) and provisions should not be used to critical. The state plan must also
final TSD, Resource Adequacy Analysis. provide a less stringent standard of include a certification from the Planning
Additionally, the EPA has made several performance if the applicable degree of Authority that the claims are accurate
adjustments to the final emission and that the identified reliability
emission limitation for an affected EGU
guidelines relative to proposal that problem both exists and requires the
is reasonably achievable. To do so
should have the effect of alleviating any specific relief requested.
would be inconsistent with CAA
reliability concerns, including changing To substantiate a reliability risk that
sections 111(d) and 111(a)(1). Thus, to
the scope of units covered by these stems from resource adequacy in
the extent states and affected EGUs find
actions and removing certain particular, the analyses must also
it necessary to use RULOF to
subcategories, including one that would demonstrate that the specific affected
particularize these emission guidelines’
have included an annual capacity factor EGU has been designated by the
requirements for a specific unit based
limitation. See section XII.F of this relevant Planning Authority as needed
on reliability concerns, such
preamble for further discussion. for resource adequacy and thus
While the EPA has determined that adjustments should take the form of
longer compliance schedules. reliability, and that requiring that
the structure and requirements of these affected EGU to comply with the
emission guidelines will not negatively In order to meet the threshold for
applying a less stringent standard of requirements in these emission
impact large-scale and long-term guidelines would interfere with its
reliability, it also acknowledges the performance or longer compliance
schedule based on unit-specific ability to serve this function as intended
more locationally specific, source-by- by the Planning Authority. However, the
source decisions that go into reliability considerations under 40 CFR
60.24a(e), a state must demonstrate a EPA reiterates that the structure of the
maintaining grid reliability. For subcategories for coal-fired steam
example, there may be circumstances in fundamental difference between the
information the EPA considered on generating affected EGUs in these final
which a balancing authority may need
reliability and the circumstances of the emission guidelines differs from the
to have a particular unit available at a
specific unit. This demonstration would proposal in ways that should provide
certain time in order to ensure
be made by showing that requiring a states and affected EGUs wider latitude
reliability of the larger system. As noted
particular affected EGU to comply with to make the operational decisions
above, the structure and various
its presumptive standard of performance needed to ensure resource adequacy.
mechanisms of these emission
under the specified compliance Thus, again, the Agency expects that the
guidelines allow states and reliability
timeframe would compromise circumstances in which states need to
authorities to plan for compliance in a
reliability, e.g., by necessitating that the rely on consideration of RULOF to
manner that preserves grid operators’
abilities to maintain electric reliability. affected EGU be taken offline for a 935 See, e.g., the North American Electric
Specifically, coal-fired EGUs that are specific period of time during which a Reliability Corporation’s ‘‘Probabilistic Assessment:
planning to cease operation do not have resource adequacy shortfall with Technical Guideline Document,’’ August 2016.
control requirements under these adverse impacts would result. In order https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC/PAWG/proba_
emission guidelines, the removal of the to make this demonstration, states must technical_guideline_document_08082014.pdf.
936 The North American Electric Reliability

imminent-term and near-term provide an analysis of the reliability risk Corporation (NERC)’s currently enforceable
subcategories means that states and if the particular affected EGU were definition of ‘‘Planning Authority’’ is, ‘‘[t]he
reliability authorities have greater required to comply with its applicable responsible entity that coordinates and integrates
flexibility in the earlier years of presumptive standard of performance by transmission Facilities and service plans, resource
plans, and Protection Systems.’’ Glossary of Terms
implementation, and the EPA is the compliance date, clearly Used in NERC Reliability Standards, Updated April
providing two dedicated reliability demonstrating that the EGU is reliability 1, 2024. https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/
mechanisms. Given these adjustments, critical such that requiring it to comply Glossary%20of%20Terms/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf.
particularize an affected EGU’s and ongoing opportunities to engage analysis and consultation with planning
compliance obligation will be rare. EPA on this important topic. authorities described in this section of
The EPA will review these analyses Comment: The EPA received multiple this preamble, that there is a
and documentation as part of its comments on the use of the RULOF fundamental difference between the
evaluation of standards of performance provisions to address reliability. Several information the EPA considered in these
and compliance schedules that states commenters emphasized that states emission guidelines and the
apply based on consideration of need the ability to adjust affected EGUs’ circumstances and information relevant
reliability under the RULOF provisions. compliance obligations for reasons to a particular affected EGU that makes
As described in sections X.C.1.d and linked to reliability. They elaborated it unreasonable for that EGU to comply
XII.F.3.b of this preamble, the EPA is that an independent system operator/ with its presumptive standard of
providing two flexible mechanisms that regional transmission organization performance by the applicable
states may incorporate in their plans determination that an affected EGU is compliance date.
that, if utilized, would provide a needed for reliability would be The EPA stresses that a generic or
temporary delay of affected EGU’s anchored in a RULOF analysis that unsubstantiated reliability or resource
compliance obligations if there is a considers forces that may drive the adequacy concern is not sufficient to
demonstrated reliability need.937 The unit’s premature retirement. Some substantiate a fundamental difference or
EPA anticipates that states discovering, commenters indicated that use of unreasonableness of complying with
after a state plan has been submitted RULOF to address such units would applicable requirements. Simply
and approved, that a particular affected allow those units to continue to operate asserting that grid reliability or resource
EGU needs additional time to meet its for the required period of time, applying adequacy is a concern for a state and
compliance obligation as a result of a routine methods of operation, to address thus an affected EGU needs a less
reliability or resource adequacy issue grid reliability. They similarly noted stringent standard of performance or
will avail themselves of these that sources that have foreseeable longer compliance schedule would not
flexibilities. If a state anticipates that the retirement glidepaths but are key be sufficient. Rather, a state would have
reliability or resource adequacy issue resources could be offered a BSER that to demonstrate, via the certification and
will persist beyond the 1-year extension promotes the EPA’s carbon reduction analysis described above, that the
provided by these flexible mechanisms, goals but falls outside of the Agency’s relevant planning authority has
the EPA expects that states will also one-size-fits-all BSER approach. designated a particular affected EGU as
initiate a state plan revision. In such a Another commenter suggested that
reliability or resource adequacy critical
state plan revision, the state must make states should be able to modify a
and that requiring that EGU to comply
the demonstration and provides the subcategory in their plans to address a
with its standard of performance by the
reliability issue, and provided the
analysis described above in order to use applicable compliance date would
example of allowing a unit that is
to adjust an affected EGU’s compliance interfere with the maintenance of
planning to retire at the end of 2032 but
obligations to address the reliability or reliability or resource adequacy as
that is needed for reliability purposes at
resource adequacy issue at that time. intended by that planning authority.
greater than 20 percent capacity factor
The EPA intends to continue A standard of performance or
to subcategorize as an imminent-term
engagement on the topic of electric compliance schedule that has been
unit despite operating past the end date
system reliability, resource adequacy, particularized for an affected EGU based
for the imminent-term subcategory. The
and linkages to various EPA regulatory on consideration of reliability or
commenter suggested that such a
efforts to ensure proper communication resource adequacy must, pursuant to 40
modification could be justified under
with key stakeholders and Federal both the remaining useful life CFR 60.24a(f), be no less stringent than
counterparts including DOE and FERC. consideration and the energy necessary to address the fundamental
Additionally, the Agency intends to requirements consideration of RULOF. difference identified pursuant to 40 CFR
coordinate with its Federal partners Other commenters similarly requested 60.24a(e), which in this case would be
with expertise in reliability when that the EPA clarify that the RULOF unit-specific grid reliability or resource
evaluating RULOF demonstrations that provisions can be used to accommodate adequacy needs. A less stringent
invoke this consideration. There are also the changes in the power sector, e.g., the standard of performance does not
opportunities to potentially provide build-out of transmission and necessarily correspond to a standard of
information and technical support on distribution infrastructure, that are performance based on routine methods
implementation of these emission ongoing and that may impact the of operation and maintenance.
guidelines and critical reliability anticipated operating horizons of some The EPA notes that states do not need
considerations that will benefit states, affected EGUs. to use the RULOF provisions to justify
affected sources, system planners, and Response: As explained above, the the date on which a particular affected
reliability authorities. Specifically, the EPA has analyzed the potential impacts EGU plans to cease operation. RULOF
DOE–EPA MOU on Electric System of these emission guidelines and only comes into play if there is a
Reliability provides a framework for determined that they would have fundamental difference between the
ongoing engagement, and the EPA limited and non-adverse impacts on information the EPA considered and the
intends to work with DOE to ensure that large-scale and long-term reliability and information specific to an affected EGU
reliability stakeholders have additional resource adequacy. However, the EPA with a shorter remaining useful life that
acknowledges that there may be makes achieving the EPA’s presumptive
937 The mechanism described in section X.C.1.d
reliability-related considerations that standard of performance unreasonable,,
of this preamble is not restricted to circumstances

in which a state needs to provide an affected EGU
apply at the level of a particular EGU e.g., the amortized cost of control. If a
with additional time to comply with its standard of that the Agency could not have known state elects to rely on an affected EGU’s
performance specifically for reliability or resource or foreseen and did not consider in its operating conditions, such as a plan to
adequacy, but it can be used for this purpose. The broader assessment. As described above, permanently cease operation, as the
reliability mechanism described in section XII.F.3.b
is specific to reliability and can be used to extend
states may use the RULOF provision to basis for applying a less stringent
the date by which a source plans to cease operating address reliability or resource adequacy standard of performance, those
by up to 1 year. if they demonstrate, based on the conditions must be included as an
enforceable commitment in the state and correspondence with vendors and The EPA is finalizing IoPs for affected
plan. regulators is helpful evidence for EGUs based on BSERs that involve
As explained elsewhere in this demonstrating that states and affected installation of emissions controls: long-
section of the preamble, the effect of EGUs have been making progress term coal-fired EGUs and medium-term
RULOF is not to modify subcategories towards compliance and that the need coal-fired EGUs. Units complying
under these emission guidelines but for a longer compliance schedule is due through the BSER specified for each
rather to particularize the compliance to circumstances outside the affected subcategory, either CCS for the long-
obligations of an affected EGU within a EGU’s control. term subcategory or natural gas co-firing
given subcategory. The EPA also notes In establishing a longer compliance for the medium-term subcategory, must
that it is not finalizing the proposed schedule pursuant to 40 CFR use IoPs tailored to those BSERs. Units
imminent-term or near-term 60.24a(f)(1), a state must demonstrate complying through a different control
subcategories for affected coal-fired that the revised schedule is no longer technology must adopt increments that
steam generating EGUs. than necessary to accommodate correspond to each of the steps in 40
ii. Use of RULOF With Compliance Date circumstances that have resulted in the CFR 60.21a(h). As specified in the
Extension Mechanism delay. proposal, each increment must be
assigned a calendar date deadline, but
As discussed in section X.C.1.d of the 3. Increments of Progress for Medium- states have discretion to set those dates
preamble to this final rule, the EPA is Term and Long-Term Coal-Fired Steam based on the unique circumstances of
allowing states to include in their plans Generating EGUs each unit. The EPA is also finalizing its
a mechanism to provide a compliance proposal to exempt the natural gas- and
The EPA’s longstanding CAA section
deadline extension of up to 1 year for oil-fired EGU subcategories from IoP
111 implementing regulations provide
certain affected EGUs. This mechanism requirements. These subcategories have
would be available for affected EGUs that state plans must include legally
enforceable Increments of Progress BSERs of routine operation and
with standards of performance that maintenance, which does not require
require add-on control technologies and (IoPs) toward achieving compliance for
each designated facility when the the installation of significant new
that demonstrate the extension is emission controls or operational
needed for installation of controls due compliance schedule extends more than
a specified length of time from the state changes.
to circumstances outside the control of The EPA is finalizing the proposed
the affected EGU. In the event the state plan submission date. Under the subpart
approach allowing states to choose the
and affected EGU believe that 1 year Ba revisions finalized in November
calendar dates for all IoPs for long- and
will not be sufficient to remedy those 2023, IoPs are required when the final
medium-term coal-fired EGUs, subject
circumstances, i.e., that the affected compliance deadline (i.e., the date on
to two constraints. The IoP
EGU will not be able to comply with its which affected EGUs must start
corresponding to 40 CFR 60.21a(h)(1),
standard of performance even with a 1- monitoring and reporting emissions data
submittal of a final control plan to the
year extension, the state may also start and other information for purposes of
air pollution control agency, must be
the process of revising its plan to apply demonstrating compliance with
assigned the earliest calendar date
a longer compliance schedule based on standards of performance) is more than
deadline among the increments, and the
consideration of RULOF. In order to 20 months after the plan submittal
IoP corresponding to 40 CFR
demonstrate that there is a fundamental deadline. These emission guidelines for 60.21a(h)(5), final compliance, must be
difference between the circumstances of steam EGUs finalize a 24-month state assigned a date aligned with the
the affected EGU and the information plan submission deadline and compliance date for each subcategory,
the EPA considered in determining the compliance dates of January 1, 2032 (for either January 1, 2032, for the long-term
compliance schedule in the emission long-term coal-fired EGUs), and January subcategory or January 1, 2030, for the
guidelines, the state should provide 1, 2030 (for all other steam generating medium-term subcategory. The EPA
documentation to justify why it is EGUs), exceeding subpart Ba’s 20-month believes that this approach will provide
unreasonable for the affected EGU to threshold. Under these emission states and EGUs with flexibility to
meet that compliance schedule, even guidelines, in particular, the lengthy account for idiosyncrasies in planning
with an additional year (providing that planning and construction processes processes, tailor compliance timelines
the state has allowed for a 1-year associated with the CCS and natural gas to individual facilities, allow
extension), based on one or more of the co-firing BSERs make IoPs an simultaneous work toward separate
considerations in 40 CFR 60.24a(e)(1). appropriate mechanism to assure steady increments, and ensure full performance
This documentation should demonstrate progress toward compliance and to by the compliance date.
that the need to provide a longer provide transparency on that progress. For coal-fired EGUs assigned to the
compliance schedule was due to The EPA received support for the long-term and medium-term
circumstances outside the affected proposed approach to IoPs from many subcategories and that adopt the
EGU’s control and that the affected EGU commenters; others, however, offered corresponding BSER (CCS or natural gas
has met all relevant increments of adverse perspectives. Supportive co-firing, respectively) as their
progress and other obligations in a commenters generally emphasized the compliance strategy, the EPA is
timely manner up to the point at which need for clear, transparent, and finalizing BSER-specific IoPs that
the delay occurred. That is, the state enforceable implementation correspond to the steps in 40 CFR
must demonstrate that the need to checkpoints between state plan 60.21a(h). Some increments have been
invoke RULOF and to provide a longer submittal and the compliance dates
adjusted to more closely align with

compliance schedule was not caused by given the lengthy timelines affected planning, engineering, and construction
self-created circumstances. As discussed EGUs are being afforded to achieve their steps anticipated for affected EGUs that
in sections X.C.1.d and X.C.2.a of this standards of performance. These will be complying with standards of
preamble, documentation such as comments were broadly consistent with performance with natural gas co-firing
permits obtained and/or contracts the proposed rationale for the IoPs. or CCS, in particular; however, these
entered into for the installation of Adverse comments are addressed at the technology-specific increments retain
control technology, receipts, invoices, end of this subsection of the preamble. the basic structure and substance of the
increments in the general implementing to achieve 90 percent CO2 capture on an EGU to the appropriate air pollution
regulations under subpart Ba. In annual basis. (5) Demonstration that all control agency. The final control plan
addition, consistent with 40 CFR permitting actions related to pipeline must be consistent with the subcategory
60.24a(d), the EPA is finalizing similar construction have commenced by a date declaration in the state plan and must
additional increments of progress for the specified in the state plan. Evidence in include supporting analysis for the
long-term and medium-term coal-fired support of the demonstration must affected EGU’s control strategy,
subcategories that are specific to include pipeline planning and design including the design basis for
pipeline construction in order to ensure documentation that informed the modifications at the facility, the
timely progress on the planning, permitting process(es), a complete list of anticipated timeline to achieve full
permitting, and construction activities pipeline-related permitting applications, compliance, and the benchmarks
related to pipelines that may be required including the nature of the permit anticipated along the way. (2) Awarding
to enable full compliance with the sought and the authority to which each of contracts for boiler modifications, or
applicable standard of performance. The permit application was submitted, an issuance of orders for the purchase of
EPA is also finalizing an additional attestation that the list of pipeline- component parts to accomplish such
increment of progress related to the related permits is complete with respect modifications. Affected EGUs can
identification of an appropriate to the authorizations required to operate demonstrate compliance with this
sequestration site for the long-term coal- the facility at full compliance with the increment by submitting sufficient
fired subcategory. Finally, the EPA is standard of performance, and a timeline evidence that the appropriate contracts
finalizing a requirement that state plans to complete all pipeline permitting have been awarded. (3) Initiation of
must require affected EGUs with activities. (6) Submittal of a report onsite construction or installation of any
increments of progress to post the identifying the geographic location boiler modifications necessary to enable
activities or actions that constitute the where CO2 will be injected natural gas co-firing at a level of 40
increments, the schedule required in the underground, how the CO2 will be percent on an annual average basis. (4)
state plan for achieving them, and, transported from the capture location to Completion of onsite construction of
within 30 business days, any the storage location, and the regulatory any boiler modifications necessary to
documentation necessary to requirements associated with the enable natural gas co-firing at a level of
demonstrate that they have been sequestration activities, as well as an 40 percent on an annual average basis.
achieved to the Carbon Pollution anticipated timeline for completing (5) Demonstration that all permitting
Standards for EGUs website, as related permitting activities. (7) Final actions related to pipeline construction
discussed in section X.E.1.b.ii of this compliance with the standard of have commenced by a date specified in
preamble, in a timely manner. performance. States must assign the state plan. Evidence in support of
For coal-fired steam generating units calendar deadlines for each increment the demonstration must include
in the long-term subcategory adopting consistent with the following pipeline planning and design
CCS as their compliance approach, the requirements: the first increment, documentation that informed the
EPA is finalizing the following seven submission of a final control plan, must permitting application process, a
IoPs as enforceable elements required to be assigned the earliest calendar date complete list of pipeline-related
be included in a state plan: (1) among the increments; the seventh permitting applications, including the
Submission of a final control plan for increment, final compliance must be set nature of the permit sought and the
the affected EGU to the appropriate air for January 1, 2032. authority to which each permit
pollution control agency. The final For coal-fired steam generating units application was submitted, an
control plan must be consistent with the in the long-term subcategory adopting a attestation that the list of pipeline-
subcategory declaration in the state plan compliance approach that differs from related permit applications is complete
and must include supporting analysis CCS, the EPA is finalizing the with respect to the authorizations
for the affected EGU’s control strategy, requirement that states adopt IoPs for required to operate the facility at full
including a feasibility and/or FEED each affected EGU that are consistent compliance with the standard of
study, the anticipated timeline to with the IoPs at 40 CFR 60.21a(h). As performance, and a timeline to complete
achieve full compliance, and the with long-term units adopting CCS as all pipeline permitting activities. (6)
benchmarks anticipated along the way. their compliance strategy, states must Final compliance with the standard of
(2) Awarding of contracts for emission assign calendar deadlines for each performance. States must also assign
control systems or for process increment consistent with the following calendar deadlines for each increment
modifications, or issuance of orders for requirements: the first increment, consistent with the following
the purchase of component parts to corresponding to 40 CFR 60.21a(h)(1), requirements: the first increment,
accomplish emission control or process must be assigned the earliest calendar submission of a final control plan, must
modification. Affected EGUs can date among the increments; the final be assigned the earliest calendar date
demonstrate compliance with this increment, corresponding to 40 CFR among the increments; the sixth
increment by submitting sufficient 60.21a(h)(5), must be set for January 1, increment, final compliance, must be set
evidence that the appropriate contracts 2032. for January 1, 2030.
have been awarded. (3) Initiation of For coal-fired steam generating units For coal-fired steam generating units
onsite construction or installation of in the medium-term subcategory in the medium-term subcategory
emission control equipment or process adopting natural gas co-firing as their adopting a compliance approach that
change required to achieve 90 percent compliance approach, the EPA is differs from natural gas co-firing, the
CO2 capture on an annual basis. (4) finalizing the following six IoPs as EPA is finalizing the requirement that
Completion of onsite construction or enforceable elements required to be states adopt IoPs for each affected EGU
installation of emission control included in a state plan: (1) Submission that are consistent with the increments
equipment or process change required of a final control plan for the affected in 40 CFR 60.21a(h).
As with medium-term units adopting changed circumstances, the EPA is affected EGUs demonstrating that they
natural gas co-firing as their compliance finalizing the approach to IoPs as plan to cease operations and use that
strategy, states must assign calendar proposed. voluntary commitment for eligibility for
deadlines for each increment consistent Comment: Some commenters raised the imminent-term, near-term, or
with the following requirements: the concerns related to length of time medium-term subcategory. No reporting
first increment, corresponding to 40 between the state plan submittal obligations and milestones were
CFR 60.21a(h)(1), must be assigned the deadline and the final compliance dates, proposed for affected EGUs within the
earliest calendar date among the namely that some IoPs will take place long-term subcategory since a voluntary
increments; the final increment, too far into the future to be reliably commitment to cease operations was not
corresponding to 40 CFR 60.21a(h)(5), assigned calendar date deadlines. part of the subcategory’s applicability
must be set for January 1, 2030. Response: As noted above, the EPA criteria. The proposed rationale for the
The EPA notes that if an affected EGU has concluded that length of time milestone requirements recognized that
receives approval for a compliance date between the state plan submittal the proposed subcategories were based
extension, the date for at least one, if not deadline and the compliance deadlines on the operating horizons of units
several, IoPs must be adjusted to align for units in the medium-term and long- within each subcategory, and that there
with the revised compliance date. The term subcategories as well as the were numerous steps that EGUs in these
new dates for the relevant IoPs must be anticipated complexity for units to subcategories need to take in order to
specified in the application for the comply with the final standards of effectuate their commitments to cease
extension. The EPA notes that the last performance necessitate the use of operations. The proposed reporting
increment—final compliance—should discrete interim checkpoints prior to obligations and milestones were
be no later than 1 year after the original final compliance, formally established intended to provide transparency and
compliance date, pursuant to the as increments of progress, to ensure assurance that affected EGUs could
requirements described in section timely and transparent progress toward complete the steps necessary to qualify
X.C.1.d. each unit’s compliance obligation. It for a subcategory with a less stringent
Comment: The EPA received would be inconsistent to determine that standard of performance.938
comments that the proposed IoPs are too the same factors necessitating the Of the proposed subcategories for
restrictive and may limit certain increments—the length of time between which the reporting obligations and
implementation flexibilities, namely the state plan submittal deadline and milestones were proposed to apply, the
that the burden to adjust IoPs after state the compliance obligation as well as the EPA’s final emission guidelines retain
plan submittal will limit sources’ ability complex nature of the implementation only the medium-term coal-fired
to switch subcategories or adjust process—also eliminate the IoPs’ core subcategory. Though the EPA is
implementation timelines due to accountability function by prohibiting finalizing only one subcategory with an
unforeseen circumstances. the assignment of calendar date associated operational time horizon, the
Response: The EPA has considered deadlines. Finally, as described above, Agency has determined that the original
these comments and notes that the final the final emission guidelines also allow rationale for the milestones is still valid.
rule includes planning flexibilities to states and affected EGUs significant That is, the BSER determination for
address these situations. The first of flexibility to determine when each EGUs assigned to the medium-term
these flexibilities is embedded in the increment applies. subcategory is contingent on sources
subpart Ba regulations governing Comment: Some commenters raised within this subcategory having limited
optional state plan revisions. Plan concerns that the IoPs could limit operating horizons relative to affected
revisions, including revisions to affected EGUs from selecting EGUs in the long-term subcategory, and
subcategory assignments and any compliance approaches that differ from the integrity of the subcategory
corresponding IoPs, may be used at a the BSER technology associated with approach and the environmental
state’s discretion to account for changes each subcategory, namely averaging and integrity of these emission guidelines
in planned compliance approaches. 40 trading. depend on sources behaving consistent
CFR 60.28a. Such revisions can also Response: Under the approach with the operating horizon they have
include RULOF-based adjustments to finalized in this rule, units assigned to represented in the state plan. The steps
approved standards of performance as the long-term and medium-term required for EGUs to cease operations
well as the timelines to meet those subcategories that do not adopt the are numerous and vary across
standards, including the IoPs. Further, associated BSER as part of their jurisdictions; giving states, the EPA, and
as mentioned above, the compliance compliance strategy must establish date- other stakeholders insight into these
date extension mechanism described in specified IoPs consistent with the steps and affected EGUs’ progress along
section X.C.1.d allows for modification subpart Ba IoPs codified at 40 CFR these steps provides assurance that they
of the IoPs to align with an approved 60.21a(h). That is, states will are on track to meeting their state plan
compliance date extension. In addition, particularize the generic IoPs in subpart requirements. The reporting obligations
the subcategory structure of these final Ba as appropriate for affected EGUs that and milestones the EPA is finalizing
emission guidelines differs from that at comply with their standards of under these emission guidelines are a
proposal such that it is less likely that performance using control technologies reasonable approach to assuring
affected coal-fired EGUs will switch other than CCS (for long-term units) or transparency and timely compliance;
subcategories. In the event that an natural gas co-firing (for medium-term they can also serve as an early
affected EGU does switch between the units). The EPA discusses indication that a state plan revision may
long-term and medium-term
considerations relevant to averaging and be necessary if it becomes apparent that

subcategories, the state plan revision trading in section X.D of this preamble. an affected EGU is not meeting its
process is the most appropriate designated milestones. Further, the
mechanism because a different control 4. Reporting Obligations and Milestones agency has determined that a similar
strategy may be appropriate. Based on for Affected EGUs That Plan to rationale for requiring reporting
this consideration and the availability of Permanently Cease Operations obligations and milestones applies to
planning flexibilities to account for The EPA proposed legally enforceable
changes in compliance plans and reporting obligations and milestones for 938 88 FR 33390 (May 23, 2023).
affected EGUs that invoke RULOF based milestones in particular and states will relevant reliability authority in response
on a unit’s remaining useful life. States select additional steps for reporting to the EGU’s deactivation notification;
may apply a less stringent standard of milestones. The requirements being any notification from a relevant
performance to a particular affected established under these emission reliability authority that the EGU may
EGU if its shorter remaining useful life guidelines do not require milestone be needed for reliability purposes
results in a fundamental difference steps to be taken at any particular notwithstanding the EGU’s intent to
between the circumstances of that EGU time—they merely require reporting on deactivate; and any notification to or
and the information the EPA when a source intends to reach each of from an RTO, ISO, or balancing
considered, and that difference makes it its designated milestones and whether authority altering the timing of
unreasonable for the EGU to achieve the and when it has actually done so. The deactivation for the EGU.
presumptive standard of performance. reporting obligations and milestone For each of the remaining years prior
However, if such a unit continues to requirements count backward from the to the date by which an affected EGU
operate past the date by which it calendar date by which an affected EGU has committed to permanently cease
previously committed to cease has committed to permanently cease operations that is included in the state
operating, the basis for the less stringent operations, which must be included in plan, it must submit an annual
standard of performance is abrogated the state plan, to monitor timely Milestone Status Report that addresses
and the environmental integrity of the progress toward that date. Five years the following: (1) Progress toward
emission guidelines compromised. before any planned date to permanently meeting all milestones identified in the
Therefore, as for affected EGUs in the cease operations or 60 days after state Initial Milestone Report; and (2)
medium-term subcategory, the reporting plan submission, whichever is later, the supporting regulatory documents and
obligations and milestones are an owner or operator of affected EGUs must relevant SEC filings, including
essential component of assuring that submit an Initial Milestone Report to the correspondence and official filings with
affected EGUs that invoke RULOF based applicable air pollution control agency the relevant regional transmission
on a unit’s remaining useful life are that includes the following: (1) A organization, balancing authority,
actually able to satisfy the condition of summary of the process steps required public utility commission, or other
receiving the less stringent standard in for the affected EGU to permanently applicable authority to demonstrate
the first instance. compliance with or progress toward all
cease operation by the date included in
The EPA is finalizing the following milestones.
the state plan, including the
milestones and reporting requirements,
approximate timing and duration of The EPA is also finalizing a provision
explained in more detail below, for both
each step and any notification that affected EGUs with reporting
affected EGUs assigned to the medium-
requirements associated with milestones associated with
term subcategory and affected EGUs that
deactivation of the unit. (2) A list of key commitments to permanently cease
invoke RULOF based on a unit’s
milestones that will be used to assess operations would be required to submit
remaining useful life. These sources
whether each process step has been met, a Final Milestone Status Report no later
must submit an Initial Milestone Report
and calendar day deadlines for each than 6 months following its committed
five years before the date by which it
will permanently cease operations, milestone. These milestones must closure date. This report would
annual Milestone Status Reports for include at least the initial notice to the document any actions that the unit has
each intervening year between the relevant reliability authority of an EGU’s taken subsequent to ceasing operation to
initial report and the date operations deactivation date and submittal of an ensure that such cessation is permanent,
will cease, and a Final Milestone Status official retirement filing with the EGU’s including any regulatory filings with
Report no later than six months from the reliability authority. (3) An analysis of applicable authorities or
date by which the affected EGU has how the process steps, milestones, and decommissioning plans.
committed to cease operating. associated timelines included in the The EPA is finalizing a requirement
Commenters expressed a range of Initial Milestone Report compare to the that affected EGUs with reporting
views regarding the proposed reporting timelines of similar EGUs within the milestones for commitments to
obligations and milestones. Some were state that have permanently ceased permanently cease operations must post
broadly supportive of the reporting operations within the 10 years prior to their Initial Milestone Report, annual
milestones and the EPA’s stated the date of promulgation of these Milestone Status Reports, and Final
rationale to provide a mechanism to emission guidelines. (4) Supporting Milestone Status Report, including the
help ensure that affected EGUs progress regulatory documents, including schedule for achieving milestones and
steadily toward a commitment to cease correspondence and official filings with any documentation necessary to
operations when that commitment the relevant regional transmission demonstrate that milestones have been
affects the stringency of their standard organization (RTO), independent system achieved, on the Carbon Pollution
of performance. Summaries of and operator (ISO), balancing authority, Standards for EGUs website, as
responses to additional comments on public utility commission (PUC), or described in section X.E.1.b, within 30
the reporting obligations and milestones other applicable authority; any business days of being filed. The EPA
are addressed at the end of this deactivation-related reliability recognizes that applicable regulatory
subsection. assessments conducted by the RTO or authorities, retirement processes, and
The discussion below refers to ISO; and any filings pertaining to the retirement approval criteria will vary
reporting ‘‘milestones.’’ Owners/ EGU with the United States Securities across states and affected EGUs. The
operators of sources take a number of and Exchange Commission (SEC) or proposed milestone reporting
process steps in preparing a unit to notices to investors, including but not requirements are intended to establish a
cease operating (i.e., preparing it to limited to references in forms 10–K and general framework flexible enough to
deactivate). The EPA is requiring that 10–Q, in which the plans for the EGU account for significant differences
states select certain of these steps to are mentioned; any integrated resource across jurisdictions while assuring
serve as milestones for the purpose of plans and PUC orders approving the timely planning toward the dates by
reporting where a source is in the EGU’s deactivation; any reliability which affected EGUs permanently cease
process; the EPA is designating two analyses developed by the RTO, ISO, or operations.
Comment: Some commentors 75 monitoring provisions require most b. CCS-Specific Technology Monitoring
questioned the need for the milestone coal-fired boilers to use a CO2 and Reporting
reports by pointing to existing closure continuous emissions monitoring Affected EGUs employing CCS must
enforcement mechanisms within their system (CEMS), including both a CO2 comply with relevant monitoring and
jurisdictions. concentration monitor and a stack gas reporting requirements specific to CCS.
Response: The existence of flow monitor. Some oil- and gas-fired As described in the proposal, the CCS
enforceable mechanisms in some boilers may have options to use process is subject to monitoring and
jurisdictions does not obviate the need alternative measurement methodologies reporting requirements under the EPA’s
for the reporting milestones under these (e.g., fuel flow meters combined with GHGRP (40 CFR part 98). The GHGRP
emission guidelines. First, the closure fuel quality data). requires reporting of facility-level GHG
requirements, the nature of the The EPA received comments data and other relevant information
enforcement mechanisms, and process supporting and opposing the from large sources and suppliers in the
requirements to cease operations will U.S. The ‘‘suppliers of carbon dioxide’’
requirement to use 40 CFR part 75
vary across different jurisdictions, and source category of the GHGRP (GHGRP
monitoring, reporting, and
some jurisdictions may lack subpart PP) requires those affected
recordkeeping requirements.
mechanisms entirely. The reporting facilities with production process units
milestones framework sets a uniform Comment: Commenters generally that capture a CO2 stream for purposes
floor for reporting progress toward a supported these requirements, noting of supplying CO2 for commercial
commitment to cease operations, that the majority of EGUs affected by applications or that capture and
reducing differences in the quality and this rule already monitor and submit maintain custody of a CO2 stream in
scope of information available to the emissions reports under 40 CFR part 75 order to sequester or otherwise inject it
EPA and public regarding closures. under existing programs, including the underground to report the mass of CO2
Second, the reporting milestones under Acid Rain Program and/or Regional captured and supplied. Facilities that
these emission guidelines serve the Greenhouse Gas Initiative—a inject a CO2 stream underground for
additional purpose of transparency and cooperative of several states formed to long-term containment in subsurface
allowing all stakeholders to have access reduce CO2 emissions from EGUs. In geologic formations report quantities of
to information related to affected EGUs’ addition, EGUs that are not required to CO2 sequestered under the ‘‘geologic
ongoing compliance. monitor and report under one of those sequestration of carbon dioxide’’ source
Comment: Some commentors noted programs may have 40 CFR part 75 category of the GHGRP (GHGRP subpart
the unique EGU closure processes certified monitoring systems in place for RR). In April 2024, to complement
within their own jurisdictions and the MATS or CSAPR. GHGRP subpart RR, the EPA finalized
expressed concern as to whether the Response: The EPA agrees with these the ‘‘geologic sequestration of carbon
milestones requirements were too rigid comments. Relying on the same dioxide with enhanced oil recovery
to accommodate them. monitors that are certified and quality (EOR) using ISO 27916’’ source category
Response: The reporting milestones assured in accordance with 40 CFR part of the GHGRP (GHGRP subpart VV) to
are designed to create a flexible 75 reduces implementation costs and provide an alternative method of
reporting framework that can ensures consistent emissions data across reporting geologic sequestration in
accommodate differences in state regulatory programs. association with EOR.940 941 942
closure processes. States can satisfy the As discussed in section VII.C.1.a.vii,
required elements of the milestone Comment: Some commenters focused
the EPA is finalizing a requirement that
reports by explaining how the process on potential measurement bias of 40
any affected unit that employs CCS
steps for plant closures within their CFR part 75 certified monitoring
technology that captures enough CO2 to
jurisdiction work and establishing systems, with commenters split on
meet the standard and injects the
milestones corresponding to the process whether the data are biased high or low.
captured CO2 underground must report
steps required within individual Response: The EPA disagrees that the under GHGRP subpart RR or GHGRP
jurisdictions. data reported under 40 CFR part 75 are subpart VV. If the emitting EGU sends
biased significantly high or low. Each the captured CO2 offsite, it must transfer
5. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
CO2 CEMS must undergo regular quality the CO2 to a facility subject to the
a. Emissions Monitoring and Reporting assurance and quality control activities GHGRP requirements, and the facility
The EPA proposed to require that including periodic relative accuracy test injecting the CO2 underground must
state plans must include a requirement audits (RATAs) where a monitoring
that affected EGUs monitor and report system is compared to an independent 940 EPA. (2024). Rulemaking Notices for GHG
hourly CO2 mass emissions emitted to monitoring system using EPA reference Reporting. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/
methods and NIST-traceable calibration rulemaking-notices-ghg-reporting.
the atmosphere, total heat input, and 941 International Standards Organization (ISO)
total gross electricity output, including gases. In a May 2022 study conducted standard designated as CSA Group (CSA)/American
electricity generation and, where by the EPA, the absolute value of the National Standards Institute (ANSI) ISO
applicable, useful thermal output median difference between EGUs’ 27916:2019, Carbon Dioxide Capture,
monitoring systems and independent Transportation and Geological Storage—Carbon
converted to gross MWh, in accordance Dioxide Storage Using Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-
with the 40 CFR part 75 monitoring, monitoring systems using EPA reference EOR) (referred to as ‘‘CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019’’).
reporting, and recordkeeping methods was found to be approximately 942 As described in 87 FR 36920 (June 21, 2022),
requirements. The EPA is finalizing a 2 percent for CO2 concentration both subpart RR and subpart VV (CSA/ANSI ISO
requirement that affected EGUs must monitors and stack gas flow monitors in 27916:2019) require an assessment and monitoring
the years 2017 through 2021.939 of potential leakage pathways; quantification of
use a 40 CFR part 75 certified inputs, losses, and storage through a mass balance
monitoring methodology and report the approach; and documentation of steps and
939 Zintgraff, Stacey. 2022. Monitoring Insights: approaches used to establish these quantities.
hourly data on a quarterly basis, with
Relative Accuracy in EPA CAMD’s Power Sector Primary differences relate to the terms in their
each quarterly report due to the Emissions Data. www.epa.gov/system/files/ respective mass balance equations, how each
Administrator 30 days after the last day documents/2022-05/Monitoring%20Insights- defines leakage, and when facilities may
in the calendar quarter. The 40 CFR part %20Relative%20Accuracy.pdf. discontinue reporting.
report under GHGRP subpart RR or outcomes of the guidelines.943 Thus, in partake in these flexibilities, which may
GHGRP subpart VV. These emission the subpart Ba final rule the EPA limit their usefulness. A description of
guidelines do not change any of the returned to its longstanding position and responses to general comments on
requirements to obtain or comply with that CAA section 111(d) authorizes the these compliance flexibilities can be
a UIC permit for facilities that are EPA to approve state plans that achieve found at the end of this subsection.
subject to the EPA’s UIC program under the requisite emission limitation The EPA notes that many other
the Safe Drinking Water Act. through aggregate reductions from their features of the final emission guidelines
sources, including through trading or provide the type of flexibility that the
The EPA also notes that compliance
averaging, where appropriate for a commenters stated they wanted through
with the standard is determined
particular emission guideline and the use of emission trading, averaging,
exclusively by the tons of CO2 captured and/or unit-specific mass-based
consistent with the intended
by the emitting EGU. The tons of CO2 compliance. First, as noted in section
environmental outcomes under CAA
sequestered by the geologic X.C.1.b of this preamble, compliance
section 111.944
sequestration site are not part of that In developing both the proposed and with presumptively approvable rate-
calculation, though the EPA anticipates final emission guidelines, the EPA based standards of performance is
that the quantity of CO2 sequestered will heard from stakeholders that flexibilities demonstrated on an annual basis, which
be substantially similar to the quantity are important in complying with already provides flexibility around mass
captured. To verify that the CO2 standards of performance under these emissions over an annual period (i.e., it
captured at the emitting EGU is sent to emission guidelines. The EPA proposed affords the affected EGU the ability over
a geologic sequestration site, we are to allow states to incorporate emission the course of the year to vary its
leveraging regulatory requirements trading and averaging into their plans emission output, which may be useful
under the GHGRP. The BSER is under these emission guidelines, if, for example, it needs to temporarily
determined to be adequately provided that states ensure that the use turn off its control equipment or
demonstrated based solely on geologic of such flexibilities will result in an otherwise increase its emission rate).
sequestration that is not associated with aggregate level of emission reduction Second, the EPA is finalizing two
EOR. However, EGUs also have the that is equivalent to each source mechanisms, described in section XII.F
compliance option to send CO2 to EOR individually achieving its standard of of this preamble, to address reliability
facilities that report under GHGRP performance. concerns raised by commenters: a short-
subpart RR or GHGRP subpart VV. We Specifically, a variety of commenters term reliability mechanism that allows
also emphasize that these emission from states, industry, RTO/ISOs, and affected EGUs to operate above their
guidelines do not involve regulation of NGOs emphasized the importance of standard of performance for a limited
downstream recipients of captured CO2. allowing states to incorporate not only time in periods of emergency and a
That is, the regulatory standard applies flexibilities that allow sources to reliability assurance mechanism to
exclusively to the emitting EGU, not to demonstrate compliance in the ensure sufficient capacity is available.
any downstream user or recipient of the aggregate, such as emission trading and Finally, as described in section X.C.2 of
captured CO2. The requirement that the averaging, but also unit-specific mass- this preamble, states may invoke
emitting EGU transfer the captured CO2 based compliance into their plans. In RULOF to provide for less stringent
to an entity subject to the GHGRP particular, commenters expressed a standards of performance for affected
requirements is thus exclusively an strong preference for mass-based EGUs under certain circumstances
element of enforcement of the EGU compliance mechanisms, whether unit- (states may invoke RULOF both at the
standard. This will avoid duplicative specific or emission trading, and cited time of initial state plan development as
monitoring, reporting, and verification reliability as a key driver of their well as through state plan revision
requirements between this proposal and support for such mechanisms. However, should the circumstances of an affected
the GHGRP, while also ensuring that the for the most part commenters did not EGU change following state plan
facility injecting and sequestering the provide detail on how flexibilities could submission).
CO2 (which may not necessarily be the be designed under the unique The EPA believes that the use of
EGU) maintains responsibility for these circumstances of these emission compliance flexibilities, within the
requirements. Similarly, the existing guidelines. In addition, many parameters specified in these emission
regulatory requirements applicable to commenters did not specify as to the guidelines, may provide some
geologic sequestration are not part of the usefulness of certain compliance additional operational flexibility to
final emission guidelines. flexibilities for steam generating EGUs states and affected EGUs in achieving
versus combustion turbine EGUs. the required emission reductions which,
D. Compliance Flexibilities Because these final emission guidelines under these emission guidelines, are
only apply to steam generating EGUs, achieved specifically through cleaner
In the finalized subpart Ba revisions, there are fewer affected EGUs that could performance. In particular, for aggregate
Adoption and Submittal of State Plans compliance flexibilities like emission
for Designated Facilities: Implementing 943 88 FR 80533 (November 17, 2023). averaging and trading, affected EGUs
Regulations Under Clean Air Act 944 The EPA has authorized trading or averaging may be able to capitalize on
Section 111(d), the EPA explained that, as compliance methods in several emission
heterogeneity in economic emission
under its interpretation of CAA section guidelines. See, e.g., 70 FR 28606, 28617 (May 18,
2005) (Clean Air Mercury Rule authorized trading) reduction opportunities based on minor
111, each state is permitted to include (vacated on other grounds); 40 CFR 60.24(b)(1) differences in marginal emission
compliance flexibilities, including
(subpart B CAA section 111 implementing abatement costs and/or operating

flexibilities that allow affected EGUs to regulations promulgated in 2005 allow states’
parameters among EGUs. This
meet their emission limits in the standards of performance to be based on an
‘‘allowance system’’); 80 FR 64662, 64840 (October heterogeneity may provide some
aggregate, in their state plans. The EPA 23, 2015) (CPP authorizing trading or averaging as incentive among participating EGUs to
also explained that, in particular a compliance strategy). In the recent final emission overperform (i.e., operate even more
emission guidelines, the Agency may guidelines for the oil and natural gas industry, the
EPA also finalized a determination that states are
cleanly than required by the applicable
limit compliance flexibilities if permitted sources to demonstrate compliance in the standard of performance, because of the
necessary to protect the environmental aggregate. 89 FR 16820 (March 8, 2024). opportunity to sell compliance
instruments to other units), while also section X.C.2 of this preamble, states Section X.D.1 of this preamble
providing some limited opportunity for may use to apply a different standard of discusses the fundamental requirement
other sources to vary their emission performance with a different degree of that compliance flexibilities maintain
output. emission limitation than the EPA’s the level of emission reduction of unit-
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a presumptive standard. States specific implementation, in order to
determination that the use of incorporating trading or averaging inform states’ consideration of such
compliance flexibilities, including would not need to undergo a RULOF flexibilities for any use in their state
emission trading, averaging, and unit- demonstration for sources participating plans. It also addresses why limitations
specific mass-based compliance, is in trading or averaging programs on the use of compliance flexibilities for
permissible for affected EGUs in certain because they are not altering those certain subcategories are necessary to
subcategories and in certain sources’ underlying standards of maintain the intended environmental
circumstances under these emission performance—just providing an outcomes of these emission guidelines.
guidelines. Specifically, the EPA is additional way for sources to Sections X.D.2, X.D.3, X.D.4, and X.D.5
allowing affected EGUs in the medium- demonstrate compliance. discuss each available type of
and long-term coal-fired subcategories While the EPA acknowledges compliance flexibility and provide
to utilize these compliance flexibilities. widespread interest in the use of mass- information on how they can be used in
The scope of this allowance is tailored based compliance, in the context of state plans under these emission
to ensure consistency with the these particular emission guidelines, the guidelines. Section X.D.6 provides
fundamental principle under CAA Agency has significant concerns about information on general implementation
section 111 that state plans maintain the features of emission trading and
the ability to demonstrate that mass-
stringency of the EPA’s BSER averaging programs that states must
based compliance approaches achieve at
determination and associated degree of consider if they develop such a
least equivalent emission reduction as
emission limitation as applied through program. Section X.D.7 discusses
the application of rate-based, source-
the EPA’s presumptive standards of interstate emission trading. Finally,
specific standards of performance. As
performance in the context of these section X.D.8 discusses considerations
explained in further detail in sections
emission guidelines. In addition, the related to existing state programs and
X.D.4 and X.D.5, the EPA is requiring
EPA believes that the scope of this the inclusion of compliance flexibilities
the use of a backstop emission
allowance is consistent and appropriate in a state plan under these emission
limitation, or backstop rate, in
for providing an incentive for guidelines.
overperformance. Relatedly, the EPA is conjunction with mass-based Comment: Commenters cited a variety
also providing further elaboration on compliance approaches (i.e., for both of reasons supporting the use of
what it means for states to demonstrate unit-specific mass-based compliance compliance flexibilities, such as
that implementation of a standard of and mass-based emission trading) for emission trading, averaging, and unit-
performance using a rate- or mass-based both the long-term and medium-term specific mass-based compliance, in
flexibility is at least as stringent as unit- coal-fired subcategories. However, the these emission guidelines, including the
specific implementation of affected EPA is finalizing a presumptively need for flexibility in meeting the
EGUs’ standards of performance. States approvable unit-specific mass-based degree of emission limitation defined by
are not required to allow their affected compliance approach only for affected the BSER, the potential for more cost-
EGUs to use compliance flexibilities but EGUs in the long-term subcategory. The effective compliance, and reliability
can provide for such flexibilities at their use of mass-based compliance purposes.
discretion. In order for the EPA to find approaches—both unit-specific and Response: The EPA believes that, in
that a state plan that includes such trading—for affected EGUs in the certain circumstances, these flexibilities
flexibilities is ‘‘satisfactory,’’ the state medium-term coal-fired subcategory in can provide some operational and cost
plan must demonstrate how it will particular poses a high risk of flexibility to states and affected EGUs in
achieve and maintain the requisite level undermining the stringency of these complying with these emission
of emission reduction. emission guidelines due to inherent guidelines and their standards of
The EPA stresses that any flexibilities uncertainty about the future utilization performance in state plans. However, as
involving aggregate compliance would of these sources. While the EPA is not described above, the EPA is addressing
be used to demonstrate compliance with precluding states from attempting to reliability-related concerns primarily
an already-established standard of design mass-based approaches for through other structural changes and
performance, rather than be used to affected EGUs in the medium-term coal- mechanisms under these emission
establish a standard of performance in fired subcategory that satisfy the guidelines (see section XII.F of this
the first instance. The presumptive requirement of achieving at least preamble) that may obviate the need to
standards of performance that the EPA equivalent stringency as rate-based use compliance flexibilities specifically
is providing in these emission implementation, the Agency was unable to address reliability concerns. As a
guidelines are based on control to devise an appropriate, implementable general matter, the EPA believes that
strategies that are applied at the level of presumptively approvable approach for compliance flexibilities such as
individual units. A compliance affected EGUs in the medium-term coal- emission trading and averaging provide
flexibility may change the way an fired subcategory and is therefore not some incentive for overperformance that
affected EGU demonstrates compliance providing one here. The EPA is also not could be beneficial to states and affected
with a standard of performance (e.g., by providing a presumptively approvable EGUs.
approach to emission trading or The EPA is finalizing a determination
allowing that EGU to surrender

allowances from another unit in lieu of averaging. Instead, the EPA intends to that emission trading, averaging, and
reducing a portion of its own review emission trading or averaging unit-specific mass-based compliance are
emissions), but does not alter the programs in state plans on a case-by- permissible for certain subcategories
benchmark of emission performance case basis against the foundational under these emission guidelines, subject
against which compliance is evaluated. principles for consistency with CAA to the limitations described in section
This is in contrast to the RULOF section 111, as discussed in this section X.D.1 of this preamble. The EPA
mechanism, which, as described in of the preamble. believes these limitations are necessary
in the context of these emission consistent with the legal opinion in guidelines are not based on generation
guidelines in order to maintain the level West Virginia v. EPA. shifting and, even if the EPA believed
of emission reduction of the EPA’s Response: This comment is outside that West Virginia v. EPA implicated the
BSER determination and corresponding the scope of this action. The EPA use of compliance flexibilities, the
degree of emission limitation. finalized its interpretation that CAA permissible use of trading and averaging
Comment: Some commenters section 111 does not preclude states in this particular case does not
expressed opposition to the use of from including compliance flexibilities implicate the Court’s concerns about
emission trading and averaging, citing such as trading or averaging in their generation shifting therein.
the potential for emission trading and state plans (although the EPA may limit
those flexibilities in particular emission 1. Demonstrating Equivalent Stringency
averaging programs to maintain or
exacerbate existing disparities in guidelines if necessary to protect the As stated in the section above, states
communities with environmental justice environmental outcomes of those are permitted to use emission trading,
concerns. guidelines) when it revised the CAA averaging, and unit-specific mass-based
Response: The EPA is cognizant of section 111(d) implementing regulations compliance in their plans for certain
these concerns and believes that in subpart Ba.945 As described in the subcategories under these emission
emission trading and averaging are not final subpart Ba revisions, ‘‘in West guidelines, provided that the plan
necessarily incompatible with Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court did demonstrates that any such use will
environmental justice. The EPA is not directly address the state’s authority achieve a level of emission reduction
to determine their sources’ control that is in the aggregate as
including limitations on the use of
measures. Although the Court did hold environmentally protective as each
compliance flexibilities in state plans
that constraints apply to the EPA’s affected EGU achieving its rate-based
that should help address these EJ
authority in determining the BSER, the standard of performance. This
concerns. As discussed in more detail in
Court’s discussion of CAA section 111 requirement is rooted in the structure
section X.D.1, the EPA is restricting
is consistent with the EPA’s and purpose of CAA section 111. Most
certain subcategories from using trading
interpretation that the provision does commenters supported the use of
or averaging as well as, for mass-based
not preclude states from granting compliance flexibilities in these
compliance mechanisms, requiring the
sources compliance flexibility.’’ 946 The emission guidelines, and many
use of a backstop rate, to ensure that the
EPA further explained in the preamble explicitly expressed support for the
use of compliance flexibilities maintains EPA’s stringency criterion in this
the level of emission reduction of the to the subpart Ba final rule that the West
Virginia Court was clear that the focus context. Commenters also requested
EPA’s BSER determination and greater clarity on how to demonstrate
of the case was exclusively on whether
corresponding degree of emission equivalent stringency in a state plan. In
the EPA acted within the scope of its
limitation as well as achieves the this section, the EPA describes
authority in establishing the BSER: ‘‘The
statutory objective of these emission foundational parameters for a
Court did not identify any constraints
guidelines to mitigate air pollution by demonstration of equivalence in the
on the states in establishing standards of
requiring sources to operate more state plan as well as limitations on the
performance to their sources, and its
cleanly. The EPA notes that trading availability of compliance flexibilities
holding and reasoning cannot be
programs can be designed to include for certain affected EGUs, which stem
extended to apply such constraints.’’ 947
measures like unit-specific emission The EPA reiterates that, under these from the EPA’s stringency criterion.
rates that assure that reductions and emission guidelines, the BSER Additionally, the EPA offers further
corresponding benefits accrue determinations are emission reduction explanation of how it will review state
proportionally to communities with technologies or strategies that apply to plan submissions to determine whether
environmental justice concerns. The and reduce the emission rates of plans that include compliance
EPA also notes that states have the individual affected EGUs. Furthermore, flexibilities achieve an equivalent (or
ability to add further features and states have the option of including greater) level of emission reduction as
requirements to emission trading and emission trading or averaging in their each affected EGU individually
averaging programs than identified in states plans but are by no means complying with its unit-specific rate-
these emission guidelines, or to forgo required to do so. States that choose to based standard of performance.
their use entirely. include trading or averaging programs
Pursuant to the requirements of a. Requirements for Demonstrating
in their state plans are required to Equivalent Stringency
subpart Ba, states are required to demonstrate that those programs are in
conduct meaningful engagement on all the aggregate as stringent as each In their plans, states incorporating
aspects of their state plans with affected EGU individually achieving its compliance flexibilities must first
pertinent stakeholders. This would rate-based standard of performance. clearly demonstrate how they calculated
necessarily include any potential use of Additionally, as explained elsewhere in the aggregate rate-based emission
flexibilities for sources to demonstrate sections X.D.4 and X.D.5 of this limitation (for rate-based averaging),
compliance with the proposed preamble, the EPA is requiring the use mass limit (for unit-specific mass-based
standards of performance through of a backstop emission rate in compliance), or mass budget (for mass-
emissions trading or averaging. As conjunction with mass-based based emission trading) from unit-
discussed in greater detail in section compliance flexibilities, one result of specific, rate-based presumptive
X.E.1.b.i of this preamble, meaningful which is that units cannot comply with standards of performance. (For rate-
engagement provides an opportunity for based trading, the standard of
their standards of performance merely

communities most affected by and by shifting their generation to other performance coupled with, if necessary,
vulnerable to the impacts of a plan to electricity generators. Therefore, the an adjustment based on the acquisition
provide input, including input on any EPA’s BSERs in these emission of compliance instruments, is used to
impacts resulting from the use of demonstrate compliance.) In doing so,
compliance flexibilities. 945 88 FR 80480 80533–35 (November 17, 2023). states must identify the specific affected
Comment: Some commenters stated 946 88 FR 80534 (November 17, 2023). EGUs that will be using compliance
that allowing trading or averaging is not 947 88 FR 80535 (November 17, 2023). flexibilities; which flexibility each unit
will able to use; the unit-specific, rate- contribute to dangerous air pollution to achieving their presumptive rate-based
based presumptive standard of operate more cleanly. Unlike the CAA’s standards of performance, the plan as a
performance; and the standard of NAAQS-based programs, section 111 is whole must provide for the same level
performance established in the plan for not designed to reach a level of of emission reduction for the affected
each unit (rate-based limit or mass limit) emissions that has been deemed ‘‘safe’’ EGUs as though they were. While states
or set of units (aggregate rate-based or ‘‘acceptable’’; there is no air-quality may choose to allow individual sources
emission limitation or mass budget). target that tells states and sources when to emit more or less than the degree of
The state must document and justify the emissions have been reduced ‘‘enough.’’ emission limitation determined by the
assumptions made in calculating an Rather, CAA section 111 requires EPA, any compliance flexibilities must
aggregate rate-based emission limitation, affected sources to reduce their be designed to ensure that their use does
mass limit, or mass budget, such as how emissions to the level that the EPA has not erode the emission reduction
the calculation is weighted or, for mass- determined is achievable through benefits that would result if each source
based mechanisms, the level of application of the best system of was individually achieving its
utilization of participating affected emission reduction, i.e., to achieve presumptive standard of performance
EGUs used to calculate the mass limit or emission reductions consistent with the (after accounting for any use of RULOF).
budget. This requirement is discussed in applicable presumptive standard of For rate-based averaging and trading,
more detail in the context of each type performance. Consistent with the discussed in more detail in sections
of compliance flexibility in the statutory purpose of requiring affected X.D.2 and X.D.3 of this preamble,
following subsections. sources to operate more cleanly, the demonstrating an equivalent level of
Next, states must demonstrate how EPA typically expresses presumptive emission reduction is relatively
the compliance flexibility will maintain standards of performance as rate-based straightforward, as a rate-based program
the requisite stringency, i.e., how the emission limitations (i.e., limitations on inherently provides relatively stronger
plan will maintain the aggregate level of the amount of a regulated pollutant that assurance of equivalence with
emission reduction that would be can be emitted per unit of output, per individual rate-based standards of
achieved if each unit was individually unit of energy or material input, or per performance. This is due to the fact that
complying with its rate-based standard unit of time). the aggregate rate-based emission
of performance. As discussed in section limitation (for rate-based averaging) or
In the course of complying with a
X.C.1 of this preamble, an affected rate-based standard of performance with
rate-based standard of performance adjustment for compliance instruments
EGU’s standard of performance must
generally be no less stringent than the under a state plan, an affected source (for rate-based trading) is calculated
corresponding presumptive standard of takes actions that may or may not affect based on both the emission output and
performance under these emission its ongoing emission reduction gross generation output (utilization) of
guidelines. This is true regardless of obligations. For example, a source may the participating affected EGUs. In other
whether a standard of performance is take certain actions that remove it from words., a rate-based compliance
expressed in terms of rate or mass. the source category, e.g., by switching flexibility, such as a rate-based unit-
However, under an aggregate fuel type or permanently ceasing specific standard of performance,
compliance approach, a unit may operations. Upon doing so, the source is inherently adjusts for changes in
demonstrate compliance with that no longer subject to the emission utilization and preserves the imperative
standard of performance by averaging its guidelines. Or an affected source may to operate more cleanly. For unit-
emission performance or trading choose to change its operating specific mass-based compliance and
compliance instruments (e.g., characteristics in a way that impacts its mass-based trading, demonstrating
allowances) with other affected EGUs. overall mass of emissions, e.g., by equivalent stringency is more
Here, to ensure consistency with the changing its utilization, in which case complicated, as the use of a mass limit
level of emission reductions Congress the source is still required to reduce its or mass budget on its own may not
expected under CAA section 111(a)(1), emission rate consistent with cleaner guarantee that sources are achieving
the state must also demonstrate that the performance. In either instance, the emission reductions commensurate with
plan overall achieves equivalent changes in operation to one affected operating more cleanly. Thus the EPA is
stringency, i.e., the same or better source do not implicate the obligations requiring that, in order to ensure that
environmental outcome, as applying the of other affected sources. Although the emission outcome that would be
EPA’s presumptive standards of changes to certain sources’ operation achieved through unit-specific rate-
performance to each affected EGU (after may reduce emissions from the source based standards of performance are
accounting for any application of category, they do not absolve the preserved, states must also include a
RULOF). That is, in order for the EPA remaining affected EGUs from the backstop emission rate limitation, or
to find a state plan ‘‘satisfactory,’’ that statutory obligation to reduce their backstop rate, for affected EGUs using a
plan must achieve at least the level of emission rates consistent with the level mass-based compliance flexibility, as
emission reduction that would result if that the EPA has determined is discussed in more detail in sections
each affected EGU was achieving its achievable through application of the X.D.4 and X.D.5 of this preamble. In
presumptive standard of performance BSER. While state plans may, when addition, states employing a mass-based
(again, after accounting for any permitted by the applicable emission mechanism in their plans must show
application of RULOF). guidelines, allow affected sources to why assumptions underlying the
The requirement that state plans translate their rate-based presumptive calculation of utilization for the
standards of performance into mass
achieve equivalent stringency to the purposes of establishing a mass limit or

EPA’s degree of emission limitation limits and/or comply with their mass budget are appropriately
flows from the structure and purpose of standards of performance in the conservative to ensure an equivalent
CAA section 111, which is to mitigate aggregate through averaging or trading, level of emission reduction, as
air pollution that is reasonably the fundamental statutory requirement discussed more in sections X.D.4 and
anticipated to endanger public health or remains: the state plan must X.D.5 of this preamble.
welfare. It achieves this outcome by demonstrate that, even if individual In sum, states wishing to employ
requiring source categories that cause or affected sources are not necessarily compliance flexibilities in their state
plans must demonstrate that the plan and for sources with a standard based opportunity for other sources subject to
achieves at least equivalent stringency on RULOF, the EPA received mixed a relatively more stringent presumptive
with each source individually achieving feedback. Some commenters agreed standard of performance to
its standard of performance, bearing in with the EPA’s concerns about these underperform by obtaining compliance
mind the discussion and requirements subcategories participating in trading instruments from or averaging their
in this section, as well as the discussion and averaging and that affected EGUs in emission performance with affected
and requirements in the following these subcategories should be prevented EGUs that are subject to a relatively less
sections specific to each type of from participating in an emission stringent standard of performance based
mechanism. The EPA will review state trading or averaging program. However, on RULOF. This outcome undermines
plan submissions that include several commenters said that it was the ability of the state plan to
compliance flexibilities to ensure that indeed appropriate to allow all demonstrate an equivalent level of
they are consistent with CAA section subcategories as well as sources with a emission reduction, as non-RULOF
111’s purpose of reducing dangerous air standard of performance based on sources would face a reduced incentive
pollution by requiring sources to RULOF to participate in trading and to operate more cleanly. In addition,
operate more cleanly. In order for the averaging and that the program would affected EGUs with a standard of
EPA to find a state plan ‘‘satisfactory,’’ still achieve an equivalent level of performance based on RULOF are
that plan must address each affected emission reduction, even if those prohibited from using unit-specific
EGU within the state and demonstrate subcategories are of limited stringency. mass-based compliance under these
that the plan overall achieves at least In response to the request for emission guidelines. This is due to the
the level of emission reduction that comment on whether emission trading compounding uncertainty regarding
would result if each affected EGU was and averaging should be allowed across how states will use RULOF to
achieving its presumptive standard of subcategories in light of concerns over particularize the compliance obligations
performance, after accounting for any differing levels of stringency for for an affected EGU and the future
application of RULOF. different subcategories impacting utilization of affected EGUs that may be
overall achievement of an equivalent subject to RULOF. The RULOF
b. Exclusion of Certain Affected EGUs level of emission reduction, the EPA
From Compliance Flexibilities provisions are used where a particular
also received mixed feedback. Some EGU is in unique circumstances and
While the use of compliance commenters supported restricting may result in a less stringent standard
flexibilities such as emission trading, trading and averaging across of performance based on the BSER
averaging, and unit-specific mass-based subcategories because of concerns that technology, a less stringent standard of
compliance is generally permissible EGUs in a subcategory with a relatively performance based on a different control
under these emission guidelines, the higher stringency could acquire technology, a longer compliance
EPA indicated in the proposal that it allowances from EGUs in a subcategory schedule, or some combination of the
may be appropriate for certain groups of with a relatively lower stringency in three. The bespoke nature of compliance
sources to be excluded from using these order to comply instead of operating a obligations pursuant to RULOF makes it
flexibilities in order to ensure an control technology. Several commenters difficult for the EPA to provide
equivalent level of emission reduction stated that trading across subcategories principles for and for states to design
with each source individually achieving need not be limited because, as long as mass-based compliance strategies that
its standard of performance. In the state plans are of an equivalent level of
proposed emission guidelines, the EPA ensure an equivalent level of emission
emission reduction, emission trading
expressed concerns about the use of reduction. Additionally, as previously
and averaging would still require the
compliance flexibilities for several discussed, there is a significant amount
overall aggregate limit to be met.
subcategories that have BSER Taking into consideration the of uncertainty in the future utilization of
determinations of routine methods of comments on the proposed emission certain affected EGUs, including those
operation and maintenance as well as guidelines as well as changes made to with standards of performance pursuant
those sources for which states have the subcategories in the final emission to RULOF. While there is no risk of
invoked RULOF to apply a less stringent guidelines, the Agency is finalizing the implicating the compliance obligation of
standard of performance, as their following restrictions on the use of other sources in unit-specific mass-
inclusion may undermine the intended compliance flexibilities by certain based compliance, the EPA believes that
level of emission reduction of the BSER subcategories. allowing RULOF sources to use unit-
for other facilities. The EPA also First, emission trading or averaging specific mass compliance would pose a
questioned whether trading and programs must not include affected significant risk in undermining the
averaging across subcategories should EGUs for which states have invoked stringency of the state plan such that
be limited in order to maintain the RULOF to apply less stringent standards these sources may not be achieving the
stringency of unit-specific compliance. of performance. The Agency believes level of emission reduction
Finally, the EPA questioned whether that, because RULOF sources have a commensurate with cleaner
affected EGUs that receive the IRC standard of performance tailored to performance.
section 45Q tax credit for permanent individual source circumstances that is Second, emission trading or averaging
sequestration of CO2 may have an required to be as stringent as reasonably programs may not include affected
overriding incentive to maximize both practicable, these sources should not EGUs in the natural gas- and oil-fired
the application of the CCS technology need further operational flexibility and steam subcategories. The BSER
are also unlikely to be able to determination and associated degree of
and total electric generation, leading to

source behavior that may be non- overperform to any significant or regular emission limitation for affected EGUs in
responsive to the economic incentives degree. This means that their these subcategories do not require any
of a trading program. participation in an emission trading or improvement in emission performance
In response to the request for averaging program is, at best, unlikely to and already offer flexibility to sources to
comment on these concerns related to add any value to the program (in terms account for varying efficiency at
the appropriateness of emission trading of opportunity for overperformance) or, different operating levels. As a result,
and averaging for certain subcategories at worst, may provide an inappropriate these sources are unlikely to be
responsive to an incentive towards the aforementioned restrictions on states attempting to coordinate the real-
overperformance, which means that participation in trading and averaging, time compliance information needed to
their participation in an emission the EPA does not see a need to further assure that either all affected EGUs are
trading or averaging program is unlikely restrict the ability of eligible sources to meeting their individual standard of
to add any value to the program (in trade or average with other sources. performance, or that a sufficient number
terms of opportunity for of affected EGUs are overperforming to
2. Rate-Based Emission Averaging
overperformance). In addition, the EPA allow operational flexibility for other
is concerned that the participation of The EPA proposed to permit states to affected EGUs such that the aggregate
these sources may undermine the incorporate rate-based averaging into standard of performance is being
program’s equivalence with the their state plans under these emission achieved, would curtail transparency
presumptive standards of performance, guidelines. In general, rate-based and limit states’, the EPA’s, and
because other steam sources, which averaging allows multiple affected EGUs stakeholders’ abilities to track timely
have a relatively more stringent degree to jointly meet a rate-based standard of compliance. For example, dozens of
of emission limitation, may be performance. The scope of such units trying to average their emission
inappropriately incentivized to averaging could apply at the facility rates would require owners or operators
underperform by obtaining compliance level (i.e., units located within a single from different utilities and independent
instruments from or averaging their facility) or at the owner or operator level power producers to share operating and
emission performance with affected (i.e., units owned by the same utility). emissions data in real time. Thus, due
EGUs in the natural gas- and oil-fired A description of and responses to to likely limitations on the timely
steam subcategories. This outcome comments received on rate-based availability of compliance-related
undermines the ability of the state plan averaging can be found at the end of this information across owners and
to demonstrate equivalent stringency by subsection. operators and across states, which is
reducing the incentive for sources to As discussed in the proposed necessary to ensure aggregate
operate more cleanly. In addition, emission guidelines, averaging can compliance, the EPA believes that it is
affected EGUs in the natural gas- and provide potential benefits to affected appropriate to limit the scope of rate-
oil-fired steam subcategories are sources by allowing for more cost based averaging to the facility level or
prohibited from using unit-specific effective and, in some cases, more the owner/operator level within one
mass-based compliance. While there is straightforward compliance. First, state in order to provide greater
no risk of implicating the compliance averaging offers some flexibility for compliance certainty and thus better
obligation of other sources in unit- owners or operators to target cost demonstrate an equivalent level of
specific mass-based compliance, the effective reductions at certain affected emission reduction.
EPA believes, as previously stated, there EGUs. For example, owners or operators Demonstrating equivalence with unit-
is already sufficient flexibility offered to of affected EGUs might target specific implementation of rate-based
sources in the natural gas- and oil-fired installation of emission control standards of performance in a rate-based
steam subcategories, as the basis for approaches at units that operate more. averaging program is straightforward. A
subcategorizing these sources takes into Second, averaging at the facility level state would need to specify in its plan
account their varying efficiency at provides greater ease of compliance the group of affected EGUs participating
different operating levels. accounting for affected EGUs with a in the averaging program that will
The EPA is allowing both coal-fired complex stack configuration (such as a demonstrate compliance on an aggregate
subcategories (both the medium- and common- or multi-stack configuration). basis, the unit-specific rate-based
long-term) to participate in all types of In such instances, unit-level compliance presumptive standard of performance
compliance flexibilities, within the involves apportioning reported that would apply to each participating
parameters set by the EPA described in emissions to individual affected EGUs affected EGU, and the aggregate
the following sections. The Agency that share a stack based on electricity compliance rate that must be achieved
believes, and many commenters agreed, generation or other parameters; this for the group of participating affected
that affected EGUs taking advantage of apportionment can be avoided by using EGUs and how that aggregate rate is
the IRC section 45Q tax credit may still facility-level averaging. calculated, as described below. For
benefit from the operational flexibility The EPA is finalizing a determination states incorporating owner/operator-
provided by emission trading and that rate-based averaging is permissible level averaging, the state plan would
averaging, as well as unit-specific mass- for affected EGUs in the medium- and also need to include provisions that
based compliance. The Agency also long-term coal-fired subcategories. The specify how the program will address
believes that overperformance among scope of rate-based averaging may be at any changes in the owner/operator for
these sources is possible and worth the facility level or at the owner/ one or more participating affected EGUs
incentivizing through the use of operator level within the state, as these during the course of program
compliance flexibilities. Incentivizing are the circumstances under which rate- implementation to ensure effective
overperformance can lead to innovation based averaging can provide significant implementation and enforcement of the
in control technologies that, in turn, can benefits, as identified above, with program. Such provisions should be
lead to lower costs for, and greater minimal implementation complexity. specified upfront in the plan and be
emissions reductions from, control Above this level (i.e., across owner/ self-executing, such that a state plan
technologies. operators or at the state or interstate revision is not required to address such
The EPA is not finalizing a restriction level), the EPA has determined that a changes.
rate-based compliance flexibility must
on trading or averaging across To ensure an equivalent level of

subcategories for the two subcategories be implemented through rate-based emission reduction with application of
that are permitted to participate in these trading, as described in section X.D.3 of individual rate-based standards of
flexibilities. This means that affected this preamble. The EPA is establishing performance, the EPA is requiring that
EGUs in the medium-term coal-fired this limitation on the scope of averaging the weighting of the aggregate
subcategory may trade or average their because it believes that the level of compliance rate is done on an output
compliance with affected EGUs in the complexity associated with utilities, basis; in other words, participating
long-term coal-fired subcategory. With independent power producers, and affected EGUs must demonstrate
compliance through achievement of an The proposed emission guidelines Agency notes, as previously discussed,
aggregate CO2 emission rate that is a described how rate-based trading could that rate-based trading (rather than
gross generation-based weighted average work in this context. First, the EPA averaging) must be utilized if the state
of the required standards of discussed how it expects states to wishes to establish a statewide or
performance of each of the affected denote the tradable compliance interstate rate-based compliance
EGUs that participate in averaging. Such instrument in a rate-based trading flexibility, in order to ensure
an approach is necessary to ensure that programs as one ton of CO2. A tradable compliance and equivalent stringency.
the aggregate compliance rate is compliance instrument denominated in For similar reasons, rate-based trading
representative of the unit-specific another unit of measure, such as a should also be utilized in lieu of owner/
standards of performance that apply to MWh, is not fungible in the context of operator-level averaging when an
each of the participating affected EGUs. a rate-based emission trading program. owner/operator wishes to use a rate-
Commenters were generally supportive A compliance instrument denominated based compliance flexibility for a group
of this method of calculating an in MWh that is awarded to one affected of its units that are located in more than
aggregate rate for a group of sources EGU most likely does not represent an one state.
participating in averaging. The Agency equivalent amount of emissions credit Demonstrating equivalence with unit-
emphasizes that only affected EGUs are when used by another affected EGU to specific implementation of rate-based
permitted to be included in the demonstrate compliance, as the CO2 standards of performance in a rate-based
calculation of an aggregate rate-based emission rates (lb CO2/MWh) of the two trading program is relatively
standard of performance as well as in an affected EGUs are likely to differ. straightforward. States would need to
aggregate compliance demonstration of Each affected EGU is required under specify in their plans the affected EGUs
a rate-based standard of performance. these emission guidelines to have a participating in the trading program and
Comment: Commenters supported the particular standard of performance, their individual standards of
use of rate-based averaging on the based on the degree of emission performance. Under the method of rate-
grounds that it can provide operational limitation achievable through based trading described in this section,
flexibility to affected EGUs as well as application of the BSER, with which it a compliance demonstration would be
the opportunity for owners and would have to demonstrate compliance. done for each participating affected EGU
operators to optimize control technology Under a rate-based trading program, based on a combination of the reported
investments. Many commenters affected EGUs performing at a CO2 emission performance and, if relevant,
supported averaging at the facility- and emission rate below their standard of the surrender of compliance
owner/operator-level as well as on a performance would be awarded instruments. In addition, the EPA is
statewide or interstate basis. compliance instruments at the end of requiring that the compliance
each calendar year denominated in tons instrument be denominated as one ton
Response: The EPA believes that rate-
of CO2. The number of compliance
based trading can provide some of CO2 (rather than another unit such as
instruments awarded would be equal to
additional operational flexibility and is MWh). The Agency believes this
the difference between their standard of
finalizing that rate-based averaging is requirement is necessary to ensure an
performance CO2 emission rate and
permissible at the facility- and owner/ equivalent level of emission reduction
their actual reported CO2 emission rate
operator-level for affected EGUs in the as application of individual rate-based
multiplied by their gross generation in
medium- and long-term coal-fired standards of performance.
MWh. Affected EGUs demonstrating
subcategories. However, for reasons compliance through a rate-based An additional aspect of demonstrating
discussed above, the EPA believes that averaging program that are performing equivalence is ensuring that the
rate-based trading, rather than rate- worse than their standard of program achieves and maintains an
based averaging, should be performance would be required to equivalent level of emission reduction
implemented where a state would like obtain and surrender an appropriate with standards of performance over
to implement a rate-based compliance number of compliance instruments time, which is much more certain in a
flexibility at a state or interstate basis. when demonstrating compliance, such rate-based trading program than in a
that their demonstrated CO2 emission mass-based program. Unlike mass-based
3. Rate-Based Emission Trading
rate is equivalent to their rate-based trading programs, under which states
The EPA proposed to permit states to standard of performance. Transfer and must make assumptions about units’
incorporate rate-based trading into their use of these compliance instruments future utilization that may become
state plans under these emission would be accounted for in the inaccurate as those units’ operations
guidelines. In general, a rate-based numerator (sum of total annual CO2 shift over time, rate-based trading
trading program allows affected EGUs to emissions) of the CO2 emission rate as programs do not rely on utilization
trade compliance instruments that are each affected EGU performs its assumptions. Utilization is already
generated based on their emission compliance demonstration. Compliance accounted for by default in a rate-based
performance. A description of and would be demonstrated for an affected trading program. Thus, while mass-
responses to comments on rate-based EGU based on its reported CO2 emission based compliance flexibilities require
trading can be found at the end of this performance (in lb CO2/MWh) and, if additional design features to ensure the
subsection. necessary, the surrender of an continued accuracy of assumptions
The EPA notes that, like rate-based appropriate number of tradable about utilization and thus emission
averaging, rate-based trading can compliance instruments, such that the limits or budgets over time, such
provide some flexibility for owners or features are not necessary in a rate-
demonstrated lb CO2/MWh emission

operators to target cost effective performance is equivalent to (or lower based trading program.
reductions at specific affected EGUs, but than) the rate-based standard of Comment: While commenters broadly
can heighten the flexibility relative to performance for the affected EGU. supported the use of rate-based
averaging by further increasing the The EPA is finalizing a determination emission trading under these emission
number of participating affected EGUs. that rate-based trading is permissible for guidelines, as it provides operational
In addition, emission trading can affected EGUs in the medium- and long- flexibility to affected EGUs, some
provide incentive for overperformance. term coal-fired subcategories. The commenters expressed concern that
rate-based trading could lead to an focus on achieving cleaner performance. compliance, the affected EGU would be
absolute increase in emissions. CAA section 111 requires the mitigation required to surrender allowances in a
Response: The EPA notes that, as a of dangerous air pollution, which is number equal to its reported CO2
general matter, CAA section 111 reduces generally achieved under this provision emissions during each compliance
emissions of dangerous air pollutants by by requiring affected sources to operate period.
requiring affected sources to operate more cleanly. Thus, standards of As detailed in section VII.C.1.a.i(B)(7),
more cleanly. Under the construct of performance are typically expressed as for affected coal-fired EGUs in the long-
these emission guidelines, so long as a a rate. In these emission guidelines, in term subcategory that are installing CCS,
rate-based trading program is particular, the BSERs for affected EGUs considering the potential impacts of
appropriately designed to maintain the are control technologies and other variable load, startups, and shutdowns,
level of emission reduction that would systems of emission reduction that 90 percent CO2 capture is, in general,
be achieved through unit-specific, rate- reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per achievable over the course of a year.
based standards of performance, it unit of electricity generation. The EPA However, the EPA believes unit-specific
would be consistent with CAA section is not precluding states from translating mass-based compliance could provide
111. those unit-specific rate-based standards some benefit by affording long-term
of performance into a mass-based limit affected coal-fired EGUs that adopt this
4. Unit-Specific Mass-Based Compliance
(for unit-specific mass-based mechanism even greater operational
Although the EPA discussed mass- compliance) or budget (for emission flexibility.948 For example, if an affected
based trading in the proposed emission trading). However, in order to ensure EGU encounters challenges related to
guidelines, it did not specifically that the emission reductions required the start-up of the CCS technology or
address whether states may include a under CAA section 111 are achieved, needs to conduct maintenance of the
related flexibility, unit-specific mass- mass-based limits or budgets must be capture equipment, unit-specific mass-
based compliance, in their plans. accompanied by a backstop rate for based compliance would provide a path
Several commenters supported mass- purposes of demonstrating compliance. for the affected EGU to continue
based mechanisms, including both unit- In addition, for coal-fired EGUs in the operating. At the same time, unit-
specific mass-based compliance and medium-term coal-fired subcategory in specific mass-based compliance coupled
mass-based trading. A description of particular, it is critical that states’ with a backstop rate would generally
and responses to comments on unit- assumptions about future utilization do ensure that units operate more cleanly
specific mass-based compliance can be not result in inaccurate mass-based and that the required level of emission
found at the end of this subsection. limits or budgets that allow units to reduction is achieved. As explained in
The EPA’s CAA section 111 emit more than they would be permitted more detail below, the EPA’s confidence
implementing regulations generally to under unit-specific, rate-based regarding the equivalent stringency of
permit states to include mass-based compliance. this mass-based compliance approach
limits in their plans, see 40 CFR The EPA is finalizing a presumptively for units in the long-term subcategory
60.21a(f), subject to the requirement that approvable unit-specific mass-based depends on the Agency’s confidence in
standards of performance must be no compliance approach for affected EGUs the likely utilization of a unit that has
less stringent than the presumptive in the long-term coal-fired subcategory, adopted emissions controls—in this
standards of performance in the including a methodology for the case, CCS.
corresponding emission guidelines. 40 applicable backstop rate, but is not For affected EGUs in the long-term
CFR 60.24a(c). However, the EPA has finalizing a presumptively approvable coal-fired subcategory, the EPA is
significant concerns about the use of approach for affected EGUs in the providing a presumptively approvable
unit-specific mass-based compliance in medium-term coal-fired subcategory. As approach to unit-specific mass-based
the context of these emission guidelines explained below, the EPA has not been compliance. To establish the
and the ability of states using this able to determine a unit-specific mass- presumptively approvable mass limit,
mechanism to ensure that such use will based compliance mechanism for the presumptively approvable rate (as
result in the same level of emission medium-term coal-fired EGUs that described in section X.C.1.b.i of this
reduction that would be achieved by would ensure that the mass limit is no preamble) would be multiplied by a
applying the rate-based standard of less stringent than the presumptive level of gross generation (i.e., utilization
performance. These concerns arise both standard of performance under these level) corresponding to an annual
from the particular focus of these emission guidelines. capacity factor of 80 percent, which is
emission guidelines on emission In general, unit-specific mass-based the capacity factor used for the BSER
reduction strategies that result in compliance establishes a budget of analysis (see section VII.C.1.a.ii of this
cleaner performance of affected EGUs, allowable mass emissions (a mass limit) preamble) and represents expected
and the inherent uncertainty in for an individual affected EGU based on utilization based on the incentive
predicting the utilization of affected the degree of emission limitation provided by the IRC section 45Q tax
EGUs during the compliance period, defined by its subcategory and a credit. In addition, under this approach,
especially given the long lead times specified level of anticipated utilization. affected EGUs would need to meet a
provided. Standards of performance would be backstop emission rate, expressed in lb
Therefore, while the EPA is allowing provided in the form of mass limits in CO2 per MWh on a gross basis,
states to include unit-specific mass- tons of CO2 for each individual affected equivalent to a reduction relative to
based compliance in their plans for EGU, and compliance would be baseline emission performance of 80
affected coal-fired EGUs in the medium-
demonstrated through surrender of percent, on an annual calendar-year

and long-term subcategories, it is also allowances, with each allowance basis. The EPA believes this backstop
requiring states to use a backstop representing a permit to emit one ton of rate represents a reasonable level of
emission rate in conjunction with the CO2. Unlike mass-based emission operational flexibility for affected EGUs
mass-based compliance demonstration. trading, under a unit-specific mass
As discussed in section X.D.1 of this compliance mechanism, these 948 States may also elect to include the short-term
preamble, the EPA believes the use of a allowances would not be tradable with reliability mechanism described in section XII.F.3.a
backstop rate is consistent with the other affected EGUs. To demonstrate in their plans to address grid emergency situations.
in the long-term subcategory, and it wide factors including changes in least, an emission reduction of 16
could provide flexibility for sources to relative fuel prices, new incentives for percent. However, if its utilization
employ other technologies (e.g., technology deployment provided by the during the compliance period is more
membrane and chilled ammonia capture IIJA and the IRA, and increasing than 16 percent lower than it was in the
technologies) that can achieve a electrification, as well as EGU-specific past, the EGU using a mass-based
similarly high degree of emission factors related to its age and/or compliance approach would face a
limitation to CCS with amine-based operating characteristics. As described reduced or completely eliminated
capture. States may deviate from this in the Power Sector Trends TSD, coal- obligation to improve its emission
approach (however, as previously fired EGUs tend to become less efficient performance. In this case, mass-based
discussed, the approach must include a as they age, which may impact utilities’ compliance results in a lower level of
backstop rate) and deviations will be investment decisions and the utilization emission reduction than unit-specific
reviewed to ensure consistency with the of these EGUs. In addition, affected rate-based compliance. While this
statute and this rule when the EPA EGUs in this subcategory are unlikely to phenomenon is not likely to occur for
reviews the state plan. For example, be earning the IRC section 45Q tax long-term coal-fired affected EGUs given
states may wish to use an assumed credit, meaning they lack an incentive the much higher degree of stringency of
utilization level of greater than 80 to maximize both utilization and control the rate-based emission limitation and
percent to establish a mass limit. In of emissions beyond what is required by the greater certainty in future
reviewing such an approach for the subcategory. utilization, the EPA believes it would be
reasonableness, the EPA would The accuracy of this estimate of widespread amongst medium-term
consider, among other things, whether utilization is critical to maintaining the affected EGUs.
an affected EGU’s capacity factor has environmental integrity established by
Thus, the EPA is not providing a
historically been greater than 80 percent unit-specific, rate-based compliance
presumptively approvable approach for
for any continuous 8 quarters of data. under these emission guidelines. If a
unit-specific mass-based compliance for
The EPA would review the supporting state assumes a level of utilization that
affected EGUs in the medium-term coal-
data and resulting mass limit for is higher than an affected EGU actually
fired subcategory. However, it is also
consistency with the statute. The EPA operates during the compliance period,
not prohibiting states from, in their
has confidence that the presumptively the resulting mass limit will be non-
discretion, allowing the use of unit-
approvable approach achieves an binding, i.e., may not reflect any
specific mass-based compliance. For
equivalent level of emission reduction emission reductions relative to what the
unit would have emitted in the absence such use to be approvable in state plans
as the implementation of the individual
of these emission guidelines. In this it must meet two requirements. First, as
presumptive standard of performance
case a backstop emission rate helps, but previously noted in section X.D.1 of this
because of the high degree of stringency
the unit would become subject to a de preamble, the state must apply a
associated with this subcategory as well
facto less-stringent standard of backstop rate in conjunction with a
as the 45Q tax credit, which
performance. This result does not mass limit for the purposes of
incentivizes units to maximize capture
preserve environmental integrity demonstrating compliance. As a starting
of CO2 as well as the utilization of the
affected EGU. consistent with CAA section 111(a)(1). point, states could consider basing their
On the other hand, the EPA does not Conversely, assuming a level of backstop rate for medium-term affected
have the same confidence in a mass- utilization for the purpose of setting a EGUs on the percentage reduction from
based approach to unit-specific mass limit that is lower than an affected the degree of emission limitation used
compliance for the medium-term coal- EGU actually operates during the for the presumptively approvable
fired subcategory for two reasons: the compliance period maintains the level backstop rate for the long-term coal-
uncertainty in the utilization of these of emission reduction of unit-specific, fired subcategory, i.e., the 80 percent
affected EGUs and the relatively lower rate-based implementation but may reduction relative to baseline emission
stringency of the subcategory (i.e., 16 have unintended effects on operational performance is approximately 90.5
percent reduction relative to baseline flexibility. Thus, the EPA believes that percent of the 88.4 percent degree of
emission performance), particularly as in many, if not most circumstances it emission limitation. Applying that to
compared to the long-term subcategory. will not be possible for states to the degree of emission limitation for the
The EPA has not been able to develop accurately predict the future utilization medium-term coal-fired subcategory is
a workable approach to mass-based of medium-term affected EGUs. 14.5 percent, so the backstop rate,
compliance for these units that both Second, the EPA notes that the expressed in lb CO2 per MWh on a gross
preserves the stringency of the relatively lower stringency of the basis, could be set as a 14.5 percent
presumptive standard of performance subcategory further complicates the reduction relative to baseline emission
and results in an implementable calculation of an appropriate mass limit. performance on an annual calendar-year
program for affected EGUs. Under mass-based compliance, the basis. Second, as described in section
First, there are significant challenges quantity of emission reductions that X.D.1 of this preamble, states must
in selecting an appropriate utilization corresponds to a 16 percent reduction in demonstrate that their plan would
assumption for the purposes of CO2 emission rate is a relatively small achieve an equivalent level of emission
generating a mass limit for affected reduction in terms of tons of CO2. This reduction as the application of unit-
EGUs in the medium-term subcategory. relatively small reduction is likely to be specific, rate-based standards of
When setting the mass limit for a future subsumed by the uncertainty inherent performance, including showing how
the mass limit has been calculated and
time period, as would occur in a state in predicting the utilization of an

plan under these emission guidelines, affected EGU for purposes of the basis for any assumptions made
assumptions about the source’s determining its mass limit. That is, an (e.g., about utilization). As explained in
anticipated level of utilization must be EGU in the medium-term subcategory this section, the EPA believes it will be
made. Estimating future utilization of that assumes future utilization very difficult for states to accurately
affected EGUs in the medium-term consistent with its historical baseline predict the future utilization of these
subcategory is subject to a significant but reduces its emission rate by 16 units, which substantially increases the
degree of uncertainty, driven by sector- percent would achieve, on paper at risk of establishing a mass limit that
does not ensure at least an equivalent that are affected sources under these performance. The Agency similarly
level of emission reduction. The EPA emission guidelines. That is, states believes it will be very difficult for
will therefore apply a high degree of cannot rely on or account for emission states to design mass-based trading
scrutiny to assumptions made about the reductions occurring at non-affected programs that include affected EGUs in
utilization of affected EGUs employing sources. the medium-term coal-fired subcategory
this flexibility in state plans. Only state Section X.D.8 of this preamble and that maintain the level of emission
plans that demonstrate that use of discusses more considerations related to reduction that would be achieved under
compliance flexibilities will not erode the relationship between the inclusion unit-specific compliance with the
the emission reductions required under of compliance flexibilities in state plans presumptive standards of performance.
these emission guidelines are under these emission guidelines and In general, a mass-based trading
approvable. existing state programs. program establishes a budget of
Comment: Commenters were Comment: Many commenters allowable mass emissions for a group of
generally supportive of the use of mass- requested presumptively approvable affected EGUs, with tradable
based compliance mechanisms (both mass-based standards of performance. instruments (typically referred to as
unit-specific and aggregate mechanisms Response: As discussed above, the ‘‘allowances’’) issued to affected EGUs
such as emission trading) for these EPA is finalizing a presumptively in the amount equivalent to the mass
emission guidelines. Commenters said approvable unit-specific mass-based emission budget. To establish a mass
that mass-based compliance can help compliance approach for units in the budget under these emission guidelines,
ensure environmental outcomes while long-term coal-fired subcategory that states would use the rate-based standard
also allowing sources to cycle, includes a backstop rate to ensure an of performance and an assumed level of
incorporate variable resources, and equivalent level of emission reduction. utilization for each participating
respond to grid conditions. The EPA emphasizes that states should affected EGU, and sum the resulting
Response: The EPA is finalizing that take into account the discussions of individual mass limits to an aggregate
mass-based compliance mechanisms are stringency in section X.B and of mass budget. Additionally, states would
permissible when they assure an demonstrating equivalence in section need to specify in the plan how
equivalent level of emission reduction X.D.1 of this document, as well as allowances would be distributed to
with each source individually achieving guidance in each subsection on participating affected EGUs. Each
its standard of performance, subject to particular compliance flexibilities in allowance would represent a tradable
the parameters described by the EPA in considering mass-based compliance permit to emit one ton of CO2, with
this preamble. For unit-specific mass- approaches that deviate from the affected EGUs required to surrender
based compliance, affected EGUs in the presumptively approvable method or for allowances at the end of the compliance
medium- and long-term coal-fired sources for which the EPA is not period in a number determined by their
subcategories may demonstrate providing a presumptively approvable reported CO2 emissions. Total emissions
compliance with their standards of approach. from all participating affected EGUs
performance through a mass limit. The 5. Mass-Based Emission Trading should be no greater than the total mass
EPA believes unit-specific mass-based budget. In addition, each participating
compliance may offer some additional The EPA proposed that states would affected EGU would need to
operational flexibility to states and be permitted to incorporate mass-based demonstrate compliance with the unit-
affected EGUs, which could include trading into their state plans under these specific backstop rate.
allowing for cycling and incorporating emission guidelines. While several The EPA sees similar potential
variable resources. The EPA notes that commenters supported the use of mass- benefits related to operational flexibility
sources must still be in compliance with based emission trading, as with unit- of mass-based emission trading as with
the requisite backstop rate. specific mass-based compliance, the unit-specific mass-based compliance,
Comment: Many commenters EPA has significant concerns about discussed in section X.D.4 of this
expressed support for mass-based states’ ability using this mechanism to preamble. These benefits could be
compliance mechanisms on the grounds maintain an equivalent level of emission heightened by having a larger pool of
that it facilitates calibration with reduction to unit-specific, rate-based allowances available to affected EGUs.
existing state programs affecting the standards of performance. A description In addition, the EPA notes that emission
same sources that are affected under of and responses to comments on mass- trading can provide incentive for
these emission guidelines. based trading can be found at the end overperformance.
Response: The EPA acknowledges of this subsection. While there is indeed the potential for
that states may find it more Under these final emission guidelines, heightened benefits from mass-based
straightforward to compare emission the EPA is allowing states to include emission trading due to a larger pool of
reduction obligations under these mass-based emission trading for affected allowances resulting from the inclusion
emission guidelines and existing state coal-fired EGUs in the medium- and of multiple sources, the EPA believes
programs by using mass-based long-term subcategories in their plans. that there is also a heightened risk that
compliance mechanisms for state plans The same requirements and caveats the mass budget will not be
under these emission guidelines. discussed in section X.D.4 of this appropriately calculated due to the
However, the EPA notes that mass-based preamble above apply to the respective compounding uncertainty resulting
compliance mechanisms, including subcategories as for unit-specific mass- from multiple participating sources. As
unit-specific mass-based compliance, based compliance. Specifically, the EPA noted in section X.D.4 of this preamble,
are only available to certain sources is requiring the use of a unit-specific projecting the utilization of affected
affected by these emission guidelines, as backstop rate in conjunction with the EGUs has become increasingly
described in this section of the mass-based compliance demonstration, challenging, driven by changes in
preamble, which may be a smaller which is necessary for consistency with technology, fuel prices, and electricity
universe of sources than are affected by the purpose of these emission demand. In generating a mass budget,
existing state programs. State plans guidelines to achieve the emission assumptions about utilization must be
must ensure an equivalent level of reductions required under CAA section made for each participating source,
emission reduction from the sources 111(a)(1) through cleaner emission which magnifies the risk, particularly
for affected EGUs in the medium-term Response: While the EPA is finalizing program infrastructure developed by the
coal-fired subcategory, that an improper that mass-based trading is permissible EPA for other trading programs, and
assumption about utilization for one under these emission guidelines for some states and one utility expressed
affected EGU implicates the compliance affected EGUs in the medium- and long- support for states’ ability to use EPA’s
obligation of other affected EGUs. Based term coal-fired subcategories, the EPA allowance management system for such
on the understanding that a trading believes that some of the flexibility programs. In addition to providing such
program that ensures the level of desired by commenters is addressed by resources for regional and national
emission reduction of unit-specific, rate- other features of and changes made to emission trading and averaging
based compliance under these emission the final emission guidelines, as programs, the EPA has also provided
guidelines would necessarily have to be described in the beginning of section technical support and resources to
designed with highly conservative X.D of this preamble. Despite familiarity various non-EPA state and regional
utilization assumptions, the EPA is not on the part of states and sources with emission trading programs. In the event
providing a presumptively approvable mass-based trading programs, the EPA is states choose to create emission
approach for mass-based trading. The concerned that the unique averaging or trading programs under
EPA additionally does not believe a circumstances of the EGUs affected by these emission guidelines, the EPA can
presumptively approvable mass-based these final emission guidelines, provide technical support for such
trading approach is warranted because, including uncertainty over their future programs, including through the use of
as noted in the introduction to this utilization as well as the relatively the Agency’s existing trading program
section, there are fewer sources covered lower stringency of the medium-term infrastructure, and is available to
by the final emission guidelines than coal-fired subcategory, pose a challenge consult with states during the plan
the proposed emission guidelines, for states in demonstrating an development process about the
which may limit interest in and the equivalent level of emission reduction appropriateness of using such resources,
utility of the use of mass-based trading of mass-based trading programs to the such as the EPA’s allowance
for these emission guidelines. application of individual rate-based management system, based on the
The EPA is not prohibiting states from standards. design of state programs.
developing their own approaches to Comment: Some commenters States may also need to consider how
mass-based trading under these expressed concern with whether and to handle differing compliance dates for
emission guidelines; however, they how mass-based trading would achieve affected EGUs in an emission averaging
must apply a unit-specific backstop rate and sustain the emission performance or trading program, given that under
for all participating affected EGUs (see identified in the determination of BSER. these emission guidelines the date when
section X.D.4 of this preamble for a Response: The EPA shares these standards of performance apply varies
discussion of the backstop rate under concerns, and for that reason is depending on the subcategory for the
unit-specific mass-based compliance), requiring the use of a unit-specific affected EGU. The most straightforward
and they must demonstrate, as backstop rate in conjunction with mass- way to address this, and which
described in section X.D.1 of this based compliance flexibilities, commenters supported, is to initially
preamble, that their plan would achieve including mass-based trading. The EPA only include those sources with a
an equivalent level of emission has also described its concerns over compliance date of January 1, 2030, and
reduction as the application of states’ ability to estimate future then subsequently add sources into the
individual rate-based standards of utilization and will thus apply a high program (and thus factor them into the
performance, including showing how degree of scrutiny to assumptions made aggregate standard of performance that
the mass limit has been calculated and about the utilization of affected EGUs must be achieved in the case of rate-
the basis for any assumptions made participating in mass-based trading in based averaging or mass-based budget in
(e.g., about utilization). As with unit- state plans. the case of mass-based compliance
specific mass-based compliance, the 6. General Emission Trading and approaches) at the start of the first year
EPA will apply a high degree of scrutiny Averaging Program Implementation in which their standard of performance
to assumptions made about the Features applies.
utilization of affected EGUs Another topic that states
participating in a mass-based trading As noted in the proposed emission incorporating emission averaging or
program in state plans. States must also guidelines, states would need to trading would need to consider is
specify the structure and purpose of any establish the procedures and systems whether to provide for banking of
other trading program design feature(s) necessary to implement and enforce an tradable compliance instruments
(e.g., mass budget adjustment emission averaging or trading program, (hereafter referred to as ‘‘allowance
mechanism) and how they impact the whether it is rate-based or mass-based, banking,’’ although it is relevant for
demonstration of an equivalent level of if they elect to incorporate such both mass-based and rate-based trading
emission reduction. flexibilities into their state plans. This programs). Allowance banking has
Comment: Many commenters would include, but is not limited to, potential implications for a trading
supported the use of mass-based trading establishing the mechanics for program’s ability to maintain the
under these emission guidelines. demonstrating compliance under the requisite level of emission reduction of
Commenters stated that because many program (e.g., surrender of compliance the standards of performance. The EPA
states are familiar with the mechanism, instruments as necessary based on recognizes that allowance banking—that
having used it for other pollutants in monitoring and reporting of CO2 is, permitting allowances that remain
this sector or, in the case of some emissions and generation); establishing unused in one control period to be
existing state programs, for CO2, it requirements for continuous monitoring carried over for use in future control
would be easy to employ in the context and reporting of CO2 emissions and periods—may provide incentives for
of these emission guidelines and generation; and developing a tracking earlier emission reductions, promote
provide needed flexibility. In addition, system for tradable compliance operational flexibility and planning, and
commenters cited ensuring reliability as instruments. The EPA requested facilitate market liquidity. Many
a motivation for using mass-based comment on whether there was interest commenters supported allowing
trading. in capitalizing on the existing trading banking for these reasons. However, the
EPA has observed that unrestricted EGUs in the long-term coal-fired participating states would need to, at a
allowance banking from one control subcategory, which can further simplify minimum, use the same form of trading
period to the next (absent provisions the process for developing compliance and have consistent design elements
that adjust future control period budgets approaches in state plans. and identical trading program
to account for banked allowances) may requirements. Each state participating in
7. Interstate Emission Trading
result in a long-term allowance surplus an interstate trading program would
that has the potential to undermine a In the proposed emission guidelines, need to submit their own individual
trading program’s ability to ensure that, the EPA requested comment on state plan, subject to the state plan
at any point in time, the affected sources whether, and under what circumstances component and submission
are achieving the required level of or conditions, to allow interstate requirements described in section X.E,
emission performance. In the Good emission trading under these emission but the states would coordinate their
Neighbor Plan’s trading program guidelines. Given the individual plan provisions addressing
provisions, for example, the EPA interconnectedness of the power sector the interstate trading program.
implemented an annual allowance bank and given that many utilities and power Additionally, each state plan would
recalibration to prevent allowance generators operate in multiple states, need provisions to ensure that affected
surpluses from accumulating and interstate emission trading may increase EGUs within their state are in
adversely impacting program compliance flexibility. The EPA also compliance taking into account the
stringency.949 While the requirement to took comment on whether the scope of actions of affected EGUs participating in
include a backstop rate for mass-based rate-based averaging should be limited the interstate trading program in other
compliance flexibilities can mitigate to a certain level of geographic states. The EPA would need all state
some concerns that unrestricted aggregation (i.e., intrastate but not plan submissions that incorporate
allowance banking will undermine the interstate). interstate emission trading before
program’s calibration towards achieving Many commenters expressed support evaluating any of the individual state
emission reductions through cleaner for interstate trading and averaging, plans in order to ensure consistency
performance, the EPA urges that states arguing that it further augments the among all participating states. The EPA
considering allowing trading also flexibility offered by these mechanisms. is willing to provide technical
consider restricting allowance banking Because electricity markets are often assistance to states during the state plan
(whether all or only a portion) in order operated on an interstate basis, development process about the use of
to ensure that a program continues to be commenters stated that interstate interstate emission trading, but notes
calibrated towards equivalent stringency trading and averaging would facilitate that states may need to coordinate their
with individual rate-based standards of better electricity market planning. In individual state plan submissions
performance, which several commenters particular, some commenters noted that among different EPA regions.
did support. interstate programs would also allow for
better grid reliability planning across 8. Relationship to Existing State
Comment: Many commenters Programs
expressed the need for expanding the areas with regional planning entities.
state plan submission timeline beyond While the EPA is finalizing a As described in the proposed
24 months to allow more time to design determination that states can emission guidelines, the EPA recognizes
emission trading and averaging incorporate both rate- and mass-based that many states have adopted policies
programs. interstate emission trading programs and programs (with both a supply-side
Response: As discussed in section into their state plans, the EPA has and demand-side focus) under their
X.E.2 of this preamble, the EPA is significant stringency-related and own authorities that have significantly
finalizing a 24-month state plan logistical concerns about the use of reduced CO2 emissions from EGUs, that
development timeframe. Because there interstate emission trading for these these policies will continue to achieve
are significantly fewer sources covered particular emission guidelines. For future emission reductions, and that
under the final emission guidelines and mass-based trading in particular, the states may continue to adopt new power
because the EPA is restricting certain EPA has concerns that further sector policies addressing CO2
subcategories from using compliance increasing the number of sources emissions. States have exercised their
flexibilities such as emission averaging participating in the program heightens power sector authorities for a variety of
and trading and unit-specific mass- the risk that the mass budget will not be purposes, including economic
based compliance, the EPA believes 24 appropriately calculated due to the development, energy supply and
months is a reasonable amount of time uncertainty in estimating future resilience goals, conventional and GHG
to develop state plans, including time utilization of affected EGUs, thus pollution reduction, and generating
necessary to develop compliance inhibiting the ability of states to allowance proceeds for investments in
flexibility approaches. Moreover, the demonstrate that their program achieves communities disproportionately
EPA is offering a presumptively an equivalent level of emission impacted by environmental harms. The
approvable approach to unit-specific reduction. This concern is somewhat scope and approach of the EPA’s final
mass-based compliance for affected alleviated for rate-based compliance emission guidelines differ significantly
flexibilities, but the EPA notes that from the range of policies and programs
949 Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015 states that wish to implement such employed by states to reduce power
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 flexibilities on an interstate basis should sector CO2 emissions, and these
FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). Under the allowance bank do so through rate-based trading, as emission guidelines operate more
recalibration provisions, EPA will recalibrate the
discussed in section X.D.2. Interstate narrowly to improve the CO2 emission

‘‘Group 3’’ allowance bank for the 2024–2029
control periods to meet the target bank level of 21 trading programs must adhere to the performance of a subset of EGUs within
percent of the sum of the state emission budgets for same requirements described in section the broader electric power sector.
that control period. For control periods 2030 and X.D.1 and must demonstrate Several commenters requested
later, the target bank level is 10.5 percent of the sum equivalence of the program for all guidance on how states can count
of the state emission budgets. If the overall bank is
less than the target bank level for a given control participating affected EGUs. existing state programs, many of which
period, then no bank recalibration will occur for For interstate emission trading include requirements to reduce CO2
that control period. programs to function successfully, all emissions at sources not affected by this
rule, in their state plans under these these final emission guidelines, the include a copy of the publication cover
emission guidelines. The EPA is not provisions of subpart Ba apply. page and table of contents; (5) Evidence
providing such guidance in this action that the state followed all applicable
1. Components of a State Plan
but would be open to consulting with procedural requirements of the state’s
Submission
states during the state plan development regulations, laws, and constitution in
process about the requirements of these A state plan must include a number conducting and completing the
emission guidelines in relation to of discrete components, including but adoption/issuance of the plan; (6)
existing state programs. States may not limited to those that apply for all Evidence that public notice was given of
make determinations about whether and state plans pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, the plan or plan revisions with
how to design their plans, accounting subpart Ba. In this action, the EPA is procedures consistent with the
for state-specific programs or also finalizing additional plan requirements of 40 CFR 60.23a,
requirements that apply to the same components that are specific to state including the date of publication of
affected EGUs included in a state plan. plans submitted pursuant to these such notice; (7) Certification that public
However, as noted in section X.B, emission guidelines. For example, the hearing(s) were held in accordance with
emission reductions from sources not EPA is finalizing plan components that the information provided in the public
are necessary to implement and enforce notice and the state’s laws and
affected by this rule cannot be used to
the specific types of standards of constitution, if applicable and
demonstrate compliance with a
performance for affected EGUs that consistent with the public hearing
standard of performance established to
would be adopted by a state and requirements in 40 CFR 60.23a; (8)
meet the emission guidelines. Only
incorporated into its state plan. Compilation of public comments and
emission reductions at affected EGUs
may count towards compliance with the a. General Components the state’s response thereto; and (9)
state plan, including towards Documentation of meaningful
The CAA section 111 implementing engagement, including a list of pertinent
demonstrating compliance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart stakeholders, a summary of the
equivalent stringency criterion applied Ba, provide separate lists of engagement conducted, a summary of
to compliance flexibilities. States may administrative and technical criteria stakeholder input received, and a
employ compliance flexibilities (such as that must be met in order for a state plan description of how stakeholder input
mass-based mechanisms) described in submission to be deemed complete.951 was considered in the development of
this section in order to facilitate The complete list of applicable the plan or plan revisions.
comparison between the requirements administrative completeness criteria for Pursuant to subpart Ba, the technical
under existing state programs and under state plan submissions is: (1) A formal criteria that all plans must meet include
these emission guidelines; however, the letter of submittal from the Governor or the following: (1) Description of the
EPA emphasizes that individual affected the Governor’s designee requesting EPA plan approach and geographic scope; (2)
EGUs or groups of affected EGUs must approval of the plan or revision thereof; Identification of each designated facility
comply with the requirements (2) Evidence that the state has adopted (i.e., affected EGU); identification of
established for such units in the state the plan in the state code or body of standards of performance for each
plan, and that such compliance cannot regulations; or issued the permit, order, affected EGU; and monitoring,
incorporate measures taken by EGUs not or consent agreement (hereafter recordkeeping, and reporting
affected by these emission guidelines. ‘‘document’’) in final form. That requirements that will determine
evidence must include the date of compliance by each designated facility;
E. State Plan Components and adoption or final issuance as well as the
Submission (3) Identification of compliance
effective date of the plan, if different schedules and/or increments of
This section describes the from the adoption/issuance date; (3) progress; (4) Demonstration that the
requirements for the contents of state Evidence that the state has the necessary state plan submission is projected to
plans and the timing of state plan legal authority under state law to adopt achieve emission performance under the
and implement the plan; (4) A copy of applicable emission guidelines; (5)
submissions as well as the EPA’s review
the actual regulation, or document Documentation of state recordkeeping
of and action on state plan submissions.
submitted for approval and and reporting requirements to determine
This section also discusses issues
incorporation by reference into the plan, the performance of the plan as a whole;
related to the applicability of a Federal
including indication of the changes and (6) Demonstration that each
plan and timing for the promulgation of
made (such as redline/strikethrough) to standard is quantifiable, permanent,
any Federal Plan, if necessary.
the existing approved plan, where verifiable, enforceable, and
As explained earlier in this preamble, applicable. The submittal must be a nonduplicative.
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, copy of the official state regulation or
subpart Ba, govern state plan document signed, stamped, and dated b. Specific State Plan Requirements for
submissions under these emission by the appropriate state official These Emission Guidelines
guidelines. Where the EPA is finalizing indicating that it is fully enforceable by To ensure that state plans submitted
requirements that add to, supersede, or the state. The effective date of the pursuant to these emission guidelines
otherwise vary from the requirements of regulation or document must, whenever are consistent with the statutory
subpart Ba for the purposes of state plan possible, be indicated in the document requirements and the requirements of
submissions under these particular itself. The state’s electronic copy must subpart Ba, the EPA is finalizing
emission guidelines,950 those additional regulatory requirements that
be an exact duplicate of the hard copy.

requirements are addressed explicitly in If the regulation/document provided by state plans must meet for all affected
section X.E.1.b on specific state plan the state for approval and incorporation EGUs subject to a standard of
requirements and in other parts of by reference into the plan is a copy of performance, as well as certain
section X of this preamble. Unless an existing publication, the state subcategory-specific requirements. The
expressly amended or superseded in submission should, whenever possible, EPA reiterates that standards of
performance for affected EGUs included
950 40 CFR 60.20a(a)(1). 951 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(2) and (3). in a state plan must be quantifiable,
verifiable, permanent, enforceable, and emission rate limitation, mass limit, or provided under 40 CFR 60.5850b
non-duplicative. Additionally, per CAA mass budget) that is actually applied for (including any time-limited extension of
section 302(l), standards of performance affected EGUs under the compliance the date by which an EGU has
must be continuous in nature. flexibility mechanism and how it is committed to permanently cease
Additional state plan requirements calculated; provisions for the operations pursuant to the reliability
finalized as part of this action include: implementation and enforcement of the assurance mechanism); and
• Identification of each affected EGU compliance flexibility mechanism, • Monitoring, reporting, and
and the subcategory to which each which includes provisions that address recordkeeping requirements for affected
affected EGU is assigned; assurance of achievement of equivalent EGUs.
• A requirement that state plans emission reduction, including, for mass- These final emission guidelines
include, in the regulatory portion of the based compliance flexibilities, include requirements pertaining to the
plan, a list of coal-fired steam- identification of the unit-specific methodologies for establishing a
generating EGUs that are existing backstop emission limitation; and a presumptively approvable standard of
sources at the time of state plan demonstration that the state plan will performance for an affected EGU within
submission and that plan to achieve an equivalent level of emission a given subcategory. These presumptive
permanently cease operation before reduction with individual rate-based methodologies are specified for each of
January 1, 2032, and the calendar dates standards of performance through the subcategories of affected EGUs in
by which they have committed to do so. incorporation of the compliance section X.C.1 of this preamble.
The state plan must provide that an flexibility mechanism; As discussed in sections X.C and X.D
EGU operating past the date listed in the • Increments of progress and of this preamble, in order for the EPA
plan is no longer exempt from these reporting obligations and milestones as to find a state plan ‘‘satisfactory,’’ that
emission guidelines and is in violation required for affected EGUs within the plan must demonstrate that it achieves
of that plan, except to the extent the applicable subcategories or pursuant to the level of emission reduction that
existing coal-fired steam generating EGU consideration of RULOF, included as would result if each affected source was
has received a time-limited extension of enforceable elements of a state plan; individually achieving its presumptive
its date for ceasing operation pursuant • For affected EGUs in the medium- standard of performance, after
to the reliability assurance mechanism term coal-fired steam generating EGU accounting for any application of
described in section XII.F.3.b of this subcategory and affected EGUs relying RULOF. That is, while states have the
preamble; on a plan to permanently cease discretion to establish the applicable
• Standards of performance for each operation for application of a less standards of performance for affected
affected EGU, including provisions for stringent standard of performance sources in their state plans (including
implementation and enforcement of pursuant to RULOF, the state plan must whether to allow compliance to be
such standards as well as identification include an enforceable commitment to demonstrated through the use of
of the control technology or other permanently cease operation by a date compliance flexibilities), the structure
system of emission reduction affected certain. The state plan must clearly and purpose of CAA section 111 require
EGUs intend to implement to achieve that those plans achieve an equivalent
identify the calendar dates by which
the standards of performance. Standards level of emission reduction as applying
such affected EGUs have committed to
of performance must be expressed in lb the EPA’s presumptive standards of
permanently cease operation; 952
CO2/MWh gross basis or, for affected • A requirement that state plans performance to those sources (again,
EGUs in the low load natural gas- and after accounting for any application of
provide that any existing coal-fired
oil-fired subcategory, lb CO2/MMBtu, or, RULOF).
steam generating EGU shall operate only
if a state is allowing the use of mass- Thus, state plans must adequately
subject to a standard of performance document and support the process and
based compliance, tons CO2 per year;
• For each affected EGU, pursuant to these emission guidelines or underlying data used to establish
identification of baseline emission under an exemption from applicability standards of performance pursuant to
performance, including CO2 mass and 952 Consistent with CAA section 111(d)(1), state
these emission guidelines. Providing
electricity generation data or, for plans must include commitments to cease operation such documentation is critical to the
affected EGUs in either the low load as necessary for the implementation and EPA’s review of state plans to determine
natural gas-fired subcategory or the low enforcement of standards of performance. When whether they are satisfactory. In
load oil-fired subcategory, heat input such commitments are the predicate for receiving particular, states must include in their
a particular standard of performance, adherence to
data from 40 CFR part 75 reporting for those commitments is necessary to maintain the
plan submissions information and data
the 5-year period immediately prior to level of emission reduction Congress required related to affected EGUs’ emissions and
the date this final rule is published in under CAA section 111(a)(1). See 40 CFR 60.24a(g) operations, including CO2 mass
the Federal Register and what (operating conditions within the control of a emissions and corresponding electricity
designated facility that are relied on for purposes
continuous 8-quarter period from the 5- of RULOF must be included as enforceable
generation data or, for affected EGUs in
year period was used to calculate requirements in state plans); see also, e.g., either the low load natural gas-fired
baseline emission performance; ‘‘Affordable Clean Energy Rule,’’ 84 FR 32520, subcategory or the oil-fired subcategory,
• Where a state plan provides for the 32558 (July 8, 2019) (repealed on other grounds) heat input data, from 40 CFR part 75
(requiring that retirement dates associated with
use of a compliance flexibility, such as standards of performance be included in state plans
reporting for the 5-year period
an alternative form of the standard (e.g., and become federally enforceable upon approval by immediately prior to the date the final
mass limit; aggregate emission rate the EPA); 76 FR 12651, 12660–63 (March 8, 2011) rule is published in the Federal Register
limitation) and/or the use of emission (best available retrofit technology requirements and identify the period from which
based on enforceable retirements that were made

averaging or trading, identification of federally enforceable in state implementation plan);
states and affected EGUs select 8
the presumptive unit-specific rate-based Guidance for Regional Haze State Implementation continuous quarters of data to determine
standard of performance in lb CO2/ Plans for the Second Implementation Period at 34, unit-specific baselines. States must
MWh-gross that would apply for each EPA–457/B–19–003, August 2019 (to the extent a include data and documentation
state replies on an enforceable shutdown date for
affected EGU in the absence of the a reasonable progress determination, that measure
sufficient for the EPA to understand and
compliance flexibility mechanism; the would need to be included in the SIP and/or be replicate their calculations in applying
standard of performance (aggregate federally enforceable). the applicable degree of emission
limitation to individual affected EGUs engagement is a corollary to the state plan development timeline are
to establish their standards of longstanding requirement for public addressed section X.E.2).
performance. They must also provide participation, including through public In the proposed emission guidelines,
any methods, assumptions, and hearings, in the course of state plan the EPA provided some information to
calculations necessary for the EPA to development under CAA section assist states in identifying potential
review plans containing compliance 111(d).953 A robust and meaningful pertinent stakeholders. Some
flexibilities and to determine whether engagement process is critical to commenters sought more guidance from
they achieve an equivalent (or better) ensuring that the entire public has an the EPA on how to identify pertinent
level of emission reduction as unit- opportunity to participate in the state stakeholders. The Agency is providing
specific implementation of rate-based plan development process and that the following discussion of the potential
standards of performance. Plans must states understand and consider the full impacts of the emission guidelines to
also adequately document and range of impacts of a proposed plan on assist states in identifying their
demonstrate the methods employed to public health and welfare. pertinent stakeholders. The EPA
implement and enforce the standards of The EPA finalized the following believes that this discussion provides a
performance such that the EPA can definition of meaningful engagement in starting point and expects that states
review and identify measures that the final subpart Ba revisions in will use their more targeted knowledge
assure transparent and verifiable November 2023: ‘‘timely engagement of state- and source-specific
implementation. with pertinent stakeholders and/or their circumstances to hone the identification
representatives in the plan development of pertinent stakeholders and conduct
i. Requirements Related to Meaningful the necessary meaningful engagement.
Engagement or plan revision process.’’ 954
Furthermore, the definition provides As acknowledged by the EPA in the
Public engagement is a cornerstone of that ‘‘[s]uch engagement should not be final revisions to subpart Ba, ‘‘states are
CAA section 111(d) state plan disproportionate in favor of certain highly diverse in, among other things,
development. In November 2023, the stakeholders and should be informed by their local conditions, resources, and
EPA finalized requirements in the CAA available best practices.’’ 955 The established practices of
section 111(d) implementing regulations regulations also define pertinent engagement,’’ 958 so the EPA is not
at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ba to ensure stakeholders, which ‘‘include, but are finalizing any additional requirements
that that all affected members of the not limited to, industry, small regarding the states’ identification of a
public, not just a particular subset, have businesses, and communities most pertinent stakeholders for the purposes
an opportunity to participate in the state of these emission guidelines. States
affected by and/or vulnerable to the
plan development process. These should consider the unique
impacts of the plan or plan revision.’’ 956
requirements are intended to ensure that circumstances of their state and the
The preamble for the final revisions to
the perspectives, priorities, and sources within their state, with the
subpart Ba notes that ‘‘[i]ncreased
concerns of affected communities, following discussion in mind, to tailor
vulnerability of communities may be
including communities that are most their meaningful engagement. In
attributable to, among other reasons, an
affected by and vulnerable to emissions addition, the EPA notes that the
accumulation of negative
from affected EGUs as well as energy preamble to the final subpart Ba
environmental, health, economic, or
communities and energy workers that revisions provides discussion of best
social conditions within these
are affected by EGU operation and practices related to meaningful
construction of pollution controls, are populations or communities, and a lack
engagement.959
included in the process of establishing of positive conditions.’’ 957 Consistent
The air pollutant of concern in these
and implementing standards of with the requirements of subpart Ba, it emission guidelines is defined as
performance for existing EGUs, is important for states to recognize and greenhouse gases, and the air pollution
including decisions about compliance engage the communities most affected addressed is elevated concentrations of
strategies and compliance flexibilities by and/or vulnerable to the impacts of these gases in the atmosphere. These
that may be included in a state plan. a state plan, particularly as these elevated concentrations result in
The final requirements for meaningful communities may not have had a voice warming temperatures and other
engagement in subpart Ba are in when the affected EGUs were originally changes to the climate system that are
addition to the preexisting public notice constructed. leading to serious and life-threatening
requirements under subpart Ba that Most commenters were generally environmental and human health
apply to state plan development. This supportive of the requirement to impacts, including increased incidence
section describes the meaningful conduct meaningful engagement. of drought and flooding, damage to
engagement requirements finalized Commenters acknowledged that some crops and disruption of associated food,
separately in subpart Ba and provides states and utilities have already started fiber, and fuel production systems,
guidance to states in the application of to conduct meaningful engagement with increased incidence of pests, increased
these requirements to the development stakeholders like that which is required incidence of heat-induced illness, and
of state plans under these emission by the final subpart Ba revisions in impacts on water availability and water
guidelines. other policy contexts. Some commenters quality. The Agency therefore expects
The fundamental purpose of CAA requested more time in the state plan that states’ pertinent stakeholders will
section 111 is to reduce emissions from development process specifically to include communities within the state
categories of stationary sources that facilitate conducting meaningful that are most affected by and/or
cause, or significantly contribute to, air engagement (comments related to the
vulnerable to the impacts of climate

pollution which may reasonably be change, including those exposed to
953 40 CFR 60.23(c)–(g); 40 CFR 60.23a(c)–(h).
anticipated to endanger public health or more extreme drought, flooding, and
954 40 CFR 60.21a(k); 88 FR 80480, 80500
welfare. Therefore, a key consideration other severe weather impacts, including
(November 17, 2023).
in the state’s development of a state 955 Id. extreme heat and cold (states should
plan is the potential impact of the 956 40 CFR 60.21a(l); 88 FR 80480, 80500
proposed plan requirements on public (November 17, 2023). 958 Id.
health and welfare. Meaningful 957 88 FR 80480, 80500 (November 17, 2023). 959 See id. at 80502.
refer to section III of this preamble, on supported encouraging states to both subpart Ba revisions. Many states are
climate impacts, to further assist them consider these communities as part of already implementing policies to
in identifying their pertinent meaningful engagement under these consider cumulative impacts in
stakeholders that are impacted by the emission guidelines as well as to take overburdened communities, including
pollution at issue in these emission advantage of Federal resources available California and New Jersey. It is also
guidelines). Commenters were for employment and training assistance, important to note that the EPA is
supportive of the notion that those and highlighted a Colorado state law 961 ‘‘prioritizing cumulative impacts
impacted by climate change are requiring utilities to share workforce research to address the multiple
pertinent stakeholders. data and develop a workforce transition stressors to which people and
Additionally, the EPA expects that plan. The EPA supports such communities are exposed, and studying
another set of pertinent stakeholders approaches to workforce data how combinations of stressors affect
will be communities located near transparency and encourages states to health, well-being, and quality of life at
affected EGUs and those near pipelines. provide such data in the course of each developmental stage throughout
These communities may experience meaningful engagement and the the course of one’s life.’’ 962
impacts associated with implementation development of state plans. Additionally, the EPA is in the process
of the state plan, including the The EPA also expects that states will of developing a workplan that lays out
construction and operation of include relevant balancing authorities, actions the agency will take to integrate
infrastructure required under a state systems operators and reliability and implement cumulative impacts
plan. Activities related to the coordinators that have authority to within the EPA’s work through FY25.
construction and operation of new maintain electric reliability in their The EPA’s commitments, as stated in
natural gas and CO2 pipelines may jurisdiction as part of their constructive the EPA’s response to the OIG Report,
impact individuals and communities engagement under these requirements. include continuing to refine analytic
both locally and at larger distances from These stakeholders are impacted by a techniques based on best available
affected EGUs but near any associated state plan as they are the entities science, increasing the body of relevant
pipelines. Commenters were supportive authorized to plan for electric data and knowledge, and using
of the notion that communities reliability. Visibility into unit-specific outcome-based metrics to measure
impacted by infrastructure development compliance plans will help ensure those progress, including quantifiable
required by the state plan are pertinent entities have adequate lead time to plan pollution reduction benefits in
stakeholders. and address any potential reliability- communities.963
Because these emission guidelines related issues. Early notification and The EPA recognizes that facility- and
address air pollution that becomes well periodic follow up on unit-specific community-specific circumstances,
mixed and is long-lived in the decisions, including control technology including the exposure of overburdened
atmosphere, the collective impact of a installation and voluntary cease communities to additional chemical and
state plan is not limited to the operation choices and timeframes will non-chemical stressors, may also exist.
immediate vicinity of EGUs and any greatly assist reliability planning The meaningful engagement process is
associated infrastructure. The EPA authorities. designed to allow states to identify and
therefore expects that states will Several commenters noted the need to enable consideration of these and
consider communities and populations for consideration of communities other facility- and community-specific
within the state that are both most overburdened by existing air pollution circumstances. This includes
impacted by particular affected EGUs issues, including both greenhouse gases consideration of facility- and
and associated pipelines as well as and co-pollutants, as pertinent community-specific concerns with
those that will be most affected by the stakeholders in these emission emissions control systems, including
overall stringency of state plans. guidelines. The Agency urges states to CCS. States should design meaningful
The EPA also expects that states will consider the cumulative burden of engagement to elicit input from
include the energy communities pollution when identifying their pertinent stakeholders on facility- and
impacted by each affected EGU, pertinent stakeholders for these community-specific issues related to
including the energy workers employed emission guidelines, as these implementation of emissions control
at affected EGUs (including employment stakeholders may be especially systems generally, as well as on any
in operation and maintenance), workers vulnerable to the impacts of a state plan considerations for particular systems.
who may construct and install pollution or plan revision due to ‘‘an The EPA encourages states to consider
control technology, and workers accumulation of negative environmental regional implications, explore
employed in associated industries such . . . conditions,’’ as defined in the final opportunities for collaboration, and to
as fuel extraction and delivery and CO2 share best practices. In some cases, an
transport and storage, as pertinent increased the amount of Federal funding relevant to affected EGU may be located near state
stakeholders. These communities are meeting the needs of energy communities, as well
impacted by power sector trends on an as how the Energy Communities IWG has launched 962 Nicolle S. Tulve, Andrew M. Geller, Scot
ongoing basis. The EPA acknowledges an online Clearinghouse of broadly available Hagerthey, Susan H. Julius, Emma T. Lavoie, Sarah
Federal funding opportunities relevant for meeting L. Mazur, Sean J. Paul, H. Christopher Frey,
that a variety of Federal programs are the needs and interests of energy communities, with Challenges and opportunities for research
available to support these communities information on how energy communities can access supporting cumulative impact assessments at the
and encourages states to consider these Federal dollars and obtain technical assistance to United States environmental protection agency’s
programs when conducting meaningful make sure these new funds can connect to local office of research and development, The Lancet
projects in their communities. Interagency Working Regional Health—Americas, Volume 30, 2024,
engagement and analyzing the impacts Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and 100666, ISSN 2667–193X, https://doi.org/10.1016/
of compliance choices.960 Commenters Economic Revitalization. ‘‘Revitalizing Energy j.lana.2023.100666.
Communities: Two-Year Report to the President’’ 963 EPA Response to Draft Office of Inspector
960 An April 2023 report of the Federal (April 2023). https://energycommunities.gov/wp- General Report, The EPA Lacks Agencywide
Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power content/uploads/2023/04/IWG-Two-Year-Report-to- Policies and Guidance to Address Cumulative
Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization the-President.pdf. Impacts and Disproportionate Health Effects on
(Energy Communities IWG) summarizes how the 961 Colorado Legislature, Senate Law 19–236. Communities with Environmental Justice Concerns.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_ https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/
Act, and Inflation Reduction Act have greatly 236_signed.pdf. 2023-08/_epaoig_20230822-23-p-0029.pdf.
or Tribal borders and impact notice alone may not be appropriate for interests of energy communities, some
communities in neighboring states or all stakeholders, given lack of access to of which may be relevant for state plan
Tribal lands. Some commenters broadband infrastructure in many development.
suggested that those near state or Tribal communities. Thus, in addition to In their plan submittal, states must
borders may be pertinent stakeholders. internet notice, examples of prominent demonstrate evidence that they
The EPA agrees that it could be advertisement for engagement and conducted meaningful engagement. In
reasonable, in cases where EGUs are public hearing may include notice addition to a list of pertinent
located near borders, for the state to through newspapers, libraries, schools, stakeholders and a summary of the
consider identifying pertinent hospitals, travel centers, community engagement conducted, states must
stakeholders in the neighboring state or centers, places of worship, gas stations, provide a summary of the input
Tribal land and to work with the convenience stores, casinos, smoke received and a description of how the
relevant air pollution control authority shops, Tribal Assistance for Needy input they received was considered in
of that state or Tribe to conduct Families offices, Indian Health Services, plan development. The type of
meaningful engagement that addresses clinics, and/or other community health information states may receive from
cross-border impacts. Some commenters and social services as appropriate for their pertinent stakeholders could
supported the notion that those near the emission guideline addressed. The include data on the population and
state or Tribal borders may be pertinent state should also consider any demographics of communities located
stakeholders. geographic, linguistic, or other barriers near affected EGUs and associated
The revisions to subpart Ba in to participation in meaningful pipelines; identification of and data on
November of 2023 established engagement for members of the public. any overburdened communities
requirements for demonstrating how The EPA notes that several EPA vulnerable to the impacts of the state
states provided meaningful engagement resources are available to assist states plan; data on the energy workers
with pertinent stakeholders, and these and stakeholders in considering options affected by anticipated compliance
requirements apply here. According to for state plans. For example, included in strategies on the part of owners and
the requirements under subpart Ba, the the docket for this rulemaking is a unit- operators; data on workforce needs (e.g.,
state will be required to describe, in its level proximity analysis that includes expected number and type of jobs
plan submittal: (1) A list of the pertinent information about the population within created, and skills required in
stakeholders identified by the state; (2) 5 kilometers and 10 kilometers of each anticipation of compliance with the
a summary of engagement conducted; EGU covered by this rule. This analysis state plan); and, if relevant, data on the
(3) a summary of the stakeholder input includes information about air population and demographics of
received; and (4) a description of how emissions from each facility, and the communities near state and Tribal
stakeholder input was considered in the potential emission implications of borders that may be vulnerable to the
development of the plan or plan installing CCS. Additionally, the EPA’s impacts of the state plan. The EPA
revisions. The EPA will review the state Power Plant Environmental Justice encourages states to include such data
plan to ensure that it includes these Screening Methodology (PPSM) 964 in their demonstration of meaningful
required descriptions regarding incorporates several peer-reviewed engagement in their state plan
meaningful public engagement as part of approaches that combine air quality submittal.
its completeness evaluation of a state modeling with environmental burden The EPA emphasizes to states that the
plan submittal. If a state plan and population characteristics data to meaningful engagement process is
submission does not include the identify and connect power plants to intended to include community
required elements for notice and geographic areas potentially exposed to perspectives, particularly those
opportunity for public participation, air pollution by those power plants and communities that, historically, may not
including the procedural requirements to quantify the relative potential for have had a role in the state plan
at 40 CFR 60.23a(i) and 60.27a(g)(2)(ix) environmental justice concern in those development process, in the
for meaningful engagement, this may be areas. This information provides states development of standards of
grounds for the EPA to find the and stakeholders with the ability to performance, compliance strategies, and
submission incomplete or (where a plan identify the census block groups that are compliance flexibilities for affected
has become complete by operation of potentially exposed to air pollution by EGUs by which they are impacted.
law) to disapprove the plan. each EGU, including air pollutants in
In approaching meaningful ii. Requirements for Transparency and
the vicinity of each EGU as well as Compliance Assurance
engagement, states should first identify pollutants that can travel significant
their pertinent stakeholders. As The EPA proposed and requested
distances. Another resource available to
previously noted, the state should allow comment on several requirements
assist states and stakeholders is the
for balanced participation, including designed to help states ensure timely
EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening
communities most vulnerable to the compliance by affected EGUs with
and Mapping Tool (EJScreen),965 which
impacts of the plan. Next, states should standards of performance, as well as to
includes information at the census block
develop a strategy for engagement with assist the public in tracking affected
group level about existing
the identified pertinent stakeholders. EGUs’ progress towards their
environmental burdens as well as
This includes ensuring that information compliance dates.
socioeconomic information. Other First, the EPA requested comment on
is made available in a timely and
federal resources include the Energy whether to require that an affected
transparent manner, with adequate and
Communities Interagency Working EGU’s enforceable commitment for
accessible notice. As part of this strategy

Group’s online Clearinghouse, which subcategory applicability (e.g., a state
for engagement, states should also
lists federal funding opportunities elects to rely on an affected coal-fired
ensure that they share information and
relevant for meeting the needs and steam-generating unit’s commitment to
solicit input on plan development and
on any accompanying assessments or 964 https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/power-
permanently cease operations before
analyses. In providing transparent and plant-environmental-justice-screening- January 1, 2039, to meet the
adequate notice of plan development, methodology. applicability requirements for the
states should consider that internet 965 https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen. medium-term subcategory), must be in
the form of an emission limit of 0 lb instruments can be revised without a the owners or operators of some affected
CO2/MWh that applies on the relevant corresponding revision to the state plan EGUs may already be posting
date. Such an emission limit would be or standard of performance. This comparable reporting and recordkeeping
included in a state regulation, permit, outcome—a source continuing to information to publicly available
order, or other acceptable legal operate into the future with a less- websites under the EPA’s April 2015
instrument and submitted to the EPA as stringent standard of performance that is Coal Combustion Residuals Rule,967
part of a state plan. If approved, the not necessarily warranted—would such that the burden of this website
affected EGU would have a federally undermine the integrity of these requirement for these units could be
enforceable emission limit of 0 lb CO2/ emission guidelines. minimal.
MWh that would become effective as of Second, the EPA proposed and is Comment: Several commenters argued
the date that the EGU permanently finalizing a requirement that state plans that this was a duplicative requirement,
ceases operations. The EPA requested that include affected EGUs that plan to noting that utilities already report GHG
comment on whether such an emission permanently cease operation must emissions data under the Acid Rain
limit would have any advantages or require that each such affected EGU Program and Mandatory GHG Reporting
disadvantages for compliance and comply with applicable state and Program. Commenters also stated that
enforceability relative to the alternative, Federal requirements for permanently this requirement would pose a burden
which is an enforceable commitment in ceasing operation, including removal for companies who would have to
a state plan to cease operation by a from its respective state’s air emissions dedicate staff to maintaining the
certain date. inventory and amending or revoking all website. One commenter 968 suggested
The EPA received few comments on applicable permits to reflect the that EPA include more specific
this topic. One commenter,966 in permanent shutdown status of the EGU. requirements related to the format of
particular, did not support a specific This requirement covers affected coal- data, notification of uploads and
requirement that the permit or other fired steam generating EGUs in the removal of documentation, and
enforceable commitment must be in the medium-term subcategory as well as summarization of content.
form of an emission limit of 0 lb CO2/ affected EGUs that are relying on a Response: The EPA disagrees that this
MWh, claiming it seems needlessly commitment to permanently cease requirement is duplicative of reporting
prescriptive. This commenter also operating to obtain a less stringent requirements under other programs. In
encouraged the EPA to recognize standard of performance pursuant to addition to affected EGUs having unique
delegated or SIP-approved states’ consideration of RULOF. This standards of performance and
enforceable permit conditions, requirement merely reinforces the compliance schedules under these
certifications, and voiding of application of requirements under state emission guidelines, these emission
authorizations, as practically and Federal laws that are necessary in guidelines also include unique reporting
enforceable. this context for transparency and the requirements that are not covered by the
The EPA is not finalizing a orderly administration of these emission programs identified by the commenters,
requirement that states must include guidelines. including increments of progress and
commitments to permanently cease Third, the EPA proposed and is reporting on milestones. In addition, the
operating in state plans in the form of finalizing a requirement that each state EPA believes that this information
0 lb CO2/MWh emission limits. The plan must require owners and operators should be made broadly available to all
Agency is concluding that it is within of affected EGUs to establish publicly stakeholders in a timely manner, which
the discretion of the state to create an accessible websites, referred to here as is not necessarily accomplished via the
enforceable commitment to permanently a ‘‘Carbon Pollution Standards for EGUs programs and reporting mechanisms
cease operation, where applicable, in website,’’ to which all reporting and identified by the commenters.
the form it deems appropriate. Such recordkeeping information for each Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing a
commitments may be codified in a state affected EGU subject to the state plan requirement that each state plan must
regulation, permit, order, or other would be posted, including the require owners and operators of affected
acceptable legal instrument and aforementioned information required to EGUs to establish publicly accessible
submitted to the EPA as part of a state be submitted as part of the state plan. websites and to post the relevant
plan. It is important to note that if an This information includes, but is not information described in this section.
emission limit or some other limited to, emissions data and other Additionally, data should be available
requirement that creates an enforceable information relevant to determining in a readily downloadable format.
commitment to cease operation is compliance with applicable standards of Fourth, to promote transparency and
initially included in a title V permit performance, information relevant to the to assist the EPA and the public in
before the submission of a state plan, designation and determination of assessing progress towards compliance
that condition must be labeled as ‘‘state- compliance with increments of progress with state plan requirements, the EPA
only’’ or ‘‘state-only enforceable’’ until and reporting obligations including proposed and is finalizing a requirement
the EPA approves the state plan, at milestones for affected EGUs that plan that state plans include a requirement
which point the permit should be to permanently cease operations, and that the owner or operator of each
revised to make that requirement any extension requests made and affected EGU shall report any deviation
federally enforceable. Including state granted pursuant to the compliance date from any federally enforceable state
instruments (such as state permits, extension mechanism or the reliability plan increment of progress or reporting
certifications, and other authorizations) assurance mechanism. Although this milestone within 30 business days after
reflecting affected EGUs’ intent to information will also be required to be

permanently cease operation in the state submitted directly to the EPA and the 967 See https://www.epa.gov/coalash/list-publicly-
plan, when such intent is the basis of relevant state regulatory authority, both accessible-internet-sites-hosting-compliance-data-
receiving a less stringent standard of the EPA and stakeholders have an and-information-required for a list of websites for
interest in ensuring that the information facilities posting Coal Combustion Residuals Rule
performance, is necessary because state compliance information, see also 80 FR 21301
is made accessible in a timely manner. (April 17, 2015).
966 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– Some commenters agreed with these 968 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
0072–0781. requirements. The EPA anticipates that 0072–0813.
the owner or operator of the affected enforcement discretion and ACOs will units and jurisdictions. Procession in a
EGU knew or should have known of the not help a power generator decide in the timely manner through these steps is the
event. That is, the owner or operator moment whether to keep running and best indicator the EPA has of whether or
must report within 30 business days if risk a violation or shut down, risking not an existing source remains qualified
it is behind schedule such that it has grid reliability and affecting our for an exemption from these emission
missed an increment of progress or customers. the commenter also stated guidelines. Should a source’s plans to
reporting milestone. In the report, the that ACOs are enforcement actions that cease operating change, e.g., because the
owner or operator of the affected EGU carry negative implications and the relevant planning authority has called
will be required to explain the cause or potential for significant civil penalties, on it to remain in operation for
causes of the deviation and describe all and citizen groups are unlikely to reliability or resource adequacy, the
measures taken or to be taken by the exercise discretion similar to that of the state, the public, and the EPA need to
owner or operator of the EGU to cure the EPA, even if the EPA decides that a low be aware of that change as soon as
reported deviation and to prevent such (or no) penalty is appropriate. Lastly, possible in order to appropriately
deviations in the future, including the this commenter noted that ACOs are address the source under these emission
timeframes in which the owner or typically intended to resolve relatively guidelines. The EPA therefore believes
operator intends to cure the deviation. short-term noncompliance events that that having sources that plan to cease
The owner or operator of the EGU must can be remedied and that do not reflect operation before January 1, 2032, report
submit the report to the state regulatory a fundamental inability to comply. to the Agency on the steps they have
agency and concurrently post the report Response: As discussed in section taken towards doing so is critical to
to the affected EGU’s Carbon Pollution XII.F and elsewhere in this preamble, ensuring that those sources remain
Standards for EGUs website. the EPA has made several adjustments qualified for the exemption and thus to
Fifth, in the proposed action, the EPA and provided several mechanisms in maintaining the environmental integrity
explained its general approach to this final rule that have the effect of or of these emission guidelines.
exercising its enforcement authorities are expressly intended to provide grid The EPA is requiring existing coal-
through administrative compliance operators and reliability authorities fired steam generating EGUs that are in
orders (‘‘ACOs’’) to ensure compliance methods to address grid reliability. For existence as of the date of a state plan
while addressing genuine risks to example, the EPA is providing that submission but plan to cease operating
electric system reliability. The EPA states may include in their state plans before January 1, 2032, to comply with
solicited comment on whether to a short-term reliability mechanism that certain reporting requirements pursuant
promulgate requirements in the final allows affected EGUs to comply with an to CAA section 114(a). Among other
emission guidelines pertaining to the emission limitation corresponding to things, this provision gives the EPA
demonstrations, analysis, and their baseline emission rate during authority to require recordkeeping and
information the owner or operator of an periods of grid emergency. For further reporting of sources for the purpose of
affected EGU would have to submit to detail, see section XII.F.3.a of this ‘‘developing or assisting in the
the EPA in order to be considered for an preamble. This mechanism is intended development of any implementation
ACO. The EPA is not finalizing the to allow states to respond quickly to plan under . . . section 7411(d) of this
proposed approach to use ACOs to emergency situations, and to avoid title[ or] any standard of performance
address risks to grid reliability. affected EGUs being out of compliance under section 7411 of this title,’’
Comment: One commenter argued or needing to work towards compliance ‘‘determining whether any person is in
that the conditions to qualify for an through an ACO. Considering the violation of any such standard of any
ACO would make it challenging for an structural changes the EPA has made in requirement of such a plan,’’ or
EGU to obtain an ACO in instances of these final emission guidelines and the ‘‘carrying out any provision of this
urgent reliability.969 Commenters mechanisms it is providing states to chapter.’’ Owners or operators of coal-
argued that there are not any guarantees address grid reliability, the EPA does fired steam generating EGUs that would
that the EPA would act on such requests not believe that states and affected EGUs be covered by these emission guidelines
for an ACO in a timely manner, will need to rely on ACOs to address but for their plans to permanently cease
particularly because the EPA has not set compliance during periods of grid operating are required to make reports
any deadline for review and presumably emergency. necessary to ascertain whether they will
would argue that any decision falls Finally, as explained in section VII.B
in fact qualify for the exemption. This
within the EPA’s enforcement discretion of this preamble, coal-fired steam
reporting obligation is necessary for
and is not subject to judicial review. generating EGUs that plan to
preserving the integrity of the rule, and
Additionally, one commenter argued permanently cease operating before
January 1, 2032, are not covered by is consistent with ensuring that states
that the proposal is unworkable for the develop plans that include standards of
purposes of addressing more immediate these emission guidelines, i.e., they are
not affected EGUs. However, to performance for all existing sources and
reliability needs, specifying that EGUs for anticipating whether a state plan
may not be able to readily obtain the maintain the environmental integrity of
these emission guidelines, it is critical may need to be revised to include a
information or analysis necessary for standard of performance for an existing
preparing documentation for the EPA that any existing sources that are
operating as of January 1, 2032, are source that will not be eligible for an
from their regional entity or state.970 exemption from these emission
Another commenter argued that the doing so subject to a requirement to
operate more cleanly, and therefore guidelines.971
proposed mechanism provides no relief
during an energy crisis because they essential that sources report on their 971 The milestone reporting requirements for
would be offered only after the fact to actions to qualify for the exemption. As affected coal-fired steam generating EGUs in the
resolve any alleged violations. explained in the preamble to the medium-term subcategory and those relying on a
Therefore, the possibility of future proposed rule and section X.C.4 of this shorter remaining useful life for a less-stringent
preamble, there are many steps the standard of performance pursuant to RULOF are
authorized under both CAA sections 114(a) and
969 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– owners or operators of EGUs must take 111(d)(1), the latter of which provides that state
0072–0770. as they get ready to permanently cease plans shall provide for the implementation and
970 Id. operations and those steps vary between enforcement of standards of performance. In that
The reporting requirements the EPA is EGU’s intent to deactivate; and any will necessarily have to accommodate
promulgating for sources that plan to notification to or from an RTO, ISO, or overlapping considerations and
permanently cease operation before relevant reliability authority altering the processes. States’ plan development
January 1, 2032, are similar to the timing of deactivation for the EGU. may have to integrate decision making
reporting requirements the Agency is For each of the remaining years prior by not only the relevant air agency or
requiring for medium-term coal-fired to the date by which an EGU has agencies, but also ISOs, RTOs, or other
steam generating affected EGUs and committed to permanently cease balancing authorities. While 18 months
affected EGUs relying on a shorter operations, the operator or operator of is a reasonable timeframe to
remaining useful life for a less-stringent an EGU must submit an annual status accommodate state plan development
standard of performance through report to the EPA that includes: (1) for source categories that do not require
RULOF. Those requirements are Progress on each of the process steps this level of coordination, the EPA does
described in section X.C.4 of this identified in the initial report; and (2) not believe it is reasonable to expect
preamble and require the definition of supporting regulatory documents, states and affected EGUs to undertake
milestones tailored to individual units including correspondence and official the coordination and planning
which are then embedded in periodic filings with the relevant RTO, balancing necessary to ensure that plans for
reporting requirements to assess authority, PUC, or other applicable implementing these emission guidelines
progress toward the cessation of authority to demonstrate progress are consistent with the broader needs
operations. However, consistent with toward all steps; and (3) regulatory and trajectory of the power sector
CAA section 114, the requirements for documents, and relevant SEC filings within the default period provided
sources that are exempt from these (listed in the preceding paragraph) that under subpart Ba.
emission guidelines are limited to have been issued, filed or received since However, there are also notable
reporting and do not include the the prior report. differences between the circumstances
establishment of milestones. Thus, the The EPA is also requiring that EGUs of the proposed versus these final
requirements are as follows: Five years that plan to permanently cease emission guidelines that are relevant to
before any planned date to permanently operation by January 1, 2032, submit a the state plan submission timeline.
cease operations or by the date upon final report to the EPA no later than 6 First, the EPA is not finalizing emission
which state plan is submitted, months following its committed closure guidelines applicable to combustion
whichever is later, the owner or date. This report would document any turbine EGUs, which will significantly
operator of the EGU must submit an actions that the unit has taken decrease the number of affected EGUs
initial report to the EPA that includes subsequent to ceasing operation to that states must address in their plans.
the following: (1) A summary of the ensure that such cessation is permanent, Relative to proposal, there are
process steps required for the EGU to including any regulatory filings with approximately 184 fewer individual
permanently cease operation by the date applicable authorities or units to which these emission
included in the state plan, including the decommissioning plans. guidelines will apply (based on
approximate timing and duration of 2. Timing of State Plan Submissions information at the time of the final rule),
each step and any notification and the final emission guidelines do not
requirements associated with The EPA proposed a state plan include co-firing with low-GHG
deactivation of the unit. These process submission deadline that is 24 months hydrogen as a BSER. The analytical and
steps may include, e.g., initial notice to from the date of publication of the final other burdens associated with state
the relevant reliability authority of the emission guidelines, which, at that time planning will thus be significantly
deactivation date and submittal of an was 9 months longer than the default lighter than anticipated at proposal, as
official retirement filing (or equivalent state plan submission timeline in the states will have to address not only
filing) made to the EGU’s reliability proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba fewer sources but also a smaller
authority. (2) Supporting regulatory implementing regulations. The EPA universe of potential control strategies.
documents, including correspondence finalized subpart Ba with a default Additionally, as explained in section
and official filings with the relevant timeline of 18 months for state plan VII.B.1 of this preamble, these final
regional RTO, ISO, balancing authority, submissions, 40 CFR 60.23a(a)(1); emission guidelines do not apply to
PUC, or other applicable authority; any regardless, the EPA is superseding existing coal-fired EGUs that plan to
deactivation-related reliability subpart Ba’s timeline under these permanently cease operation prior to
assessments conducted by the RTO or emission guidelines and is requiring January 1, 2032. While under the
ISO; and any filings pertaining to the that state plans be submitted 24 months proposed emission guidelines states
EGU with the SEC or notices to after publication of this final rule in the would have had to establish standards
investors, including but not limited to Federal Register. of performance for every existing source
references in forms 10–K and 10–Q, in As discussed in the preamble to the operating as of January 1, 2030, states
which the plans for the EGU are proposed rule,972 these emission will be able to forgo addressing a subset
mentioned; any integrated resource guidelines apply to a relatively complex of these existing sources under this final
plans and PUC orders referring to or source category and state plan rule.
approving the EGU’s deactivation; any development will require significant In addition to states needing to
reliability analyses developed by the analysis, consultation, and coordination address far fewer existing sources in
RTO, ISO, or relevant reliability between states, utilities, reliability their state plans than anticipated under
authority in response to the EGU’s authorities, and the owners or operators the proposed emission guidelines, it is
deactivation notification; any of individual affected EGUs. The power also not expected that the owners or
notification from a reliability authority sector is subject to layers of regulatory operators of sources will begin
that the EGU may be needed for and other requirements under different implementation of control strategies
reliability purposes notwithstanding the authorities (e.g., environmental, electric before state plan submission. At
reliability, SEC) and the decisions states proposal the EPA believed that some
case, reporting requirements are necessary to ensure make under these emission guidelines owners or operators of affected EGUs
that the predicate conditions for the sources’ would do feasibility and FEED studies
standards of performance are satisfied. 972 88 FR 33240, 33402–03 (May 23, 2023). for CCS during state plan development,
i.e., before state plan submission. For possible while accommodating the time units that state plans must address and
other affected coal-fired EGUs, the EPA needed for states to develop an effective also decrease the number and
anticipated that owners or operators plan.974 To this end, the EPA is complexity of decisions states must
would undertake certain planning, promulgating a timeframe for state plan make with regard to those units.
design, and permitting steps prior to submissions that is based on the Furthermore, 24 months is sufficient
state plan submission.973 In developing minimum administrative time that is time for states to complete the steps
these final emission guidelines, the EPA reasonably necessary given the need for necessary to develop and submit a state
changed its earlier assumption that states and owners or operators of plan. Owners and operators are already
states and affected EGUs would take affected EGUs to coordinate with or should already be considering how
significant steps towards planning and reliability authorities in the they will operate in a future
implementing control strategies prior to development of state plans. In this case, environment where sources operating
state plan submission. There are certain the EPA believes that providing an more cleanly are valued more. The EPA
preliminary steps, such as an initial additional 6 months beyond subpart expects that states are already working
feasibility study, that the EPA expects Ba’s 18 months for state plan or will work closely with the operators
that states and/or affected EGUs will submissions is sufficient to and operators of affected EGUs as those
undertake as a typical part of the state accommodate this additional owners and operators update their IRPs
planning process. Under any rule or coordination, particularly given that the and proceed through any necessary
circumstances, it would not be number of affected EGUs that states will processes with, e.g., PUCs and
reasonable for a state to commit an be addressing in their plans is far fewer reliability authorities. Thus, the Agency
affected EGU to installation and than expected under the proposed expects that consultation with and
operation of a certain control technology emission guidelines. between owners and operators, PUCs,
without undertaking at least an initial Comment: Several commenters and reliability authorities is currently
assessment of that technology—this is supported the EPA’s proposed 24-month ongoing and will remain so throughout
what is accomplished by feasibility timeframe for state plan submissions state plan development and
studies. However, while the Agency and stressed the importance of implementation. Against this backdrop
believes that some sources are currently achieving emission reductions as of ongoing planning and consultation,
or will be undertaking FEED studies or quickly as possible. Commenters also the EPA’s obligation in these emission
other significant steps towards noted that, based on anecdotal evidence, guidelines is to ensure that state plan
implementing pollution controls 24 months is generally sufficient to development and submission occurs
independent of these emission incorporate legislative, regulatory, and within a timeframe consistent with the
guidelines at earlier times, the EPA is other administrative procedures ‘‘adherence to [the EPA’s] 2015 finding
not assuming when setting the associates with submitting state plans. of an urgent need to counteract the
compliance deadline that EGUs will be Many commenters, however, requested threats posed by unregulated carbon
taking such steps prior to the existence that the EPA provide additional time for dioxide emissions from coal-fired power
of a state law requirement to do so (i.e., states to develop and submit their state plants.’’ 975 The timeframe the EPA is
prior to state plan adoption and plans; many requested 36 months with providing for state plan development
submission). some commenters asserting that even upfront coupled with the long lead
The EPA received a number of more time would be required. times it is providing for compliance
comments on the proposed 24-month Commenters asking for a longer with standards of performance provides
timeline for state plan submissions, timeframe cited reasons including the states and owners or operators ample
which are discussed in detail below. As size of states’ EGU fleets and the time to ensure the orderly
a general matter, many of these specific BSERs proposed for certain implementation of the control
comments requested a longer timeframe subcategories (i.e., CCS and hydrogen requirements under these emission
for developing and submitting state co-firing), the need for owners or guidelines.
plans. However, given that the number operators of affected EGUs to conduct Comment: Several commenters
of affected EGUs state plans will have to systems analyses and update their asserted that the EPA should provide
cover under these final emission integrated resource plans (IRPs) prior to longer than 24 months for state plan
guidelines is very likely to be making final decisions for state plans, submissions to provide time for states to
significantly lower than anticipated and the need for states to get their work through their necessary
based on the proposal and that the EPA choices approved by the appropriate rulemaking, legislative, and/or
is not expecting states or owners or reliability and other regulatory administrative processes. Some
operators of affected EGUs to conduct commissions. commenters similarly stated that more
FEED studies or otherwise start work on Response: As explained above, the than 24 months is needed in order to
implementation prior to state plan EPA has made a number of changes in accommodate meaningful engagement
submission, the EPA continues to these final emission guidelines that on draft state plans.
believe that 24 months is an appropriate have the effect of decreasing the Response: The default timeline
timeframe. Additionally, as discussed in planning burden on states, including provided for state plan development
the preamble to the recent revisions to not finalizing requirements for and submission under 40 CFR part 60,
the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba combustion turbine EGUs, exempting subpart Ba is 18 months. As the EPA
implementing regulations, the EPA’s coal-fired EGUs that plan to cease acknowledged when it promulgated this
approach to timelines for state plan operating by January 1, 2032, finalizing timeframe, state regulatory and
submission and review under CAA fewer subcategories for coal-fired EGUs, legislative processes and resources can
section 111(d) is informed by the need and not finalizing the subcategory for vary significantly and influence the time
to minimize the impacts of emissions of coal-fired EGUs that was based on needed to develop and submit state
dangerous air pollutants on public utilization level. In general, these plans.976 However, the CAA contains
health and welfare by proceeding as changes will decrease the number of
expeditiously and as reasonably 975 Am. Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914, 994
974 See, e.g., 88 FR 80480, 80486 (November 17, (D.C. Cir. 2021).
973 88 FR 33240, 33402 (May 23, 2023). 2023). 976 88 FR 80480, 80488 (November 17, 2023).
numerous, long-standing requirements subsequently change. In general, states on plan submissions; however, the EPA
under other programs for states to have the authority and discretion to notes that, because the first compliance
develop and submit plans in 18 or fewer submit revised state plans to the EPA for date under the final emission guidelines
months. The EPA therefore believes that approval.977 State plan revisions are is January 1, 2030, a plan revision
states should be well positioned to generally subject to the same submitted after November 1, 2028
accommodate an 18-month state plan requirements as initial state plan (taking into consideration 1 year for
submission timeframe, let alone at 24- submissions under these emission EPA action on a state plan revision plus
month timeframe, from the perspective guidelines and the subpart Ba up to 60 days, approximately, for a
of the timing of state processes. The implementing regulations, including completeness determination) may not
Agency does not believe it would be meaningful engagement, and the EPA provide sufficient time for the EPA to
reasonable or consistent with CAA reviews state plan revisions against the review and approve the plan sufficiently
section 111’s purpose of reducing air applicable requirements of these in advance of that compliance date to
pollution that endangers public health emission guidelines and the subpart Ba allow sources to appropriately plan for
and the environment to extend state implementing regulations in the same compliance. The EPA reiterates that
plan submission deadlines to defer to manner in which it reviews initial state EGUs will be expected to comply with
lengthy state administrative processes. plan submissions pursuant to 40 CFR any requirements already approved in
Similarly, the EPA believes that 24 60.27a. Requirements of the initial state the state plan until such time as the plan
months provides sufficient time for plan approved by the EPA remain revision is approved.
states to conduct meaningful federally enforceable unless and until
engagement with pertinent stakeholders 4. Dual-Path Standards of Performance
the EPA approves a plan revision that
under these emission guidelines. As for Affected EGUs
supersedes such requirements. States
discussed in section X.E.1.b.i of this and affected EGUs should plan As discussed in the proposed action,
preamble, the EPA is providing accordingly to avoid noncompliance. under the structure of these emission
additional information in these final The EPA is finalizing a state plan guidelines, states would assign affected
emission guidelines that states may use submission date that is 24 months after coal-fired EGUs to subcategories in their
to inform their meaningful engagement the publication of the final emission state plans, and an affected EGU would
strategies and that can help them to guidelines and is finalizing the first not be able to change its applicable
fulfill their obligations in a timely and compliance date for affected coal-fired subcategory without a state plan
diligent fashion. For example, the EPA EGUs in the medium-term subcategory revision. This is because, due to the
has noted a number of types of and affected natural gas- and oil-fired nature of the BSERs for coal-fired steam
stakeholder communities to assist states EGUs of January 1, 2030. A state may generating units, an affected EGU that
in identifying their pertinent choose to submit a plan revision prior switches into either the medium-term or
stakeholders. It has also provided to the compliance dates in its existing long-term subcategory may not be able
information and tools that states may state plan; however, the EPA reiterates to meet the compliance obligations for
use in considering options for state that any already approved federally a new and different subcategory without
plans, including facility-specific enforceable requirements, including considerable lead time; in order to
information on air emissions and the milestones, increments of progress, and ensure timely emission reductions, it is
potential emissions implications of standards of performance, will remain important that states identify which
installing CCS. Commenters also in place unless and until the EPA subcategories affected EGUs fall into in
pointed out that several states have approves the plan revision. their state plan submissions so that
recently adopted regulations, programs, The EPA requested comment on affected EGUs have certainty about their
and tools relevant to identifying whether it would be helpful to states to expected regulatory obligations.
pertinent stakeholders and conducting impose a cutoff date for the submission Therefore, as a general matter, states
meaningful engagement; such programs of plan revisions before the first must assign each affected EGU to a
and tools, in addition to states’ growing compliance date. This would, in effect, subcategory and have in place all the
body of knowledge and experience establish a temporary moratorium on legal instruments necessary to
pursuant to state initiatives and plan submissions in order to allow the implement the requirements for that
priorities, will aid states and EPA to act on the plans. State plan subcategory by the time of state plan
stakeholders alike in conducting robust revisions would again be permitted after submission.
meaningful engagement in the the final compliance date. The EPA is However, the EPA also solicited
timeframe for state plan development. not finalizing such cutoff date to comment on a dual-path approach that
provide more flexibility to states in would allow coal-fired steam generating
3. State Plan Revisions units to have two different standards of
submitting revisions closer to the first
As discussed in the preamble of the compliance date, in the case that EPA performance submitted to the EPA in a
proposed action, the EPA expects that may be able to review those revisions state plan based on potential inclusion
the 24-month state plan submission before the first compliance date. in two different subcategories. This
deadline for these emission guidelines Comment: Several commenters proposal was based in large part on the
would give states, utilities and generally disagreed with establishing a proposed structure of the subcategories
independent power producers, and cutoff date for state plan revisions for coal-fired affected EGUs, under
stakeholders sufficient time to before the first compliance date, arguing which it would have been realistic to
determine into which subcategory each these timelines would be unworkable expect that sources could prepare to
of the affected EGUs should fall and to
because state plan revisions may require comply with either the presumptive
formulate and submit a state plan public notice and stakeholder standard of performance for, e.g., the
accordingly. However, the EPA also engagement. imminent-term subcategory and the
acknowledges that, despite states’ best Response: The EPA is not finalizing near-term subcategory or the imminent-
efforts to accurately reflect the plans of an explicit cutoff date that would in term subcategory and the medium-term
owners or operators with regard to effect establish a temporary moratorium subcategory.
affected EGUs at the time of state plan Because the final emission guidelines
submission, such plans may 977 40 CFR 60.23a(a)(2), 60.28a. include only two subcategories for coal-
fired affected EGUs and do not include applicable requirements of subpart Ba action on state plan submissions will be
the two subcategories for which the and these emission guidelines, governed by the requirements of revised
dual-path approach would have been consistent with the underlying subpart Ba.
appropriate, the EPA is not finalizing an requirement that state plans must be
6. Federal Plan Applicability and
approach that allows coal-fired steam ‘‘satisfactory’’ ’ per CAA section 111(d).
Promulgation Timing
generating units to have two different The Administrator would have the
standards of performance submitted to option to fully approve; fully The provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
the EPA in a state plan based on disapprove; partially approve and subpart Ba, apply to the EPA’s
potential inclusion in two different partially disapprove; or conditionally promulgation of any Federal plans
subcategories. approve a state plan submission.980 Any under these emission guidelines. The
Comment: In general, commenters components of a state plan submission EPA’s obligation to promulgate a
supported a dual-path approach; that the EPA approves become federally Federal plan is triggered in three
however, several commenters requested enforceable. situations: where a state does not submit
that the EPA accommodate a multi- The EPA solicited comment on the a plan by the plan submission deadline;
pathway approach (three or more use of the timeframes regarding EPA where the EPA determines that a state
pathways) due to the complexity of state action on state plans in subpart Ba and plan submission does not meet the
plans and potential for numerous commenters encouraged reconsidering completeness criteria and the time
compliance pathways because of factors the schedule, suggesting either period for state plan submission has
beyond the EGU owner or operator’s increasing or decreasing the amount of elapsed; and where the EPA fully or
control, such as infrastructure for CCS time for action on state plans. In the partially disapproves a state’s plan.983
projects and increase in electric power final emission guidelines, the EPA is not Where a state has failed to submit a plan
demand due to electrification of the superseding the timeframes in subpart by the submission deadline, subpart Ba
transportation sector. Ba regarding EPA action on state plans gives the EPA 12 months from the state
Response: As stated above, the EPA is and plan revisions. plan submission due date to promulgate
not finalizing the dual-path approach, Comment: One commenter suggested a Federal plan; otherwise, the 12-month
nor a multi-pathway approach. If an that the EPA should provide for period starts, as applicable, from the
affected EGU wishes to switch automatic extension of compliance date the state plan submission is
subcategories after the initial state plan dates for affected EGUs if the Agency deemed incomplete or from the date of
approval, the state should submit a state does not meet its 12-month deadline for the EPA’s disapproval. If the state
plan revision sufficiently in advance of plan approval.981 Other commenters submits and the EPA approves a state
the compliance date for the subcategory expressed concerns that the EPA will be plan submission that corrects the
into which it was assigned to permit the unable to review all plans in the 12- relevant deficiency within the 12-month
EPA’s review and action on that plan month timeframe. One commenter period, before the EPA promulgates a
revision. suggested that the EPA should strive to Federal plan, the EPA’s obligation to
review plans in less than the proposed promulgate a Federal plan is relieved.984
5. EPA Action on State Plans As provided by 40 CFR 60.27a(e), a
12-month timeframe.982
Pursuant to the final revisions to 40 Response: The EPA does not believe Federal plan will prescribe standards of
CFR part 60, subpart Ba, in this action, it is appropriate to provide automatic performance for affected EGUs of the
the EPA is subject to a 60-day timeline extensions of compliance dates based on same stringency as required by these
for the Administrator’s determination of the timeframe for EPA action on state emission guidelines and will require
completeness of a state plan submission plan submissions. While there may be compliance with such standards as
and a 12-month timeline for action on some degree of regulatory uncertainty expeditiously as practicable but no later
state plans.978 The timeframes and that stems from waiting for the Agency than the final compliance date under
requirements for state plan submissions to act on a state plan submission, it these guidelines. However, 40 CFR
described in this section also apply to would not be a reasonable solution to 60.27a(e)(2) provides that, upon
state plan revisions.979 add to that uncertainty by also making application by the owner or operator of
As discussed in the proposed action, an affected EGU, the EPA may provide
compliance dates contingent on the date
the EPA would first review the for the application of a less stringent
of EPA’s action. This additional
components of the state plan to standard of performance or longer
uncertainty could have the effect of
determine whether the plan meets the compliance schedule than provided by
unnecessarily extending the compliance
completeness criteria of 40 CFR these emission guidelines, in which
schedule and delaying emission
60.27a(g). The EPA must determine case the EPA would follow the same
reductions. Given that the dates on
whether a state plan submission has met process and criteria in the regulations
which the EPA takes final action on
the completeness criteria within 60 days that apply to states’ provision of RULOF
individual state plans are likely to be
of its receipt of that submission. If the standards. Under subpart Ba, the EPA is
many and varied (based on, inter alia,
EPA has failed to make a completeness also required to conduct meaningful
when each state plan was submitted to
determination for a state plan engagement with pertinent stakeholders
the Agency), such extensions would
submission within 60 days of receipt, prior to promulgating a Federal plan.985
create unnecessary confusion and
the submission shall be deemed, by As discussed in section X.E.2 of this
potentially uneven application of the
operation of law, complete as of that preamble, the EPA is finalizing a
requirements for state plans. In this
date. Subpart Ba requires the EPA to deadline for state plan submissions of
action, the EPA does not find a reason
take final action on a state plan 24 months after publication of these

to supersede the timelines finalized in
submission within 12 months of that final emission guidelines in the Federal
subpart Ba; therefore, review of and
submission’s being deemed complete. Register. Therefore, if a state fails to
The EPA will review the components of 980 40 CFR 60.27a(b). timely submit a state plan, the EPA
state plan submissions against the 981 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
983 40 CFR 60.27a(c).
0072–0660.
978 40 CFR 60.27a(b), (g)(1). 982 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 984 40 CFR 60.27a(d).
979 See generally 40 CFR 60.27a. 0072–0764. 985 40 CFR 60.27a(f).
would be obligated to promulgate a permitting authorities are found at 40 NAAQS or the ‘‘PSD increments’’ (i.e.,
Federal plan within 36 months of CFR 51.160 to 51.166. The EPA’s margins of ‘‘significant’’ air quality
publication of these final emission primary role is to approve state program deterioration above a baseline
guidelines. Note that this will be the regulations and to review, comment on, concentration that establish an air
earliest possible obligation for the EPA and take any other necessary actions on quality ceiling, typically below the
to promulgate a Federal plan and that draft and final permits to assure NAAQS, for each PSD area). Sources
different triggers (e.g., a disapproved consistency with the EPA’s rules, the can often make this air quality
state plan) will result in later obligations SIP, and the CAA. When a state does not demonstration based on the BACT level
to promulgate Federal plans for other have EPA-approved authority to issue of control or by accepting more stringent
states, contingent on when the NSR permits, the EPA issues the NSR air quality-based limitations. However,
obligation is triggered. permits within the state, or delegates if these methods are insufficient to show
Finally, the EPA acknowledges that, if authority to the state to issue the NSR that increased emissions from the
a Tribe does not seek and obtain the permits on behalf of the EPA, pursuant source will not cause or contribute to a
authority from the EPA to establish a to rules at 40 CFR 49.151–173, 40 CFR violation of air quality standards,
TIP, the EPA has the authority to 52.21, and 40 CFR 124. applicants may undertake mitigation
establish a Federal CAA section 111(d) For the major NSR program, the measures that are analogous to offsets in
plan for areas of Indian country where requirements that apply to a source order to satisfy this PSD permitting
designated facilities are located. A depend on the air quality designation at criterion.
Federal plan would apply to all the location of the source for each of its When the EPA is making NSR
designated facilities located in the areas emitted pollutants at the time the permit permitting decisions, it has legal
of Indian country covered by the is issued. Major NSR permits for sources authority to consider potential
Federal plan unless and until the EPA located in an area that is designated as disproportionate environmental burdens
approves an applicable TIP applicable attainment or unclassifiable for the on a case-by-case basis. Based on
to those facilities. NAAQS for its pollutants are referred to Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, the EPA’s
as Prevention of Significant Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)
XI. Implications for Other CAA
Programs Deterioration (PSD) permits. PSD has held that environmental justice
permits can include requirements for considerations must be considered in
A. New Source Review Program specific pollutants for which there are connection with the issuance of Federal
The CAA’s New Source Review (NSR) no NAAQS.988 Sources subject to PSD PSD permits issued by EPA Regional
preconstruction permitting program must, among other requirements, Offices or states acting under
applies to stationary sources that emit comply with emission limitations that delegations of Federal authority. The
pollutants resulting from new reflect the Best Available Control EAB ‘‘has . . . encouraged permit
construction and modifications of Technology (BACT) for ‘‘each pollutant issuers to examine any ‘superficially
existing sources. The NSR program is subject to regulation’’ as specified by plausible’ claim that a minority or low-
authorized by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3). income population may be
which requires that each state Major NSR permits for sources located disproportionately affected by a
implementation plan (SIP) ‘‘include a in nonattainment areas and that emit at particular facility.’’ 989 EPA guidance
program to provide for the . . . or above the specified major NSR and EAB decisions do not advise EPA
regulation of the modification and threshold for the pollutant for which the Regional Offices or delegated NSR
construction of any stationary source area is designated as nonattainment are permitting authorities to integrate
within the areas covered by the plan as referred to as Nonattainment NSR environmental justice considerations
necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are (NNSR) permits. Sources subject to into any particular component of the
achieved, including a permit program as NNSR must, among other requirements, PSD permitting review, such as the
required in parts C and D [of title I of meet the Lowest Achievable Emission determination of BACT. The practice of
the CAA].’’ The ‘‘permit program as Rate (LAER) pursuant to CAA sections EPA Regional Offices and delegated
required in parts C and D’’ refers to the 171(3) and 173(a)(2) for any pollutant states has been to conduct a largely
‘‘major NSR’’ program, which applies to subject to NNSR. For the minor NSR freestanding environmental justice
new ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 986 and program, neither the CAA nor the EPA’s analysis for PSD permits that can take
‘‘major modifications’’ 987 of existing rules set forth a minimum control into account case-specific factors
stationary sources. The ‘‘minor NSR’’ technology requirement. germane to any individual permit
program applies to new construction In keeping with the goal of progress decision.
and modifications of stationary sources toward attaining the NAAQS, sources The minimum requirements for an
that do not meet the emission seeking NNSR permits must provide or approvable state NSR permitting
thresholds for major NSR. NSR purchase ‘‘offsets’’—i.e., decreases in program do not require state permitting
applicability is pollutant-specific, so a emissions that compensate for the authorities to reflect environmental
source seeking to newly construct or increases from the new source or justice considerations in their
modify may need to obtain both major modification. For sources seeking PSD permitting decisions. However, states
NSR and minor NSR permits before it permits, offsets are not required, but that implement NSR programs under an
can begin construction. they must demonstrate that the EPA-approved SIP have discretion to
Under the CAA, states have primary emissions from the project will not consider environmental justice in their
responsibility for issuing NSR permits, cause or contribute to a violation of the NSR permitting actions and adopt
and they can customize their programs additional requirements in the

within the limits of EPA regulations. 988 For the PSD program, ‘‘regulated NSR
permitting decision to address potential
pollutant’’ includes any pollutant for which a disproportionate environmental
The Federal NSR rules applying to state NAAQS has been promulgated (‘‘criteria
pollutants’’) and any other air pollutant that meets burdens. Additionally, in some cases, a
986 40CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i). the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50). Some of
987 40CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i) and the term ‘‘net these non-criteria pollutants include greenhouse 989 In re Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., 15 E.A.D. 103,
emissions increase’’ as defined at 40 CFR gases, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen 149 and n.71 (EAB 2010) (internal citations
52.21(b)(3). sulfide, and total reduced sulfur. omitted).
state law requires consideration of differs from the criteria required in While the BACT review process is
environmental justice in the state’s establishing an NSPS or emission intended to capture a broad array of
permitting decisions. guidelines. As such, sources that are potential options for pollution control,
Through the NSR permit review permitted under major NSR may have the EPA has recognized that the list of
process, permitting authorities have differing control requirements for a available control options need not
requirements for public participation in pollutant than what is required by an necessarily include inherently lower
decision-making, which provide applicable standard under CAA section polluting processes that would
discretion for permitting authorities to 111. As noted above, sources permitted fundamentally redefine the nature of the
provide enhanced engagement for under the minor NSR program do not source proposed by the permit
communities with environmental justice have a minimum control technology applicant. Thus, BACT should generally
concerns. This includes opportunities to standard specified by statute or EPA not be applied to regulate the permit
enhance environmental justice by rule, so a permitting authority has more applicant’s purpose or objective for the
facilitating increased public flexibility in its determination of control proposed facility. However, this
participation in the formal permit technology for aminor NSR permit. approach does not preclude a permitting
consideration process (e.g., by granting For PSD permits, the permitting authority from considering options that
requests to extend public comment authority must establish emission would change aspects (either minor or
periods, holding multiple public limitations based on BACT for each significant) of an applicants’ proposed
meetings, or providing translation pollutant that is subject to PSD at the facility design in order to achieve
services at hearings in areas with new major stationary source or at each pollutant reductions that may or may
limited English proficiency). The emissions unit involved in the major not be deemed achievable after further
permitting authority can also take modification. BACT is assessed on a evaluation at later steps of the process.
informal steps to enhance participation case-by-case basis, and the permitting The EPA does not interpret the CAA to
earlier in the process, such as inviting authority, in its analysis of BACT for prohibit fundamentally redefining the
community groups to meet with the each pollutant, evaluates the emission source and has recognized that
permitting authority and express their reductions that each available permitting authorities have the
concerns before a draft permit is issued. emissions-reducing technology or discretion to conduct a broader BACT
Additionally, in accordance with technique would achieve, as well as the analysis if they desire. The ‘‘redefining
CAA 165(a)(2), the PSD regulations energy, environmental, economic, and the source’’ issue is ultimately a
require the permitting authority to other costs associated with each question of degree that is within the
‘‘[p]rovide opportunity for a public technology or technique. The CAA also discretion of the permitting authority,
hearing for interested persons to appear specifies that BACT cannot be less and any decision to exclude an option
and submit written or oral comments on stringent than any applicable standard on ‘‘redefining the source’’ grounds
the air quality impact of the source, of performance under the NSPS.991 should be explained and documented in
alternatives to it, the control technology In conducting a BACT analysis, many the permit record.
required, and other appropriate permitting authorities apply the EPA’s In conducting the analysis of energy,
considerations.’’ 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(v). five-step ‘‘top-down’’ approach, which environmental and economic impacts
The ‘‘alternatives’’ and ‘‘other the EPA recommends to ensure that all arising from each control option
appropriate considerations’’ language in the criteria in the CAA’s definition of remaining under consideration,
CAA 165(a)(2) can be interpreted to BACT are considered. This approach permitting authorities have considerable
provide the permitting authority with begins with the permitting authority discretion in deciding the specific form
discretion to incorporate siting and identifying all available control options of the BACT analysis and the weight to
environmental justice considerations that have the potential for practical be given to the particular impacts under
when issuing PSD permits—specifically, application for the regulated NSR consideration. The EPA and other
to impose permit conditions on the pollutant and emissions unit under permitting authorities have most often
basis of environmental justice evaluation. The analysis then evaluates used this analysis to eliminate more
considerations raised in public each option and eliminates options that stringent control technologies with
comments regarding the air quality are technically infeasible, ranks the significant or unusual effects that are
impacts of a proposed source. The EAB remaining options from most to least unacceptable in favor of the less
has recognized that consideration of the effective, evaluates the energy, stringent technologies with more
need for a facility is within the scope of environmental, economic impacts, and acceptable collateral environmental
CAA 165(a)(2) when a commenter raises other costs of the options, eliminates effects. Permitting authorities may
the issue. The EPA has recognized that options that are not achievable based on consider a wide variety of
this language provides a potential environmental impacts in this analysis,
these considerations from the top of the
statutory foundation in the CAA for this such as solid or hazardous waste
list down, and ultimately selects the
discretion.990 The Federal regulations generation, discharges of polluted water
most effective remaining option as
for NNSR permits also have an analysis from a control device, visibility impacts,
BACT.992
of alternatives required by CAA demand on local water resources, and
173(a)(5). 40 CFR 51.165(i). 991 42 U.S.C. 7479(3) (‘‘In no event shall emissions of other pollutants subject to
1. Control Technology Reviews for application of ‘best available control technology’ NSR or pollutants not regulated under
result in emissions of any pollutants which will NSR such as air toxics. A permitting
Major NSR Permits exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable
standard established pursuant to [CAA Section 111
authority could place more weight on
The statutory and regulatory basis for
or 112].’’). the collateral environmental effect of a

a control technology review for a source 992 For more information on EPA’s recommended control alternative on local
undergoing major NSR permitting BACT approach, see U.S. Environmental Protection communities—e.g., if emission increases
Agency, New Source Review Workshop Manual of co-pollutants from operating the
990 See Memorandum from Gary S. Guzy, EPA (October 1990; Draft) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
General Counsel, titled EPA Statutory and default/files/2015-07/documents/1990wman.pdf control device may disproportionately
Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PSD
Justice Issues May Be Addressed in Permitting and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/
(December 1, 2000). Gases (March 2011; EPA–457/B–11–001) at https:// documents/ghgguid.pdf.
affect a minority or low-income As GHGs are regulated pollutants emission increases that may result in
population—which may result in the under the PSD program, this NSPS the source triggering major NSR
permitting authority eliminating that serves as the minimum level of control requirements. If a source with an
control option and ultimately selecting in determining BACT for any new major affected EGU does trigger major NSR
a less stringent control technology for stationary source or major modification requirements for one or more pollutants
the target pollutant as BACT because it that meets the applicability of this NSPS as a result of complying with its
has more acceptable collateral impacts. and commences construction on its standards of performance, the
In addition, this analysis may extend affected EGU(s) after the date of permitting authority would conduct a
to considering reduced, or excessive, publication of the proposed NSPS in the control technology review (i.e., BACT or
energy or environmental impacts of the Federal Register. However, as explained LAER, as appropriate) for each of the
control alternative at an offsite location above, the fact that a minimum control pollutants and require that the source
that is in support the operation of the requirement for BACT is established by comply with the other applicable major
facility obtaining the permit. For an applicable NSPS does not mean that
NSR requirements. As noted in section
example, in the case of a facility that a permitting authority cannot select a
VII of this preamble, in light of concerns
proposes to co-fire its new stationary more stringent control level for the PSD
expressed by stakeholders over possible
combustion turbines with hydrogen permit or consider control technologies
for BACT beyond those that were co-pollutant increases from CCS retrofit
procured from an offsite production
considered in developing the NSPS. The projects, the EPA plans to review its
facility, a permitting authority may
authority for BACT is separate from that NSR guidance and determine how it can
determine it is appropriate to weigh
of BSER, and it requires a case-by-case be updated to better assist permit
favorably a control option that involves
review of a specific stationary source at applicants and permitting authorities in
co-firing with hydrogen produced from
low-GHG emitting processes, such as the time its owner or operator applies conducting BACT reviews for sources
electrolysis powered by renewable for a PSD permit. Accordingly, the that intend to install CCS.
energy, to recognize the reduced BACT analysis for a source with an States may also establish the
environmental impact of producing the applicable NSPS should reflect source- standards of performance in their plans
fuel for the control option. specific factors and any advances in in such a way so that their affected
For NNSR permits, the statutory control technology, reductions in the sources, in complying with those
requirement for establishing LAER is costs or other impacts of using standards, in fact would not have
more prescriptive and, consequently, particular control strategies, or other emission increases that trigger major
tends to provide less discretion to relevant information that may have NSR requirements. To achieve this, the
permitting authorities than the become available after the EPA issued state would need to conduct an analysis
discretion allowed under BACT. For the NSPS. consistent with the NSR regulatory
new major stationary sources and major 3. NSR Implications of the Emission requirements that supports its
modifications in nonattainment areas, Guidelines determination that as long as affected
LAER is defined as the most stringent sources comply with the standards of
emission limitation required under a With respect to the final emission
guidelines, each state will develop a performance, their emissions would not
SIP or achieved in practice for a class or increase in a way that trigger major NSR
category of sources. Thus, unlike BACT, plan that establishes standards of
performance for each affected EGU in requirements. For example, a state
the LAER requirement does not consider could, as part of its state plan, develop
the state that meets the applicability
economic, energy, or other enforceable conditions for a source
criteria of this emission guidelines. In
environmental factors, except that LAER expected to trigger major NSR that
doing so, a state agency may develop a
is not considered achievable if the cost would effectively limit the unit’s ability
plan that requires an existing stationary
of control is so great that a major new to increase its emissions in amounts that
source to undertake a physical or
stationary source could not be built or would trigger major NSR (effectively
operational change. Under the NSR
operated.993 As with BACT establishing a synthetic minor
program, when a stationary source
determinations, a determination of limitation).995 Some commenters
undertakes a physical or operational
LAER cannot be less stringent than any asserted that base load units may not be
change, even if it is doing so to comply
applicable NSPS.994 with a national or state level able to readily rely on this option to
2. NSR Implications of the NSPS requirement, the source may need to limit their emission increases given the
Any source that is planning to install obtain a preconstruction NSR permit, need for those units to respond to
a new or reconstructed EGU that meets with the type of permit (i.e., NNSR, demand and maintain grid reliability. In
the applicability of this final NSPS will PSD, or minor NSR) depending on the these cases, states may adopt other
amount of the emissions increase strategies in their state plans to ensure
likely require an NSR permit prior to its
resulting from the change and the air that base load units have the needed
construction. In addition to including
quality designation at the location of the flexibility to operate and do so without
conditions for GHG emissions, the NSR
source for its emitted pollutants. triggering major NSR requirements.
permit would contain emission
However, since emission guidelines are
limitations for the non-GHG pollutants
intended to reduce emissions at an 995 Certain stationary sources that emit or have
emitted by the new or reconstructed
existing stationary source, a NSR permit the potential to emit a pollutant at a level that is
EGU. Depending on the level of
may not be needed to perform the equal to or greater than specified thresholds are
emissions for each pollutant, the source subject to major source requirements. See, e.g., CAA
physical or operational change required

may require a major NSR permit, minor sections 165(a)(1), 169(1), 501(2), 502(a). A
by the state plan if the change will not synthetic minor limitation is a legally and
NSR permit, or a combination of both
increase emissions at the source. practicably enforceable restriction that has the
types of permits. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, effect of limiting emissions below the relevant level
sources that will be complying with and that a source voluntarily obtains to avoid major
993 New Source Review Workshop Manual
stationary source requirements, such as the PSD or
(October 1990; Draft), page G.4. their state plan’s standards of title V permitting programs. See, e.g., 40 CFR
994 42 U.S.C. 7501(3); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii); 40 performance by installing and operating 52.21(b)(4), 51.166(b)(4), 70.2 (definition of
CFR part 51, appendix S, section II.A.18. CCS could experience criteria pollutant ‘‘potential to emit’’).
B. Title V Program to comment on the plan as a whole In the RIA, the EPA evaluates the
Title V regulations require each before it is finalized. potential impacts of the three
permit to include emission limitations XII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, illustrative scenarios using the present
and standards, including operational and Economic Impacts value (PV) of costs, benefits, and net
requirements and limitations that assure benefits, calculated for the years 2024 to
In accordance with E.O. 12866 and 2047 from the perspective of 2019. In
compliance with all applicable 13563, the guidelines of the Office of
requirements. Requirements resulting addition, the EPA presents the
Management and Budget (OMB) assessment of costs, benefits, and net
from these rules that are imposed on Circular A–4 and the EPA’s Guidelines
EGUs or other potentially affected benefits for specific snapshot years,
for Preparing Economic Analyses, the consistent with the Agency’s historic
entities that have title V operating EPA prepared an RIA for these final
permits are applicable requirements practice. These specific snapshot years
actions. The RIA is separate from the are 2028, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. In
under the title V regulations and would EPA’s statutory BSER determinations
need to be incorporated into the addition to the core benefit-cost
and did not influence the EPA’s choice analysis, the RIA also includes analyses
source’s title V permit in accordance of BSER for any of the regulated source
with the schedule established in the of anticipated economic and energy
categories or subcategories. This RIA
title V regulations. For example, if the impacts, environmental justice impacts,
presents the expected economic
permit has a remaining life of 3 years or and employment impacts.
consequences of the EPA’s final rules,
more, a permit reopening to incorporate including analysis of the benefits and The analysis presented in this
the newly applicable requirement shall costs associated with the projected preamble section summarizes key
be completed no later than 18 months emission reductions for three results of the illustrative final rules
after promulgation of the applicable illustrative scenarios. The first scenario scenario. For detailed benefit-cost
requirement. If the permit has a represents the final NSPS and emission results for the three illustrative
remaining life of less than 3 years, the guidelines in combination. The second scenarios and results of the variety of
newly applicable requirement must be and third scenarios represent different impact analysis just mentioned, please
incorporated at permit renewal.996 stringencies of the combined policies. see the RIA, which is available in the
Additionally, proceedings to reopen and All three illustrative scenarios are docket for this action.
issue a permit shall follow the same compared against a single baseline. For It should be noted that for the RIA for
procedures that apply to initial permit detailed descriptions of the three
issuance and only affect the parts of the this rulemaking, the EPA undertook the
illustrative scenarios and the baseline, same approach to determine benefits
permit for which cause to reopen exists. see section 1 of the RIA, which is titled
The reopening of permits is expected to and costs as it has generally taken in
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the prior rulemakings concerning the
be made as expeditiously as possible.997 New Source Performance Standards for
In the proposal, the EPA also electric power sector. It does not rely on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from new, the benefit-cost results included in the
indicated that if a state needs to include Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil
provisions related to the state plan in a RIA as part of its BSER analysis. Rather,
Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
source’s title V permit before submitting the BSER analysis considers the BSER
Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse
the plan to the EPA, these limits should criteria as set out in CAA section
Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil
be labeled as ‘‘state-only’’ or ‘‘not 111(a)(1) and the caselaw—including
Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
federally enforceable’’ until the EPA has the costs of the controls to the source,
and Repeal of the Affordable Clean
approved the state plan. The EPA the amount of emission reductions, and
Energy Rule’’ and is available in the
solicited comments on whether, and other criteria—as described in section
rulemaking docket.998
under what circumstances, states might The three scenarios detailed in the V.C.2.
use this mechanism. While no specific RIA, including the final rules scenario, A. Air Quality Impacts
comments were received on this point, are illustrative in nature and do not
the EPA would like to further clarify represent the plans that states may For the analysis of the final rules,
that in finalizing this direction, the ultimately pursue. As there are total cumulative power sector CO2
intention is to ensure that meaningful considerable flexibilities afforded to emissions between 2028 and 2047 are
public participation is available during states in developing their state plans, projected to be 1,382 million metric tons
the development of a state plan, rather the EPA does not have sufficient lower under the illustrative final rules
than limiting engagement to the information to assess specific scenario than under the baseline. Table
permitting process. While the public compliance measures on a unit-by-unit 4 shows projected aggregate annual
would have the opportunity to comment basis. Nonetheless, the EPA believes electricity sector emission changes for
on the individual permit provisions, that such illustrative analysis can the illustrative final rules scenario,
this would not allow for the opportunity provide important insights. relative to the baseline.
TABLE 4—PROJECTED ELECTRICITY SECTOR EMISSION IMPACTS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE FINAL RULES SCENARIO,
RELATIVE TO THE BASELINE
CO2 Annual NOX Ozone season

NOX Annual SO2 Direct PM2.5
(million metric (thousand Mercury
(thousand (thousand (thousand (tons)
tons) short tons) short tons) short tons)

short tons)
2028 ............................................................. ¥38 ¥20 ¥6 ¥34 ¥2 ¥0.1
996 See 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i). demand, gas price, and contemporaneous parameters selected in this action. For further
997 See 40 CFR 70.7(f)(2). rulemakings and determined that those alternative discussion, see the technical memorandum, IPM
998 The EPA also examined the final rules under projections, inclusive of CCS buildout and cost Sensitivity Runs, available in the rulemaking
a variety of different assumptions regarding profiles, would not alter any BSER design docket.
TABLE 4—PROJECTED ELECTRICITY SECTOR EMISSION IMPACTS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE FINAL RULES SCENARIO,
RELATIVE TO THE BASELINE—Continued
Ozone season
CO2 Annual NOX NOX
Annual SO2 Direct PM2.5 Mercury
(million metric (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (tons)
tons) short tons) short tons) short tons) short tons)
2030 ............................................................. ¥50 ¥20 ¥7 ¥20 ¥2 ¥0.1

2035 ............................................................. ¥123 ¥49 ¥19 ¥90 ¥1 ¥0.1
2040 ............................................................. ¥54 ¥6 ¥6 ¥4 2 0.2
2045 ............................................................. ¥42 ¥24 ¥14 ¥41 ¥2 ¥0.2
Note: Ozone season is the May through September period in this analysis.
B. Compliance Cost Impacts by 2030 and 31 GW by 2040. Under the estimated to be about 7.5 billion, with
The power industry’s compliance illustrative final rules scenario, the EPA an EAV of about 0.65 billion. To put this
costs are represented in this analysis as projects an incremental 8 GW of CCS in perspective, this levelized
the change in electric power generation retrofits on existing coal-fired steam compliance cost is roughly one percent
costs between the baseline and generating units by 2035 relative to the of the total projected levelized cost to
illustrative scenarios, including the cost baseline. By 2035, relative to the produce electricity over the same
of monitoring, reporting, and baseline, new combined cycle builds are timeframe under the baseline.
recordkeeping. In simple terms, these 2 GW lower, new combustion turbine Section 3 of the RIA presents detailed
costs are an estimate of the increased builds are 10 GW higher, and wind and discussions of the compliance cost
power industry expenditures required to solar additions are 15 GW higher. Total
projections for the final rule
comply with the final actions. coal capacity is projected to be 73 GW
requirements, as well as projections of
The compliance assumptions—and, in 2030 and 19 GW by 2040. As a result,
compliance costs for less and more
therefore, the projected compliance the compliance cost of the final rules is
stringent regulatory options.
costs—set forth in this analysis are lower than it would be absent the IRA.
illustrative in nature and do not We estimate the PV of the projected C. Economic and Energy Impacts
represent the plans that states may compliance costs for the analysis of the
ultimately pursue. The illustrative final final standards for new combustion These final actions have economic
rules scenario is designed to reflect, to turbines and for existing steam and energy market implications. The
the extent possible, the scope and generating EGUs over the 2024 to 2047 energy impact estimates presented here
nature of the final rules. However, there period, as well as estimate the reflect the EPA’s illustrative analysis of
is uncertainty with regards to the equivalent annual value (EAV) of the the final rules. States are afforded
precise measures that states will adopt flow of the compliance costs over this flexibility to implement the final rules,
to meet the requirements because there period. The EAV represents a flow of and thus the estimated impacts could be
are flexibilities afforded to the states in constant annual values that, had they different to the extent states make
developing their state plans. occurred annually, would yield a sum different choices than those assumed in
The IRA is projected to accelerate the equivalent to the PV. All dollars are in the illustrative analysis. In addition, as
ongoing shift towards lower-emitting 2019 dollars. We estimate the PV and discussed in section VII.E.1 of this
technology. In particular, under the EAV using discount rates of 2 percent, preamble, the factors driving these
baseline tax credits for low-emitting 3 percent, and 7 percent.999 The PV of impacts, including potential revenue
technology results in growing compliance costs discounted at the 2 streams for captured carbon, may
generation share for renewable percent rate is estimated to be about 19 change over the next 25 years, leading
resources and the deployment of 11 GW billion, with an EAV of about 0.98 the estimated impacts to be different
of CCS retrofits on existing coal-fired billion. At the 3 percent rate, the PV of than reality. Table 5 presents a variety
steam generating units by 2035. New compliance costs is estimated to be of energy market impact estimates for
combined cycle builds are 20 GW by about 15 billion, with an EAV of about 2028, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045 for the
2030, and existing coal capacity 0.91 billion. At the 7 percent discount illustrative final rules scenario, relative
continues to decline, falling to 84 GW rate, the PV of compliance costs is to the baseline.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF CERTAIN ENERGY MARKET IMPACTS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE FINAL RULES SCENARIO, RELATIVE
TO THE BASELINE
[Percent change]
2028 (%) 2030 (%) 2035 (%) 2040 (%) 2045 (%)
Retail electricity prices ............................................................................. ¥1 0 1 0 1

Average price of coal delivered to power sector ..................................... ¥1 ¥1 0 0 ¥32
Coal production for power sector use ..................................................... ¥6 ¥4 ¥21 15 ¥84
Price of natural gas delivered to power sector ........................................ ¥2 0 3 0 0

Price of average Henry Hub (spot) .......................................................... ¥2 ¥1 3 0 0
999 Results using the 2 percent discount rate were recommended rates. In November 2023, OMB capital when costs or benefits are likely to accrue
not included in the proposals for these actions. The finalized an update to Circular A–4, in which it to capital. As a result of the update to Circular A–
2003 version of OMB’s Circular A–4 had generally recommended the general application of a 2 percent 4, we include cost and benefits results calculated
recommended 3 percent and 7 percent as default rate to discount social costs and benefits (subject to using a 2 percent discount rate.
rates to discount social costs and benefits. The regular updates). The Circular A–4 update also
analysis of the proposed rules used these two recommended consideration of the shadow price of
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF CERTAIN ENERGY MARKET IMPACTS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE FINAL RULES SCENARIO, RELATIVE
TO THE BASELINE—Continued
[Percent change]
2028 (%) 2030 (%) 2035 (%) 2040 (%) 2045 (%)
Natural gas use for electricity generation ................................................ ¥1 ¥2 4 0 2
These and other energy market environmental benefits. The annualized D. Benefits
impacts are discussed more extensively social cost estimated in SAGE for the This section includes the estimated
in section 3 of the RIA. finalized rules is approximately $1.32 total benefits and the estimated net
More broadly, changes in production billion (2019 dollars) between 2024 and benefits of the final rules.
in a directly regulated sector may have 2047 using a 4.5 percent discount rate
effects on other markets when output that is consistent with the internal 1. Total Benefits
from that sector—for these rules, discount rate in the model. Under the Pursuant to E.O. 12866, the RIA for
electricity—is used as an input in the assumption that compliance costs from these actions analyzes the benefits
production of other goods. It may also IPM in 2056 continue until 2081, the associated with the projected emission
affect upstream industries that supply equivalent annualized value for social changes under the final rules to inform
goods and services to the sector, along costs in the SAGE model is $1.51 billion the EPA and the public about these
with labor and capital markets, as these (2019 dollars) over the period from 2024 projected impacts. These final rules are
suppliers alter production processes in projected to reduce national emissions
to 2081, again using a 4.5 percent
response to changes in factor prices. In of CO2, SO2, NOX, and PM2.5, which we
discount rate that is consistent with the
addition, households may change their estimate will provide climate benefits
demand for particular goods and internal discount rate of the model. The
and public health benefits. The
services due to changes in the price of social cost estimate reflects the potential climate, health, welfare, and
electricity and other final goods prices. combined effect of the final rules’ water quality impacts of these emission
Economy-wide models—and, more requirements and interactions with IRA changes are discussed in detail in the
specifically, computable general subsidies for specific technologies that RIA. In the RIA, the EPA presents the
equilibrium (CGE) models—are are expected to see increased use in projected monetized climate benefits
analytical tools that can be used to response to the final rules. We are not due to reductions in CO2 emissions and
evaluate the broad impacts of a able to identify their relative roles the monetized health benefits
regulatory action. A CGE-based currently. attributable to changes in SO2, NOX, and
approach to cost estimation At proposal, the EPA solicited PM2.5 emissions, based on the emissions
concurrently considers the effect of a comment on the SAGE analysis estimates in illustrative scenarios
regulation across all sectors in the presented in the RIA appendix. The described previously. We monetize
economy. SAGE analysis of the final rules is benefits of the final rules and evaluate
In 2015, the EPA established a responsive to those comments. The other costs in part to enable a
Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel to comments received were supportive of comparison of costs and benefits
consider the technical merits and pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we
the use of SAGE for estimating
challenges of using economy-wide recognize that there are substantial
economy-wide social costs and other
models to evaluate costs, benefits, and uncertainties and limitations in
economy-wide impacts alongside the
economic impacts in regulatory monetizing benefits, including benefits
analysis. In its final report, the SAB IPM-based cost and benefit estimates.
that have not been quantified or
recommended that the EPA begin to The comments also suggested a variety monetized.
integrate CGE modeling into applicable of sensitivity analyses and several We emphasize that the monetized
regulatory analysis to offer a more longer-term research goals for improving benefits analysis is entirely distinct
comprehensive assessment of the effects the capabilities of SAGE, such as adding from the statutory BSER determinations
of air regulations.1000 In response to the a representation of emissions changes. finalized herein and is presented solely
SAB’s recommendations, the EPA For more detailed comment summaries for the purposes of complying with E.O.
developed a new CGE model called and responses, see the response to 12866. As discussed in more detail in
SAGE designed for use in regulatory comments in the docket for these the proposal and earlier in this action,
analysis. A second SAB panel actions. the EPA weighed the relevant statutory
performed a peer review of SAGE, and Environmental regulation may affect factors to determine the appropriate
the review concluded in 2020.1001 groups of workers differently, as standards and did not rely on the
The EPA used SAGE to evaluate changes in abatement and other monetized benefits analysis for
potential economy-wide impacts of compliance activities cause labor and purposes of determining the standards.
these final rules, and the results are E.O. 12866 separately requires the EPA
other resources to shift. An employment
contained in section 5.2 of the RIA. Note to perform a benefit-cost analysis,
impact analysis describes the
that SAGE does not currently estimate including monetizing costs and benefits
characteristics of groups of workers
changes in emissions nor account for where practicable, and the EPA has
potentially affected by a regulation, as conducted such an analysis.
1000 U.S. EPA. 2017. SAB Advice on the Use of well as labor market conditions in The EPA estimates the climate
Economy-Wide Models in Evaluating the Social affected occupations, industries, and benefits of GHG emissions reductions
Costs, Benefits, and Economic Impacts of Air geographic areas. Employment impacts expected from the final rules using
Regulations. EPA–SAB–17–012. of these final actions are discussed more
1001 U.S. EPA. 2020. Technical Review of EPA’s estimates of the social cost of
Computable General Equilibrium Model, SAGE. extensively in section 5 of the RIA. greenhouse gases (SC–GHG) that reflect
EPA–SAB–20–010. recent advances in the scientific
literature on climate change and its and SC–N2O), collectively referred to as the Technical Support Document:
economic impacts and that incorporate the ‘‘social cost of greenhouse gases’’ Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
recommendations made by the National (SC–GHG), in analyses of actions that Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under
Academies of Science, Engineering, and affect GHG emissions. The values used Executive Order 13990 1008 that the IWG
Medicine.1002 The EPA published and by the EPA from 2009 to 2016, and since recommended for use until updated
used these estimates in the RIA for the 2021—including in the proposal—have estimates that address the National
Final Oil and Gas Rulemaking, been consistent with those developed Academies’ recommendations are
Standards of Performance for New, and recommended by the IWG on the available.
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources SC–GHG; and the values used from 2017 The EPA solicited public comment on
and Emissions Guidelines for Existing to 2020 were consistent with those the sensitivity analysis and the
Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector required by E.O. 13783, which accompanying draft technical report,
Climate Review, which was signed by disbanded the IWG. During 2015–2017, External Review Draft of Report on the
the EPA Administrator on December 2, the National Academies conducted a Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases:
2023.1003 The EPA solicited public comprehensive review of the SC–CO2 Estimates Incorporating Recent
comment on the methodology and use and issued a final report in 2017 Scientific Advances, which explains the
of these estimates in the RIA for the recommending specific criteria for methodology underlying the new set of
Agency’s December 2022 Oil and Gas future updates to the SC–CO2 estimates,
estimates and was included as
Supplemental Proposal and has a modeling framework to satisfy the
supplemental material to the RIA for the
conducted an external peer review of specified criteria, and both near-term
December 2022 Oil and Gas
these estimates, as described further updates and longer-term research needs
Supplemental Proposal.1009 The
below. Section 4 of the RIA lays out the pertaining to various components of the
response to comments document can be
details of the updated SC–GHG used estimation process.1004 The IWG was
found in the docket for that action.
within this final rule. reconstituted in 2021 and E.O. 13990
The SC–GHG is the monetary value of directed it to develop a comprehensive To ensure that the methodological
the net harm to society associated with update of its SC–GHG estimates, updates adopted in the technical report
a marginal increase in GHG emissions in recommendations regarding areas of are consistent with economic theory and
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding decision-making to which SC–GHG reflect the latest science, the EPA also
that increase. In principle, SC–GHG should be applied, and a standardized initiated an external peer review panel
includes the value of all climate change review and updating process to ensure to conduct a high-quality review of the
impacts (both negative and positive), that the recommended estimates technical report, completed in May
including (but not limited to) changes in continue to be based on the best 2023. The peer reviewers commended
net agricultural productivity, human available economics and science going the Agency on its development of the
health effects, property damage from forward. draft update, calling it a much-needed
increased flood risk and natural The EPA is a member of the IWG and improvement in estimating the SC–GHG
disasters, disruption of energy systems, is participating in the IWG’s work under and a significant step toward addressing
risk of conflict, environmental E.O. 13990. As noted in previous EPA the National Academies’
migration, and the value of ecosystem RIAs (including in the proposal RIA for recommendations with defensible
services. The SC–GHG, therefore, this rulemaking), while that process modeling choices based on current
reflects the societal value of reducing continues, the EPA is continuously science. The peer reviewers provided
emissions of the gas in question by 1 reviewing developments in the numerous recommendations for refining
metric ton and is the theoretically scientific literature on the SC–GHG, the presentation and for future modeling
appropriate value to use in conducting including more robust methodologies improvements, especially with respect
benefit-cost analyses of policies that for estimating damages from emissions, to climate change impacts and
affect GHG emissions. In practice, data and is looking for opportunities to associated damages that are not
and modeling limitations restrain the further improve SC–GHG currently included in the analysis.
ability of SC–GHG estimates to include estimation.1005 In the December 2022 Additional discussion of omitted
all physical, ecological, and economic Oil and Gas Supplemental Proposal impacts and other updates were
impacts of climate change, implicitly RIA,1006 the Agency included a incorporated in the technical report to
assigning a value of zero to the omitted sensitivity analysis of the climate address peer reviewer
climate damages. The estimates are, benefits of that rule using a new set of recommendations. Complete
therefore, a partial accounting of climate SC–GHG estimates that incorporates information about the external peer
change impacts and likely recent research addressing review, including the peer reviewer
underestimate the marginal benefits of recommendations of the National selection process, the final report with
abatement. Academies 1007 in addition to using the individual recommendations from peer
Since 2008, the EPA has used interim SC–GHG estimates presented in reviewers, and the EPA’s response to
estimates of the social cost of various each recommendation is available on
greenhouse gases (i.e., SC–CO2, SC–CH4, 1004 Ibid.
1005 The EPA strives to base its analyses on the 1008 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
1002 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, best available science and economics, consistent Carbon (IWG). 2021 (February). Technical Support
and Medicine (National Academies). 2017. Valuing with its responsibilities, for example, under the Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Information Quality Act. Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive
Cost of Carbon Dioxide. National Academies Press. 1006 U.S. EPA. (2023). Supplementary Material for Order 13990. United States Government.
1003 U.S. EPA. (2023). Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 1009 Supplementary Material for the Regulatory
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking, Standards of Performance for New, Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking,
Rulemaking, Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, ‘‘Report on the Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, ‘‘Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Climate Review, ‘‘Report on the Social Cost of
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.’’ Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent
Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Scientific Advances,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 1007 Ibid. OAR–2021–0317, November 2023.
the EPA’s website.1010 An overview of monetizing benefits, including benefits unable to fully monetize due to data and
the methodological updates that have not been quantified. The modeling limitations. In addition,
incorporated into the new SC–GHG projected PV of monetized climate important health, welfare, and water
estimates is provided in the RIA section benefits is about $270 billion, with an quality benefits anticipated under these
4.2. A more detailed explanation of each EAV of about $14 billion using the SC– final rules are not quantified. We
input and the modeling process is CO2 discounted at 2 percent.1013 The anticipate that taking non-monetized
provided in the technical report, EPA projected PV of monetized health effects into account would show the
Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse benefits is about $120 billion, with an total benefits of the final rules to be
Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent EAV of about $6.3 billion discounted at greater than this section reflects.
Scientific Advances.1011 2 percent. Combining the projected Discussion of the non-monetized health,
In addition to CO2, these final rules monetized climate and health benefits climate, welfare, and water quality
are expected to reduce annual, national yields a total PV estimate of about $390 benefits is found in section 4 of the RIA.
total emissions of NOX and SO2 and billion and EAV estimate of $21 billion.
direct PM2.5. Because NOX and SO2 are At a 3 percent discount rate, these 2. Net Benefits
also precursors to secondary formation final rules are expected to generate The final rules are projected to reduce
of ambient PM2.5, reducing these projected PV of monetized health greenhouse gas emissions in the form of
emissions would reduce human benefits of about $100 billion, with an CO2, producing a projected PV of
exposure to annual average ambient EAV of about $6.1 billion. Climate monetized climate benefits of about
PM2.5 and would reduce the incidence benefits remain discounted at 2 percent $270 billion, with an EAV of about $14
of PM2.5-attributable health effects. in this benefits analysis and are billion using the SC–CO2 discounted at
These final rules are also expected to estimated to be about $270 billion, with 2 percent. The final rules are also
reduce national ozone season NOX an EAV of about $14 billion using the projected to reduce emissions of NOX,
emissions. In the presence of sunlight, SC–CO2. Thus, these final rules would SO2 and direct PM2.5 leading to national
NOX and VOCs can undergo a chemical generate a PV of monetized benefits of health benefits from PM2.5 and ozone in
reaction in the atmosphere to form about $370 billion, with an EAV of most years, producing a projected PV of
ozone. Reducing NOX emissions in most about $20 billion discounted at a 3 monetized health benefits of about $120
locations reduces human exposure to percent rate. billion, with an EAV of about $6.3
ozone and the incidence of ozone- At a 7 percent discount rate, these billion discounted at 2 percent. Thus,
related health effects, though the degree final rules are expected to generate these final rules are expected to generate
to which ozone is reduced will depend projected PV of monetized health a PV of monetized benefits of $390
in part on local concentration levels of benefits of about $59 billion, with an billion, with an EAV of $21 billion
VOCs. The RIA estimates the health EAV of about $5.2 billion. Climate discounted at a 2 percent rate. The PV
benefits of changes in PM2.5 and ozone benefits remain discounted at 2 percent of the projected compliance costs are
concentrations. The health effect in this benefits analysis and are $19 billion, with an EAV of about $0.98
endpoints, effect estimates, benefit unit- estimated to be about $270 billion, with billion discounted at 2 percent.
values, and how they were selected are an EAV of about $14 billion using the Combining the projected benefits with
described in the Estimating PM2.5- and SC–CO2. Thus, these final rules would the projected compliance costs yields a
Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits generate a PV of monetized benefits of net benefit PV estimate of about $370
TSD.1012 Our approach for updating the about $330 billion, with an EAV of billion and EAV of about $20 billion.
endpoints and to identify suitable about $19 billion discounted at a 7 At a 3 percent discount rate, the final
epidemiologic studies, baseline percent rate. rules are expected to generate projected
incidence rates, population The results presented in this section PV of monetized health benefits of about
demographics, and valuation estimates provide an incomplete overview of the $100 billion, with an EAV of about $6.1
is summarized in section 4 of the RIA. effects of the final rules. The monetized billion. Climate benefits remain
The following PV and EAV estimates climate benefits estimates do not discounted at 2 percent in this net
reflect projected benefits over the 2024 include important benefits that we are benefits analysis. Thus, the final rules
to 2047 period, discounted to 2024 in would generate a PV of monetized
2019 dollars, for the analysis of the final 1013 Monetized climate benefits are discounted benefits of about $370 billion, with an
rules. We monetize benefits of the final using a 2 percent discount rate, consistent with the EAV of about $20 billion discounted at
EPA’s updated estimates of the SC–CO2. The 2003 3 percent. The PV of the projected
rules and evaluate other costs in part to version of OMB’s Circular A–4 had generally
enable a comparison of costs and recommended 3 percent and 7 percent as default compliance costs are about $15 billion,
benefits pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we discount rates for costs and benefits, though as part with an EAV of $0.91 billion discounted
recognize that there are substantial of the Interagency Working Group on the Social at 3 percent. Combining the projected
uncertainties and limitations in Cost of Greenhouse Gases, OMB had also long benefits with the projected compliance
recognized that climate effects should be
discounted only at appropriate consumption-based costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of
1010 https://www.epa.gov/environmental-
discount rates. In November 2023, OMB finalized about $360 billion and an EAV of about
economics/scghg-tsd-peer-review. an update to Circular A–4, in which it $19 billion.
1011 U.S. EPA (2023). Supplementary Material for recommended the general application of a 2 percent At a 7 percent discount rate, the final
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final discount rate to costs and benefits (subject to
Rulemaking, Standards of Performance for New, regular updates), as well as the consideration of the
rules are expected to generate projected
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and shadow price of capital when costs or benefits are PV of monetized health benefits of about
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and likely to accrue to capital (OMB 2023). Because the $59 billion, with an EAV of about $5.2
Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, ‘‘Report on the SC–CO2 estimates reflect net climate change billion. Climate benefits remain
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates damages in terms of reduced consumption (or
Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances.’’ monetary consumption equivalents), the use of the
discounted at 2 percent in this net
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. social rate of return on capital (7 percent under benefits analysis. Thus, the final rules
1012 U.S. EPA. (2023). Estimating PM - and
2.5 OMB Circular A–4 (2003)) to discount damages would generate a PV of monetized
Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits. Research estimated in terms of reduced consumption would benefits of about $330 billion, with an
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection inappropriately underestimate the impacts of
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and climate change for the purposes of estimating the
EAV of about $19 billion discounted at
Standards, Health and Environmental Impact SC–CO2. See section 4.2 of the RIA for more 7 percent. The PV of the projected
Division. discussion. compliance costs are about $7.5 billion,
with an EAV of $0.65 billion discounted may involve potential EJ concerns if it potential EJ concerns will be created or
at 7 percent. Combining the projected could: (1) Create new disproportionate mitigated compared to the baseline
benefits with the projected compliance impacts on communities with EJ (question 3).
costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of concerns; (2) exacerbate existing In section 6 of the RIA, we utilize the
about $320 billion and an EAV of about disproportionate impacts on two types of analysis to address the
$19 billion. communities with EJ concerns; or (3) three EJ questions by quantitatively
See section 7 of the RIA for additional present opportunities to address evaluating: (1) the proximity of affected
information on the estimated net existing disproportionate impacts on facilities to populations of potential EJ
benefits of these rules. communities with EJ concerns through concern (section 6.4); and (2) the
this action under development. potential for disproportionate ozone and
E. Environmental Justice Analytical
The EPA’s EJ technical guidance PM2.5 concentrations in the baseline and
Considerations and Stakeholder
states that ‘‘[t]he analysis of potential EJ concentration changes after rule
Outreach and Engagement
concerns for regulatory actions should implementation across different
For this action, the analysis described address three questions: (1) Are there demographic groups on the basis of
in this section and in the RIA is potential EJ concerns associated with race, ethnicity, poverty status,
presented for the purpose of providing environmental stressors affected by the employment status, health insurance
the public with an analysis of potential regulatory action for population groups status, life expectancy, redlining, Tribal
EJ concerns associated with these of concern in the baseline? (2) Are there land, age, sex, educational attainment,
rulemakings, consistent with E.O. potential EJ concerns associated with and degree of linguistic isolation
14096. This analysis did not inform the environmental stressors affected by the (section 6.5). It is important to note that
determinations made to support the regulatory action for population groups due to the corresponding small
final rules. of concern for the regulatory option(s) magnitude of the ozone and PM2.5
The EPA defines EJ as ‘‘the just under consideration? (3) For the concentration changes relative to the
treatment and meaningful involvement regulatory option(s) under baseline concentrations in each
of all people regardless of income, race, consideration, are potential EJ concerns modeled future year, these rules are
color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, created or mitigated compared to the expected to have a small impact on the
or disability, in agency decision-making baseline?’’ 1016 distribution of exposures across each
and other Federal activities that affect To address these questions in the demographic group. Each of these
human health and the environment so context of these final rules, the EPA analyses should be considered
that people: (i) Are fully protected from developed a unique analytical approach independently of each other as each was
disproportionate and adverse human that considers the purpose and specifics performed to answer separate questions
health and environmental effects of these rulemakings, as well as the and is associated with unique
(including risks) and hazards, including nature of known and potential limitations and uncertainties.
those related to climate change, the disproportionate and adverse exposures
cumulative impacts of environmental a. Proximity Analyses
and impacts. However, due to data
and other burdens, and the legacy of limitations, it is possible that our Baseline demographic proximity
racism or other structural or systemic analysis failed to identify disparities analyses can be relevant for identifying
barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to that may exist, such as potential EJ populations that may be exposed to
a healthy, sustainable, and resilient characteristics (e.g., residence of local environmental stressors, such as
environment in which to live, play, historically redlined areas), local NO2 and SO2 emitted from affected
work, learn, grow, worship, and engage environmental impacts (e.g., other sources in these final rules, traffic, or
in cultural and subsistence ozone metrics), and more granular noise. The Agency has conducted a
practices.’’ 1014 In recognizing that spatial resolutions (e.g., neighborhood demographic analysis of the populations
particular communities of EJ concern scale) that were not evaluated. Also due living near facilities impacted by these
often bear an unequal burden of to data and resource limitations, we rules including 114 facilities for which
environmental harms and risks, the EPA discuss climate EJ impacts of this action the EPA is unaware of existing
continues to consider ways of protecting qualitatively (section 6.3 of the RIA). retirement plans by 2032, 23 facilities (a
them from adverse public health and For these rules, we employ two types subset of the 114 facilities) with known
environmental effects of air pollution. of analysis to respond to the previous retirement plans between 2033–2040,
three questions: proximity analyses and and 94 facilities (also a subset of the 114
1. Analytical Considerations facilities) without known retirement
exposure analyses. Both types of
For purposes of analyzing regulatory analysis can inform whether there are plans before 2040. The baseline analysis
impacts, the EPA relies upon its June potential EJ concerns for population indicates that on average the
2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing groups of concern in the baseline populations living within 5 km and 10
Environmental Justice in Regulatory (question 1).1017 In contrast, only the km of 114 facilities impacted by the
Analysis,’’ 1015 which provides exposure analyses, which are based on final rules without announced
recommendations that encourage future air quality modeling, can inform retirement by 2032 have a higher
analysts to conduct the highest quality whether there will be potential EJ percentage of the population that is
analysis feasible, recognizing that data concerns due to the implementation of American Indian, below the Federal
limitations, time, resource constraints, the regulatory options under poverty level, and below two times the
and analytical challenges will vary by consideration (question 2) and whether Federal poverty level than the national
media and circumstance. The Technical average. In addition, the population
Guidance states that a regulatory action 1016 See https://www.epa.gov/ living within 50 kilometers of the same
environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing- 114 facilities has a higher percentage of
1014 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis. the population that is Black. Relating
2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations- 1017 The baseline for proximity analyses is current
these results to EJ question 1, we
commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all. population information, whereas the baseline for
1015 See https://www.epa.gov/ ozone exposure analyses are the future years in
conclude that there may be potential EJ
environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing- which the regulatory options will be implemented concerns associated with directly
environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis. (e.g., 2023 and 2026). emitted pollutants that are affected by
the regulatory actions for certain and provided at a resolution of 12 with higher life expectancy or with life
population groups of concern in the square kilometers. Additionally, here expectancy data unavailable, children,
baseline (question 1). However, as we focus on air quality changes due to and unemployed populations may also
proximity to affected facilities does not these rulemakings and infer post-policy experience disproportionately higher
capture variation in baseline exposures ozone and PM2.5 exposure burden ozone concentrations than the reference
across communities, nor does it indicate impacts. Note, we discuss climate EJ group. Black populations may also
that any exposures or impacts will impacts of these actions qualitatively experience disproportionately higher
occur, these results should not be (section 6.3 of the RIA). PM2.5 concentrations than the reference
interpreted as a direct measure of Exposure analysis results are group. Therefore, also in response to
exposure impact. The full results of the provided in two formats: aggregated and question 1, there likely are potential EJ
demographic analysis can be found in distributional. The aggregated results concerns associated with ozone and
RIA section 6.4. The methodology and provide an overview of potential ozone PM2.5 exposures affected by the
the results of the demographic analysis exposure differences across populations regulatory actions for population groups
for the final rules are presented in a at the national- and state-levels, while of concern in the baseline. However,
technical report, Analysis of the distributional results show detailed these baseline exposure results have not
Demographic Factors for Populations information about ozone concentration been fully explored and additional
Living Near Coal-Fired Electric changes experienced by everyone analyses are likely needed to
Generating Units (EGUs) for the Section within each population. understand potential implications.
111 NSPS and Emissions Guidelines— These rules are also expected to Relative to the low baseline levels of
Final, available in the docket for these reduce emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX, exposure modeled in future years for
actions. and SO2 nationally. Because NOX and PM2.5 and ozone, exposure analyses
SO2 are also precursors to secondary show that the final rules will result in
b. Exposure Analyses formation of ambient PM2.5 and because modest but widespread reductions in
While the exposure analyses can NOX is a precursor to ozone formation, PM2.5 and ozone concentrations in
respond to all three EJ questions, reducing these emissions would impact virtually all areas of the country,
correctly interpreting the results human exposure. Quantitative ozone although some limited areas may
requires an understanding of several and PM2.5 exposure analyses can experience small increases in ozone
important caveats. First, recognizing the provide insight into all three EJ concentrations relative to forecasted
flexibility afforded to each state in questions, so they are performed to conditions without the rule. The extent
implementing the final guidelines, the evaluate potential disproportionate of areas experiencing ozone increases
results below are based on analysis of impacts of these rulemakings. Even varies among snapshot years. Due to the
several illustrative compliance scenarios though both the proximity and exposure small magnitude of the exposure
which represent potential compliance analyses can potentially improve changes across population
outcomes in each state. This analysis understanding of baseline EJ concerns demographics associated with these
does not consider any potential impact (question 1), the two should not be rulemakings relative to the magnitude of
of the meaningful engagement directly compared. This is because the the baseline disparities, we infer that
provisions or all of the other protections demographic proximity analysis does post-policy EJ ozone and PM2.5
that are in place that can reduce the not include air quality information and concentration burdens are likely to
risks of localized emissions increases in is based on current, not future, remain after implementation of the
a manner that is protective of public population information. regulatory action (question 2).
health, safety, and the environment. It is The baseline analysis of ozone and Question 3 asks whether potential EJ
also important to note that the potential PM2.5 concentration burden responds to concerns will be created or mitigated
emissions changes discussed below are question 1 from the EPA’s EJ technical compared to the baseline. Due to the
relative to a projected baseline, and any guidance more directly than the very small magnitude of differences
localized decreases or increases are proximity analyses, as it evaluates a across demographic population post-
subject to the uncertainty of the baseline form of the environmental stressor policy impacts, we do not find evidence
projections discussed in section 3.7 of targeted by the regulatory action. As that disparities among communities
the RIA. This uncertainty becomes discussed in the RIA, our analysis with EJ concerns will be exacerbated or
increasingly relevant in later years in indicates that baseline ozone and PM2.5 mitigated by the regulatory alternatives
which baseline modeling projects concentration will decline substantially under consideration regarding PM2.5
substantial reductions in emissions relative to today’s levels for all exposures in all future years evaluated
relative to today. Furthermore, several demographic groups in all future and ozone exposures for most
additional caveats should be noted that modeled years, and these baseline levels demographic groups in the future years
are specific to the exposure analysis. For of ozone and PM2.5 can be considered to evaluated. In 2035, under the
example, the air pollutant exposure be relatively low. However, there are illustrative compliance scenarios
metrics are limited to those used in the differences in exposure among analyzed, it is possible that Asian
benefits assessment. For ozone, that is demographic groups within these populations, Hispanic populations, and
the maximum daily 8-hour average, relatively low levels of baseline those linguistically isolated, and those
averaged across the April through exposure. Baseline PM2.5 and ozone living on Tribal land may experience a
September warm season (AS–MO3) and exposure analyses show that certain slight exacerbation of ozone exposure
for PM2.5 that is the annual average. This populations, such as residents of disparities at the national level
ozone metric likely smooths potential redlined census tracts, those (question 3), compared to baseline
daily ozone gradients and is not directly linguistically isolated, Hispanic ozone levels. Additionally at the
relatable to the NAAQS whereas the populations, Asian populations, and national level, those living on Tribal
PM2.5 metric is more similar to the long- those without a high school diploma land may experience a slight
term PM2.5 standard. The air quality may experience higher ozone and PM2.5 exacerbation of ozone exposure
modeling estimates are also based on exposures as compared to the national disparities in 2040 and a slight
state and fuel level emission data paired average. American Indian populations, mitigation of ozone exposure disparities
with facility-level baseline emissions residents of Tribal Lands, populations in 2028 and 2030. At the state level,
ozone exposure disparities may be F. Grid Reliability Considerations and solicited additional comment on
either mitigated or exacerbated for Reliability-Related Mechanisms reliability-related mechanisms as part of
certain demographic groups, also to a the November 2023 supplemental
1. Overview
small degree. As discussed above, it is proposed rule.
important to note that this analysis does The Federal Energy Regulatory Comment: Several comments from
not consider any potential impact of the Commission (FERC) is the federal grid operators raised the concern that
meaningful engagement provisions or agency with vested authority to ensure the proposed rules have the potential to
all of the other protections that are in reliability of the bulk power system (16 trigger material negative impacts to grid
place that can reduce the risks of U.S.C. 824o). FERC oversees and reliability. Concerns coalesced around
localized emissions increases in a approves reliability standards that are the loss of firm dispatchable assets
developed by NERC and then become which they view as outpacing the
manner that is protective of public
mandatory for all owners and operators development and interconnection of
health, safety, and the environment.
of the bulk power system. Regional new assets that do not possess
2. Outreach and Engagement wholesale energy markets, like RTOs, commensurate reliability attributes.
ISOs, public service commissions, Other commenters maintained that the
As part of the regulatory development balancing authorities, and reliability proposals included adequate lead times
process for these rulemakings, and coordinators all have reliability related for reliability planning, and that
consistent with directives set forth in responsibilities. The EPA’s role under reliability attributes are currently
multiple Executive Orders, the EPA the CAA section 111 is to reduce sourced by a collection of assets, and as
conducted extensive outreach with emissions of dangerous air pollutants, such a collection of future assets will be
interested parties including Tribal including those emitted from the able to provide the requisite reliability
nations and communities with electric power sector. In doing so, it has attributes. Some commenters also
environmental justice concerns. This a long, and exemplary history of
asserted that the proposals would
outreach allowed the EPA to gather ensuring its public-health-based
actually improve transparency around
information from a variety of viewpoints emissions standards and guidelines that
unit-specific decisions, which are often
while also providing parties with an impact the power sector are sensitive to
not communicated transparently with
overview of the EPA’s work to reduce reliability-related issues and
adequate notice, leading to a better
GHG emissions from the power sector. constructed in a manner that does not
reliability planning process.
interfere with grid operators’
Prior to the May 2023 proposal, the Response: These final rules include a
responsibility to deliver reliable power.
EPA opened a public docket for pre- The EPA met with many entities with number of flexibilities and rule
proposal input.1018 The EPA continued responsibility over the reliability of the adjustments that will accommodate
to engage with interested parties by bulk power system in crafting these appropriate planning decisions by
speaking on the EPA National final rules to make certain the rules will affected sources, system planners, and
Community Engagement call and the not impede their ability to ensure reliability authorities in a way that
National Tribal Air Association Policy reliability of the bulk power system. allows for the continued reliable
Update call in September 2022. This section outlines the array of operation of the electric grid. These
Following publication of the proposal, modifications made in these final final actions also include adjustments
the EPA hosted two informational actions, outlined in section I.G of this and improvements, with specific
webinars on June 6 and 7, 2023, preamble, that collectively help ensure provisions related to compliance timing
specially targeted towards tribal that these final actions will not interfere and system emergencies, that address
environmental professionals, tribal with systems operators’ ability to reliability concerns. The rules do not
nations, and communities with continue providing reliable power. interfere with ongoing efforts by key
environmental justice concerns. The Additional to this suite of adjustments, stakeholders to appropriately plan for
purpose of these webinars was to the EPA is introducing both a short-term an evolving electric system. The EPA
provide an overview of the proposal, reliability mechanism for emergency agrees that transparency around unit-
information on how to effectively situations and a reliability assurance specific planning is of paramount
engage in the regulatory process and mechanism available for states to importance to enabling systems
provide the EPA an opportunity to include in their state plans for operators advanced notice to plan for
answer questions. The EPA held virtual additional flexibility. In response to the continued reliable bulk power
public hearings on June 13, 14, and 15, May 2023 proposed rule, the EPA operations.
2023, that allowed the public an received extensive comments regarding The EPA initiated follow-up
opportunity to present comments and grid reliability and resource adequacy conversations with all balancing
information regarding the proposed from balancing authorities, independent authorities and systems operators that
rules. system operators and regional submitted public comments to ensure a
transmission organizations, state granular and thorough understanding of
The EPA recently finalized revisions regulators, power companies, and other all reliability-related concerns raised in
to the subpart Ba implementing stakeholders. The EPA engaged with response to the proposed rules. In
regulations requiring states to conduct each of these group of commenters to addition, the EPA solicited additional
meaningful engagement with pertinent garner a granular understanding of their comment on reliability related
stakeholders as part of the state plan reliability-related concerns. mechanisms in the supplemental
development process. The EPA proposal issued in November 2023. The
Additionally, the EPA met repeatedly

underscores the importance of this part with technical staff and Commissioners EPA examined the record carefully and
of the state plan development process. of FERC, DOE, NERC, and other responded with a suite of changes to the
For more detailed information on reliability experts during the course of proposal that, though not always
meaningful engagement, see section this rulemaking. At FERC’s invitation, explicitly directed at addressing
X.E.1.b.i of this preamble. the EPA participated in FERC’s Annual concerns raised with respect to
Reliability Technical Conference on reliability, nonetheless collectively help
1018 EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0723. November 9, 2023. Further, the EPA ensure EPA’s rules will not interfere
with grid operators’ responsibilities to implemented without impairing the of this required meaningful engagement,
provide reliable power. ability of grid operators to deliver states are strongly encouraged to consult
As discussed earlier in this preamble, reliable power. The EPA is nonetheless with the relevant balancing authorities
the EPA is finalizing several finalizing additional reliability-related and reliability coordinators for their
adjustments to provisions in the instruments to provide further certainty affected sources and to share available
proposed rules that address reliability that implementation of these final rules unit-specific requirements and
concerns and ensure that these rules will not intrude on grid operators’ compliance information in a timely
provide adequate flexibilities and ability to ensure reliability. The short- fashion. Sharing regulatory
assurance mechanisms that allow grid term reliability mechanism is available requirements and unit-specific
operators to continue to fulfill their for both new and existing units and is compliance information with balancing
responsibilities to maintain the designed to provide additional authorities and reliability coordinators
reliability of the bulk-power system. flexibility through an alternative in a timely manner will promote early
These adjustments include restructuring compliance strategy during acute system and informed reliability planning.
the subcategories for coal-fired steam emergencies that threaten reliability. Strong system-planning processes of
generating EGUs: the EPA is not The reliability assurance mechanism utility transmission companies and
finalizing the proposed imminent or will be available for existing units that RTOs are among the most important
near term subcategory structure which intend to cease operating, but, for tools to assure that reliability will not be
should provide states with a wider unforeseen reasons, need to temporarily adversely affected by regulations.1020 1021
planning latitude, and units with cease remain online to support reliability A robust planning process that
operations dates prior to January 1, 2032 beyond the planned cease operation recognizes the different roles of states
are not regulated by this final rule. date. This reliability assurance and their relevant balancing authorities,
Importantly, the compliance timeline mechanism, which requires a specific transmission planners, and reliability
for installing CCS in the long-term and adequate showing of reliability coordinators should help to identify
subcategory has been extended by an need that is satisfactory to the EPA, is potential resource adequacy or
additional 2 years. The EPA is not intended for circumstances where there reliability issues early in the state
finalizing the 30 percent hydrogen co- is insufficient time to complete a state planning process. States will also be
firing BSER for the intermediate plan revision, and it is limited to the able to address reliability-related issues
subcategory for new combustion amount of time substantiated, which through a revision in their state plan,
turbines. These changes facilitate may not exceed 1 year. The EPA intends including to address issues that were
reliability planning and operations by to consult with FERC for advice on not foreseen during the state planning
providing more lead time for CCS applications of reliability need that process.
installation-related compliance. The exceed 6 months. These instruments In addition to these measures, DOE
adjusted scope of these actions also will be presumptively approvable, has authority pursuant to section 202(c)
provides additional time for the EPA to provided they meet the requirements of the Federal Power Act to, on its own
consult with a broad range of defined in these emission guidelines, if motion or by request, order, among
stakeholders, including grid operators, states choose to incorporate them into other things, the temporary generation
to deliberate and determine the best way their plans. of electricity from particular sources in
to address emissions from existing gas Comment: Commenters from industry certain emergency conditions, including
turbines while respecting their and grid operators expressed support for during events that would result in a
contribution to electric reliability in the the inclusion of a requirement that shortage of electric energy, when the
foreseeable future. In addition to these states include in their state plans a Secretary of Energy determines that
adjustments, as detailed in section X.D demonstration of consultation with all doing so will meet the emergency and
of this preamble, the EPA is offering relevant reliability authorities to serve the public interest. An affected
states a suite of voluntary compliance facilitate planning. Other commenters source operating pursuant to such an
flexibilities that could be used to asserted that the proposals included order is deemed not to be operating in
address reliability concerns. These sufficient coordination with reliability violation of its environmental
compliance flexibilities include authorities, through the Initial Reporting requirements. Such orders may be
clarifying the circumstances under issued for 90 days and may be extended
Milestone Status Report requirements.
which it may be appropriate for states Response: The EPA agrees that in 90-day increments after consultation
to employ RULOF to establish source planning for reliability is critically with EPA. DOE has historically issued
specific standards of performance and important. Indeed, all stakeholders section 202(c) orders at the request of
compliance schedules for affected EGUs generally agree that effective planning is electric generators and grid operators
to address reliability, allowing emission essential to ensuring electric reliability such as RTOs in order to enable the
averaging, trading, and unit-specific is maintained.1019 State planning, supply of additional generation in times
mass-based compliance mechanisms for of expected emergency-related
including coordination and
certain subcategories—provided that generation shortfalls.
transparency across jurisdictions, is Congress provided section 202(c) as
they achieve an equivalent level of
particularly important given that state the primary mechanism to ensure that
emission reduction consistent with the
plans in one jurisdiction can impact the when generation is needed to meet an
application of individual rate-based
reliability and resource adequacy of emergency, environmental protections
standards of performance, and, for
other system operators. The EPA is will not prevent a source from meeting
certain mechanisms, that they include a
finalizing, as part of the state plan
backstop emission rate, and offering a that need. To date, section 202(c) has
development process, that states are worked well, allowing, for example,
compliance date extension for affected
required to conduct meaningful
new and existing EGUs that encounter
unanticipated delays with control engagement with stakeholders. As part 1020 ‘‘Electric System Reliability and EPA
technology implementation. Regulation of GHG Emissions from Power Plants:

1019 ‘‘Electric System Reliability and EPA 2023,’’ Susan Tierney, November 7, 2023.
The EPA believes the adjustments Regulation of GHG Emissions from Power Plants: 1021 ‘‘Modernizing Governance: Key to Electric
made to the final rules outlined above 2023,’’ Susan Tierney, Analysis Group, November Grid Reliability’’, Kleinman Center for Energy
are sufficient to ensure the rules can be 7, 2023. Policy, University of Pennsylvania, March 2024.
additional generation to come online to adequacy needs. Additionally, the EPA crafted to deliver significant public
meet demand in the California performed a variety of other sensitivity health benefits while not impairing the
Independent System Operator and PJM analyses including an examination of ability of grid operators to ensure
territories in 2022.1022 Section 202(c) higher electricity demand (many areas reliable power.1026 The entities
has also been used to allow generators are reporting accelerated load growth responsible for ensuring reliability,
to remain online pending completion of forecasts due to data centers, increased which encompass electric utilities,
infrastructure needed to facilitate manufacturing, crypto currency, RTOs and ISOs, reliability coordinators,
reliable replacement of those generators. electrification and other factors) and the other grid operators, utility and non-
The EPA continues to believe that impact of the EPA’s additional utility energy companies, and Federal
section 202(c) is an effective mechanism regulatory actions affecting the power and state regulators, have also
for meeting the purpose of ensuring that sector. These sensitivity analyses historically met challenges in navigating
all physically available generation will indicate that, in the context of higher power sector environmental obligations
be available as needed to meet an demand and other pending power sector while maintaining reliability.1027
emergency situation, regardless of rules, the industry has available
2. Compliance Flexibilities for New and
environmental regulatory constraints. pathways to comply with this rule that
Existing Affected EGUs
Given the heightened concerns about respect NERC reliability considerations
reliability expressed by commenters in and constraints. These results are These final rules include three key
the context of this rule and ongoing detailed in the technical memoranda in compliance flexibilities for new and
changes in the electricity sector, the docket titled, IPM Sensitivity Runs existing sources and reliability
however, this final action includes an and Resource Adequacy Analysis: coordinators so that they can continue
additional supplemental short-term Vehicle Rules, Final 111 EGU Rules, to plan for the reliable operation of the
reliability mechanism that states may ELG, and MATS. electric system; RULOF, emissions
elect to include in their state plans. The EPA has carefully examined all averaging and trading, and compliance
States that adopt this mechanism could comments related to reliability that were extensions of up to 1 year for units
make it available for sources to use submitted during the public comment installing control technology. As
without needing action by DOE under period for the proposal and for the discussed in section X.C.2 of this
section 202(c). Of course, section 202(c) supplemental notice. The Agency has preamble, states may use the RULOF
would continue to be available for engaged in dialogue with each of the provisions to address circumstances in
sources subject to this rule for balancing authorities regarding the which reliability or resource adequacy
emergency situations where EPA’s content of their submitted comments. is a concern. Use of RULOF may be
short-term reliability mechanism would Based on this extensive engagement and appropriate where reliability or resource
not apply. consultation, the Agency’s analysis of adequacy considerations for a particular
Many electric reliability and bulk- the impacts of these rules, and the EGU are fundamentally different from
power system authorities, including various features of this rule that will those considered when developing these
FERC and the regulated wholesale work in tandem to ensure the standards emission guidelines, which may make it
markets, are actively engaged in and emission guidelines finalized here unreasonable for an affected EGU to
activities to ensure the reliability of the are achievable and can respond to future comply with a standard of performance
transmission grid, while paying careful reliability and resource adequacy needs, by the prescribed date. Under these
attention to the changing resource mix the EPA has concluded these final rules circumstances, the state may choose to
and the ongoing trends in the power will not interfere with grid operators’ particularize the compliance obligations
sector.1023 1024 There are multiple ability to continue delivering reliable for the affected EGU in order to address
agencies and entities that have some power. the reliability or resource adequacy
authority and responsibility to ensure The EPA received a range of opinions concern. As explained in section X.C.2,
electric reliability. These include state during the comment process, and also the EPA believes any adjustments that
utility commissions, balancing during FERC’s Annual Reliability are needed will take the form of
authorities, reliability coordinators, Conference, some of which expressed different compliance timelines. RULOF
DOE, FERC, and NERC. The EPA’s that the proposed rule could provide a is relevant at the stage of establishing
central mission is to protect human net benefit to reliability planning given standards of performance and
health and the environment and the the enhanced visibility into unit- compliance schedules to affected EGUs
EPA does not have direct authority or specific compliance plans.1025 This as a state plan is being developed or
responsibility to ensure electric section discusses the additional revised.
reliability. Still, the EPA believes compliance flexibilities and reliability States have the ability to use emission
reliability of the bulk power system is instruments that have been included in averaging or trading, as well as unit-
of paramount importance, and has these final rules. specific mass-based compliance, as
included additional measures in these The EPA has carefully considered the described in section X.D of this
final actions that are delineated importance of reliability of the bulk- preamble, which may also provide
throughout this section, evaluated the power system in developing these final reliability-related benefits. The use of
resource adequacy implications in the rules. Stakeholders have recognized the these alternative compliance flexibilities
final TSD, Resource Adequacy Analysis, EPA’s long and successful history of is not required, but states may employ
and conducted capacity expansion ensuring its power sector rules are these flexibilities, provided they
modeling of the final rules in a manner demonstrate that their programs achieve
an equivalent level of emission
1025 ‘‘In the current environment, grid operators

that takes into account resource
are unsure about when resources may retire, reduction with unit-specific application
increasing uncertainty and making planning harder.
1022 DOE. DOE’s Use of Federal Power Act
The proposed rules have long timelines for
Emergency Authority. https://www.energy.gov/ enactment, giving states, utilities, and grid
1026 ‘‘Electric System Reliability and EPA
ceser/does-use-federal-power-act-emergency- operators plenty of time to plan for the transition.’’ Regulation of GHG Emissions from Power Plants,’’
authority. From ‘‘Prepared Statement of Ric O’Connell Susan Tierney, November 7, 2023.
1023 See Resource Adequacy Analysis document Executive Director, GridLab,’’ Testimony before 1027 ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions From
for further analysis and exploration of these FERC Annual Reliability Technical Conference on Existing Power Plants: Options to Ensure Electric
important elements. November 9, 2023. System Reliability,’’ Susan Tierney, May 2014.
of rate-based standards of performance documenting the basis for the duration emergency grid situations.
and apply requirements relevant to the extension.1028 Any delay in Some commenters requested a
particular flexibility, as specified in implementation that will necessitate a mechanism that is distinct from the
section X.D. These compliance compliance date extension of more than process established by DOE’s emergency
flexibilities are voluntary, and states 1 year must be done through a state plan authority under the Federal Power Act
may choose whether to allow their use revision to adjust the compliance (section 202(c)), whereby DOE is
in state plans, subject to certain schedule using RULOF as a basis. See required by the terms of section 202(c)
conditions. However, states may find section X.C.2 of this preamble for to issue orders tailored to best meet
that the reliability-specific adjustments information on RULOF. particularized emergency
discussed below provide sufficient A similar 1-year compliance date circumstances.1029 Other commenters
flexibility in lieu of the mechanisms extension flexibility for units highlighted the numerous rule
described in section X.D. implementing control technologies that flexibilities that were designed to
States may incorporate into their state encounter a delay outside of the owner accommodate reliability concerns and
plans a mechanism that allows or operator’s control which prevents the emergency conditions and indicated
compliance date extensions up to 1 year source from meeting compliance that the EPA’s rule need not overly
for an existing affected EGU that is in obligations is also available to certain accommodate reliability and resource
the process of installing a control new sources, which are directly adequacy concerns since the primary
technology to meet its standard of regulated by the EPA. This is described burden for developing solutions falls to
performance in the state plan, under in section VIII.N of this preamble. industry, grid operators, reliability
specific circumstances, a detailed coordinators, state planners, and other
discussion can be found in section 3. Reliability Mechanisms stakeholders. These commenters
X.C.1.d of this document. As discussed While the EPA believes the significant indicated that it is important to consider
in section VIII.N of this document, the structural adjustments and compliance any trade-offs with additional flexibility
Administrator may provide a similar flexibilities that are discussed above are measures, in particular any trade-offs
extension for new combustion turbines. adequate to ensure that the with emissions implications.
The state or Administrator may allow implementation of these final rules does Response: The EPA agrees with the
the extension of the compliance date if not interfere with systems operators’ latter commenters and expects that the
the source demonstrates a delay in the ability to ensure electric reliability, the broader adjustments in the final rules,
construction or implementation of the EPA is also finalizing two reliability- in addition to the compliance
control technology resulting from causes related mechanisms as additional flexibilities offered to states in section
that are entirely outside the owner or safeguards. These mechanisms include a X.D of this document, along with DOE’s
operator’s control. These may include short-term reliability mechanism for pre-existing section 202(c) authority, are
delays in obtaining a final construction unexpected and short-duration sufficient to enable an affected unit to
permit, after a timely and complete emergency events, and a reliability respond to emergencies as needed and
application, or delays due to assurance mechanism for units with still comply with the annual
documented supply chain issues; for retirement dates that are enforceable in requirements of these actions. As an
example, a backlog for step-up the state plan, provided there is a additional safeguard measure, the EPA
transformer equipment. This documented and verified reliability is finalizing a short-term reliability
compliance date extension is not concern. The EPA notes that these mechanism to assure that these final
expressly offered for reliability mechanisms must be included in the actions will not interfere with grid
purposes, but rather as a flexibility to state plan to be utilized by the owners/ operators’ ability to ensure electric
account for unforeseen and operators of existing affected EGUs reliability. More specifically, the EPA
uncontrollable lags in construction or subject to requirements in the state plan. has determined that some
implementation of control technology to Sections XII.3.a, and XII.3.b of this accommodation during grid
meet the unit’s standard of performance, preamble describe presumptively emergencies, which are rare, is
in instances where a source can approvable methodologies for warranted in order to provide some
demonstrate efforts to comply by the incorporating these mechanisms into a additional flexibility to help system
required timeframes as part of these state plan. planners, affected sources, state
final actions, including evidence that it regulators, and reliability authorities
took the necessary steps to comply with a. Short-Term Reliability Mechanism meet demand and avert load shed when
sufficient lead time to meet the Comment: Multiple commenters such emergencies occur. The EPA
compliance schedule absent unusual requested an explicit short-term believes this additional flexibility is
problems, and that those problems are mechanism which could accommodate warranted, given the projected increase
entirely outside the source’s control and emergency situations and provide in extreme weather events exacerbated
the source’s actions or inactions did not additional flexibility to affected sources. by climate change.
contribute to the delay. This potential Commenters requested that the A short-term reliability mechanism
extension can help ensure that sufficient mechanism include additional rule for new sources is included in the final
capacity is available by providing flexibilities that could potentially be NSPS. Similarly, a short-term
additional time for an affected EGU to used during emergency conditions that mechanism is offered to states to
operate for a specific amount of time would help reliability authorities avert include in state plans for use with
while it resolves delays related to a load shed event. A mechanism would existing sources during specific and
installation of pollution controls. function as an additional automated defined periods of time where the grid
If the owner/operator of an affected flexibility measure with a clearly is under extreme strain. The short-term
EGU encounters a delay outside of the articulated emergency provision for reliability mechanism is linked to
owner or operator’s control, and which affected sources to respond to short- specific conditions under which the
prevents the source from meeting its system operators may not have
compliance obligations, the affected 1028 Assuming the affected EGU is in a state that
EGU must follow the procedures has included the extension mechanism in its 1029 https://www.energy.gov/ceser/does-use-
outlined in the state plan for approved plan. federal-power-act-emergency-authority.
sufficient available generation to call NERC reliability standard articulates Other emergency events (EEA–1 and
upon to meet electric demand, and roles and responsibilities, defines EEA–2) are more frequent, although also
various reliability authorities have notification processes for reliability relatively rare, based upon recent data.
issued emergency alerts to rectify the coordinators and operators, requires a Data for the largest ISOs and RTOs
situation. These emergency alerts are plan for grid management practices, and indicate that EEA–1 and EEA–2 can
most often associated with extreme specifies a compliance monitoring occur several times over a year, for
weather events where electric demand process. Notably, the standard defines relatively brief periods in most
increases and there are often three levels of Energy Emergency Alerts instances, in response to developing
unexpected transmission and generation (EEA) that guide reliability coordinators reliability emergencies.1035 Across the
outages. Recent examples of short-term during energy emergencies and assist country, reliability coordinators (RCs)
emergency alert conditions include with communicating information across are charged by NERC to implement
Winter Storm Uri in 2021 and Winter the system and with the public to avert reliability standards and issue EEAs.1036
Storm Elliot in 2022, both of which potential disruptions: The RCs monitor, track, and issue alerts
included unanticipated generator • EEA–1: All available generation according to the NERC alert protocol.
outages and triggered emergency grid resources in use—The Balancing This data is also generally supposed to
operations. The EPA expects that the Authority is experiencing conditions be publicly available on each reliability
broader adjustments to the final rules, in where all available generation resources coordinator’s website, which documents
combination with the compliance are committed to meet firm load, firm the frequency and duration of
flexibilities described in section XII.F.2 transactions, and reserve commitments, emergency alerts. However, while there
of this document, are sufficient to and is concerned about sustaining its are requirements to report events where
enable an affected unit to respond to required Contingency Reserves. EEA–3 was declared to NERC 1037 and
grid emergencies as needed and still • EEA–2: Load management NERC publicly tracks use of EEA–3,1038
comply with the annual requirements of procedures in effect—The Balancing EEA–1 events are the least likely to be
these actions. Nonetheless, the EPA is Authority is no longer able to provide documented consistently, for example,
finalizing this short-term reliability its expected energy requirements and is there is no similar publicly available
mechanism, available to states to an energy deficient Balancing Authority. tracking and reporting for use of EEA–
include at their discretion, to provide an An energy deficient Balancing Authority 1 alerts in a centralized and consistent
additional layer of assurance that these has implemented its Operating Plan(s) manner.
final actions will not interfere with the to mitigate Emergencies. An energy Energy Emergency Alerts also have an
grid operator’s ability to ensure electric deficient Balancing Authority is still important geographic and/or regional
reliability. able to maintain its minimum component, since most emergencies
A short-term reliability mechanism is Contingency Reserve requirement. affect a particular geographic zone, and
included for new sources in the final • EEA–3: Firm Load interruption is hence a smaller number of generators
NSPS, and additionally offered to states imminent or in progress—The energy are subject to the alert in most instances.
to include in state plans for existing deficient Balancing Authority is unable
sources. The mechanism provides to meet minimum Contingency Reserve 1035 Since 2021, ERCOT issued two EEA–1 events,
affected sources additional flexibility two EEA–2 events, and one EEA–3 event (all for
requirements. events occurring over an 8-hour period one day in
during rare and extreme emergency The alerts are typically issued in 2021, and for 1 hour in 2023). In SPP, since 2021,
events, when all available generators are reaction to emergencies as they develop, there were eight EEA–1 events, five EEA–2 events,
called upon to meet electric demand. are generally rare, and most often have and two EEA–3 events (occurring over 5 days). The
For new sources, the mechanism allows EEA–1 and EEA–2 events lasted between 1 and 19
been issued during extreme weather hours. In MISO, there was a 2-day event in 2021
sources to calculate applicability and events, such as hurricanes, cold weather that resulted in an EEA magnitude 1, 2, or 3 alert
compliance without using the emissions events, and heatwaves. The most through the day and into the next day. One EEA–
and operational data produced during concerning alert is EEA–3, where 1 event in 2022 lasted for a half hour and an EEA–
these discrete events, with appropriate 2 event for 3 hours. In 2023, there was an EEA–2
interruption of electric service through event for 9.5 hours. In PJM, no alerts were issued
documentation.1030 For existing sources, controlled load shed is imminent for in 2021. In 2022, roughly a dozen alerts were
the mechanism allows sources to use some areas, although load shed does not issued. Some lasted minutes, while others lasted
the baseline emission rate during these necessarily occur under every EEA–3 half a day. One event stretched for 3 days. There
discrete events, also with appropriate were two alerts issued in 2023, lasting roughly 3
declaration. According to NERC, 25 and 1 hours each. While this data is not
documentation.1031 EEA–3s were declared in 2022, an comprehensive, it is indicative of the frequency and
The mechanism is only applicable increase of 15 EEA–3 declarations over duration of emergency events that fall under the
during an Energy Emergency Alert level 2021. Nine of the EEA–3 declarations in NERC reliability standard alert process. See: ERCOT
2 or 3 as defined by NERC Reliability Market Notices, SPP Historical Advisories and
2022 included shedding of firm load. Alerts, https://www.oasis.oati.com/SWPP/; MISO
Standard EOP–011–2 or its successor, While the number of declarations Maximum Generation Emergency Declarations
which requires plans and sets increased from 2021, the amount of load (2023), https://www.oasis.oati.com/woa/docs/
procedures for reliability entities to help that was shed during the 2022 events MISO/MISOdocs/Capacity_Emergency_Historical_
avert disruptions in electric service Information.pdf; and MISO Maximum Generation
was less than 10 percent of the previous Emergency Declarations (2023), https://
during emergency conditions.1032 The year.1033 All of the EEA–3 declarations www.oasis.oati.com/woa/docs/MISO/MISOdocs/
in 2022 were related to extreme weather Capacity_Emergency_Historical_Information.pdf.
1030 The performance standard shall be the Phase See also PJM Emergency Procedures and Postings,
I standard for the affected new source under the
impacts, according to NERC.1034 https://emergencyprocedures.pjm.com/ep/pages/
NSPS. dashboard.jsf.
1031 The baseline emission rate for existing ReliabilityStandards.aspx, and NERC Emergency 1036 NERC Organization Certification (January
sources is the CO2 mass emissions and Preparedness and Operations (Reliability Standard 2024). https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/Pages/
corresponding electricity generation data for a given EOP–011–2). https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/ Registration.aspx.
affected EGU from any continuous 8-quarter period Reliability%20Standards/EOP-011-2.pdf. 1037 https://www.nerc.com/comm/PC/
from 40 CFR part 75 reporting within the 5-year 1033 2023 State of Reliability Technical Performance%20Analysis%20
period immediately prior to the date the final rule Assessment, NERC. https://www.nerc.com/pa/ Subcommittee%20PAS%202013/M-11_Energy_
is published in the Federal Register. RAPA/PA/Performance%20Analysis%20DL/NERC_ Emergency_Alerts.pdf.
1032 NERC Reliability Standards, https:// SOR_2023_Technical_Assessment.pdf. 1038 https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ri/Pages/
www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/ 1034 Ibid. EEA2andEEA3.aspx.
During extreme and large-scale weather standard of performance, or a unit’s to deploy it more routinely if there is
events, the alerts often cover a much baseline emission performance rate, some operational or cost relief
broader geographic area, such as when when demonstrating compliance with associated with it. And lastly, the
Winter Storm Elliott impacted two- the final standards, with appropriate reporting of EEA–1 is not consistent
thirds of the lower 48 states and rapidly documentation. It should be throughout the country, and there is
intensified into a bomb cyclone in emphasized that these final emission some degree of opaqueness associated
December 2022. Many areas declared guidelines require compliance with the with the frequency and duration of
EEAs, and four states experienced standards of performance on an annual EEA–1 events, thus making it a less
operator-controlled load shed and 2.1 basis (or rolling annual average for new robust mechanism threshold for
million customers experienced power sources), as opposed to a shorter period purposes of aligning it with the
outages.1039 When these events occur, a such as hourly, daily, or monthly. This requirements of this final action. For
much larger group of affected sources relatively long compliance period these reasons, the EPA believes that
would be potentially covered.1040 It provides significant flexibility for EEA–2 and EEA–3 are the appropriate
should be noted that issuance of EEA’s sources that face circumstances whereby threshold for inclusion in the short-term
is not just dependent on a generator’s their emission performance may change reliability mechanism and better
availability, but also, generation temporarily due to various factors, represent rare or truly emergency
deliverability, as transmission including in response to grid emergency conditions in which providing a limited
constraints due to operational conditions. Nonetheless, this exemption from a significant
conditions or planned maintenance mechanism is included in these final environmental requirement is
activities can lead to issuance of EEA’s rules to ensure that affected sources justifiable.
that help ensure system stability and have the additional flexibility needed to Thus, the EPA believes that the
reliability. meet demand during emergency selection of EEA–2 and EEA–3 are
The EPA’s assessment is that these conditions.1041 aligned with the conditions envisioned
alerts generally occur infrequently, only The short-term reliability mechanism where an affected source might need
rarely persist for as long as several days, references EEA–2 and EEA–3 for several temporarily relief, in order to offer
and are indicative of a grid under strain. reasons. First, balancing authorities and reliability coordinators and balancing
When the alerts are more prolonged, grid operators do not necessarily have to authorities the flexibility needed during
lasting for several days, they are take action under EEA–1 conditions, emergency events to maintain
generally dictated by persistent extreme such as calling on interruptible loads. reliability. In addition, as explained
weather with widespread impacts and a As such, there is much less cost or earlier, DOE’s 202(c) authority is an
higher probability of load shed. The inconvenience to declaring EEA–1, as a additional mechanism that can be
short-term reliability mechanism offers general matter, and EEA–2 and EEA–3 deployed under certain emergency
sources that come under a documented events are more aligned with events that conditions, which may occur outside
level 2 and or 3 EEA, combined with a are rare or truly represent emergency any EEA–2 or EEA–3 event. These tools,
documented request from the balancing conditions. Second, EEA–1 events are a either individually or in combination,
authority to deviate from its scheduled preparatory step in anticipation of help provide additional assurance that
operations, for example, by increasing potentially worsening conditions, as sources and reliability coordinators can
output in response to the alert. In other opposed to an indicator of imminent continue to maintain a reliable system.
words, only the specific units called load-shed. Thus, under EEA–1, The mechanism is available to states
upon, or otherwise instructed to balancing authorities and grid operators to include in their state plans in an
increase output beyond the planned do not generally take actions such as explicit manner, which will allow
day-ahead or other near-term expected calling for voluntary demand reduction additional flexibility to sources in those
output during an EEA level 2 or 3 event or calling on interruptible loads, and states during short-term reliability
are eligible for this flexibility, with reliability coordinators are afforded emergencies. Inclusion of the reliability
proper documentation. more discretion for declaring an EEA–1. mechanism in a state plan must be part
For new sources, the emissions and/ As such, there is much less cost or of the public comment process that each
or generation data will not be counted inconvenience to declaring EEA–1, as a state must undertake. The comment
when determining applicability and the general matter, and providing process will afford full notice and the
use of the sources’ Phase 1 standard of operational or cost relief under EEA–1 opportunity for the public comment,
performance may be used for could create an incentive to deploy it and the state plan will need to specify
compliance determinations through the more routinely. In addition, waiving alternative performance standards for
duration of these events, as long as significant regulatory requirements each specific affected source during
appropriate documentation is provided. before taking actions such as calling for these events (as defined in this section).
For existing sources, states may choose voluntary demand reductions or calling The state plan must clearly indicate the
to temporarily apply an alternative upon contractually arranged specific parameters of emergency alerts
interruptible loads would not be cited as part of this mechanism, the
1039 2023 State of Reliability Technical
commensurate to the significance of the relevant reliability coordinators that are
Assessment, NERC. https://www.nerc.com/pa/ authorized to issue the alerts in the
RAPA/PA/Performance%20Analysis%20DL/NERC_ various response actions. Third,
SOR_2023_Technical_Assessment.pdf. reliability coordinators are afforded state, and the compliance entities who
1040 For example, the entire footprint of SPP
more discretion for declaring an EEA–1, are affected by this action (i.e., affected
currently includes roughly 50 individual coal-steam
and thus may have a potential incentive sources). These sources must provide
units, reflecting roughly 19 GW of capacity.
documentation of emergencies, as
1040 For PJM, there are currently roughly 65
1041 For example, units with installed CCS indicated in this section. The
individual coal-steam units with total capacity of
roughly 30 GW, which could potentially be covered technology may be called upon to run at full documentation must include evidence
by a regionwide alert. These estimates are capacity (i.e., without the parasitic load of the of the alert from the issuing entity,
considerably lower when known and committed carbon capture equipment). The EPA does not duration of the alert, and requests by
coal-steam retirements are excluded. Within the expect this to be a typical response as units are
PJM footprint, there are 27 control areas or economically disincentivized to shut off or bypass
reliability entities to sources to increase
transmission zones where emergency procedures control equipment given the tax credit incentives in output in response to the emergency.
are applied. IRC section 45Q. The source must supply this
information to the state regulatory supplemental notice for small finalizing a reliability assurance
entities and to the EPA when businesses, since similar reliability- mechanism for existing affected sources
demonstrating compliance with the related concerns were raised. This that have committed to cease operation
annual performance standards. This section provides additional background, but, for unforeseen reasons, need to
demonstration will indicate the discrete as well as approvable language, for a temporarily remain online to support
periods where the alternative standards reliability assurance mechanism that reliability for a discrete amount of time
or emission rates were in place, states have the option to incorporate beyond their planned date to cease
coinciding with the emergency alerts. into their state plans. operations. The primary mechanism to
The calculation of the emission rate Comment: Some commenters address reliability-related issues for
for an affected source in a state that cautioned that EPA rules could units with cease operations dates is
adopts the short-term reliability exacerbate an ongoing concern that firm, through the state plan revision process.
mechanism must adhere to the dispatchable assets are exiting the grid This reliability assurance mechanism is
following during potential emergency at a faster pace than new capacity can designed to enable extensions for cease
alerts: be deployed and that most new electric operation dates when there is
• When demonstrating annual generating capacity does not provide the insufficient time to complete a state
compliance with the standard of equivalent reliability attributes as the plan revision. Under this reliability
performance, the existing affected capacity being retired. Several assurance mechanism, which can only
source may apply its baseline emission commenters provided examples where be accessed if included in a state plan,
rate in lieu of its standard of units with publicly announced units could obtain up to a 1-year
performance for the hours of operation retirement dates were delayed by extension of a cease operation date. If a
that correspond to the duration of the reliability entities and coordinators due, state decides to include the mechanism
alert; and in part, to the potential for energy in its state plan, then the mechanism
• The existing affected EGU would shortfalls that might increase reliability must be disclosed during the public
demonstrate compliance based on risks in the ISO. Many commenters comment process that states must
application of its baseline emission cited findings from NERC that undertake. Under this reliability
performance rate standard of highlighted the potential for capacity assurance mechanism, units may obtain
performance for the documented hours shortfalls, some of which are already in extensions only for the amount of time
it operated under a revised schedule effect in some areas. Other commenters substantiated through their applications
due to an EEA 2 or 3. asserted that there is no need for a and approved by the appropriate EPA
• For new sources, the EGU would reliability assurance mechanism given Regional Administrator. For extension
demonstrate compliance based on the sufficient lead times in the proposal requests greater than 6 months, EPA
application of its phase 1 performance and the various flexibilities already will seek the advice of FERC in these
standard for the documented hours it provided. Some commenters included cases and therefore applications must be
operated under a revised schedule due analysis that showed resource adequacy submitted to FERC, as well as to the
to an EEA 2 or 3. with the same shortfalls over the forecasted time appropriate EPA Regional
documentation listed above. horizon were limited and manageable Administrator. The date from which an
Supplemental reporting, under the proposal. extension can be given is the
recordkeeping and documentation Response: The EPA believes that the enforceable date in the state plan,
required: provisions in these final actions are including any cease operation dates in
• Documentation that the EEA was in sufficient to accommodate installation state plans that are prior to January 1,
effect from the entity issuing the alert, of pollution controls and reliability 2032.
along with documentation of the exact planning. The EPA has further These provisions are similar in part to
duration of the event; 1042 articulated the use of RULOF, which a reliability-related flexibility provided
• Documentation from the entity can be deployed under the state by the EPA for the MATS rule finalized
issuing the alert that the EEA included planning and revision processes, for in December 2011. On December 16,
the affected source/region where the specific circumstances related to 2011, the EPA issued a
unit was located; and reliability. The EPA is also finalizing memorandum 1045 outlining an
• Documentation that the source was compliance flexibilities that can address Enforcement Response Policy whereby
instructed to increase output beyond the delays to the installation or permitting affected sources enter into a CAA
planned day-ahead or other near-term of control technologies or associated section 113(a) administrative order for
expected output and/or was asked to infrastructure that are beyond the up to 1 year for narrow circumstances
remain in operation outside of its control of the EGU owner/operator. The including when the deactivation of a
scheduled dispatch during emergency EPA acknowledges that isolated issues unit or delay in installation of controls
conditions from a reliability could unfold over the course of the due to factors beyond the owner’s/
coordinator, balancing authority, or implementation timeline that could not operator’s control could have an
ISO/RTO. have been foreseen during the planning adverse, localized impact on electric
process and that may require units to reliability. Under MATS, affected
b. Reliability Assurance Mechanism sources were required to come into
remain online beyond their planned
The EPA gave considerable attention cease operation dates to maintain compliance with standards within 3
and thought to comments from all reliability. years of the effective date. The EPA
stakeholders concerning potential The EPA does not agree that the final believed flexibility was warranted given
reliability-related considerations. As rule will result in long-term adverse potential constraints around the
noted earlier, the EPA engaged in reliability impacts.1043 1044 Nevertheless, availability of control equipment and
extensive stakeholder outreach and as an added safeguard, the EPA is associated skilled workforce for all
provided additional opportunity for affected sources within the compliance
public comment as part of the 1043 ‘‘Bulk System Reliability for Tomorrow’s window. While a 1-year extension as
Grid’’ The Brattle Group, December 20, 2023.
1042 https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/ 1044 ‘‘The Future of Resource Adequacy’’ The 1045 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
Reliability%20Standards/EOP-011-2.pdf. Department of Energy, April 2024. documents/mats-erp.pdf.
part of CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) was up to or after the EGU is scheduled to supports, in a detailed and reasoned
broadly available to affected sources, retire. For potential situations in which fashion, anticipated noncompliance
additional time through an system planners, affected sources, and with a Reliability Standard,
administrative order was limited to reliability authorities identify a substantiated by specific metrics
units that were demonstrated to be reliability concern, including a potential described below, should a unit go
critical for reliability purposes under resource adequacy shortfall and an offline per its established commitment.
the Enforcement Response Policy.1046 associated demonstration of increased To assist in its determination, the EPA
FERC’s role in this process, which was loss of load expectation, more than one will seek FERC’s advice regarding
developed with extensive stakeholder year in advance, this approach allows whether analysis of the reliability risk
input,1047 was to assess the submitted for the time needed for states to and the potential for violation of a
request to ensure any application was undertake a state plan revision process. mandatory Reliability Standard or
adequately substantiated with respect to The EPA recognizes that successful increased loss of load expectation is
its reliability-related claims. While reliability planning involves many adequately supported in the filed
several affected EGUs requested and stakeholders and is a complex long-term documentation.
were granted a 1-year CAA section process. For this reason, the EPA is This mechanism is for existing
112(i)(3)(B) compliance extension by encouraging states to consult electric sources that have relied on a
their permitting authority, OECA only reliability authorities during the state commitment to cease operating for
issued five administrative orders in plan process, as part of the requirements purposes of these emission guidelines.
connection to the Enforcement under Meaningful Engagement (see Such reliance might occur in three
Response Policy.1048 These orders relied section X.E.1.b.i of this document). The circumstances: (1) units that plan to
upon a FERC review of the reliability EPA acknowledges that there may be cease operation before January 1, 2032,
risks associated with the loss of specific isolated instances in which the and that are therefore exempt because
units, following the accompanying deactivation or retirement of a unit they have elected to have enforceable
FERC policy memorandum could have impacts on the electric grid cease operations dates in the state plan;
guidance.1049 The 2012 MATS Final in the future that cannot be predicted or (2) affected EGUs that choose to employ
Rule was ultimately implemented over planned for with specificity during the 40 percent natural gas co-firing by 2030
the 2015–2016 timeframe without state planning process, wherein all with a retirement date of no later than
challenges to grid reliability. anticipated reliability-related issues January 1, 2039; or (3) affected EGUs
Given the array of adjustments made would be analyzed and addressed. This that have source-specific standards of
to the rule explained above, and the mechanism is not intended for use with performance based on remaining useful
ability of states to address unanticipated units encountering unforeseen delays in life, pursuant to the RULOF provisions
changes in circumstances through the installation of control technologies, as outlined in section X.C.2 of this
state plan revision process, the EPA such issues are addressed through document. In each of these cases, units
does not anticipate that this mechanism, compliance flexibilities discussed in would have a commitment to cease
if included by states in the planning section XII.F.2, or for units subject to an operating by a date certain. This
process, will be heavily utilized. This obligation to operate that is not based on mechanism would allow for extensions
mechanism provides an assurance to the reliability criteria included here. of those dates to address unforeseen
system planners and affected sources, reliability or reserve margin concerns
which can provide additional time for To ensure that reliability claims, that arise due to changes in
the state to execute a state plan revision, following the specific requirements circumstances after the state plan has
if needed. For states choosing to include delineated below, submitted through been finalized. Therefore, the date from
this option in their state plans, the this mechanism are sufficiently well which an extension can be given under
reliability assurance mechanism can documented, the EPA is requiring that this mechanism is the enforceable cease
provide units up to a 1-year extension the unit’s relevant reliability Planning operations date in the state plan,
of the scheduled cease operation date Authority(ies) certify that the claims are including those prior to January 1, 2032.
without a state plan revision, provided accurate and that the identified Only operators/owners of units that
the reliability need is adequately reliability problem both exists and have satisfied all applicable milestones,
justified and the extension is limited to requires the specific relief requested. metrics, and reporting obligations
the time for which the reliability need Additionally, the EPA intends to seek outlined in section X.C.3, and section
is demonstrated. This mechanism can the advice of FERC, the Federal agency X.C.4 for units with cease operation
accommodate situations when, with with authority to oversee the reliability dates prior to January 1, 2032, would be
little notice, the relevant reliability of the bulk-power system, to incorporate eligible to use this mechanism.
authority determines that an EGU a review of applications for this This mechanism creates additional
scheduled to cease operations is needed mechanism that request more than 6 flexibility for specified narrow
beyond that date, in order to maintain months of additional operating time circumstances for existing sources and
reliability during the 12 months leading beyond the existing date by which the provides additional time and flexibility
unit is scheduled to cease operations to to allow a state, if necessary, to submit
1046 December 16, 2011, memorandum, ‘‘The resolve a reliability issue. Additional a plan revision should circumstances
Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement operating time is available for up to 12 persist. In other words, this mechanism
Response Policy For Use Of Clean Air Act Section months from the unit’s cease operation would be for use only when there is
113(a) Administrative Orders In Relation To date through this mechanism. Any relief
Electric Reliability And The Mercery and Air
insufficient time to complete a state
request exceeding 12 months would
Toxics Standard’’ from Cynthia Giles, Assistant plan revision.

Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and need to be addressed through the state States can decide whether to include
Compliance Assurance. plan revision process outlined in this extension mechanism in their state
1047 See FERC Docket No. PL12–1–000.
section X.E.3. In determining whether to plans. If included in a state plan, the
1048 https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/
grant a request under this mechanism, mechanism would be triggered when a
enforcement-response-policy-mercury-and-air-
toxics-standard-mats. the EPA will assess whether the unit submits an application to the EPA
1049 https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020- associated Planning Authority’s Regional Administrator where it faces
04/E-5_9.pdf. reliability analysis identifies and an unforeseen situation that creates a
reliability issue should that unit go X.E.1.b.ii (for units with cease operation operations studies, system restoration
offline consistent with its commitment dates before January 1, 2032). No less studies or plans, operating procedures,
to cease operations—for example, if the than 30 days prior to the compliance and mitigation plans required by
reliability coordinator identifies an date for applications for extensions of applicable Reliability Standards as
unexpected capacity shortfall and less than 6 months, and no less than 45 defined by FERC in its May 17, 2012,
determines that a specific unit(s) in a days prior to the compliance date for Policy Statement issued to clarify
state(s) is needed to remain operational applications for extensions exceeding 6 requirements for the reliability
to satisfy a specific and documented months, but no earlier than 12 months extensions available through MATS.1051
reliability concern related to a unit’s prior to the compliance date (any (2) Analysis submitted by the relevant
planned retirement. This mechanism requests over 12 months prior to a Planning Authority that verifies the
would allow extensions, if approved by compliance date should be addressed reliability related claims, or presents a
the Regional EPA Administrator, for through state plan revisions), a written separate and equivalent analysis,
units to operate after committed complete application to activate the confirming the asserted reliability risk if
retirement dates without a full state reliability assurance mechanism must the unit were not in operation, or an
plan revision. Any existing standard of be submitted to the appropriate EPA explanation of why such a concurrence
performance finalized in the state plan Regional Administrator, with a copy or separate analysis cannot be provided,
under RULOF or the natural gas co- submitted to the state, including and where necessary, any related system
firing subcategory would remain in information responding to each of the wide or regional analysis. This analysis
place. States have the discretion to place seven elements listed as follows. or concurrence must include a
additional requirements on units A copy of an extension request substantiation for the duration of the
requesting extensions. The relevant EPA exceeding 6 months must also be extension request.
Regional Administrator would approve submitted to FERC through a process (3) Copies of any written comments
the reliability assurance application or and at an office of FERC’s designation, from third parties regarding the
reject it if it were found that that the including any additional specific extension.
reliability assertion was not adequately information identified by FERC and (4) Demonstration from the unit
supported. Units would need to responding to each of the following owner/operator, grid operator and other
substantiate the claim that they must elements: relevant entities that they have a plan
remain online for reliability purposes (1) Analysis of the reliability risk if that includes appropriate actions,
with documentation demonstrating a the unit were not in operation including bringing on new capacity or
forecasted reliability failure should the demonstrating that the continued transmission, to resolve the underlying
unit be taken offline, and this operation of the unit after the applicable reliability issue, including the steps and
justification would need to be submitted compliance date is critical to timeframes for implementing measures
to the appropriate EPA Regional maintaining electric reliability, such to rectify the underlying reliability
Administrator and, for extensions that retirement of that unit would trigger issue.
exceeding 6 months, also to FERC, as one or more of the following: (A) would (5) Retirement date extensions
described below. Extensions would be result in noncompliance with at least allowed through this mechanism will be
granted only for the duration of time one of the mandatory reliability granted for only the increment of time
demonstrated through the standards approved by FERC, or (B) that is substantiated by the reliability
documentation, not to exceed 12 would cause the loss of load expectation need and supporting documentation
months, inclusive of the 6-month to increase beyond the level targeted by and may not exceed 12 months,
extension that is available and the regional system planners as part of their inclusive of the 6-month extensions
relevant Planning Authority(ies) must established procedures for that available with RTO, ISO, and reliability
certify that the claims are accurate and particular region; specifically, this coordinator certification.
that the identified reliability problem requires a clear demonstration that each (6) For units affected by these
both exists and requires the specific unit would be needed to maintain the emissions guidelines, states may choose
relief requested. Any further extension targeted level of resource adequacy.1050 to require the application to identify the
would require a state plan revision. In addition, a projection substantiating level of operation that is required to
The process and documentation the duration of the requested extension avoid the documented reliability risk,
required to demonstrate that a unit is must be included for the length of time and consistent with that level propose
required to stay online because it is that the unit is expected to extend its alternative compliance requirements,
reliability-critical is described in this cease-operations date because it is such as alternative standards or
section. reliability-critical with accompanying consistent utilization constraints for the
In order to use this mechanism for an analysis supporting the timeframe, not duration of the extension. The EPA
extension, certain conditions must be to exceed 12 months. The Regional Office may, within 30 days of
met by the unit and substantiated in demonstration must satisfactorily
written electronic notification to the the submission, reject the application if
substantiate at least one of the two the submission is incomplete with
appropriate EPA Regional conditions outlined above. Any unit
Administrator, with an identical copy respect to the above requirements or if
that has received a Reliability Must Run the reliability assertion is not
submitted to FERC for extension Designation or equivalent from a
requests exceeding 6 months. More adequately supported.
reliability coordinator or balancing (7) Only owners/operators of units
specifically, those conditions are that, authority would fit this description. The that have satisfied all applicable
where appropriate, the EGU owner types of information that will be

complied with all applicable reporting milestone and reporting requirements
helpful, based on the prior reliability and obligations under section X.C.3.,
obligations and milestones as described extension process developed for MATS
in sections X.C.4 (for units in the and section X.C.4 for units with cease
between the EPA and FERC include, but
medium-term subcategory and units are not limited to, system planning and 1051 ‘‘Policy Statement on the Commission’s Role
relying on a cease operation date for a Regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s
less stringent standard of performance 1050 Probabilistic Assessment: Technical Mercury and Air Toxics Standards’’ FERC, Issued
pursuant to RULOF), and section Guideline Document, NERC, August 2016. May 17, 2012, at PL12–1–000.
operation dates prior to January 1, 2032, rulemaking. There, to ensure that units ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
may use this mechanism for an choosing to permanently cease the New Source Performance Standards for
extension as those sources will have combustion of coal by a particular date Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
provided information enabling the state in their permits are not restricted from Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil
and the public to assess that the units operation in the event of an emergency Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
have diligently taken all actions related to load balancing, the permit Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse
necessary to meet their enforceable conditions allow for grid emergency Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil
cease operations dates and demonstrate exemptions (88 FR 18900). Harmonizing Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
the use of all available tools to meet the use of similar criteria for emergency and Repeal of the Affordable Clean
reliability challenges. Units that have related reliability concerns across the Energy Rule,’’ is available in the docket
failed to meet these obligations may two rules further buttresses unit and describes in detail the EPA’s
make extension requests through the confidence that grid reliability and assumptions and characterizes the
state plan revision process. environmental responsibilities will not various sources of uncertainties
The EPA intends to consult with come into conflict. It also streamlines affecting the estimates.
FERC in a timely manner on reliability- the demonstrations and evidence that a Table 6 presents the estimated present
critical claims given FERC’s expertise unit must provide in such events. This values (PV) and equivalent annualized
on reliability issues. The EPA may also cross-regulatory harmonization ensures values (EAV) of the projected climate
seek advice from other reliability that the Agency can successfully meet benefits, health benefits, compliance
experts, to inform the EPA’s decision. its CWA and CAA responsibilities costs, and net benefits of the final rules
The EPA intends to decide whether it regarding public health in a manner in 2019 dollars discounted to 2024. This
will grant a compliance extension for a consistent with grid stability as it has analysis covers the impacts of the final
retiring unit based on a documented consistently done throughout its 54-year standards for new combustion turbines
reliability need within 30 days of history. and for existing steam generating EGUs.
receiving the application for The EPA has taken into consideration, The estimated monetized net benefits
applications less than 6 months, and to the extent possible, the alignment of are the projected monetized benefits
within 45 days for applications compliance timeframes and other minus the projected monetized costs of
exceeding 6 months to account for time aspects of these policies for affected the final rules.
needed to consult with FERC. Whether units. For each regulatory effort, there
Under E.O. 12866, the EPA is directed
to grant an extension to an owner/ has been coordination and alignment of
to consider the costs and benefits of its
operator is solely the decision of the requirements and timelines, to the
actions. Accordingly, in addition to the
EPA Regional Administrator. extent possible. The potential impact of
For units already subject to standards projected climate benefits of the final
these various regulatory efforts is further
of performance through state plans rules from anticipated reductions in CO2
examined in the final TSD, Resource
including those co-firing until 2039, and emissions, the projected monetized
Adequacy Analysis. Additionally, the
for units with specific, tailored and health benefits include those related to
EPA considered the impact of this suite
differentiated compliance dates public health associated with projected
of power sector rules by performing a
developed through RULOF that employ reductions in PM2.5 and ozone
variety of sensitivity analyses described
this mechanism, those standards would concentrations. The projected health
in XII.F.3. These considerations are
apply during the extension. benefits are associated with several
discussed in the technical memoranda,
point estimates and are presented at real
4. Considerations for Evaluating 111 IPM Sensitivity Runs and Resource
discount rates of 2, 3 and 7 percent. As
Final Actions With Other EPA Rules Adequacy Analysis: Vehicle Rules, Final
shown in section 4.3.9 of the RIA, there
111 EGU Rules, ELG, and MATS,
Consistent with the EPA’s statutory are health benefits in the years 2028,
available in the rulemaking docket.
obligations under a range of CAA 2030, 2035, and 2045 and health
programs, the Agency has recently XIII. Statutory and Executive Order disbenefits in 2040. The projected
initiated and/or finalized multiple Reviews climate benefits in this table are based
rulemakings to reduce emissions of air Additional information about these on estimates of the social cost of carbon
pollutants, air toxics, and greenhouse statutes and Executive orders can be (SC–CO2) at a 2 percent near-term
gases from the power sector. The EPA found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- Ramsey discount rate and are
has conducted an assessment of the regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. discounted using a 2 percent discount
potential impacts of these regulatory rate to obtain the PV and EAV estimates
efforts on grid resource adequacy, which A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory in the table. The power industry’s
is examined and discussed in the final Planning and Review and Executive compliance costs are represented in this
TSD, Resource Adequacy Analysis. This Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory analysis as the change in electric power
analysis is informed by regional reserve Review generation costs between the baseline
margin targets, regional transmission This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory and illustrative policy scenarios. In
capability, and generator availability. action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) simple terms, these costs are an estimate
Moreover, as described in this action, of Executive Order 12866, as amended of the increased power industry
the EPA designs its programs, by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, expenditures required to implement the
implementation compliance EPA, submitted this action to the Office final requirements.
flexibilities, and backstop mechanisms of Management and Budget (OMB) for These results present an incomplete
to be robust to future uncertainties and overview of the potential effects of the
Executive Order 12866 review. Any

various compliance pathways for the changes made in response to final rules because important categories
collective of market and regulatory recommendations received as part of of benefits—including benefits from
drivers. Finally, the backstop reliability Executive Order 12866 review have reducing HAP emissions—were not
mechanisms discussed in this section been documented in the docket. monetized and are therefore not
are, by design, similar to mechanisms The EPA prepared an analysis of the reflected in the benefit-cost tables. The
utilized in the EPA’s proposed Effluent potential costs and benefits associated EPA anticipates that taking non-
Limitations Guidelines (ELG) with these actions. This analysis, monetized effects into account would
show the final rules to have a greater net

benefit than this table reflects.
TABLE 6—PROJECTED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULES, 2024 THROUGH 2047
[Billions 2019$, discounted to 2024] a
Present value (PV)
2% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
Climate Benefits c ....................................................................................................... 270 270 270

Health Benefits d ........................................................................................................ 120 100 59
Compliance Costs ...................................................................................................... 19 15 7.5
Net Benefits e ............................................................................................................. 370 360 320
Equivalent Annualized Value (EAV) b
Climate Benefits c ....................................................................................................... 14 14 14

Health Benefits d ........................................................................................................ 6.3 6.1 5.2
Compliance Costs ...................................................................................................... 0.98 0.91 0.65
Net Benefits e ............................................................................................................. 20 19 19
Non-Monetized Benefits e .......................................................................................... Benefits from reductions in HAP emissions

Ecosystem benefits associated with reductions in emissions
of CO2, NOX, SO2, PM, and HAP
Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2
Improved visibility (reduced haze) from PM2.5 reductions
a Values have been rounded to two significant figures. Rows may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
b The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over the 24-year period from 2024 to 2047.
c Monetized climate benefits are based on reductions in CO emissions and are calculated using three different estimates of the SC–CO
2 2
(under 1.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 2.5 percent near-term Ramsey discount rates). For the presentational purposes of this table, we show the
climate benefits associated with the SC–CO2 at the 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. Please see section 4 of the RIA for the full range
of monetized climate benefit estimates.
d The projected monetized air quality related benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in PM
2.5 and ozone con-
centrations. The projected health benefits are associated with several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 2, 3, and 7 per-
cent. This table presents the net health benefit impact over the analytic timeframe of 2024 to 2047. As shown in section 4.3.9 of the RIA, there
are health benefits in the years 2028, 2030, 2035, and 2045 and health disbenefits in 2040.
e Several categories of climate, human health, and welfare benefits from CO , NO , SO , PM and HAP emissions reductions remain
2 X 2
unmonetized and are thus not directly reflected in the quantified benefit estimates in this table. See section 4.2 of the RIA for a discussion of cli-
mate effects that are not yet reflected in the SC–CO2 and thus remain unmonetized and section 4.4 of the RIA for a discussion of other non-
monetized benefits.
As shown in table 6, the final rules billion. Climate benefits remain about $320 billion and an EAV of about
are projected to reduce greenhouse gas discounted at 2 percent in this net $19 billion.
emissions in the form of CO2, producing benefits analysis. Thus, the final rules We also note that the RIA follows the
a projected PV of monetized climate would generate a PV of monetized EPA’s historic practice of using a
benefits of about $270 billion, with an benefits of about $370 billion, with an detailed technology-rich partial
EAV of about $14 billion using the SC– EAV of about $20 billion discounted at equilibrium model of the electricity and
CO2 discounted at 2 percent. The final 3 percent. The PV of the projected related fuel sectors to estimate the
rules are also projected to reduce compliance costs are about $15 billion, incremental costs of producing
emissions of NOX, SO2 and direct PM2.5 with an EAV of $0.91 billion discounted electricity under the requirements of
leading to national health benefits from at 3 percent. Combining the projected proposed and final major EPA power
PM2.5 and ozone in most years, benefits with the projected compliance sector rules. In section 5.2 of the RIA for
producing a projected PV of monetized costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of these actions, the EPA has also included
health benefits of about $120 billion, about $360 billion and an EAV of about an economy-wide analysis that
with an EAV of about $6.3 billion $19 billion. considers additional facets of the
discounted at 2 percent. Thus, these At a 7 percent discount rate, the final economic response to the final rules,
final rules are expected to generate a PV rules are expected to generate projected including the full resource requirements
of monetized benefits of $390 billion, PV of monetized health benefits of about of the expected compliance pathways,
with an EAV of $21 billion discounted $59 billion, with an EAV of about $5.2 some of which are paid for through
at a 2 percent rate. The PV of the billion. Climate benefits remain subsidies. The social cost estimates in
projected compliance costs are $19 discounted at 2 percent in this net the economy-wide analysis and
billion, with an EAV of about $0.98 benefits analysis. Thus, the final rules discussed in section 5.2 of the RIA are
billion discounted at 2 percent. would generate a PV of monetized still far below the projected benefits of
Combining the projected benefits with benefits of about $330 billion, with an the final rules.
the projected compliance costs yields a EAV of about $19 billion discounted at B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
net benefit PV estimate of about $370 7 percent. The PV of the projected
billion and EAV of about $20 billion. compliance costs are about $7.5 billion, 1. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT
At a 3 percent discount rate, the final with an EAV of $0.65 billion discounted This action does not impose any new
rules are expected to generate projected at 7 percent. Combining the projected information collection burden under the
PV of monetized health benefits of about benefits with the projected compliance PRA. OMB has previously approved the
$100 billion, with an EAV of about $6.1 costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations implementing, and enforcing a plan to available in the docket for this
and has assigned OMB control number limit GHG emissions from these existing action.1052
2060–0685. EGUs. These recordkeeping and As required by section 604 of the
reporting requirements are specifically RFA, the EPA prepared a final
2. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for
authorized by CAA section 114 (42
The information collection activities U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted this action. The FRFA provides a
in this rule have been submitted for to the EPA pursuant to the statement of the need for, and objectives
approval to the OMB under the PRA. recordkeeping and reporting of, the rule; addresses the issues raised
The Information Collection Request requirements for which a claim of by public comments on the IRFA for the
(ICR) document that the EPA prepared confidentiality is made is safeguarded proposed rule, including public
has been assigned EPA ICR number according to Agency policies set forth in comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
2771.01. You can find a copy of the ICR 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Advocacy of the Small Business
in the docket for this rule, and it is The annual burden for this collection Administration; describes the small
briefly summarized here. The of information for the states (averaged entities to which the rule will apply;
information collection requirements are over the first 3 years following describes the projected reporting,
not enforceable until OMB approves promulgation) is estimated to be 89,000 recordkeeping and other compliance
them. hours at a total annual labor cost of requirements of the rule and their
Respondents/affected entities: $11.7 million. The annual burden for impacts; and describes the steps the
Owners and operators of fossil-fuel fired the Federal government associated with agency has taken to minimize impacts
EGUs. the state collection of information on small entities consistent with the
Respondent’s obligation to respond: (averaged over the first 3 years following stated objectives of the Clean Air Act.
Mandatory. promulgation) is estimated to be 24,000 The complete FRFA is available for
Estimated number of respondents: 2. hours at a total annual labor cost of $1.7 review in the docket and is summarized
Frequency of response: Annual. million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR here. The scope of the FRFA is limited
Total estimated burden: 110 hours 1320.3(b). to the NSPS. The impacts of the
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR Respondents/affected entities: States emission guidelines are not evaluated
1320.3(b). with one or more designated facilities here because the emission guidelines do
Total estimated cost: $12,000 (per not place explicit requirements on the
covered under subpart UUUUb.
year), includes $0 annualized capital or regulated industry. Those impacts will
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
operation & maintenance costs. be evaluated pursuant to the
Mandatory.
An agency may not conduct or development of a Federal plan.
Estimated number of respondents: 43.
sponsor, and a person is not required to In 2009, the EPA concluded that GHG
Frequency of response: Once.
respond to, a collection of information emissions endanger our nation’s public
Total estimated burden: 89,000 hours
unless it displays a currently valid OMB health and welfare. Since that time, the
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
control number. The OMB control evidence of the harms posed by GHG
1320.3(b).
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 emissions has only grown and
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When Total estimated cost: $11.7 million,
includes $35,000 annualized capital or Americans experience the destructive
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will and worsening effects of climate change
announce that approval in the Federal operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or every day. Fossil fuel-fired EGUs are the
Register and publish a technical nation’s largest stationary source of
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information GHG emissions, representing 25 percent
the OMB control number for the of the United States’ total GHG
approved information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control emissions in 2021. At the same time, a
activities contained in this final rule. range of cost-effective technologies and
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
3. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUa CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When approaches to reduce GHG emissions
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will from these sources are available to the
This action does not impose an power sector, and multiple projects are
information collection burden under the announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical in various stages of operation and
PRA. development. Congress has also acted to
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
4. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUb the OMB control number for the provide funding and other incentives to
approved information collection encourage the deployment of these
The information collection activities
activities contained in this final rule. technologies to achieve reductions in
in this rule have been submitted for
GHG emissions from the power sector.
approval to the OMB under the PRA. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) In this notice, the EPA is finalizing
The ICR document that the EPA several actions under CAA section 111
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of
the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial to reduce the significant quantity of
number 2770.01. You can find a copy of GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired
the ICR in the docket for this rule, and regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
the proposed rule and convened a Small EGUs by establishing emission
it is briefly summarized here. The guidelines and NSPS that are based on
information collection requirements are Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
Panel to obtain advice and available and cost-effective technologies
not enforceable until OMB approves that directly reduce GHG emissions
recommendations from small entity
them. from these sources. Consistent with the

This rule imposes specific representatives that potentially would
be subject to the rule’s requirements. statutory command of CAA section 111,
requirements on state governments with the final NSPS and emission guidelines
existing fossil fuel-fired steam Summaries of the IRFA and Panel
recommendations are presented in the reflect the application of the BSER that,
generating units. The information
collection requirements are based on the supplemental proposed rule at 88 FR 1052 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
recordkeeping and reporting burden 80582 (November 20, 2023). The 0072–8109 and Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
associated with developing, complete IRFA and Panel Report are 2023–0072–8108.
taking into account costs, energy ensure the requirements in the final adjustments to provisions in the
requirements, and other statutory actions can be implemented without proposed rules that address reliability
factors, is adequately demonstrated. compromising the ability of power concerns and ensure that the final rules
These final actions ensure that EGUs companies, grid operators, and state and provide adequate flexibilities and
reduce their GHG emissions in a manner Federal energy regulators to maintain assurance mechanisms that allow grid
that is cost-effective and improve the resource adequacy and grid reliability. operators to continue to fulfill their
emissions performance of the sources, To estimate the number of small responsibilities to maintain the
consistent with the applicable CAA businesses potentially impacted by the reliability of the bulk-power system.
requirements and caselaw. These NSPS, the EPA performed a small entity The EPA is additionally finalizing
standards and emission guidelines will screening analysis for impacts on all additional reliability-related
significantly decrease GHG emissions affected EGUs by comparing compliance instruments to provide further certainty
from fossil fuel-fired EGUs and the costs to historic revenues at the ultimate that implementation of these final rules
associated harms to human health and parent company level. The EPA will not intrude on grid operator’s
welfare. Further, the EPA has designed reviewed historical data and planned ability to ensure reliability. The short-
these standards and emission guidelines builds since 2017 to determine the term reliability emergency mechanism,
in a way that is compatible with the universe of NGCC and natural gas which is available for both new and
nation’s overall need for a reliable combustion turbine additions. Next, the existing units, is designed to provide an
supply of affordable electricity. EPA followed SBA size standards to alternative compliance strategy during
The significant issues raised in public determine which ultimate parent acute system emergencies when
comments specifically in response to entities should be considered small reliability might be threatened. The
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis entities in this analysis. reliability assurance mechanism will be
came from the Office of Advocacy Once the costs of the rule were available for existing units that intend to
within the Small Business calculated, the costs attributed to small cease operating, but, for unforeseen
Administration (Advocacy). The EPA entities were calculated by multiplying reasons, need to temporarily remain
agreed that convening a SBAR Panel the total costs to the share of the online to support reliability beyond the
was warranted because the EPA historical build attributed to small planned cease operation date. This
solicited comment on a number of entities. These costs were then shared to reliability assurance mechanism, which
policy options that, if finalized, could individual entities using the ratio of requires an adequate showing of
affect the estimate of total compliance their build to total small entity reliability need, is intended to apply to
costs and therefore the impacts on small additions in the historical dataset. circumstances where there is
entities. The EPA issued an IRFA and The EPA assessed the economic and insufficient time to complete a state
solicited comment on regulatory financial impacts of the rule using the plan revision. Whether to grant an
flexibilities for small business in a ratio of compliance costs to the value of extension to an owner/operator is solely
supplemental proposed rule, published revenues from electricity generation, the decision of the EPA. Concurrence or
in November 2023. focusing in particular on entities for approval of FERC is not a condition but
Advocacy provided further which this measure is greater than 1 may inform EPA’s decision. These
substantive comments on the IRFA that percent. Of the 14 entities that own instruments will be presumptively
accompanied the November 2023 NGCC units considered in this analysis, approvable, provided they meet the
supplemental proposed rule. The three are projected to experience requirements defined in these emission
comments reiterated the concerns raised compliance costs greater than or equal guidelines, if states choose to
in its original comment letter on the to 1 percent of generation revenues in incorporate them into their plans.
proposed rule and further made the 2035 and none are projected to Throughout the SBAR Panel outreach,
following claims: (1) the IRFA does not experience compliance costs greater SERs expressed concerns that the
provide small entities an accurate than or equal to 3 percent of generation proposed rule will have significant
description of the impacts of the revenues in 2035. reliability impacts, including that areas
proposed rule, (2) small entities remain Prior to the November 2023 with transmission system limitations
concerned that the EPA has not taken supplemental proposed rule, the EPA and energy market constraints risk
reliability concerns seriously. convened a SBAR Panel to obtain power interruption if replacement
In response to these comments and recommendations from small entity generation cannot be put in place before
feedback during the SBAR Panel, the representatives (SERs) on elements of retirements. SERs recommended that
EPA revised its small business the regulation. The Panel identified Regional Transmission Organizations
assessment to incorporate the final SBA significant alternatives for consideration (RTOs) be involved to evaluate safety
guidelines (effective March 17th 2023) by the Administrator of the EPA, which and reliability concerns.
when performing the screening analysis were summarized in a final report. SERs additionally stated that the
to identify small businesses that have Based on the Panel recommendations, proposed rule relies on the continued
built or have planned/committed builds as well as comments received in development of technologies not
of combustion turbines since 2017. The response to both the May 2023 proposed currently in wide use and large-scale
EPA also treated additional entities rule and the November 2023 investments in new infrastructure and
within this subset as small based on supplemental proposed rule, the EPA is that the proposed rule pushes these
feedback received during the panel finalizing several regulatory alternatives technologies significantly faster than the
process. The net effect of these changes that could accomplish the stated infrastructure will be ready and sooner
is to increase the total compliance cost objectives of the Clean Air Act while than the SERs can justify investment to
attributed to small entities, and the minimizing any significant economic their stakeholders and ratepayers. SERs
number of small entities potentially impact of the final rule on small stated that this is of particular concern
affected. The EPA additionally entities. Discussion of those alternatives for small entities that are retiring
increased the assumed delivered is provided below. generation in response to other
hydrogen price to $1.15/kg. Mechanisms for reliability relief: As regulatory mandates and need to replace
Further, the EPA is finalizing multiple described in section XII.F of this that generation to continue serving their
adjustments to the proposed rule that preamble, the EPA is finalizing several customers.
The suite of comprehensive deployment of CCS in other industries. among governmental entities, the EPA
adjustments in the final rules, along Capture, pipelines, and sequestration initiated consultation with
with the two explicit reliability are already in place or in advanced governmental entities. The EPA invited
mechanisms are directly responsive to stages of deployment for ethanol the following 10 national organizations
SER’s statements and concerns about production from corn, an industry representing state and local elected
grid reliability and the impact of retiring rooted in rural areas. The high purity officials to a virtual meeting on
generating on small businesses. CO2 from ethanol production provides September 22, 2022: (1) National
Subcategories: Throughout the SBAR advantageous economics for CCS. Governors Association, (2) National
Panel, SERs expressed concerns that The EPA believes the decision to not Conference of State Legislatures, (3)
control requirements on rural electric finalize a low-GHG hydrogen BSER Council of State Governments, (4)
cooperatives may be an additional pathway is responsive to SER’s National League of Cities, (5) U.S.
hardship on economically statements and concerns regarding the Conference of Mayors, (6) National
disadvantaged communities and small availability of low-GHG hydrogen in Association of Counties, (7)
entities. SERs stated that the EPA very rural areas. International City/County Management
should further evaluate increased In addition, the EPA is preparing a Association, (8) National Association of
energy costs, transmission upgrade Small Entity Compliance Guide to help Towns and Townships, (9) County
costs, and infrastructure encroachment small entities comply with this rule. Executives of America, and (10)
which are concrete effects on the The guide will be available 60 days after Environmental Council of States. These
disproportionately impacted publication of the final rule at https:// 10 organizations representing elected
communities. Additionally, SERs stated www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air- state and local officials have been
hydrogen and CCS cannot be BSER pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards- identified by the EPA as the ‘‘Big 10’’
because they are not commercially and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power. organizations appropriate to contact for
available and viable in very rural areas. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of purpose of consultation with elected
The EPA solicited comment on officials. Also, the EPA invited air and
1995 (UMRA)
potential exclusions or subcategories for utility professional groups who may
small entities that would be based on The NSPS contain a Federal mandate have state and local government
the class, type, or size of the source and under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, that members, including the Association of
be consistent with the Clean Air Act. may result in expenditures of $100 Air Pollution Control Agencies,
The EPA also solicited comment on million or more for the private sector in National Association of Clean Air
whether rural electric cooperatives and any one year. The NSPS do not contain Agencies, and American Public Power
small utility distribution systems an unfunded mandate of $100 million or Association, Large Public Power
(serving 50,000 customers or less) can more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Council, National Rural Electric
expect to have access to hydrogen and 1531–1538 for state, local, and tribal Cooperative Association, and National
CCS infrastructure, and if a subcategory governments, in the aggregate. Association of Regulatory Utility
for these units is appropriate. Accordingly, the EPA prepared, under Commissioners to participate in the
The EPA evaluated public comments section 202 of UMRA, a written meeting. The purpose of the
received and determined that statement of the benefit-cost analysis, consultation was to provide general
establishing a separate subcategory for which is in section XIII.A of this background on these rulemakings,
rural electric cooperatives was not preamble and in the RIA. answer questions, and solicit input from
warranted. However, the EPA is not The repeal of the ACE Rule and state and local governments. For a
finalizing the low-GHG hydrogen BSER emission guidelines do not contain an summary of the UMRA consultation see
pathway. In response to concerns raised unfunded mandate of $100 million or the memorandum in the docket titled
by small business and other more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Federalism Pre-Proposal Consultation
commenters, the EPA conducted 1531–1538, and do not significantly or Summary.1053
additional analysis of the BSER criteria uniquely affect small governments. The
and its proposed determination that emission guidelines do not impose any E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
low-GHG hydrogen co-firing qualified as direct compliance requirements on These actions do not have federalism
the BSER. This additional analysis led regulated entities, apart from the implications as that term is defined in
the EPA to assess that the cost of low- requirement for states to develop plans E.O. 13132. Consistent with the
GHG hydrogen in 2030 will likely be to implement the guidelines under CAA cooperative federalism approach
higher than proposed, and these higher section 111(d) for designated EGUs. The directed by the Clean Air Act, states will
cost estimates and associated burden for states to develop CAA establish standards of performance for
uncertainties related to its nationwide section 111(d) plans in the 24-month existing sources under the emission
availability were key factors in the period following promulgation of the guidelines set out in this final rule.
EPA’s decision to revise its 2030 cost emission guidelines was estimated and These actions will not have substantial
estimate for delivered low-GHG is listed in section XIII.B, but this direct effects on the states, on the
hydrogen and are reflected in the burden is estimated to be below $100 relationship between the national
increased price. For CCS, as discussed million in any one year. As explained in government and the states, or on the
in sections VIII.F.4.c.iv and VII.C.1.a of section X.E.6, the emission guidelines distribution of power and
this preamble, the EPA considered do not impose specific requirements on responsibilities among the various
geographic availability of sequestration, tribal governments that have designated levels of government.
as well as the timelines, materials, and
EGUs located in their area of Indian Although the direct compliance costs
workforce necessary for installing CCS, country. may not be substantial, the EPA
and determined they are sufficient. These actions are not subject to the nonetheless elected to consult with
Moreover, while the BSER is premised requirements of section 203 of UMRA representatives of state and local
on source-to-sink CO2 pipelines and because they contain no regulatory governments in the process of
sequestration, the EPA notes that many requirements that might significantly or
EGUs in rural areas are primed to take uniquely affect small governments. In 1053 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
advantage of synergy with the broader light of the interest in these actions 0072–0033.
developing these actions to permit them The EPA notes that the emission households. More detailed information
to have meaningful and timely input guidelines do not directly impose on the impacts of climate change to
into their development. The EPA’s specific requirements on EGU sources, human health and welfare is provided
consultation regarded planned actions including those located in Indian in section III of this preamble. Under
for the NSPS and emission guidelines. country, but before developing any these final actions, the EPA expects that
The EPA invited the following 10 standards for sources on tribal land, the CO2 emissions reductions will improve
national organizations representing state EPA would consult with leaders from air quality and mitigate climate impacts
and local elected officials to a virtual affected tribes. Thus, Executive Order which will benefit the health and
meeting on September 22, 2022: (1) 13175 does not apply to these actions. welfare of children.
National Governors Association, (2) Because the EPA is aware of tribal
interest in these rules and consistent H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
National Conference of State
with the EPA Policy on Consultation Concerning Regulations That
Legislatures, (3) Council of State
and Coordination with Indian Tribes, Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Governments, (4) National League of
the EPA offered government-to- Distribution, or Use
Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6)
National Association of Counties, (7) government consultation with tribes and These actions, which are significant
International City/County Management conducted outreach and engagement. regulatory actions under Executive
Association, (8) National Association of Order 12866, are likely to have to have
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of a significant adverse effect on the
Towns and Townships, (9) County Children From Environmental Health
Executives of America, and (10) supply, distribution or use of energy.
Risks and Safety Risks Populations and The EPA has prepared a Statement of
Environmental Council of States. These Low-Income Populations
10 organizations representing elected Energy Effects for these actions as
state and local officials have been This action is subject to Executive follows. The EPA estimates a 1.4
identified by the EPA as the ‘‘Big 10’’ Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, percent increase in retail electricity
organizations appropriate to contact for 1997) because it is a significant prices on average, across the contiguous
purpose of consultation with elected regulatory action as defined by E.O. U.S. in 2035, and a 42 percent reduction
officials. Also, the EPA invited air and 12866(3)(f)(1), and the EPA believes that in coal-fired electricity generation in
utility professional groups who may the environmental health or safety risk 2035 as a result of these actions. The
have state and local government addressed by this action has a EPA projects that utility power sector
members, including the Association of disproportionate effect on children. delivered natural gas prices will
Air Pollution Control Agencies, Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated increase 3 percent in 2035. As outlined
National Association of Clean Air the environmental health and welfare in the Final TSD, Resource Adequacy
Agencies, and American Public Power effects of climate change on children. Analysis, available in the docket for this
Association, Large Public Power GHGs contribute to climate change and rulemaking, the EPA demonstrates that
Council, National Rural Electric are emitted in significant quantities by compliance with the final rules can be
Cooperative Association, and National the power sector. The EPA believes that achieved while maintaining resource
Association of Regulatory Utility the GHG emission reductions resulting adequacy, and that the rules include
Commissioners to participate in the from implementation of these standards additional flexibility measures designed
meeting. The purpose of the and guidelines will further improve to address reliability-related concerns.
consultation was to provide general children’s health. The assessment For more information on the estimated
background on these rulemakings, literature cited in the EPA’s 2009 energy effects, please refer section 3 of
answer questions, and solicit input from Endangerment Findings concluded that the RIA, which is in the public docket.
state and local governments. For a certain populations and life stages,
including children, the elderly, and the I. National Technology Transfer and
summary of the Federalism consultation Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
see the memorandum in the docket poor, are most vulnerable to climate-
related health effects (74 FR 66524, Part 51
titled Federalism Pre-Proposal
Consultation Summary.1054 December 15, 2009). The assessment This rulemaking involves technical
literature since 2016 strengthens these standards. Therefore, the EPA
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation conclusions by providing more detailed conducted searches for the New Source
and Coordination With Indian Tribal findings regarding these groups’ Performance Standards for Greenhouse
Governments vulnerabilities and the projected Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and
These actions do not have tribal impacts they may experience. These Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
implications, as specified in Executive assessments describe how children’s Generating Units; Emission Guidelines
Order 13175. The NSPS imposes unique physiological and for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
requirements on owners and operators developmental factors contribute to Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
of new or reconstructed stationary making them particularly vulnerable to Generating Units; and Repeal of the
combustion turbines and the emission climate change. Impacts to children are Affordable Clean Energy Rule through
guidelines do not impose direct expected from heat waves, air pollution, the Enhanced National Standards
requirements on tribal governments. infectious and waterborne illnesses, and Systems Network (NSSN) Database
Tribes are not required to develop plans mental health effects resulting from managed by the American National
to implement the emission guidelines extreme weather events. In addition, Standards Institute (ANSI). Searches
developed under CAA section 111(d) for children are among those especially were conducted for EPA Method 19 of
susceptible to most allergic diseases, as 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No
designated EGUs. The EPA is aware of

two fossil fuel-fired steam generating well as health effects associated with applicable voluntary consensus
units located in Indian country, and one heat waves, storms, and floods. standards (VCS) were identified for EPA
fossil fuel-fired steam generating units Additional health concerns may arise in Method 19. For additional information,
owned or operated by tribal entities. low-income households, especially please see the March 23, 2023,
those with children, if climate change memorandum titled Voluntary
1054 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– reduces food availability and increases Consensus Standard Results for New
0072–0033. prices, leading to food insecurity within Source Performance Standards for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, procedures for the determination of the define biodiesel, which is a type of
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil following performance results: corrected uniform fuel listed in this rule.
Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; net power, corrected heat rate, and • ASTM D7467–10, Standard
Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas corrected heat input. Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil,
Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel- • ASTM D388–99 (Reapproved 2004), Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20), including
Fired Electric Generating Units; and Standard Classification of Coals by Appendices X1 through X3, (Approved
Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rank, covers the classification of coals August 1, 2010) covers fuel blend grades
Rule.1055 by rank, that is, according to their of 6 to 20 volume percent biodiesel with
In accordance with the requirements degree of metamorphism, or progressive the remainder being a light middle or
of 1 CFR part 51, the EPA is alteration, in the natural series from middle distillate diesel fuel, collectively
incorporating the following 10 lignite to anthracite. It is used to define designated as B6 to B20. It is used to
voluntary consensus standards by coal as a fuel type which is then define biodiesel blends, which is a type
reference in the final rule. referenced when defining coal-fired of uniform fuel listed in this rule.
• ANSI C12.20–2010, American electric generating units, one of the • ISO 2314:2009(E), Gas turbines–
National Standard for Electricity subjects of this rule. Acceptance tests, Third edition
Meters—0.2 and 0.5 Accuracy Classes • ASTM D396–98, Standard (December 15, 2009) is cited in the final
(Approved August 31, 2010) is cited in Specification for Fuel Oils, covers rule for its guidance on determining
the final rule to assure consistent grades of fuel oil intended for use in performance characteristics of stationary
monitoring of electric output. This various types of fuel-oil-burning combustion turbines. ISO 2314 specifies
standard establishes the physical equipment under various climatic and guidelines and procedures for
aspects and acceptable performance operating conditions. These include preparing, conducting and reporting
criteria for 0.2 and 0.5 accuracy class Grades 1 and 2 (for use in domestic and thermal acceptance tests in order to
electricity meters. These meters would small industrial burners), Grade 4 determine and/or verify electrical power
be used to measure hourly electric (heavy distillate fuels or distillate/ output, mechanical power, thermal
output that would be used, in part, to residual fuel blends used in efficiency (heat rate), turbine exhaust
calculate compliance with an emissions commercial/industrial burners equipped gas energy and/or other performance
standard. for this viscosity range), and Grades 5 characteristics of open-cycle simple
• ASME PTC 22–2014, Gas Turbines: and 6 (residual fuels of increasing cycle combustion turbines using
Performance Test Codes, (Issued viscosity and boiling range, used in combustion systems supplied with
December 31, 2014), is cited in the final industrial burners). gaseous and/or liquid fuels as well as
rule to provide directions and rules for • ASTM D975–08a, Standard closed-cycle and semi closed-cycle
conduct and reporting of results of Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, simple cycle combustion turbines. It can
thermal performance tests for open covers seven grades of diesel fuel oils also be applied to simple cycle
cycle simple cycle combustion turbines. based on grade, sulfur content, and combustion turbines in combined cycle
The object is to determine the thermal volatility. These grades range from power plants or in connection with
performance of the combustion turbine Grade No. 1–D S15 (a special-purpose, other heat recovery systems. ISO 2314
when operating at test conditions and light middle distillate fuel for use in includes procedures for the
correcting these test results to specified diesel engine applications requiring a determination of the following
reference conditions. PTC 22 provides fuel with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum) and performance parameters, corrected to
explicit procedures for the higher volatility than that provided by the reference operating parameters:
determination of the following Grade No. 2–D S15 fuel) to Grade No. electrical or mechanical power output
performance results: corrected power, 4–D (a heavy distillate fuel, or a blend (gas power, if only gas is supplied),
corrected heat rate (efficiency), of distillate and residual oil, for use in thermal efficiency or heat rate; and
corrected exhaust flow, corrected low- and medium-speed diesel engines combustion turbine engine exhaust
exhaust energy, and corrected exhaust in applications involving predominantly energy (optionally exhaust temperature
temperature. Tests may be designed to constant speed and load). and flow).
satisfy different goals, including • ASTM D3699–08, Standard The EPA determined that the ANSI,
absolute performance and comparative Specification for Kerosine, including ASME, ASTM, and ISO standards,
performance. Appendix X1, (Approved September 1, notwithstanding the age of the
• ASME PTC 46–1996, Performance 2008) covers two grades of kerosene standards, are reasonably available
Test Code on Overall Plant Performance, suitable for use in critical kerosene because they are available for purchase
(Issued October 15, 1997), is cited in the burner applications: No. 1–K (a special from the following addresses: American
final rule to provide uniform test low sulfur grade kerosene suitable for National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25
methods and procedures for the use in non-flue-connected kerosene West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York,
determination of the thermal burner appliances and for use in wick- NY 10036–7422, +1.212.642.4900, info@
performance and electrical output of fed illuminating lamps) and No. 2–K (a ansi.org, www.ansi.org; American
heat-cycle electric power plants and regular grade kerosene suitable for use Society of Mechanical Engineers
combined heat and power units (PTC 46 in flue-connected burner appliances and (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York,
is not applicable to simple cycle for use in wick-fed illuminating lamps). NY 10016–5990, +1.800.843.2763,
combustion turbines). Test results It is used to define kerosene, which is customercare@asme.org, www.asme.org;
provide a measure of the performance of a type of uniform fuel listed in this rule. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
• ASTM D6751–11b, Standard Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
a power plant or thermal island at a

specified cycle configuration, operating Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959,
disposition and/or fixed power level, Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, +1.610.832.9500, www.astm.org;
and at a unique set of base reference including Appendices X1 through X3, International Organization for
conditions. PTC 46 provides explicit (Approved July 15, 2011) covers Standardization (ISO), Chemin de
biodiesel (B100) Grades S15 and S500 Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier,
1055 See Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– for use as a blend component with Geneva, Switzerland, +41.22.749.01.11,
0072–0032. middle distillate fuels. It is used to customerservice@iso.org, www.iso.org.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal For new sources, the EPA believes and (212), the introductory text of
Actions To Address Environmental that it is not practicable to assess paragraph (i);
Justice in Minority Populations and whether this action is likely to result in ■ b. Removing note 1 to paragraph (k)
Low-Income Populations and Executive new disproportionate and adverse and paragraph (l);
Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s effects on communities with ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (j)
Commitment to Environmental Justice environmental justice concerns, because through (u) as shown in the following
for All the location and number of new sources table:
The EPA believes that the human is unknown. However, the EPA believes
that the projected total cumulative Old paragraph New paragraph
health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to these actions result in or power sector reduction of 1,365 million
metric tons of CO2 emissions between (j) ............................... (k).
have the potential to result in (k) .............................. (m).
disproportionate and adverse human 2028 and 2047 will have a beneficial (m) through (o) .......... (n) through (p).
health or environmental effects on effect on populations at risk of climate (p) through (r) ............ (r) through (t).
communities with environmental justice change effects/impacts. Research (s) .............................. (q).
concerns. Baseline PM2.5 and ozone and indicates that racial, ethnic, and low (t) ............................... (j).
exposure analyses show that certain socioeconomic status, vulnerable (u) .............................. (l).
populations, such as residents of lifestages, and geographic locations may
redlined census tracts, those leave individuals uniquely vulnerable to ■ d. Revising newly-redesignated
climate change health impacts in the paragraphs (j) and (l), the introductory
linguistically isolated, Hispanic, Asian,
U.S. text to newly-redesignated paragraph
and those without a high school
The information supporting this (m), newly-redesignated paragraph (n),
diploma may experience higher ozone Executive Order review is contained in
and PM2.5 exposures as compared to the and the introductory text to newly-
section XII.E of this preamble and in redesignated paragraphs (o), (q), and (r).
national average. American Indian section 6, Environmental Justice The revisions read as follows:
populations, residents of Tribal Lands, Impacts of the RIA, which is in the
populations with life expectancy data public docket. § 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
unavailable, children, and unemployed * * * * *
populations may also experience K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) (d) * * *
disproportionately higher ozone This action is subject to the CRA, and (1) ANSI No. C12.20–2010 American
concentrations than the national the EPA will submit the rule report to National Standard for Electricity
average. Black populations may also each House of the Congress and to the Meters—0.2 and 0.5 Accuracy Classes
experience disproportionately higher Comptroller General of the United (Approved August 31, 2010); IBR
PM2.5 concentrations than the national States. This action meets the criteria set approved for §§ 60.5535(d); 60.5535a(d);
average. forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 60.5860b(a).
For existing sources, the EPA believes
XIV. Statutory Authority * * * * *
that this action is not likely to change (g) * * *
existing disproportionate and adverse The statutory authority for the actions (15) ASME PTC 22–2014, Gas
disparities among communities with EJ in this rulemaking is provided by Turbines: Performance Test Codes,
concerns regarding PM2.5 exposures in sections 111, 302, and 307(d)(1) of the (Issued December 31, 2014); IBR
all future years evaluated and ozone CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7602, approved for §§ 60.5580; 60.5580a.
exposures for most demographic groups 7607(d)(1)). These actions are subject to (16) ASME PTC 46–1996,
in the future years evaluated. However, section 307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Performance Test Code on Overall Plant
in 2035, under the illustrative 7607(d)). Performance, (Issued October 15,1997);
compliance scenarios analyzed, it is IBR approved for §§ 60.5580; 60.5580a.
possible that Asian populations, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Hispanic populations, and those Environmental protection, * * * * *
Administrative practice and procedures, (h) * * *
linguistically isolated, and those living
Air pollution control, Incorporation by (38) ASTM D388–99 (Reapproved
on Tribal land may experience a slight
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 2004) e1(ASTM D388–99R04), Standard
exacerbation of ozone exposure
requirements. Classification of Coals by Rank,
disparities at the national level (EJ
(Approved June 1, 2004); IBR approved
question 3). Additionally at the national Michael S. Regan, for §§ 60.41; 60.45(f); 60.41Da; 60.41b;
level, those living on Tribal land may
Administrator. 60.41c; 60.251; 60.5580; 60.5580a.
experience a slight exacerbation of
ozone exposure disparities in 2040 and For the reasons set forth in the * * * * *
a slight mitigation of ozone exposure preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part (43) ASTM D396–98, Standard
disparities in 2028 and 2030. At the 60 as follows: Specification for Fuel Oils, (Approved
state level, ozone exposure disparities April 10, 1998); IBR approved for
may be either mitigated or exacerbated PART 60—STANDARDS OF §§ 60.41b; 60.41c; 60.111(b); 60.111a(b);
for certain demographic groups PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 60.5580; 60.5580a.
analyzed, also to a small degree. As STATIONARY SOURCES * * * * *
discussed above, it is important to note (47) ASTM D975–08a, Standard
■ 1. The authority citation for part 60
that this analysis does not consider any Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils,
continues to read as follows:

potential impact of the meaningful (Approved October 1, 2008); IBR
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. approved for §§ 60.41b; 60.41c; 60.5580;
engagement provisions or all of the
other protections that are in place that 60.5580a.
Subpart A—General Provisions
can reduce the risks of localized * * * * *
emissions increases in a manner that is ■ 2. Section 60.17 is amended by: (145) ASTM D3699–08, Standard
protective of public health, safety, and ■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (g)(15) Specification for Kerosine, including
the environment. and (16), (h)(38), (43), (47), (145), (206), Appendix X1, (Approved September 1,
2008); IBR approved for §§ 60.41b; (2) ISO 2314:2009(E), Gas turbines– § 60.5509 What are my general
60.41c; 60.5580; 60.5580a. Acceptance tests, Third edition requirements for complying with this
(December 15, 2009), IBR approved for subpart?
* * * * *
(206) ASTM D6751–11b, Standard §§ 60.5580; 60.5580a. (a) Except as provided for in
Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend paragraph (b) of this section, the GHG
(3) ISO 8316: Measurement of Liquid
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, standards included in this subpart apply
Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by
including Appendices X1 through X3, to any steam generating unit or IGCC
Collection of the Liquid in a Volumetric
(Approved July 15, 2011), IBR approved that commenced construction after
Tank (1987–10–01)—First Edition, IBR
for §§ 60.41b, 60.41c, 60.5580, and January 8, 2014, or commenced
approved for § 60.107a(d).
60.5580a. modification or reconstruction after
(4) ISO 10715:1997(E), Natural gas— June 18, 2014, that meets the relevant
* * * * * Sampling guidelines, (First Edition,
(212) ASTM D7467–10, Standard applicability conditions in paragraphs
June 1, 1997), IBR approved for (a)(1) and (2) of this section. The GHG
Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil, § 60.4415(a).
Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20), including standards included in this subpart also
Appendices X1 through X3, (Approved (o) National Technical Information apply to any stationary combustion
August 1, 2010), IBR approved for Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, turbine that commenced construction
§§ 60.41b, 60.41c, 60.5580, and Springfield, Virginia 22161. after January 8, 2014, but on or before
60.5580a. * * * * * May 23, 2023, or commenced
reconstruction after June 18, 2014, but
* * * * * (q) Pacific Lumber Inspection Bureau
(i) Association of Official Analytical on or before May 23, 2023, that meets
(formerly West Coast Lumber Inspection
Chemists, 1111 North 19th Street, Suite the relevant applicability conditions in
Bureau), 1010 South 336th Street #210,
210, Arlington, VA 22209; phone: (301) paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
Federal Way, WA 98003; phone: (253) (1) Has a base load rating greater than
927–7077; website: https:// 835.3344; website: www.plib.org. 260 gigajoules per hour (GJ/h) (250
www.aoac.org/. * * * * * million British thermal units per hour
* * * * * (r) Technical Association of the Pulp (MMBtu/h)) of fossil fuel (either alone
(j) CSA Group (CSA) (formerly and Paper Industry (TAPPI), 15 or in combination with any other fuel);
Canadian Standards Association), 178 Technology Parkway South, Suite 115, and
Rexdale Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092; phone (2) Serves a generator or generators
Canada; phone: (800) 463–6727; (800) 332–8686; website: www.tappi.org. capable of selling greater than 25
website: https://shop.csa.ca. megawatts (MW) of electricity to a
(1) CSA B415.1–10, Performance * * * * *
utility power distribution system.
Testing of Solid-fuel-burning Heating (b) You are not subject to the
Subpart TTTT—Standards of
Appliances, (March 2010), IBR requirements of this subpart if your
Performance for Greenhouse Gas
approved for §§ 60.534; 60.5476. affected EGU meets any of the
(2) [Reserved] Emissions for Electric Generating
Units conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
* * * * * through (10) of this section.
(l) European Standards (EN), (1) Your EGU is a steam generating
■ 3. Section 60.5508 is revised to read
European Committee for unit or IGCC whose annual net-electric
as follows:
Standardization, Management Centre, sales have never exceeded one-third of
Avenue Marnix 17, B–1000 Brussels, § 60.5508 What is the purpose of this its potential electric output or 219,000
Belgium; phone: + 32 2 550 08 11; subpart? megawatt-hour (MWh), whichever is
website: https://www.en-standard.eu. greater, and is currently subject to a
(1) DIN EN 303–5:2012E (EN 303–5), This subpart establishes emission
standards and compliance schedules for federally enforceable permit condition
Heating boilers—Part 5: Heating boilers limiting annual net-electric sales to no
for solid fuels, manually and the control of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from a steam generating unit more than one-third of its potential
automatically stoked, nominal heat electric output or 219,000 MWh,
output of up to 500 kW—Terminology, or an integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) facility that commences whichever is greater.
requirements, testing and marking, (2) Your EGU is capable of deriving 50
(October 2012), IBR approved for construction after January 8, 2014,
commences reconstruction after June 18, percent or more of the heat input from
§ 60.5476. non-fossil fuel at the base load rating
(2) [Reserved] 2014, or commences modification after
January 8, 2014, but on or before May and is also subject to a federally
* * * * * enforceable permit condition limiting
(m) GPA Midstream Association, 6060 23, 2023. This subpart also establishes
emission standards and compliance the annual capacity factor for all fossil
American Plaza, Suite 700, Tulsa, OK fuels combined of 10 percent (0.10) or
74135; phone: (918) 493–3872; website: schedules for the control of GHG
emissions from a stationary combustion less.
www.gpamidstream.org. (3) Your EGU is a combined heat and
turbine that commences construction
* * * * * power unit that is subject to a federally
after January 8, 2014, but on or before
(n) International Organization for enforceable permit condition limiting
May 23, 2023, or commences
Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la Voie- annual net-electric sales to no more than
reconstruction after June 18, 2014, but
Creuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211 either 219,000 MWh or the product of
on or before May 23, 2023. An affected
Geneva 20, Switzerland; phone: + 41 22 the design efficiency and the potential
steam generating unit, IGCC, or
749 01 11; website: www.iso.org. electric output, whichever is greater.
stationary combustion turbine shall, for
(1) ISO 8178–4: 1996(E), (4) Your EGU serves a generator along
the purposes of this subpart, be referred
Reciprocating Internal Combustion with other steam generating unit(s),
to as an affected electric generating unit
Engines—Exhaust Emission IGCC, or stationary combustion
(EGU).
Measurement—part 4: Test Cycles for turbine(s) where the effective generation
Different Engine Applications, IBR ■ 4. Section 60.5509 is revised to read capacity (determined based on a
approved for § 60.4241(b). as follows: prorated output of the base load rating
of each steam generating unit, IGCC, or section, an owner or operator of a (2) Owners or operators of stationary
stationary combustion turbine) is 25 stationary combustion turbine may combustion turbines permitted to burn
MW or less. petition the Administrator in writing to fuels that do not have a consistent
(5) Your EGU is a municipal waste comply with the alternate applicable net chemical composition or that do not
combustor that is subject to subpart Eb energy output standard. If the have an emission rate of 69 kg/GJ (160
of this part. Administrator grants the petition, lb CO2/MMBtu) or less (e.g., non-
(6) Your EGU is a commercial or beginning on the date the Administrator uniform fuels such as residual oil and
industrial solid waste incineration unit grants the petition, the affected EGU non-jet fuel kerosene) must follow the
that is subject to subpart CCCC of this must comply with the applicable net monitoring, recordkeeping, and
part. energy output-based standard included reporting requirements necessary to
(7) Your EGU is a steam generating in this subpart. Your operating permit complete the heat input-based
unit or IGCC that undergoes a must include monitoring, calculations under this subpart.
modification resulting in an hourly recordkeeping, and reporting
increase in CO2 emissions (mass per methodologies based on the applicable ■ 6. Section 60.5525 is revised to read
hour) of 10 percent or less (2 significant net energy output standard. For the as follows:
figures). Modified units that are not remainder of this subpart, where the § 60.5525 What are my general
subject to the requirements of this term ‘‘gross or net energy output’’ is requirements for complying with this
subpart pursuant to this paragraph (b)(7) used, the term that applies to you is subpart?
continue to be existing units under ‘‘net energy output.’’ Owners or
section 111 with respect to CO2 Combustion turbines qualifying under
operators complying with the net
emissions standards. § 60.5520(d)(1) are not subject to any
output-based standard must petition the
(8) Your EGU is a stationary requirements in this section other than
Administrator to switch back to
combustion turbine that is not capable the requirement to maintain fuel
complying with the gross energy output-
of combusting natural gas (e.g., not purchase records for permitted fuel(s).
based standard.
connected to a natural gas pipeline). (d) Owners or operators of a stationary For all other affected sources,
(9) Your EGU derives greater than 50 combustion turbine that maintain compliance with the applicable CO2
percent of the heat input from an records of electric sales to demonstrate emission standard of this subpart shall
industrial process that does not produce that the stationary combustion turbine is be determined on a 12-operating-month
any electrical or mechanical output or subject to a heat input-based standard in rolling average basis. See table 1 or 2 to
useful thermal output that is used table 2 to this subpart that are only this subpart for the applicable CO2
outside the affected EGU. permitted to burn one or more uniform emission standards.
(10) Your EGU is subject to subpart fuels, as described in paragraph (d)(1) of (a) You must be in compliance with
TTTTa of this part. this section, are only subject to the the emission standards in this subpart
■ 5. Section 60.5520 is revised to read monitoring requirements in paragraph that apply to your affected EGU at all
as follows: (d)(1). Owners or operators of all other times. However, you must determine
§ 60.5520 What CO2 emissions standard stationary combustion turbines that compliance with the emission standards
must I meet? maintain records of electric sales to only at the end of the applicable
(a) For each affected EGU subject to demonstrate that the stationary operating month, as provided in
this subpart, you must not discharge combustion turbines are subject to a paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
from the affected EGU any gases that heat input-based standard in table 2 are (1) For each affected EGU subject to
contain CO2 in excess of the applicable only subject to the requirements in a CO2 emissions standard based on a 12-
CO2 emission standard specified in table paragraph (d)(2) of this section. operating-month rolling average, you
1 or 2 to this subpart, consistent with (1) Owners or operators of stationary must determine compliance monthly by
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this combustion turbines that are only calculating the average CO2 emissions
section, as applicable. permitted to burn fuels with a rate for the affected EGU at the end of
(b) Except as specified in paragraphs consistent chemical composition (i.e., the initial and each subsequent 12-
(c) and (d) of this section, you must uniform fuels) that result in a consistent operating-month period.
comply with the applicable gross or net emission rate of 69 kilograms per
(2) Consistent with § 60.5520(d)(2), if
energy output standard, and your gigajoule (kg/GJ) (160 lb CO2/MMBtu) or
your affected stationary combustion
operating permit must include less are not subject to any monitoring or
turbine is subject to an input-based CO2
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under this
emissions standard, you must determine
reporting methodologies based on the subpart. These fuels include, but are not
the total heat input in GJ or MMBtu
applicable gross or net energy output limited to hydrogen, natural gas,
from natural gas (HTIPng) and the total
standard. For the remainder of this methane, butane, butylene, ethane,
heat input from all other fuels combined
subpart (for sources that do not qualify ethylene, propane, naphtha, propylene,
(HTIPo) using one of the methods under
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this jet fuel kerosene, No. 1 fuel oil, No. 2
§ 60.5535(d)(2). You must then use the
section), where the term ‘‘gross or net fuel oil, and biodiesel. Stationary
following equation to determine the
energy output’’ is used, the term that combustion turbines qualifying under
applicable emissions standard during
applies to you is ‘‘gross energy output.’’ this paragraph are only required to
the compliance period:
(c) As an alternate to meeting the maintain purchase records for permitted
requirements in paragraph (b) of this fuels. Equation 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)
CO2 emissions standard = (so x HTIPn9) + (69 x HTJP0 )

HTIPng + HTJP0
ER09my24.055</GPH>
Where: § 60.5555(c)(3)(ii)(B) (for units that are affected EGU(s) according to paragraphs
CO2 emission standard = the emission not subject to the Acid Rain Program). (b)(1) through (5) of this section, or, if
standard during the compliance period The first month of the initial applicable, as provided in paragraph (c)
in units of kg/GJ (or lb/MMBtu). compliance period shall be the first of this section.
HTIPng = the heat input in GJ (or MMBtu) operating month (as defined in (1) For an affected EGU that combusts
from natural gas. § 60.5580) after the calendar month in coal you must, and for all other affected
HTIPo = the heat input in GJ (or MMBtu)
which the rule becomes effective; or EGUs you may, install, certify, operate,
from all fuels other than natural gas.
50 = allowable emission rate in kg/GJ for heat (ii) If the date on which emissions maintain, and calibrate a CO2
input derived from natural gas (use 120 reporting is required to begin under 40 continuous emission monitoring system
if electing to demonstrate compliance CFR 75.64(a) occurs on or after October (CEMS) to directly measure and record
using lb CO2/MMBtu). 23, 2015, then the first month of the hourly average CO2 concentrations in
69 = allowable emission rate in kg/GJ for heat initial compliance period shall be the the affected EGU exhaust gases emitted
input derived from all fuels other than first operating month (as defined in to the atmosphere, and a flow
natural gas (use 160 if electing to § 60.5580) after the calendar month in monitoring system to measure hourly
demonstrate compliance using lb CO2/ which emissions reporting is required to average stack gas flow rates, according
MMBtu).
begin under § 60.5555(c)(3)(ii)(A). to 40 CFR 75.10(a)(3)(i). As an
(b) At all times you must operate and (3) For a modified or reconstructed alternative to direct measurement of
maintain each affected EGU, including EGU that becomes subject to this CO2 concentration, provided that your
associated equipment and monitors, in subpart, the first month of the initial EGU does not use carbon separation
a manner consistent with safety and compliance period shall be the first (e.g., carbon capture and storage), you
good air pollution control practice. The operating month (as defined in may use data from a certified oxygen
Administrator will determine if you are § 60.5580) after the calendar month in (O2) monitor to calculate hourly average
using consistent operation and which emissions reporting is required to CO2 concentrations, in accordance with
maintenance procedures based on begin under § 60.5555(c)(3)(iii). 40 CFR 75.10(a)(3)(iii). If you measure
information available to the (4) Electric sales by your affected CO2 concentration on a dry basis, you
Administrator that may include, but is facility generated when it operated must also install, certify, operate,
not limited to, fuel use records, during a system emergency as defined maintain, and calibrate a continuous
monitoring results, review of operation in § 60.5580 are excluded for moisture monitoring system, according
and maintenance procedures and applicability with the base load to 40 CFR 75.11(b). Alternatively, you
records, review of reports required by standard if you can sufficiently provide may either use an appropriate fuel-
this subpart, and inspection of the EGU. the documentation listed in § 60.5560(i). specific default moisture value from 40
(c) Within 30 days after the end of the ■ 7. Section 60.5535 is amended by CFR 75.11(b) or submit a petition to the
initial compliance period (i.e., no more revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(3), (d)(1), Administrator under 40 CFR 75.66 for a
than 30 days after the first 12-operating- (e), and (f) to read as follows: site-specific default moisture value.
month compliance period), you must (2) For each continuous monitoring
make an initial compliance § 60.5535 How do I monitor and collect system that you use to determine the
data to demonstrate compliance? CO2 mass emissions, you must meet the
determination for your affected EGU(s)
with respect to the applicable emissions (a) Combustion turbines qualifying applicable certification and quality
standard in table 1 or 2 to this subpart, under § 60.5520(d)(1) are not subject to assurance procedures in 40 CFR 75.20
in accordance with the requirements in any requirements in this section other and appendices A and B to 40 CFR part
this subpart. The first operating month than the requirement to maintain fuel 75.
included in the initial 12-operating- purchase records for permitted fuel(s). If (3) You must use only unadjusted
month compliance period shall be your combustion turbine uses non- exhaust gas volumetric flow rates to
determined as follows: uniform fuels as specified under determine the hourly CO2 mass
(1) For an affected EGU that § 60.5520(d)(2), you must monitor heat emissions rate from the affected EGU;
commences commercial operation (as input in accordance with paragraph you must not apply the bias adjustment
defined in 40 CFR 72.2) on or after (c)(1) of this section, and you must factors described in Section 7.6.5 of
October 23, 2015, the first month of the monitor CO2 emissions in accordance appendix A to 40 CFR part 75 to the
initial compliance period shall be the with either paragraph (b), (c)(2), or (c)(5) exhaust gas flow rate data.
first operating month (as defined in of this section. For all other affected (4) You must select an appropriate
§ 60.5580) after the calendar month in sources, you must prepare a monitoring reference method to setup (characterize)
which emissions reporting is required to plan to quantify the hourly CO2 mass the flow monitor and to perform the on-
begin under: emission rate (tons/h), in accordance going RATAs, in accordance with 40
(i) Section 60.5555(c)(3)(i), for units with the applicable provisions in 40 CFR part 75. If you use a Type-S pitot
subject to the Acid Rain Program; or CFR 75.53(g) and (h). The electronic tube or a pitot tube assembly for the
(ii) Section 60.5555(c)(3)(ii)(A), for portion of the monitoring plan must be flow RATAs, you must calibrate the
units that are not in the Acid Rain submitted using the ECMPS Client Tool pitot tube or pitot tube assembly; you
Program. and must be in place prior to reporting may not use the 0.84 default Type-S
(2) For an affected EGU that has emissions data and/or the results of pitot tube coefficient specified in
commenced commercial operation (as monitoring system certification tests Method 2.
defined in 40 CFR 72.2) prior to October under this subpart. The monitoring plan (5) Calculate the hourly CO2 mass
23, 2015: must be updated as necessary. emissions (kg) as described in

(i) If the date on which emissions Monitoring plan submittals must be paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
reporting is required to begin under 40 made by the Designated Representative section. Perform this calculation only
CFR 75.64(a) has passed prior to (DR), the Alternate DR, or a delegated for ‘‘valid operating hours’’, as defined
October 23, 2015, emissions reporting agent of the DR (see § 60.5555(d) and in § 60.5540(a)(1).
shall begin according to (e)). (i) Begin with the hourly CO2 mass
§ 60.5555(c)(3)(i) (for Acid Rain program (b) You must determine the hourly emission rate (tons/h), obtained either
units), or according to CO2 mass emissions in kg from your from equation F–11 in appendix F to 40
CFR part 75 (if CO2 concentration is electric generator, you must apportion accurate estimation of emissions
measured on a wet basis), or by the combined hourly gross or net energy regulated under this part.
following the procedure in section 4.2 of output to the individual affected EGUs * * * * *
appendix F to part 75 (if CO2 according to the fraction of the total ■ 8. Section 60.5540 is revised to read
concentration is measured on a dry steam load and/or direct mechanical as follows:
basis). energy contributed by each EGU to the
(ii) Next, multiply each hourly CO2 electric generator. Alternatively, if the § 60.5540 How do I demonstrate
mass emission rate by the EGU or stack EGUs are identical, you may apportion compliance with my CO2 emissions
operating time in hours (as defined in the combined hourly gross or net standard and determine excess emissions?
40 CFR 72.2), to convert it to tons of electrical load to the individual EGUs (a) In accordance with § 60.5520, if
CO2. according to the fraction of the total heat you are subject to an output-based
(iii) Finally, multiply the result from input contributed by each EGU. You emission standard or you burn non-
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section by may also elect to develop, demonstrate, uniform fuels as specified in
907.2 to convert it from tons of CO2 to and provide information satisfactory to § 60.5520(d)(2), you must demonstrate
kg. Round off to the nearest kg. the Administrator on alternate methods compliance with the applicable CO2
(iv) The hourly CO2 tons/h values and to apportion the gross energy output. emission standard in table 1 or 2 to this
EGU (or stack) operating times used to The Administrator may approve such subpart as required in this section. For
calculate CO2 mass emissions are alternate methods for apportioning the the initial and each subsequent 12-
required to be recorded under 40 CFR gross energy output whenever the operating-month rolling average
75.57(e) and must be reported demonstration ensures accurate compliance period, you must follow the
electronically under 40 CFR 75.64(a)(6). estimation of emissions regulated under procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through
You must use these data to calculate the this part. (8) of this section to calculate the CO2
hourly CO2 mass emissions. mass emissions rate for your affected
(f) In accordance with §§ 60.13(g) and
(c) * * * EGU(s) in units of the applicable
(3) For each ‘‘valid operating hour’’ 60.5520, if two or more affected EGUs
that implement the continuous emission emissions standard (e.g., either kg/MWh
(as defined in § 60.5540(a)(1), multiply or kg/GJ). You must use the hourly CO2
the hourly tons/h CO2 mass emission monitoring provisions in paragraph (b)
of this section share a common exhaust mass emissions calculated under
rate from paragraph (c)(2) of this section § 60.5535(b) or (c), as applicable, and
by the EGU or stack operating time in gas stack you must monitor hourly CO2
mass emissions in accordance with one either the generating load data from
hours (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2), to § 60.5535(d)(1) for output-based
convert it to tons of CO2. Then, multiply of the following procedures:
(1) If the EGUs are subject to the same calculations or the heat input data from
the result by 907.2 to convert from tons § 60.5535(d)(2) for heat-input-based
of CO2 to kg. Round off to the nearest emissions standard in table 1 or 2 to this
subpart, you may monitor the hourly calculations. Combustion turbines firing
two significant figures. non-uniform fuels that contain CO2
* * * * * CO2 mass emissions at the common
stack in lieu of monitoring each EGU prior to combustion (e.g., blast furnace
(d) * * * gas or landfill gas) may sample the fuel
(1) If you operate a source subject to separately. If you choose this option, the
hourly gross or net energy output stream to determine the quantity of CO2
an emissions standard established on an present in the fuel prior to combustion
output basis (e.g., lb of CO2 per gross or (electric, thermal, and/or mechanical, as
applicable) must be the sum of the and exclude this portion of the CO2
net MWh of energy output), you must mass emissions from compliance
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate hourly loads for the individual affected
EGUs and you must express the determinations.
a sufficient number of watt meters to (1) Each compliance period shall
continuously measure and record the operating time as ‘‘stack operating
include only ‘‘valid operating hours’’ in
hourly gross electric output or net hours’’ (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2). If
the compliance period, i.e., operating
electric output, as applicable, from the you attain compliance with the
hours for which:
affected EGU(s). These measurements applicable emissions standard in (i) ‘‘Valid data’’ (as defined in
must be performed using 0.2 class § 60.5520 at the common stack, each § 60.5580) are obtained for all of the
electricity metering instrumentation and affected EGU sharing the stack is in parameters used to determine the hourly
calibration procedures as specified compliance. CO2 mass emissions (kg) and, if a heat
under ANSI No. C12.20–2010 (2) As an alternative, or if the EGUs input-based standard applies, all the
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). are subject to different emission parameters used to determine total heat
For a combined heat and power (CHP) standards in table 1 or 2 to this subpart, input for the hour are also obtained; and
EGU, as defined in § 60.5580, you must you must either: (ii) The corresponding hourly gross or
also install, calibrate, maintain, and (i) Monitor each EGU separately by net energy output value is also valid
operate meters to continuously (i.e., measuring the hourly CO2 mass data (Note: For hours with no useful
hour-by-hour) determine and record the emissions prior to mixing in the output, zero is considered to be a valid
total useful thermal output. For process common stack or value).
steam applications, you will need to (ii) Apportion the CO2 mass emissions (2) You must exclude operating hours
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate based on the unit’s load contribution to in which:
meters to continuously determine and the total load associated with the (i) The substitute data provisions of
record the hourly steam flow rate, common stack and the appropriate F- 40 CFR 75 are applied for any of the
temperature, and pressure. Your plan
factors. You may also elect to develop, parameters used to determine the hourly
shall ensure that you install, calibrate, demonstrate, and provide information CO2 mass emissions or, if a heat input-
maintain, and operate meters to record satisfactory to the Administrator on based standard applies, for any
each component of the determination, alternate methods to apportion the CO2 parameters used to determine the hourly
hour-by-hour. emissions. The Administrator may heat input;
* * * * * approve such alternate methods for (ii) An exceedance of the full-scale
(e) Consistent with § 60.5520, if two apportioning the CO2 emissions range of a continuous emission
or more affected EGUs serve a common whenever the demonstration ensures monitoring system occurs for any of the
parameters used to determine the hourly calculate the total CO2 mass emissions, section, but there is no (i.e., zero) gross
CO2 mass emissions or, if applicable, to you must determine Pgross/net (the electrical, mechanical, or useful thermal
determine the hourly heat input; or corresponding hourly gross or net output, you must use that hour in the
(iii) The total gross or net energy energy output in MWh) according to the compliance determination. For hours or
output (Pgross/net) or, if applicable, the procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and partial hours where the gross electric
total heat input is unavailable. (ii) of this section, as appropriate for the output is equal to or less than the
(3) For each compliance period, at type of affected EGU(s). For an operating auxiliary loads, net electric output shall
least 95 percent of the operating hours be counted as zero for this calculation.
hour in which a valid CO2 mass
in the compliance period must be valid (i) Calculate Pgross/net for your affected
emissions value is determined
operating hours, as defined in paragraph EGU using the following equation. All
(a)(1) of this section. according to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section, if there is no gross or net terms in the equation must be expressed
(4) You must calculate the total CO2 in units of MWh. To convert each
mass emissions by summing the valid electrical output, but there is
mechanical or useful thermal output, hourly gross or net energy output
hourly CO2 mass emissions values from (consistent with § 60.5520) value
§ 60.5535 for all of the valid operating you must still determine the gross or net
energy output for that hour. In addition, reported under 40 CFR part 75 to MWh,
hours in the compliance period. multiply by the corresponding EGU or
(5) For each valid operating hour of for an operating hour in which a valid
stack operating time.
the compliance period that was used in CO2 mass emissions value is determined
paragraph (a)(4) of this section to according to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this Equation 1 to paragraph (a)(5)(i)
Where: the performance of the affected EGU in energy output for the affected EGU’s
Pgross/net = In accordance with § 60.5520, gross MWh. compliance period by summing the
or net energy output of your affected TDF = Electric Transmission and Distribution hourly gross or net energy output values
EGU for each valid operating hour (as Factor of 0.95 for a combined heat and
power affected EGU where at least 20.0
for the affected EGU that you
defined in § 60.5540(a)(1)) in MWh.
(Pe)ST = Electric energy output plus percent of the total gross or net energy determined under paragraph (a)(5) of
mechanical energy output (if any) of output consists of electric or direct this section for all of the valid operating
steam turbines in MWh. mechanical output and 20.0 percent of hours in the applicable compliance
(Pe)CT = Electric energy output plus the total gross or net energy output period.
mechanical energy output (if any) of consists of useful thermal output on a
stationary combustion turbine(s) in 12-operating-month rolling average basis,
(ii) If you are subject to a heat input-
MWh. or 1.0 for all other affected EGUs. based standard, you must calculate the
(Pe)IE = Electric energy output plus total heat input for each fuel fired
mechanical energy output (if any) of (ii) If applicable to your affected EGU during the compliance period. The
your affected EGU’s integrated (for example, for combined heat and calculation of total heat input for each
equipment that provides electricity or power), you must calculate (Pt)PS using individual fuel must include all valid
mechanical energy to the affected EGU or the following equation: operating hours and must also be
auxiliary equipment in MWh.
(Pe)FW = Electric energy used to power boiler Equation 2 to Paragraph (a)(5)(ii) consistent with any fuel-specific
feedwater pumps at steam generating procedures specified within your
units in MWh. Not applicable to selected monitoring option under
stationary combustion turbines, IGCC § 60.5535(d)(2).
EGUs, or EGUs complying with a net Where:
energy output based standard. (7) If you are subject to an output-
(Pe)A = Electric energy used for any auxiliary Qm = Measured useful thermal output flow in based standard, you must calculate the
loads in MWh. Not applicable for kg (lb) for the operating hour. CO2 mass emissions rate for the affected
H = Enthalpy of the useful thermal output at
determining Pgross. EGU(s) (kg/MWh) by dividing the total
(Pt)PS = Useful thermal output of steam measured temperature and pressure
(relative to SATP conditions or the CO2 mass emissions value calculated
(measured relative to standard ambient according to the procedures in
temperature and pressure (SATP) energy in the condensate return line, as
conditions, as applicable) that is used for applicable) in Joules per kilogram (J/kg) paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the
applications that do not generate (or Btu/lb). total gross or net energy output value
additional electricity, produce CF = Conversion factor of 3.6 × 109 J/MWh calculated according to the procedures
mechanical energy output, or enhance or 3.413 × 106 Btu/MWh. in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section.
the performance of the affected EGU. (6) Sources complying with energy Round off the result to two significant
This is calculated using the equation figures if the calculated value is less
output-based standards must calculate
specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this
section in MWh. the basis (i.e., denominator) of their than 1,000; round the result to three
(Pt)HR = Non steam useful thermal output actual 12-operating month emission rate significant figures if the calculated value
(measured relative to SATP conditions, in accordance with paragraph (a)(6)(i) of is greater than 1,000. If you are subject
as applicable) from heat recovery that is this section. Sources complying with to a heat input-based standard, you
used for applications other than steam heat input based standards must must calculate the CO2 mass emissions
generation or performance enhancement calculate the basis of their actual 12- rate for the affected EGU(s) (kg/GJ or lb/
of the affected EGU in MWh. operating month emission rate in MMBtu) by dividing the total CO2 mass
ER09my24.056</GPH>
(Pt)IE = Useful thermal output (relative to

accordance with paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of emissions value calculated according to
SATP conditions, as applicable) from
any integrated equipment is used for this section. the procedures in paragraph (a)(4) of
applications that do not generate (i) In accordance with § 60.5520 if you this section by the total heat input
additional steam, electricity, produce are subject to an output-based standard, calculated according to the procedures
ER09my24.064</GPH>
mechanical energy output, or enhance you must calculate the total gross or net in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section.
Round off the result to two significant making this determination, the head and power unit or CHP unit’’,
figures. Administrator shall consider (among ‘‘Design efficiency’’, ‘‘Distillate oil’’,
(b) In accordance with § 60.5520, to other factors) operating history of the ‘‘ISO conditions’’, ‘‘Net electric sales’’,
demonstrate compliance with the technology, whether the technology will and ‘‘System emergency’’.
applicable CO2 emission standard, for increase emissions or other releases of The revisions and republications read
the initial and each subsequent 12- any pollutant other than CO2, and as follows:
operating-month compliance period, the permanence of the CO2 storage. The
CO2 mass emissions rate for your § 60.5580 What definitions apply to this
Administrator may test the system or
subpart?
affected EGU must be determined require the applicant to perform any
according to the procedures specified in tests considered by the Administrator to * * * * *
paragraph (a)(1) through (8) of this be necessary to show the technology’s Annual capacity factor means the
section and must be less than or equal effectiveness, safety, and ability to store ratio between the actual heat input to an
to the applicable CO2 emissions captured CO2 without release. The EGU during a calendar year and the
standard in table 1 or 2 to this subpart, Administrator may grant conditional potential heat input to the EGU had it
or the emissions standard calculated in approval of a technology, with the been operated for 8,760 hours during a
accordance with § 60.5525(a)(2). approval conditioned on monitoring calendar year at the base load rating.
and reporting of operations. The Actual and potential heat input derived
■ 9. Section 60.5555 is amended by
Administrator may also withdraw from non-combustion sources (e.g., solar
revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v), (f),
approval of the waiver on evidence of thermal) are not included when
and (g) to read as follows.
releases of CO2 or other pollutants. The calculating the annual capacity factor.
§ 60.5555 What reports must I submit and Administrator will provide notice to the Base load rating means the maximum
when? public of any application under this amount of heat input (fuel) that an EGU
(a) * * * provision and provide public notice of can combust on a steady state basis plus
(2) * * * any proposed action on a petition before the maximum amount of heat input
(iv) The percentage of valid operating the Administrator takes final action. derived from non-combustion source
hours in each 12-operating-month (e.g., solar thermal), as determined by
■ 10. Section 60.5560 is amended by
compliance period described in the physical design and characteristics
adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as
paragraph (a)(1) of this section (i.e., the of the EGU at International Organization
follows:
total number of valid operating hours for Standardization (ISO) conditions.
(as defined in § 60.5540(a)(1)) in that § 60.5560 What records must I maintain? For a stationary combustion turbine,
period divided by the total number of * * * * * base load rating includes the heat input
operating hours in that period, (h) For stationary combustion from duct burners.
multiplied by 100 percent); turbines, you must keep records of Coal means all solid fuels classified as
(v) Consistent with § 60.5520, the CO2 electric sales to determine the anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous,
emissions standard (as identified in applicable subcategory. or lignite by ASTM International in
table 1 or 2 to this subpart) with which (i) You must keep the records listed ASTM D388–99R04 (incorporated by
your affected EGU must comply; and in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this reference, see § 60.17), coal refuse, and
* * * * * section to demonstrate that your petroleum coke. Synthetic fuels derived
(f) If your affected EGU captures CO2 affected facility operated during a from coal for the purpose of creating
to meet the applicable emissions system emergency. useful heat, including, but not limited
standard, you must report in accordance (1) Documentation that the system to, solvent-refined coal, gasified coal
with the requirements of 40 CFR part emergency to which the affected EGU (not meeting the definition of natural
98, subpart PP, and either: was responding was in effect from the gas), coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water
(1) Report in accordance with the entity issuing the alert, and mixtures are included in this definition
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart documentation of the exact duration of for the purposes of this subpart.
RR, or subpart VV, if injection occurs the event; Combined cycle unit means a
on-site; (2) Documentation from the entity stationary combustion turbine from
(2) Transfer the captured CO2 to an issuing the alert that the system which the heat from the turbine exhaust
EGU or facility that reports in emergency included the affected source/ gases is recovered by a heat recovery
accordance with the requirements of 40 region where the affected facility was steam generating unit (HRSG) to
CFR part 98, subpart RR, or subpart VV, located, and generate additional electricity.
if injection occurs off-site; or (3) Documentation that the affected Combined heat and power unit or
(3) Transfer the captured CO2 to a facility was instructed to increase CHP unit, (also known as
facility that has received an innovative output beyond the planned day-ahead ‘‘cogeneration’’) means an electric
technology waiver from EPA pursuant or other near-term expected output and/ generating unit that simultaneously
to paragraph (g) of this section. or was asked to remain in operation produces both electric (or mechanical)
(g) Any person may request the outside its scheduled dispatch during and useful thermal output from the
Administrator to issue a waiver of the emergency conditions from a Reliability same primary energy source.
requirement that captured CO2 from an Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or Design efficiency means the rated
affected EGU be transferred to a facility Independent System Operator/Regional overall net efficiency (e.g., electric plus
reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart Transmission Organization. useful thermal output) on a lower
heating value basis at the base load
RR, or subpart VV. To receive a waiver, ■ 11. Section 60.5580 is amended by:
the applicant must demonstrate to the ■ a. Revising the definitions for rating, at ISO conditions, and at the
Administrator that its technology will ‘‘Annual capacity factor’’, and ‘‘Base maximum useful thermal output (e.g.,
store captured CO2 as effectively as load rating’’; CHP unit with condensing steam
geologic sequestration, and that the ■ b. Revising and republishing the turbines would determine the design
proposed technology will not cause or definition for ‘‘Coal’’; and efficiency at the maximum level of
contribute to an unreasonable risk to ■ c. Revising the definitions for extraction and/or bypass). Design
public health, welfare, or safety. In ‘‘Combined cycle unit’’, ‘‘Combined efficiency shall be determined using one
of the following methods: ASME PTC and 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi, 1 atm) System emergency means periods
22–2014, ASME PTC 46–1996, ISO pressure. when the Reliability Coordinator has
2314:2009(E) (all incorporated by * * * * * declared an Energy Emergency Alert
reference, see § 60.17), or an alternative Net-electric sales means: level 2 or 3 as defined by NERC
approved by the Administrator. (1) The gross electric sales to the Reliability Standard EOP–011–2 or its
utility power distribution system minus successor.
Distillate oil means fuel oils that
purchased power; or
comply with the specifications for fuel (2) For combined heat and power * * * * *
oil numbers 1 and 2, as defined in facilities, where at least 20.0 percent of ■ 12. Table 1 to subpart TTTT is revised
ASTM D396–98 (incorporated by the total gross energy output consists of to read as follows:
reference, see § 60.17); diesel fuel oil electric or direct mechanical output and
numbers 1 and 2, as defined in ASTM at least 20.0 percent of the total gross Table 1 to Subpart TTTT of Part 60—
D975–08a (incorporated by reference, energy output consists of useful thermal CO2 Emission Standards for Affected
see § 60.17); kerosene, as defined in output on a 12-operating month basis, Steam Generating Units and Integrated
ASTM D3699–08 (incorporated by the gross electric sales to the utility Gasification Combined Cycle Facilities
reference, see § 60.17); biodiesel as power distribution system minus That Commenced Construction After
defined in ASTM D6751–11b purchased power of the thermal host January 8, 2014, and Reconstruction or
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17); facility or facilities. Modification After June 18, 2014
or biodiesel blends as defined in ASTM (3) Electricity supplied to other
D7467–10 (incorporated by reference, facilities that produce electricity to [Note: Numerical values of 1,000 or
see § 60.17). offset auxiliary loads are included when greater have a minimum of 3 significant
calculating net-electric sales. figures and numerical values of less
* * * * * (4) Electric sales during a system than 1,000 have a minimum of 2
ISO conditions means 288 Kelvin (15 emergency are not included when significant figures]
°C, 59 °F), 60 percent relative humidity calculating net-electric sales.
* * * * *
Affected EGU CO2 Emission standard
Newly constructed steam generating unit or integrated gasification 640 kg CO2/MWh of gross energy output (1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross).
combined cycle (IGCC).
Reconstructed steam generating unit or IGCC that has base load rating 910 kg CO2/MWh of gross energy output (2,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross).
of 2,100 GJ/h (2,000 MMBtu/h) or less.
Reconstructed steam generating unit or IGCC that has a base load rat- 820 kg CO2/MWh of gross energy output (1,800 lb CO2/MWh-gross).
ing greater than 2,100 GJ/h (2,000 MMBtu/h).
Modified steam generating unit or IGCC ................................................. A unit-specific emission limit determined by the unit’s best historical an-
nual CO2 emission rate (from 2002 to the date of the modification);
the emission limit will be no lower than:
(1) 820 kg CO2/MWh of gross energy output (1,800 lb CO2/MWh-
gross) for units with a base load rating greater than 2,100 GJ/h
(2,000 MMBtu/h); or
(2) 910 kg CO2/MWh of gross energy output (2,000 lb CO2/MWh-
gross) for units with a base load rating of 2,100 GJ/h (2,000 MMBtu/
h) or less.
■ 13. Table 2 to subpart TTTT is revised Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 60— figures and numerical values of less
to read as follows: CO2 Emission Standards for Affected than 1,000 have a minimum of 2
Stationary Combustion Turbines That significant figures]
Commenced Construction After January
8, 2014, and Reconstruction After June
18, 2014 (Net Energy Output-Based
Standards Applicable as Approved by
the Administrator)
[Note: Numerical values of 1,000 or
greater have a minimum of 3 significant
Newly constructed or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine that 450 kg CO2/MWh (1,000 lb CO2/MWh) of gross energy output; or
supplies more than its design efficiency or 50 percent, whichever is 470 kg CO2/MWh (1,030 lb CO2/MWh) of net energy output.
less, times its potential electric output as net-electric sales on both a
12-operating month and a 3-year rolling average basis and combusts

more than 90% natural gas on a heat input basis on a 12-operating-
month rolling average basis.
Newly constructed or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine that 50 kg CO2/GJ (120 lb CO2/MMBtu) of heat input.
supplies its design efficiency or 50 percent, whichever is less, times
its potential electric output or less as net-electric sales on either a
12-operating month or a 3-year rolling average basis and combusts
more than 90% natural gas on a heat input basis on a 12-operating-
month rolling average basis].
Newly constructed and reconstructed stationary combustion turbine that Between 50 to 69 kg CO2/GJ (120 to 160 lb CO2/MMBtu) of heat input
combusts 90% or less natural gas on a heat input basis on a 12-op- as determined by the procedures in § 60.5525.
erating-month rolling average basis.
■ 14. Table 3 to subpart TTTT is revised Table 3 to Subpart TTTT of Part 60—
to read as follows: Applicability of Subpart A of Part 60
(General Provisions) to Subpart TTTT
General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart TTTT Explanation
§ 60.1 ................................... Applicability .............................................. Yes.

§ 60.2 ................................... Definitions ................................................ Yes .................................... Additional terms defined in § 60.5580.
§ 60.3 ................................... Units and Abbreviations .......................... Yes.
§ 60.4 ................................... Address ................................................... Yes .................................... Does not apply to information reported
electronically through ECMPS. Dupli-
cate submittals are not required.
§ 60.5 ................................... Determination of construction or modi- Yes.
fication.
§ 60.6 ................................... Review of plans ....................................... Yes.
§ 60.7 ................................... Notification and Recordkeeping .............. Yes .................................... Only the requirements to submit the noti-
fications in § 60.7(a)(1) and (3) and to
keep records of malfunctions in
§ 60.7(b), if applicable.
§ 60.8(a) ............................... Performance tests ................................... No.
§ 60.8(b) ............................... Performance test method alternatives .... Yes .................................... Administrator can approve alternate
methods
§ 60.8(c)–(f) .......................... Conducting performance tests ................ No.
§ 60.9 ................................... Availability of Information ........................ Yes.
§ 60.10 ................................. State authority ......................................... Yes.
§ 60.11 ................................. Compliance with standards and mainte- No.
nance requirements.
§ 60.12 ................................. Circumvention .......................................... Yes.
§ 60.13 (a)–(h), (j) ................ Monitoring requirements .......................... No ...................................... All monitoring is done according to part
75.
§ 60.13 (i) ............................. Monitoring requirements .......................... Yes .................................... Administrator can approve alternative
monitoring procedures or requirements
§ 60.14 ................................. Modification ............................................. Yes (steam generating
units and IGCC facilities).
No (stationary combustion
turbines).
§ 60.15 ................................. Reconstruction ......................................... Yes.
§ 60.16 ................................. Priority list ................................................ No.
§ 60.17 ................................. Incorporations by reference .................... Yes.
§ 60.18 ................................. General control device requirements ...... No.
§ 60.19 ................................. General notification and reporting re- Yes .................................... Does not apply to notifications under
quirements. § 75.61 or to information reported
through ECMPS.
■ 15. Add subpart TTTTa to read as Emissions Standards Notification, Reports, and Records
follows: 60.5515a Which pollutants are regulated by 60.5550a What notifications must I submit
this subpart? and when?
Subpart TTTTa—Standards of Performance 60.5555a What reports must I submit and
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Modified 60.5520a What CO2 emissions standard
must I meet? when?
Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generating Units 60.5560a What records must I maintain?
and New Construction and Reconstruction 60.5525a What are my general requirements
60.5565a In what form and how long must
Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric for complying with this subpart?
I keep my records?
Generating Units Monitoring and Compliance Determination Other Requirements and Information
Applicability Procedures
60.5570a What parts of the general
Sec. 60.5535a How do I monitor and collect data provisions apply to my affected EGU?
60.5508a What is the purpose of this to demonstrate compliance? 60.5575a Who implements and enforces
60.5540a How do I demonstrate compliance this subpart?
subpart?
with my CO2 emissions standard and 60.5580a What definitions apply to this
60.5509a Am I subject to this subpart?
determine excess emissions? subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart TTTTa of Part 60—CO2 (2) Serves a generator or generators Emission Standards
Emission Standards for Affected capable of selling greater than 25
Stationary Combustion Turbines That megawatts (MW) of electricity to a § 60.5515a Which pollutants are regulated
Commenced Construction or by this subpart?
utility power distribution system.
Reconstruction After May 23, 2023 (a) The pollutants regulated by this
(Gross or Net Energy Output-Based (b) You are not subject to the
requirements of this subpart if your subpart are greenhouse gases. The
Standards Applicable as Approved by
affected EGU meets any of the greenhouse gas standard in this subpart
the Administrator)
Table 2 to Subpart TTTTa of Part 60—CO2 conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) is in the form of a limitation on
Emission Standards for Affected Steam through (8) of this section. emission of carbon dioxide.
Generating Units or IGCC That (1) Your EGU is a steam generating (b) PSD and Title V thresholds for
Commenced Modification After May 23, unit or IGCC whose annual net-electric greenhouse gases.
2023
sales have never exceeded one-third of (1) For the purposes of 40 CFR
Table 3 to Subpart TTTTa of Part 60—
its potential electric output or 219,000 51.166(b)(49)(ii), with respect to GHG
Applicability of Subpart A of Part 60 emissions from affected facilities, the
(General Provisions) to Subpart TTTTa megawatt-hour (MWh), whichever is
greater, and is currently subject to a ‘‘pollutant that is subject to the standard
federally enforceable permit condition promulgated under section 111 of the
Subpart TTTTa—Standards of Act’’ shall be considered to be the
Performance for Greenhouse Gas limiting annual net-electric sales to no
more than one-third of its potential pollutant that otherwise is subject to
Emissions for Modified Coal-Fired regulation under the Act as defined in
Steam Electric Generating Units and electric output or 219,000 MWh,
whichever is greater. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48) and in any SIP
New Construction and Reconstruction approved by the EPA that is interpreted
Stationary Combustion Turbine (2) Your EGU is capable of deriving 50
to incorporate, or specifically
Electric Generating Units percent or more of the heat input from
incorporates, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).
non-fossil fuel at the base load rating
Applicability (2) For the purposes of 40 CFR
and is also subject to a federally
52.21(b)(50)(ii), with respect to GHG
enforceable permit condition limiting
§ 60.5508a What is the purpose of this emissions from affected facilities, the
subpart? the annual capacity factor for all fossil
‘‘pollutant that is subject to the standard
fuels combined of 10 percent (0.10) or
This subpart establishes emission promulgated under section 111 of the
less.
standards and compliance schedules for Act’’ shall be considered to be the
(3) Your EGU is a combined heat and
the control of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant that otherwise is subject to
power unit that is subject to a federally
emissions from a coal-fired steam regulation under the Act as defined in
enforceable permit condition limiting
generating unit or integrated gasification 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49).
annual net-electric sales to no more than
combined cycle facility (IGCC) that (3) For the purposes of 40 CFR 70.2,
either 219,000 MWh or the product of
commences modification after May 23, with respect to greenhouse gas
the design efficiency and the potential
2023. This subpart also establishes emissions from affected facilities, the
electric output, whichever is greater.
emission standards and compliance ‘‘pollutant that is subject to any
schedules for the control of GHG (4) Your EGU serves a generator along standard promulgated under section 111
emissions from a stationary combustion with other steam generating unit(s), of the Act’’ shall be considered to be the
turbine that commences construction or IGCC, or stationary combustion pollutant that otherwise is ‘‘subject to
reconstruction after May 23, 2023. An turbine(s) where the effective generation regulation’’ as defined in 40 CFR 70.2.
affected coal-fired steam generating capacity (determined based on a (4) For the purposes of 40 CFR 71.2,
unit, IGCC, or stationary combustion prorated output of the base load rating with respect to greenhouse gas
turbine shall, for the purposes of this of each steam generating unit, IGCC, or emissions from affected facilities, the
subpart, be referred to as an affected stationary combustion turbine) is 25 ‘‘pollutant that is subject to any
electric generating unit (EGU). MW or less. standard promulgated under section 111
(5) Your EGU is a municipal waste of the Act’’ shall be considered to be the
§ 60.5509a Am I subject to this subpart? combustor that is subject to subpart Eb pollutant that otherwise is ‘‘subject to
(a) Except as provided for in of this part. regulation’’ as defined in 40 CFR 71.2.
paragraph (b) of this section, the GHG (6) Your EGU is a commercial or
standards included in this subpart apply industrial solid waste incineration unit § 60.5520a What CO2 emissions standard
to any steam generating unit or IGCC that is subject to subpart CCCC of this must I meet?
that combusts coal and that commences part. (a) For each affected EGU subject to
modification after May 23, 2023, that (7) Your EGU is a steam generating this subpart, you must not discharge
meets the relevant applicability unit or IGCC that undergoes a from the affected EGU any gases that
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) modification resulting in an hourly contain CO2 in excess of the applicable
of this section. The GHG standards increase in CO2 emissions (mass per CO2 emission standard specified in table
included in this subpart also apply to hour) of 10 percent or less (2 significant 1 to this subpart, consistent with
any stationary combustion turbine that figures). Modified units that are not paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
commences construction or subject to the requirements of this section, as applicable.
reconstruction after May 23, 2023, that subpart pursuant to this subsection (b) Except as specified in paragraphs
meets the relevant applicability continue to be existing units under (c) and (d) of this section, you must
section 111 with respect to CO2
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) comply with the applicable gross or net
of this section. emissions standards. energy output standard, and your
(1) Has a base load rating greater than (8) Your EGU derives greater than 50 operating permit must include
260 gigajoules per hour (GJ/h) (250 percent of the heat input from an monitoring, recordkeeping, and
million British thermal units per hour industrial process that does not produce reporting methodologies based on the
(MMBtu/h)) of fossil fuel (either alone any electrical or mechanical output or applicable gross or net energy output
or in combination with any other fuel); useful thermal output that is used standard. For the remainder of this
and outside the affected EGU. subpart (for sources that do not qualify
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this maintain records of electric sales to requirements in this section other than
section), where the term ‘‘gross or net demonstrate that the stationary the requirement to maintain fuel
energy output’’ is used, the term that combustion turbines are subject to a purchase records for permitted fuel(s).
applies to you is ‘‘gross energy output.’’ heat input-based standard in table 1 are For all other affected sources,
(c) As an alternative to meeting the only subject to the requirements in compliance with the applicable CO2
requirements in paragraph (b) of this paragraph (d)(2) of this section. emission standard of this subpart shall
section, an owner or operator of a (1) Owners or operators of stationary be determined on a 12-operating-month
stationary combustion turbine may combustion turbines that are only rolling average basis. See table 1 to this
petition the Administrator in writing to permitted to burn fuels with a
subpart for the applicable CO2 emission
comply with the alternate applicable net consistent chemical composition (i.e.,
standards.
energy output standard. If the uniform fuels) that result in a consistent
Administrator grants the petition, emission rate of 69 kilograms per (a) You must be in compliance with
beginning on the date the Administrator gigajoule (kg/GJ) (160 lb CO2/MMBtu) or the emission standards in this subpart
grants the petition, the affected EGU less are not subject to any monitoring or that apply to your affected EGU at all
must comply with the applicable net reporting requirements under this times. However, you must determine
energy output-based standard included subpart. These fuels include, but are not compliance with the emission standards
in this subpart. Your operating permit limited to hydrogen, natural gas, only at the end of the applicable
must include monitoring, methane, butane, butylene, ethane, operating month, as provided in
recordkeeping, and reporting ethylene, propane, naphtha, propylene, paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
methodologies based on the applicable jet fuel, kerosene, No. 1 fuel oil, No. 2
fuel oil, and biodiesel. Stationary (1) For each affected EGU subject to
net energy output standard. For the a CO2 emissions standard based on a 12-
remainder of this subpart, where the combustion turbines qualifying under
this paragraph are only required to operating-month rolling average, you
term ‘‘gross or net energy output’’ is must determine compliance monthly by
used, the term that applies to you is maintain purchase records for permitted
fuels. calculating the average CO2 emissions
‘‘net energy output.’’ Owners or
(2) Owners or operators of stationary rate for the affected EGU at the end of
operators complying with the net
combustion turbines permitted to burn the initial and each subsequent 12-
output-based standard must petition the
Administrator to switch back to fuels that do not have a consistent operating-month period.
complying with the gross energy output- chemical composition or that do not (2) Consistent with § 60.5520a(d)(2), if
based standard. have an emission rate of 69 kg/GJ (160 your affected stationary combustion
(d) Owners or operators of a stationary lb CO2/MMBtu) or less (e.g., non- turbine is subject to an input-based CO2
combustion turbine that maintain uniform fuels such as residual oil and
emissions standard, you must determine
non-jet fuel kerosene) must follow the
records of electric sales to demonstrate the total heat input in GJ or MMBtu
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
that the stationary combustion turbine is from natural gas (HTIPng) and the total
reporting requirements necessary to
subject to a heat input-based standard in heat input from all other fuels combined
complete the heat input-based
table 1 to this subpart that are only (HTIPo) using one of the methods under
calculations under this subpart.
permitted to burn one or more uniform § 60.5535a(d)(2). You must then use the
fuels, as described in paragraph (d)(1) of § 60.5525a What are my general following equation to determine the
this section, are only subject to the requirements for complying with this applicable emissions standard during
monitoring requirements in paragraph subpart?
the compliance period:
(d)(1). Owners or operators of all other Combustion turbines qualifying under
stationary combustion turbines that § 60.5520a(d)(1) are not subject to any Equation 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)
(50 x HTIPng) + (69 x HT/Po)

CO 2 emissions standard
HTIPng + HTIP0
Where: 120 if electing to demonstrate base load combustion turbine burning

CO2 emission standard = the emission compliance using lb CO2/MMBtu). fuels other than natural gas may elect to
69 = allowable emission rate in lb kg/GJ for
standard during the compliance period determine a site-specific emissions rate
heat input derived from all fuels other
in units of kg/GJ (or lb/MMBtu). than natural gas (use 160 if electing to using one of the following equations.
HTIPng = the heat input in GJ (or MMBtu) demonstrate compliance using lb CO2/ Combustion turbines co-firing hydrogen
from natural gas. MMBtu). are not required to use the fuel
HTIPo = the heat input in GJ (or MMBtu) adjustment parameter.
from all fuels other than natural gas.
(3) Owners/operators of a base load
50 = allowable emission rate in lb kg/GJ for
combustion turbine with a base load (i) For base load combustion turbines:
heat input derived from natural gas (use rating of less than 2,110 GJ/h (2,000
MMBtu/h) and/or an intermediate or Equation 2 to Paragraph (a)(3)(i)
ER09MY24.058</GPH>
ER09MY24.057</GPH>
Where: BLERS = Base load emissions standard for BLRA = Base load rating of the actual
CO2 emission standard = the emission natural gas-fired combustion turbines combustion turbine in GJ/h (or MMBtu/
standard during the compliance period with a base load rating of 260 GJ/h (250 h)
MMBtu/h). 410 kg CO2/MWh-gross (900 HIERA = Heat input-based emissions rate of
in units of kg/MWh (or lb/MWh) lb CO2/MWh-gross) or 420 kg CO2/MWh-
BLERL = Base load emissions standard for the actual fuel burned in the combustion
net (920 lb CO2/MWh-net); 49 kg CO2/
natural gas-fired combustion turbines MWh-gross (108 lb CO2/MWh-gross) or turbine (lb CO2/MMBtu). Not to exceed
with base load ratings greater than 2,110 50 kg CO2/MWh-net (110 lb CO2/MWh- 69 kg/GJ (160 lb CO2/MMBtu)
GJ/h (2,000 MMBtu/h). 360 kg CO2/ net); as applicable HIERNG = Heat input-based emissions rate of
MWh-gross (800 lb CO2/MWh-gross) or BLRL = Minimum base load rating of large natural gas 50 kg/GJ (120 lb CO2/MMBtu)
370 kg CO2/MWh-net (820 lb CO2/MWh- combustion turbines 2,110 GJ/h (2,000
net); 43 kg CO2/MWh-gross (100 lb CO2/ MMBtu/h) (ii) For intermediate load combustion
MWh-gross) or 42 kg CO2/MWh-net (97
BLRS = Base load rating of smallest turbines:
combustion turbine 260 GJ/h (250
lb CO2/MWh-net); as applicable MMBtu/h) Equation 3 to Paragraph (a)(3)(ii)
HIERA
CO2 emissions standard = ILER* [HIERN)
Where: the first operating month (as defined in purchase records for permitted fuel(s). If
CO2 emission standard = the emission § 60.5580a) after the calendar month in your combustion turbine uses non-
standard during the compliance period which emissions reporting is required to uniform fuels as specified under
in units of kg/MWh (or lb/MWh) begin under: § 60.5520a(d)(2), you must monitor heat
ILER = Intermediate load emissions rate for (i) Section 60.5555a(c)(3)(i), for units input in accordance with paragraph
natural gas-fired combustion turbines. subject to the Acid Rain Program; or (c)(1) of this section, and you must
520 kg/MWh-gross (1,150 lb CO2/MWh- (ii) Section 60.5555a(c)(3)(ii), for units monitor CO2 emissions in accordance
gross) or 530 kg CO2/MWh-net (1,160 lb
that are not in the Acid Rain Program. with either paragraph (b), (c)(2), or (c)(5)
CO2/MWh-net) or 450 kg/MWh-gross
(2) For a modified or reconstructed of this section. For all other affected
(1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross) or 460 kg
CO2/MWh-net (1,110 lb CO2/MWh-net) EGU that becomes subject to this sources, you must prepare a monitoring
as applicable subpart, the first month of the initial plan to quantify the hourly CO2 mass
HIERA = Heat input-based emissions rate of compliance period shall be the first emission rate (tons/h), in accordance
the actual fuel burned in the combustion operating month (as defined in with the applicable provisions in 40
turbine (lb CO2/MMBtu). Not to exceed § 60.5580a) after the calendar month in CFR 75.53(g) and (h). The electronic
69 kg/GJ (160 lb CO2/MMBtu) which emissions reporting is required to portion of the monitoring plan must be
HIERNG = Heat input-based emissions rate of begin under § 60.5555a(c)(3)(iii). submitted using the ECMPS Client Tool
natural gas 50 kg/GJ (120 lb CO2/MMBtu) (3) Emissions of CO2 emitted by your and must be in place prior to reporting
(b) At all times you must operate and affected facility and the output of the emissions data and/or the results of
maintain each affected EGU, including affected facility generated when it monitoring system certification tests
associated equipment and monitors, in operated during a system emergency as under this subpart. The monitoring plan
a manner consistent with safety and defined in § 60.5580a are excluded for must be updated as necessary.
good air pollution control practice. The both applicability and compliance with Monitoring plan submittals must be
Administrator will determine if you are the relevant standards of performance if made by the Designated Representative
using consistent operation and you can sufficiently provide the (DR), the Alternate DR, or a delegated
maintenance procedures based on documentation listed in § 60.5560a(i). agent of the DR (see § 60.5555a(d) and
information available to the The relevant standard of performance (e)).
Administrator that may include, but is for affected EGUs that operate during a (b) You must determine the hourly
not limited to, fuel use records, system emergency depends on the CO2 mass emissions in kg from your
monitoring results, review of operation subcategory, as described in paragraphs affected EGU(s) according to paragraphs
and maintenance procedures and (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (b)(1) through (5) of this section, or, if
records, review of reports required by (i) For intermediate and base load applicable, as provided in paragraph (c)
this subpart, and inspection of the EGU. combustion turbines that operate during of this section.
(c) Within 30 days after the end of the a system emergency, you comply with (1) For an affected EGU that combusts
initial compliance period (i.e., no more the standard for low load combustion coal you must, and for all other affected
than 30 days after the first 12-operating- turbines specified in table 1 to this EGUs you may, install, certify, operate,
month compliance period), you must subpart. maintain, and calibrate a CO2
make an initial compliance (ii) For modified steam generating continuous emission monitoring system
determination for your affected EGU(s) units, you must not discharge from the (CEMS) to directly measure and record
with respect to the applicable emissions affected EGU any gases that contain CO2 hourly average CO2 concentrations in
standard in table 1 to this subpart, in in excess of 230 lb CO2/MMBtu. the affected EGU exhaust gases emitted
accordance with the requirements in Monitoring and Compliance to the atmosphere, and a flow
this subpart. The first operating month Determination Procedures monitoring system to measure hourly
included in the initial 12-operating- average stack gas flow rates, according
month compliance period shall be § 60.5535a How do I monitor and collect to 40 CFR 75.10(a)(3)(i). As an
determined as follows: data to demonstrate compliance? alternative to direct measurement of
(1) For an affected EGU that (a) Combustion turbines qualifying CO2 concentration, provided that your
commences commercial operation (as under § 60.5520a(d)(1) are not subject to EGU does not use carbon separation
defined in 40 CFR 72.2), the first month any requirements in this section other (e.g., carbon capture and storage), you
ER09MY24.059</GPH>
of the initial compliance period shall be than the requirement to maintain fuel may use data from a certified oxygen
(O2) monitor to calculate hourly average You must use these data to calculate the (ii) You may use the procedure for
CO2 concentrations, in accordance with hourly CO2 mass emissions. determining CO2 emissions during the
40 CFR 75.10(a)(3)(iii). If you measure (c) If your affected EGU exclusively compliance period based on the use of
CO2 concentration on a dry basis, you combusts liquid fuel and/or gaseous the Tier 3 methodology under 40 CFR
must also install, certify, operate, fuel, as an alternative to complying with 98.33(a)(3).
maintain, and calibrate a continuous paragraph (b) of this section, you may (d) Consistent with § 60.5520a, you
moisture monitoring system, according determine the hourly CO2 mass must determine the basis of the
to 40 CFR 75.11(b). Alternatively, you emissions according to paragraphs (c)(1) emissions standard that applies to your
may either use an appropriate fuel- through (4) of this section. If you use affected source in accordance with
specific default moisture value from 40 non-uniform fuels as specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
CFR 75.11(b) or submit a petition to the § 60.5520a(d)(2), you may determine section, as applicable:
Administrator under 40 CFR 75.66 for a CO2 mass emissions during the (1) If you operate a source subject to
site-specific default moisture value. compliance period according to an emissions standard established on an
(2) For each continuous monitoring paragraph (c)(5) of this section. output basis (e.g., lb CO2 per gross or net
system that you use to determine the (1) If you are subject to an output- MWh of energy output), you must
CO2 mass emissions, you must meet the based standard and you do not install install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
applicable certification and quality CEMS in accordance with paragraph (b) a sufficient number of watt meters to
assurance procedures in 40 CFR 75.20 of this section, you must implement the continuously measure and record the
and appendices A and B to 40 CFR part applicable procedures in appendix D to hourly gross electric output or net
75. 40 CFR part 75 to determine hourly EGU electric output, as applicable, from the
(3) You must use only unadjusted heat input rates (MMBtu/h), based on affected EGU(s). These measurements
exhaust gas volumetric flow rates to hourly measurements of fuel flow rate must be performed using 0.2 class
determine the hourly CO2 mass and periodic determinations of the gross electricity metering instrumentation and
emissions rate from the affected EGU; calorific value (GCV) of each fuel calibration procedures as specified
you must not apply the bias adjustment combusted. under ANSI No. C12.20–2010
factors described in Section 7.6.5 of (2) For each measured hourly heat (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
appendix A to 40 CFR part 75 to the input rate, use Equation G–4 in For a combined heat and power (CHP)
exhaust gas flow rate data. appendix G to 40 CFR part 75 to EGU, as defined in § 60.5580a, you must
(4) You must select an appropriate
calculate the hourly CO2 mass emission also install, calibrate, maintain, and
reference method to setup (characterize)
rate (tons/h). You may determine site- operate meters to continuously (i.e.,
the flow monitor and to perform the on-
specific carbon-based F-factors (Fc) hour-by-hour) determine and record the
going RATAs, in accordance with 40
using Equation F–7b in section 3.3.6 of total useful thermal output. For process
CFR part 75. If you use a Type-S pitot
appendix F to 40 CFR part 75, and you steam applications, you will need to
tube or a pitot tube assembly for the
may use these Fc values in the install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
flow RATAs, you must calibrate the
emissions calculations instead of using meters to continuously determine and
pitot tube or pitot tube assembly; you
the default Fc values in the Equation G– record the hourly steam flow rate,
may not use the 0.84 default Type-S
4 nomenclature. temperature, and pressure. Your plan
pitot tube coefficient specified in
(3) For each ‘‘valid operating hour’’ shall ensure that you install, calibrate,
Method 2.
(5) Calculate the hourly CO2 mass (as defined in § 60.5540(a)(1), multiply maintain, and operate meters to record
emissions (kg) as described in the hourly tons/h CO2 mass emission each component of the determination,
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this rate from paragraph (c)(2) of this section hour-by-hour.
section. Perform this calculation only by the EGU or stack operating time in (2) If you operate a source subject to
for ‘‘valid operating hours’’, as defined hours (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2), to an emissions standard established on a
in § 60.5540(a)(1). convert it to tons of CO2. Then, multiply heat-input basis (e.g., lb CO2/MMBtu)
(i) Begin with the hourly CO2 mass the result by 907.2 to convert from tons and your affected source uses non-
emission rate (tons/h), obtained either of CO2 to kg. Round off to the nearest uniform heating value fuels as
from Equation F–11 in appendix F to 40 two significant figures. delineated under § 60.5520a(d), you
CFR part 75 (if CO2 concentration is (4) The hourly CO2 tons/h values and must determine the total heat input for
measured on a wet basis), or by EGU (or stack) operating times used to each fuel fired during the compliance
following the procedure in section 4.2 of calculate CO2 mass emissions are period in accordance with one of the
appendix F to 40 CFR part 75 (if CO2 required to be recorded under 40 CFR following procedures:
concentration is measured on a dry 75.57(e) and must be reported (i) Appendix D to 40 CFR part 75;
basis). electronically under 40 CFR 75.64(a)(6). (ii) The procedures for monitoring
(ii) Next, multiply each hourly CO2 You must use these data to calculate the heat input under § 60.107a(d);
mass emission rate by the EGU or stack hourly CO2 mass emissions. (iii) If you monitor CO2 emissions in
operating time in hours (as defined in (5) If you operate a combustion accordance with the Tier 3 methodology
40 CFR 72.2), to convert it to tons of turbine firing non-uniform fuels, as an under 40 CFR 98.33(a)(3), you may
CO2. alternative to following paragraphs convert your CO2 emissions to heat
(iii) Finally, multiply the result from (c)(1) through (4) of this section, you input using the appropriate emission
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section by may determine CO2 emissions during factor in table C–1 of 40 CFR part 98. If
the compliance period using one of the
907.2 to convert it from tons of CO2 to your fuel is not listed in table C–1, you
kg. Round off to the nearest kg. following methods: must determine a fuel-specific carbon-
(iv) The hourly CO2 tons/h values and (i) Units firing fuel gas may determine based F-factor (Fc) in accordance with
EGU (or stack) operating times used to the heat input during the compliance section 12.3.2 of EPA Method 19 of
calculate CO2 mass emissions are period following the procedure under appendix A–7 to this part, and you must
required to be recorded under 40 CFR § 60.107a(d) and convert this heat input convert your CO2 emissions to heat
75.57(e) and must be reported to CO2 emissions using Equation G–4 in input using Equation G–4 in appendix
electronically under 40 CFR 75.64(a)(6). appendix G to 40 CFR part 75. G to 40 CFR part 75.
(e) Consistent with § 60.5520a, if two apportioning the CO2 emissions input-based standard applies, all the
or more affected EGUs serve a common whenever the demonstration ensures parameters used to determine total heat
electric generator, you must apportion accurate estimation of emissions input for the hour are also obtained; and
the combined hourly gross or net energy regulated under this part. (ii) The corresponding hourly gross or
output to the individual affected EGUs (g) In accordance with §§ 60.13(g) and net energy output value is also valid
according to the fraction of the total 60.5520a if the exhaust gases from an data (Note: For hours with no useful
steam load and/or direct mechanical affected EGU that implements the output, zero is considered to be a valid
energy contributed by each EGU to the continuous emission monitoring value).
electric generator. Alternatively, if the provisions in paragraph (b) of this (2) You must exclude operating hours
EGUs are identical, you may apportion section are emitted to the atmosphere in which:
the combined hourly gross or net through multiple stacks (or if the (i) The substitute data provisions of
electrical load to the individual EGUs exhaust gases are routed to a common part 75 of this chapter are applied for
according to the fraction of the total heat stack through multiple ducts and you any of the parameters used to determine
input contributed by each EGU. You elect to monitor in the ducts), you must the hourly CO2 mass emissions or, if a
may also elect to develop, demonstrate, monitor the hourly CO2 mass emissions heat input-based standard applies, for
and provide information satisfactory to and the ‘‘stack operating time’’ (as any parameters used to determine the
the Administrator on alternate methods defined in 40 CFR 72.2) at each stack or hourly heat input;
to apportion the gross or net energy duct separately. In this case, you must (ii) An exceedance of the full-scale
output. The Administrator may approve determine compliance with the range of a continuous emission
such alternate methods for apportioning applicable emissions standard in table 1 monitoring system occurs for any of the
the gross or net energy output whenever or 2 to this subpart by summing the CO2 parameters used to determine the hourly
the demonstration ensures accurate mass emissions measured at the CO2 mass emissions or, if applicable, to
estimation of emissions regulated under individual stacks or ducts and dividing determine the hourly heat input; or
this part. by the total gross or net energy output (iii) The total gross or net energy
(f) In accordance with §§ 60.13(g) and for the affected EGU. output (Pgross/net) or, if applicable, the
60.5520a, if two or more affected EGUs total heat input is unavailable.
that implement the continuous emission § 60.5540a How do I demonstrate (3) For each compliance period, at
monitoring provisions in paragraph (b) compliance with my CO2 emissions least 95 percent of the operating hours
standard and determine excess emissions? in the compliance period must be valid
of this section share a common exhaust
gas stack you must monitor hourly CO2 (a) In accordance with § 60.5520a, if operating hours, as defined in paragraph
mass emissions in accordance with one you are subject to an output-based (a)(1) of this section.
of the following procedures: emission standard or you burn non- (4) You must calculate the total CO2
(1) If the EGUs are subject to the same uniform fuels as specified in mass emissions by summing the valid
emissions standard in table 1 to this § 60.5520a(d)(2), you must demonstrate hourly CO2 mass emissions values from
subpart, you may monitor the hourly compliance with the applicable CO2 § 60.5535a for all of the valid operating
CO2 mass emissions at the common emission standard in table 1 to this hours in the compliance period.
stack in lieu of monitoring each EGU subpart as required in this section. For (5) For each valid operating hour of
separately. If you choose this option, the the initial and each subsequent 12- the compliance period that was used in
hourly gross or net energy output operating-month rolling average paragraph (a)(4) of this section to
(electric, thermal, and/or mechanical, as compliance period, you must follow the calculate the total CO2 mass emissions,
applicable) must be the sum of the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through you must determine Pgross/net (the
hourly loads for the individual affected (8) of this section to calculate the CO2 corresponding hourly gross or net
EGUs and you must express the mass emissions rate for your affected energy output in MWh) according to the
operating time as ‘‘stack operating EGU(s) in units of the applicable procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and
hours’’ (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2). If emissions standard (e.g., either kg/MWh (ii) of this section, as appropriate for the
you attain compliance with the or kg/GJ). You must use the hourly CO2 type of affected EGU(s). For an operating
applicable emissions standard in mass emissions calculated under hour in which a valid CO2 mass
§ 60.5520a at the common stack, each § 60.5535a(b) or (c), as applicable, and emissions value is determined
affected EGU sharing the stack is in either the generating load data from according to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
compliance; or § 60.5535a(d)(1) for output-based section, if there is no gross or net
(2) As an alternative to the calculations or the heat input data from electrical output, but there is
requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of this § 60.5535a(d)(2) for heat-input-based mechanical or useful thermal output,
section, or if the EGUs are subject to calculations. Combustion turbines firing you must still determine the gross or net
different emission standards in table 1 non-uniform fuels that contain CO2 energy output for that hour. In addition,
to this subpart, you must either: prior to combustion (e.g., blast furnace for an operating hour in which a valid
(i) Monitor each EGU separately by gas or landfill gas) may sample the fuel CO2 mass emissions value is determined
measuring the hourly CO2 mass stream to determine the quantity of CO2 according to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
emissions prior to mixing in the present in the fuel prior to combustion section, but there is no (i.e., zero) gross
common stack or and exclude this portion of the CO2 electrical, mechanical, or useful thermal
(ii) Apportion the CO2 mass emissions mass emissions from compliance output, you must use that hour in the
based on the unit’s load contribution to determinations. compliance determination. For hours or
the total load associated with the (1) Each compliance period shall partial hours where the gross electric
common stack and the appropriate F- include only ‘‘valid operating hours’’ in output is equal to or less than the
factors. You may also elect to develop, the compliance period, i.e., operating auxiliary loads, net electric output shall
demonstrate, and provide information hours for which: be counted as zero for this calculation.
satisfactory to the Administrator on (i) ‘‘Valid data’’ (as defined in (i) Calculate Pgross/net for your affected
alternate methods to apportion the CO2 § 60.5580a) are obtained for all of the EGU using the following equation. All
emissions. The Administrator may parameters used to determine the hourly terms in the equation must be expressed
approve such alternate methods for CO2 mass emissions (kg) and, if a heat in units of MWh. To convert each
hourly gross or net energy output MWh, multiply by the corresponding Equation 1 to Paragraph (a)(5)(i)
(consistent with § 60.5520a) value EGU or stack operating time.
reported under part 75 of this chapter to
Equation 1 to Paragraph (a)(5)(i)
Pgross/net
= (Pe)sT+(Pe)cT+(Pe)rn-(Pe)Fw-(Pe)A
TDF
+ [ (Pt)ps + (Pt)HR + (Pt)rn] (Eq. 2)
Where: stationary combustion turbines, IGCC (Pt)IE = Useful thermal output (relative to
Pgross/net = In accordance with § 60.5520a, EGUs, or EGUs complying with a net SATP conditions, as applicable) from
gross or net energy output of your energy output based standard. any integrated equipment is used for
affected EGU for each valid operating (Pe)A = Electric energy used for any auxiliary applications that do not generate
hour (as defined in § 60.5540a(a)(1)) in loads in MWh. Not applicable for additional steam, electricity, produce
determining Pgross. mechanical energy output, or enhance
MWh.
(Pt)PS = Useful thermal output of steam the performance of the affected EGU in
(Pe)ST = Electric energy output plus
(measured relative to standard ambient MWh.
mechanical energy output (if any) of
temperature and pressure (SATP) TDF = Electric Transmission and Distribution
steam turbines in MWh. conditions, as applicable) that is used for
(Pe)CT = Electric energy output plus Factor of 0.95 for a combined heat and
applications that do not generate power affected EGU where at least on an
mechanical energy output (if any) of additional electricity, produce annual basis 20.0 percent of the total
stationary combustion turbine(s) in mechanical energy output, or enhance gross or net energy output consists of
MWh. the performance of the affected EGU. useful thermal output on a 12-operating-
(Pe)IE = Electric energy output plus This is calculated using the equation month rolling average basis, or 1.0 for all
mechanical energy output (if any) of specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this other affected EGUs.
your affected EGU’s integrated section in MWh.
equipment that provides electricity or (Pt)HR = Non steam useful thermal output (ii) If applicable to your affected EGU
mechanical energy to the affected EGU or (measured relative to SATP conditions, (for example, for combined heat and
auxiliary equipment in MWh. as applicable) from heat recovery that is power), you must calculate (Pt)PS using
(Pe)FW = Electric energy used to power boiler used for applications other than steam the following equation:
feedwater pumps at steam generating generation or performance enhancement
units in MWh. Not applicable to of the affected EGU in MWh. Equation 2 to Paragraph (a)(5)(ii)
(Pt)ps = Q:;H (Eq. 3)
Where: total heat input for each fuel fired Round off the result to two significant
Qm = Measured useful thermal output flow in during the compliance period. The figures.
kg (lb) for the operating hour. calculation of total heat input for each (8) You may exclude CO2 mass
H = Enthalpy of the useful thermal output at individual fuel must include all valid emissions and output generated from
measured temperature and pressure operating hours and must also be your affected EGU from your
(relative to SATP conditions or the consistent with any fuel-specific
energy in the condensate return line, as
calculations for hours during which the
applicable) in Joules per kilogram (J/kg)
procedures specified within your affected EGU operated during a system
(or Btu/lb). selected monitoring option under emergency, as defined in § 60.5580a, if
CF = Conversion factor of 3.6 × 109 J/MWh § 60.5535(d)(2). you can provide the information listed
or 3.413 × 106 Btu/MWh. (7) If you are subject to an output- in § 60.5560a(i). While operating during
(6) Sources complying with energy based standard, you must calculate the a system emergency, your compliance
output-based standards must calculate CO2 mass emissions rate for the affected determination depends on your
the basis (i.e., denominator) of their EGU(s) (kg/MWh) by dividing the total subcategory or unit type, as listed in
actual annual emission rate in CO2 mass emissions value calculated paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (ii) of this
accordance with paragraph (a)(6)(i) of according to the procedures in section.
this section. Sources complying with paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the (i) For affected EGUs in the
heat input based standards must total gross or net energy output value intermediate or base load subcategory,
calculate the basis of their actual annual calculated according to the procedures your CO2 emission standard while
emission rate in accordance with in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section. operating during a system emergency is
paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section. Round off the result to two significant the applicable emission standard for
(i) In accordance with § 60.5520a if figures if the calculated value is less low load combustion turbines.
you are subject to an output-based than 1,000; round the result to three (ii) For affected modified steam
standard, you must calculate the total significant figures if the calculated value generating units, your CO2 emission
gross or net energy output for the is greater than 1,000. If you are subject standard while operating during a
affected EGU’s compliance period by to a heat input-based standard, you system emergency is 230 lb CO2/
must calculate the CO2 mass emissions MMBtu.
summing the hourly gross or net energy

output values for the affected EGU that rate for the affected EGU(s) (kg/GJ or lb/ (b) In accordance with § 60.5520a, to
you determined under paragraph (a)(5) MMBtu) by dividing the total CO2 mass demonstrate compliance with the
ER09MY24.061</GPH>
of this section for all of the valid emissions value calculated according to applicable CO2 emission standard, for
operating hours in the applicable the procedures in paragraph (a)(4) of the initial and each subsequent 12-
compliance period. this section by the total heat input operating-month compliance period, the
(ii) If you are subject to a heat input- calculated according to the procedures CO2 mass emissions rate for your
ER09MY24.060</GPH>
based standard, you must calculate the in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section. affected EGU must be determined
according to the procedures specified in (C) Documentation of delays in falls within the calendar quarter. You
paragraph (a)(1) through (8) of this construction or permitting of must calculate each average CO2 mass
section and must be less than or equal infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines) that emissions rate for the compliance
to the applicable CO2 emissions is necessary for implementation of the period according to the procedures in
standard in table 1 to this subpart, or the control technology; § 60.5540a. You must report the dates
emissions standard calculated in (v) Identify a proposed compliance (month and year) of the first and twelfth
accordance with § 60.5525a(a)(2). date no later than one year after the operating months in each compliance
(c) If you are the owner or operator of applicable compliance date listed in period for which you performed a CO2
a new or reconstructed stationary table 1 to this subpart. mass emissions rate calculation. If there
combustion turbine operating in the (2) The Administrator is charged with are no compliance periods that end in
base load subcategory, are installing approving or disapproving a compliance the quarter, you must include a
add-on controls, and are unable to date extension request based on his or statement to that effect;
comply with the applicable Phase 2 CO2 her written determination that your (ii) If one or more compliance periods
emission standard specified in table 1 to affected EGU has or has not made each end in the quarter, you must identify
this subpart due to circumstances of the necessary demonstrations and each operating month in the calendar
beyond your control, you may request a provided all of the necessary quarter where your EGU violated the
compliance date extension of no longer documentation according to paragraph applicable CO2 emission standard;
than one year beyond the effective date (c)(1) of this section. The following must (iii) If one or more compliance
of January 1, 2032, and may only receive be included: periods end in the quarter and there are
an extension once. The extension (i) All documentation required as part no violations for the affected EGU, you
request must contain a demonstration of of this extension must be submitted by must include a statement indicating this
necessity that includes the following: you to the Administrator no later than in the report;
(1) A demonstration that your affected 6 months prior to the applicable (iv) The percentage of valid operating
EGU cannot meet its compliance date effective date for your affected EGU. hours in each 12-operating-month
due to circumstances beyond your (ii) You must notify the Administrator compliance period described in
control and you have taken all steps of the compliance date extension paragraph (a)(1) of this section (i.e., the
reasonably possible to install the request at the time of the submission of total number of valid operating hours
controls necessary for compliance by the request. (as defined in § 60.5540a(a)(1)) in that
the effective date up to the point of the period divided by the total number of
Notification, Reports, and Records
delay. The demonstration shall: operating hours in that period,
(i) Identify each affected unit for § 60.5550a What notifications must I multiplied by 100 percent);
which you are seeking the compliance submit and when? (v) Consistent with § 60.5520a, the
extension; (a) You must prepare and submit the CO2 emissions standard (as identified in
(ii) Identify and describe the controls notifications specified in §§ 60.7(a)(1) table 1 or 2 to this subpart) with which
to be installed at each affected unit to and (3) and 60.19, as applicable to your your affected EGU must comply; and
comply with the applicable CO2 affected EGU(s) (see table 3 to this (vi) Consistent with § 60.5520a, an
emission standard in table 1 to this subpart). indication whether or not the hourly
subpart; (b) You must prepare and submit gross or net energy output (Pgross/net)
(iii) Describe and demonstrate all notifications specified in 40 CFR 75.61, values used in the compliance
progress towards installing the controls as applicable, to your affected EGUs. determinations are based solely upon
and that you have acted consistently gross electrical load.
with achieving timely compliance, § 60.5555a What reports must I submit and (3) In the final quarterly report of each
including; when? calendar year, you must include the
(A) Any and all contract(s) entered (a) You must prepare and submit following:
into for the installation of the identified reports according to paragraphs (a) (i) Consistent with § 60.5520a, gross
controls or an explanation as to why no through (d) of this section, as energy output or net energy output sold
contract is necessary or obtainable; applicable. to an electric grid, as applicable to the
(B) Any permit(s) obtained for the (1) For affected EGUs that are required units of your emission standard, over
installation of the identified controls or, by § 60.5525a to conduct initial and on- the four quarters of the calendar year;
where a required permit has not yet going compliance determinations on a and
been issued, a copy of the permit 12-operating-month rolling average (ii) The potential electric output of the
application submitted to the permitting basis, you must submit electronic EGU.
authority and a statement from the quarterly reports as follows. After you (b) You must submit all electronic
permit authority identifying its have accumulated the first 12-operating reports required under paragraph (a) of
anticipated timeframe for issuance of months for the affected EGU, you must this section using the Emissions
such permit(s). submit a report for the calendar quarter Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(iv) Identify the circumstances that that includes the twelfth operating (ECMPS) Client Tool provided by the
are entirely beyond your control and month no later than 30 days after the Clean Air Markets Division in the Office
that necessitate additional time to end of that quarter. Thereafter, you must of Atmospheric Programs of EPA.
install the identified controls. This may submit a report for each subsequent (c)(1) For affected EGUs under this
include: calendar quarter, no later than 30 days subpart that are also subject to the Acid
(A) Information gathered from control after the end of the quarter. Rain Program, you must meet all
technology vendors or engineering firms (2) In each quarterly report you must applicable reporting requirements and
demonstrating that the necessary include the following information, as submit reports as required under
controls cannot be installed or started applicable: subpart G of part 75 of this chapter.
up by the applicable compliance date (i) Each rolling average CO2 mass (2) For affected EGUs under this
listed in table 1 to this subpart; emissions rate for which the last subpart that are not in the Acid Rain
(B) Documentation of any permit (twelfth) operating month in a 12- Program, you must also meet the
delays; or operating-month compliance period reporting requirements and submit
reports as required under subpart G of (1) The person appointed as the approval of the waiver on evidence of
part 75 of this chapter, to the extent that Designated Representative (DR) under releases of CO2 or other pollutants. The
those requirements and reports provide 40 CFR 72.20; or Administrator will provide notice to the
applicable data for the compliance (2) The person appointed as the public of any application under this
demonstrations required under this Alternate Designated Representative provision and provide public notice of
subpart. (ADR) under 40 CFR 72.22; or any proposed action on a petition before
(3)(i) For all newly-constructed (3) A person (or persons) authorized the Administrator takes final action.
affected EGUs under this subpart that by the DR or ADR under 40 CFR 72.26
to make the required submissions. § 60.5560a What records must I maintain?
are also subject to the Acid Rain
Program, you must begin submitting the (e) For affected EGUs that are not (a) You must maintain records of the
quarterly electronic emissions reports subject to the Acid Rain Program, the information you used to demonstrate
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this owner or operator shall appoint a DR compliance with this subpart as
section in accordance with 40 CFR and (optionally) an ADR to submit the specified in § 60.7(b) and (f).
reports required under paragraphs (a) (b)(1) For affected EGUs subject to the
75.64(a), i.e., beginning with data
and (c)(2) of this section. The DR and Acid Rain Program, you must follow the
recorded on and after the earlier of:
ADR must register with the Clean Air applicable recordkeeping requirements
(A) The date of provisional and maintain records as required under
certification, as defined in 40 CFR Markets Division (CAMD) Business
System. The DR may delegate the subpart F of part 75 of this chapter.
75.20(a)(3); or (2) For affected EGUs that are not
authority to make the required
(B) 180 days after the date on which subject to the Acid Rain Program, you
submissions to one or more persons.
the EGU commences commercial (f) If your affected EGU captures CO2 must also follow the recordkeeping
operation (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2). to meet the applicable emission requirements and maintain records as
(ii) For newly-constructed affected standard, you must report in accordance required under subpart F of part 75 of
EGUs under this subpart that are not with the requirements of 40 CFR part this chapter, to the extent that those
subject to the Acid Rain Program, you 98, subpart PP, and either: records provide applicable data for the
must begin submitting the quarterly (1) Report in accordance with the compliance determinations required
electronic reports described in requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart under this subpart. Regardless of the
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, RR, or subpart VV, if injection occurs prior sentence, at a minimum, the
beginning with data recorded on and on-site; following records must be kept, as
after the date on which reporting is (2) Transfer the captured CO2 to a applicable to the types of continuous
required to begin under 40 CFR 75.64(a), facility that reports in accordance with monitoring systems used to demonstrate
if that date occurs on or after May 23, the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, compliance under this subpart:
2023. subpart RR, or subpart VV, if injection (i) Monitoring plan records under 40
(iii) For reconstructed or modified occurs off-site; or CFR 75.53(g) and (h);
units, reporting of emissions data shall (3) Transfer the captured CO2 to a (ii) Operating parameter records
begin at the date on which the EGU facility that has received an innovative under 40 CFR 75.57(b)(1) through (4);
becomes an affected unit under this technology waiver from EPA pursuant (iii) The records under 40 CFR
subpart, provided that the ECMPS to paragraph (g) of this section. 75.57(c)(2), for stack gas volumetric flow
Client Tool is able to receive and (g) Any person may request the rate;
process net energy output data on that Administrator to issue a waiver of the (iv) The records under 40 CFR
date. Otherwise, emissions data requirement that captured CO2 from an 75.57(c)(3) for continuous moisture
reporting shall be on a gross energy affected EGU be transferred to a facility monitoring systems;
output basis until the date that the reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart (v) The records under 40 CFR
Client Tool is first able to receive and RR, or subpart VV. To receive a waiver, 75.57(e)(1), except for paragraph
process net energy output data. the applicant must demonstrate to the (e)(1)(x), for CO2 concentration
(4) If any required monitoring system Administrator that its technology will monitoring systems or O2 monitors used
has not been provisionally certified by store captured CO2 as effectively as to calculate CO2 concentration;
(vi) The records under 40 CFR
the applicable date on which emissions geologic sequestration, and that the
75.58(c)(1), specifically paragraphs
data reporting is required to begin under proposed technology will not cause or
(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (viii) through (xiv), for
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the contribute to an unreasonable risk to
oil flow meters;
maximum (or in some cases, minimum) public health, welfare, or safety. In (vii) The records under 40 CFR
potential value for the parameter making this determination, the 75.58(c)(4), specifically paragraphs
measured by the monitoring system Administrator shall consider (among (c)(4)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), and (vii) through
shall be reported until the required other factors) operating history of the (xi), for gas flow meters;
certification testing is successfully technology, whether the technology will (viii) The quality-assurance records
completed, in accordance with 40 CFR increase emissions or other releases of under 40 CFR 75.59(a), specifically
75.4(j), 40 CFR 75.37(b), or section 2.4 any pollutant other than CO2, and paragraphs (a)(1) through (12) and (15),
of appendix D to part 75 of this chapter permanence of the CO2 storage. The for CEMS;
(as applicable). Operating hours in Administrator may test the system, or (ix) The quality-assurance records
which CO2 mass emission rates are require the applicant to perform any under 40 CFR 75.59(a), specifically
calculated using maximum potential tests considered by the Administrator to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4), for fuel
values are not ‘‘valid operating hours’’
be necessary to show the technology’s flow meters; and

(as defined in § 60.5540(a)(1)), and shall effectiveness, safety, and ability to store (x) Records of data acquisition and
not be used in the compliance captured CO2 without release. The handling system (DAHS) verification
determinations under § 60.5540. Administrator may grant conditional under 40 CFR 75.59(e).
(d) For affected EGUs subject to the approval of a technology, with the (c) You must keep records of the
Acid Rain Program, the reports required approval conditioned on monitoring calculations you performed to
under paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) of this and reporting of operations. The determine the hourly and total CO2
section shall be submitted by: Administrator may also withdraw mass emissions (tons) for:
(1) Each operating month (for all or record, according to § 60.7. Records Base load combustion turbine means
affected EGUs); and that are accessible from a central a stationary combustion turbine that
(2) Each compliance period, location by a computer or other means supplies more than 40 percent of its
including, each 12-operating-month that instantly provide access at the site potential electric output as net-electric
compliance period. meet this requirement. You may sales on both a 12-operating month and
(d) Consistent with § 60.5520a, you maintain the records off site for the a 3-year rolling average basis.
must keep records of the applicable data remaining year(s) as required by this Base load rating means the maximum
recorded and calculations performed subpart. amount of heat input (fuel) that an EGU
that you used to determine your affected can combust on a steady state basis plus
Other Requirements and Information the maximum amount of heat input
EGU’s gross or net energy output for
each operating month. § 60.5570a What parts of the general derived from non-combustion source
(e) You must keep records of the provisions apply to my affected EGU? (e.g., solar thermal), as determined by
calculations you performed to Notwithstanding any other provision the physical design and characteristics
determine the percentage of valid CO2 of this chapter, certain parts of the of the EGU at International Organization
mass emission rates in each compliance general provisions in §§ 60.1 through for Standardization (ISO) conditions.
period. 60.19, listed in table 3 to this subpart, For a stationary combustion turbine,
(f) You must keep records of the do not apply to your affected EGU. base load rating includes the heat input
calculations you performed to assess from duct burners.
compliance with each applicable CO2 § 60.5575a Who implements and enforces Coal means all solid fuels classified as
this subpart? anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous,
mass emissions standard in table 1 or 2
to this subpart. (a) This subpart can be implemented or lignite in ASTM D388–99R04
(g) You must keep records of the and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17),
calculations you performed to authority such as your state, local, or coal refuse, and petroleum coke.
determine any site-specific carbon- Tribal agency. If the Administrator has Synthetic fuels derived from coal for the
based F-factors you used in the delegated authority to your state, local, purpose of creating useful heat,
emissions calculations (if applicable). or Tribal agency, then that agency (as including, but not limited to, solvent-
(h) For stationary combustion well as the EPA) has the authority to refined coal, gasified coal (not meeting
turbines, you must keep records of implement and enforce this subpart. the definition of natural gas), coal-oil
electric sales to determine the You should contact your EPA Regional mixtures, and coal-water mixtures are
applicable subcategory. Office to find out if this subpart is included in this definition for the
(i) You must keep the records listed delegated to your state, local, or Tribal purposes of this subpart.
in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this agency. Coal-fired Electric Generating Unit
section to demonstrate that your (b) In delegating implementation and means a steam generating unit or
affected facility operated during a enforcement authority of this subpart to integrated gasification combined cycle
system emergency. a state, local, or Tribal agency, the unit that combusts coal on or after the
(1) Documentation that the system Administrator retains the authorities date of modification or at any point after
emergency to which the affected EGU listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of December 31, 2029.
was responding was in effect from the this section and does not transfer them Combined cycle unit means a
entity issuing the alert and to the state, local, or Tribal agency. In stationary combustion turbine from
documentation of the exact duration of addition, the EPA retains oversight of which the heat from the turbine exhaust
the system emergency; this subpart and can take enforcement gases is recovered by a heat recovery
(2) Documentation from the entity actions, as appropriate. steam generating unit (HRSG) to
issuing the alert that the system (1) Approval of alternatives to the generate additional electricity.
emission standards. Combined heat and power unit or
emergency included the affected source/
(2) Approval of major alternatives to CHP unit, (also known as
region where the affected facility was
test methods. ‘‘cogeneration’’) means an electric
located; and (3) Approval of major alternatives to
(3) Documentation that the affected generating unit that simultaneously
monitoring. produces both electric (or mechanical)
facility was instructed to increase (4) Approval of major alternatives to
output beyond the planned day-ahead and useful thermal output from the
recordkeeping and reporting. same primary energy source.
or other near-term expected output and/ (5) Performance test and data
or was asked to remain in operation Design efficiency means the rated
reduction waivers under § 60.8(b). overall net efficiency (e.g., electric plus
outside its scheduled dispatch during
emergency conditions from a Reliability § 60.5580a What definitions apply to this useful thermal output) on a higher
Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or subpart? heating value basis at the base load
Independent System Operator/Regional As used in this subpart, all terms not rating, at ISO conditions, and at the
Transmission Organization. defined herein will have the meaning maximum useful thermal output (e.g.,
given them in the Clean Air Act and in CHP unit with condensing steam
§ 60.5565a In what form and how long subpart A (general provisions) of this turbines would determine the design
must I keep my records? part. efficiency at the maximum level of
(a) Your records must be in a form Annual capacity factor means the extraction and/or bypass). Design
suitable and readily available for ratio between the actual heat input to an efficiency shall be determined using one
of the following methods: ASME PTC
expeditious review. EGU during a calendar year and the

(b) You must maintain each record for potential heat input to the EGU had it 22–2014, ASME PTC 46–1996, ISO
5 years after the date of conclusion of been operated for 8,760 hours during a 2314:2009 (E) (all incorporated by
each compliance period. calendar year at the base load rating. reference, see § 60.17), or an alternative
(c) You must maintain each record on Actual and potential heat input derived approved by the Administrator. When
site for at least 2 years after the date of from non-combustion sources (e.g., solar determining the design efficiency, the
each occurrence, measurement, thermal) are not included when output of integrated equipment and
maintenance, corrective action, report, calculating the annual capacity factor. energy storage are included.
Distillate oil means fuel oils that generating units can be used with or combustion turbine(s), and gas
comply with the specifications for fuel without duct burners. expander(s)), as measured at the
oil numbers 1 and 2, as defined in Integrated gasification combined generator terminals, less the electricity
ASTM D396–98 (incorporated by cycle facility or IGCC means a combined used to operate the plant (i.e., auxiliary
reference, see § 60.17); diesel fuel oil cycle facility that is designed to burn loads); such uses include fuel handling
numbers 1 and 2, as defined in ASTM fuels containing 50 percent (by heat equipment, pumps, fans, pollution
D975–08a (incorporated by reference, input) or more solid-derived fuel not control equipment, other electricity
see § 60.17); kerosene, as defined in meeting the definition of natural gas, needs, and transformer losses as
ASTM D3699–08 (incorporated by plus any integrated equipment that measured at the transmission side of the
reference, see § 60.17); biodiesel as provides electricity or useful thermal step up transformer (e.g., the point of
defined in ASTM D6751–11b output to the affected EGU or auxiliary sale).
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17); equipment. The Administrator may Net-electric sales means:
or biodiesel blends as defined in ASTM waive the 50 percent solid-derived fuel (1) The gross electric sales to the
D7467–10 (incorporated by reference, requirement during periods of the utility power distribution system minus
see § 60.17). gasification system construction, startup purchased power; or
Electric Generating units or EGU and commissioning, shutdown, or (2) For combined heat and power
means any steam generating unit, IGCC repair. No solid fuel is directly burned facilities, where at least 20.0 percent of
unit, or stationary combustion turbine in the EGU during operation. the total gross energy output consists of
that is subject to this rule (i.e., meets the Intermediate load combustion turbine useful thermal output on a 12-operating
applicability criteria). means a stationary combustion turbine month basis, the gross electric sales to
Fossil fuel means natural gas, that supplies more than 20 percent but the utility power distribution system
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid, less than or equal to 40 percent of its minus the applicable percentage of
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from potential electric output as net-electric purchased power of the thermal host
such material for the purpose of creating sales on both a 12-operating month and facility or facilities. The applicable
useful heat. a 3-year rolling average basis. percentage of purchase power for CHP
Gaseous fuel means any fuel that is ISO conditions means 288 Kelvin (15 facilities is determined based on the
present as a gas at ISO conditions and °C, 59 °F), 60 percent relative humidity percentage of the total thermal load of
includes, but is not limited to, natural and 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi, 1 atm) the host facility supplied to the host
gas, refinery fuel gas, process gas, coke- pressure. facility by the CHP facility. For
oven gas, synthetic gas, and gasified Liquid fuel means any fuel that is example, if a CHP facility serves 50
coal. present as a liquid at ISO conditions percent of a thermal host’s thermal
Gross energy output means: and includes, but is not limited to, demand, the owner/operator of the CHP
(1) For stationary combustion turbines distillate oil and residual oil. facility would subtract 50 percent of the
and IGCC, the gross electric or direct Low load combustion turbine means a thermal host’s electric purchased power
mechanical output from both the EGU stationary combustion turbine that when calculating net-electric sales.
(including, but not limited to, output supplies 20 percent or less of its (3) Electricity supplied to other
from steam turbine(s), combustion potential electric output as net-electric facilities that produce electricity to
turbine(s), and gas expander(s)) plus 100 sales on both a 12-operating month and offset auxiliary loads are included when
percent of the useful thermal output. a 3-year rolling average basis. calculating net-electric sales.
(2) For steam generating units, the Mechanical output means the useful (4) Electric sales during a system
gross electric or mechanical output from mechanical energy that is not used to emergency are not included when
the affected EGU(s) (including, but not operate the affected EGU(s), generate calculating net-electric sales.
limited to, output from steam turbine(s), electricity and/or thermal energy, or to Net energy output means:
combustion turbine(s), and gas enhance the performance of the affected (1) The net electric or mechanical
expander(s)) minus any electricity used EGU. Mechanical energy measured in output from the affected EGU plus 100
to power the feedwater pumps plus 100 horsepower hour should be converted percent of the useful thermal output; or
percent of the useful thermal output; into MWh by multiplying it by 745.7 (2) For combined heat and power
(3) For combined heat and power then dividing by 1,000,000. facilities, where at least 20.0 percent of
facilities, where at least 20.0 percent of Natural gas means a fluid mixture of the total gross or net energy output
the total gross energy output consists of hydrocarbons (e.g., methane, ethane, or consists of useful thermal output on a
useful thermal output on a 12-operating- propane), composed of at least 70 12-operating-month rolling average
month rolling average basis, the gross percent methane by volume or that has basis, the net electric or mechanical
electric or mechanical output from the a gross calorific value between 35 and output from the affected EGU divided
affected EGU (including, but not limited 41 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard by 0.95, plus 100 percent of the useful
to, output from steam turbine(s), cubic meter (950 and 1,100 Btu per dry thermal output.
combustion turbine(s), and gas standard cubic foot), that maintains a Operating month means a calendar
expander(s)) minus any electricity used gaseous state under ISO conditions. month during which any fuel is
to power the feedwater pumps (the Finally, natural gas does not include the combusted in the affected EGU at any
electric auxiliary load of boiler following gaseous fuels: Landfill gas, time.
feedwater pumps is not applicable to digester gas, refinery gas, sour gas, blast Petroleum means crude oil or a fuel
IGCC facilities), that difference divided furnace gas, coal-derived gas, producer derived from crude oil, including, but
by 0.95, plus 100 percent of the useful gas, coke oven gas, or any gaseous fuel not limited to, distillate and residual oil.
thermal output. produced in a process which might Potential electric output means the
Heat recovery steam generating unit result in highly variable CO2 content or base load rating design efficiency at the
(HRSG) means an EGU in which hot heating value. maximum electric production rate (e.g.,
exhaust gases from the combustion Net-electric output means the amount CHP units with condensing steam
turbine engine are routed in order to of gross generation the generator(s) turbines will operate at maximum
extract heat from the gases and generate produces (including, but not limited to, electric production) multiplied by the
useful output. Heat recovery steam output from steam turbine(s), base load rating (expressed in MMBtu/
h) of the EGU, multiplied by 106 Btu/ equipment. Stationary means that the the emission rate calculation is
MMBtu, divided by 3,413 Btu/KWh, combustion turbine is not self-propelled measured against the energy in the
divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and or intended to be propelled while thermal output at SATP conditions.
multiplied by 8,760 h/yr (e.g., a 35 performing its function. It may, Affected EGU(s) with meaningful energy
percent efficient affected EGU with a however, be mounted on a vehicle for in the condensate return (or other
100 MW (341 MMBtu/h) fossil fuel heat portability. A stationary combustion thermal energy input to the affected
input capacity would have a 306,000 turbine that burns any solid fuel directly EGU) must measure the energy in the
MWh 12-month potential electric output is considered a steam generating unit. condensate and subtract that energy
capacity). Steam generating unit means any relative to SATP conditions from the
Solid fuel means any fuel that has a furnace, boiler, or other device used for measured thermal output.
definite shape and volume, has no combusting fuel and producing steam Valid data means quality-assured data
tendency to flow or disperse under (nuclear steam generators are not generated by continuous monitoring
moderate stress, and is not liquid or included) plus any integrated systems that are installed, operated, and
gaseous at ISO conditions. This equipment that provides electricity or maintained according to part 75 of this
includes, but is not limited to, coal, useful thermal output to the affected chapter. For CEMS, the initial
biomass, and pulverized solid fuels. EGU(s) or auxiliary equipment. certification requirements in 40 CFR
Standard ambient temperature and System emergency means periods 75.20 and appendix A to 40 CFR part 75
pressure (SATP) conditions means when the Reliability Coordinator has must be met before quality-assured data
298.15 Kelvin (25 °C, 77 °F) and 100.0 declared an Energy Emergency Alert are reported under this subpart; for on-
kilopascals (14.504 psi, 0.987 atm) level 2 or 3 as defined by NERC going quality assurance, the daily,
pressure. The enthalpy of water at SATP Reliability Standard EOP–011–2 or its quarterly, and semiannual/annual test
conditions is 50 Btu/lb. successor. requirements in sections 2.1, 2.2, and
Stationary combustion turbine means Useful thermal output means the 2.3 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 75
all equipment including, but not limited thermal energy made available for use in must be met and the data validation
to, the turbine engine, the fuel, air, any heating application (e.g., steam criteria in sections 2.1.5, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2
lubrication and exhaust gas systems, delivered to an industrial process for a of appendix B to 40 CFR part 75. For
control systems (except emissions heating application, including thermal fuel flow meters, the initial certification
control equipment), heat recovery cooling applications) that is not used for requirements in section 2.1.5 of
system, fuel compressor, heater, and/or electric generation, mechanical output appendix D to 40 CFR part 75 must be
pump, post-combustion emission at the affected EGU, to directly enhance met before quality-assured data are
control technology, and any ancillary the performance of the affected EGU reported under this subpart (except for
components and sub-components (e.g., economizer output is not useful qualifying commercial billing meters
comprising any simple cycle stationary thermal output, but thermal energy used under section 2.1.4.2 of appendix D to
combustion turbine, any combined to reduce fuel moisture is considered 40 CFR part 75), and for on-going
cycle combustion turbine, and any useful thermal output), or to supply quality assurance, the provisions in
combined heat and power combustion energy to a pollution control device at section 2.1.6 of appendix D to 40 CFR
turbine based system plus any the affected EGU. Useful thermal output part 75 apply (except for qualifying
integrated equipment that provides for affected EGU(s) with no condensate commercial billing meters).
electricity or useful thermal output to return (or other thermal energy input to Violation means a specified averaging
the combustion turbine engine, (e.g., the affected EGU(s)) or where measuring period over which the CO2 emissions
onsite photovoltaics), integrated energy the energy in the condensate (or other rate is higher than the applicable
storage (e.g., onsite batteries), heat thermal energy input to the affected emissions standard located in table 1 to
recovery system, or auxiliary EGU(s)) would not meaningfully impact this subpart.
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART TTTTA OF PART 60—CO2 EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED STATIONARY COMBUSTION TUR-
BINES THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION AFTER MAY 23, 2023 (GROSS OR NET ENERGY
OUTPUT-BASED STANDARDS APPLICABLE AS APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR)
[Note: Numerical values of 1,000 or greater have a minimum of 3 significant figures and numerical values of less than 1,000 have a minimum of
2 significant figures]
Affected EGU category CO2 emission standard
Base load combustion turbines ........................... For 12-operating month averages beginning before January 2032, 360 to 560 kg CO2/MWh
(800 to 1,250 lb CO2/MWh) of gross energy output; or 370 to 570 kg CO2/MWh (820 to
1,280 lb CO2/MWh) of net energy output as determined by the procedures in § 60.5525a.
For 12-operating month averages beginning after December 2031, 43 to 67 kg CO2/MWh (100
to 150 lb CO2/MWh) of gross energy output; or 42 to 64 kg CO2/MWh (97 to 139 lb CO2/
MWh) of net energy output as determined by the procedures in § 60.5525a.
Intermediate load combustion turbines ............... 530 to 710 kg CO2/MWh (1,170 to 1,560 lb CO2/MWh) of gross energy output; or 540 to 700
kg CO2/MWh (1,190 to 1,590 lb CO2/MWh) of net energy output as determined by the pro-
cedures in § 60.5525a.
Low load combustion turbines ............................ Between 50 to 69 kg CO2/GJ (120 to 160 lb CO2/MMBtu) of heat input as determined by the
procedures in § 60.5525a.
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART TTTTA OF PART 60—CO2 EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED STEAM GENERATING UNITS OR
IGCC THAT COMMENCED MODIFICATION AFTER MAY 23, 2023
Modified coal-fired steam gener- A unit-specific emissions standard determined by an 88.4 percent reduction in the unit’s best historical an-
ating unit. nual CO2 emission rate (from 2002 to the date of the modification).
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART TTTTA OF PART 60—APPLICABILITY OF SUBPART A OF PART 60 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) TO

SUBPART TTTTA
General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart TTTTa Explanation
§ 60.1 ................................... Applicability ........................ Yes.

§ 60.2 ................................... Definitions .......................... Yes .................................... Additional terms defined in § 60.5580a.
§ 60.3 ................................... Units and Abbreviations .... Yes.
§ 60.4 ................................... Address ............................. Yes .................................... Does not apply to information reported electronically
through ECMPS. Duplicate submittals are not re-
quired.
§ 60.5 ................................... Determination of construc- Yes.
tion or modification.
§ 60.6 ................................... Review of plans ................. Yes.
§ 60.7 ................................... Notification and Record- Yes .................................... Only the requirements to submit the notifications in
keeping. § 60.7(a)(1) and (3) and to keep records of malfunc-
tions in § 60.7(b), if applicable.
§ 60.8(a) ............................... Performance tests ............. No..
§ 60.8(b) ............................... Performance test method Yes .................................... Administrator can approve alternate methods.
alternatives.
§ 60.8(c)–(f) .......................... Conducting performance No..
tests.
§ 60.9 ................................... Availability of Information .. Yes.
§ 60.10 ................................. State authority ................... Yes.
§ 60.11 ................................. Compliance with standards No..
and maintenance re-
quirements.
§ 60.12 ................................. Circumvention .................... Yes.
§ 60.13 (a)–(h), (j) ................ Monitoring requirements .... No ...................................... All monitoring is done according to part 75.
§ 60.13 (i) ............................. Monitoring requirements .... Yes .................................... Administrator can approve alternative monitoring pro-
cedures or requirements.
§ 60.14 ................................. Modification ....................... Yes (steam generating
units and IGCC facilities)
No (stationary combus-
tion turbines)..
§ 60.15 ................................. Reconstruction ................... Yes.
§ 60.16 ................................. Priority list .......................... No..
§ 60.17 ................................. Incorporations by reference Yes.
§ 60.18 ................................. General control device re- No..
quirements.
§ 60.19 ................................. General notification and re- Yes .................................... Does not apply to notifications under § 75.61 or to in-
porting requirements. formation reported through ECMPS.
Subpart UUUUa—[Reserved] 60.5720b What if I do not submit a State 60.5795b Commitment to review emission
plan or my State plan is not approvable? guidelines for coal-fired affected EGUs
60.5725b In lieu of a State plan submittal,
■16. Remove and reserve subpart Applicability of State Plans to Affected EGUs
are there other acceptable option(s) for a
UUUUa. 60.5840b Does this subpart directly affect
State to meet its CAA section 111(d)
obligations? EGU owners or operators in my State?
■ 17. Add subpart UUUUb to read as
60.5730b Is there an approval process for a 60.5845b What affected EGUs must I
follows: address in my State plan?
Sec. negative declaration letter?
60.5850b What EGUs are excluded from
State Plan Requirements
Subpart UUUUb—Emission Guidelines for being affected EGUs?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric 60.5740b What must I include in my
federally enforceable State plan? Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Utility Generating Units
60.5775b What standards of performance 60.5860b What applicable monitoring,
Introduction
must I include in my State plan? recordkeeping, and reporting
60.5700b What is the purpose of this 60.5780b What compliance dates and requirements do I need to include in my
subpart? compliance periods must I include in my State plan for affected EGUs?
60.5705b Which pollutants are regulated by State plan? 60.5865b What are my recordkeeping
this subpart? 60.5785b What are the timing requirements requirements?
60.5710b Am I affected by this subpart? for submitting my State plan? 60.5870b What are my reporting and
60.5715b What is the review and approval 60.5790b What is the procedure for revising notification requirements?
process for my State plan? my State plan?
60.5875b How do I submit information otherwise is subject to regulation under § 60.5720b What if I do not submit a State
required by these emission guidelines to the Act as defined in 40 plan or my State plan is not approvable?
the EPA? CFR 52.21(b)(49). (a) If you do not submit an approvable
60.5876b What are the recordkeeping and State plan the EPA will develop a
reporting requirements for EGUs that (3) For the purposes of 40 CFR 70.2,
have committed to permanently cease with respect to greenhouse gas Federal plan for your State according to
operations by January 1, 2032? emissions from facilities regulated in § 60.27a. The Federal plan will
the State plan, the ‘‘pollutant that is implement the emission guidelines
Definitions
subject to any standard promulgated contained in this subpart. Owners and
60.5880b What definitions apply to this operators of affected EGUs not covered
subpart? under section 111 of the Act’’ shall be
considered to be the pollutant that by an approved State plan must comply
Subpart UUUUb—Emission Guidelines otherwise is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ as with a Federal plan implemented by the
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for defined in 40 CFR 70.2. EPA for the State.
(b) After a Federal plan has been
Electric Utility Generating Units (4) For the purposes of 40 CFR 71.2, implemented in your State, it will be
Introduction with respect to GHG emissions from withdrawn when your State submits,
facilities regulated in the State plan, the and the EPA approves, a State plan
§ 60.5700b What is the purpose of this ‘‘pollutant that is subject to any replacing the relevant portion(s) of the
subpart? standard promulgated under section 111 Federal plan.
This subpart establishes emission of the Act’’ shall be considered to be the
guidelines and approval criteria for pollutant that otherwise is ‘‘subject to § 60.5725b In lieu of a State plan
State plans that establish standards of regulation’’ as defined in 40 CFR 71.2. submittal, are there other acceptable
performance limiting greenhouse gas option(s) for a State to meet its CAA section
§ 60.5710b Am I affected by this subpart? 111(d) obligations?
(GHG) emissions from an affected steam
generating unit. An affected steam (a) If you are the Governor of a State A State may meet its CAA section
generating unit shall, for the purposes of in the contiguous United States with 111(d) obligations only by submitting a
this subpart, be referred to as an affected one or more affected EGUs that must be State plan or a negative declaration
EGU. These emission guidelines are addressed in your State plan as letter (if applicable).
developed in accordance with section indicated in § 60.5845b, you must § 60.5730b Is there an approval process
111(d) of the Clean Air Act and subpart submit a State plan to the U.S. for a negative declaration letter?
Ba of this part. State plans under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) No. The EPA has no formal review
emission guidelines in this subpart are that implements the emission guidelines process for negative declaration letters.
also subject to the requirements of contained in this subpart. If you are the Once your negative declaration letter
subpart Ba. To the extent any Governor of a State in the contiguous has been received, consistent with the
requirement of this subpart is United States with no affected EGUs, or electronic submission requirements in
inconsistent with the requirements of if all EGUs in your State are excluded § 60.5875b, the EPA will place a copy
subparts A or Ba of this part, the from being affected EGUs per in the public docket and publish a
requirements of this subpart shall apply. § 60.5850b, you must submit a negative notice in the Federal Register. If, at a
declaration letter in place of the State later date, an affected EGU for which
§ 60.5705b Which pollutants are regulated plan.
by this subpart? construction commenced on or before
(a) The pollutants regulated by this (b) If you are a coal-fired steam January 8, 2014, reconstruction on or
subpart are greenhouse gases (GHG). generating unit that has demonstrated before June 18, 2014, or modification on
The emission guidelines for greenhouse that it plans to permanently cease or before May 23, 2023, is found in your
gases established in this subpart are operation prior to January 1, 2032, State, you will be found to have failed
expressed as carbon dioxide (CO2) consistent with § 60.5740b(a)(9)(ii), and to submit a State plan as required, and
emission performance rates. that would be an affected EGU under a Federal plan implementing the
(b) PSD and Title V Thresholds for these emissions guidelines but for emission guidelines contained in this
Greenhouse Gases. § 60.5850b(k), you must comply with subpart, when promulgated by the EPA,
(1) For the purposes of 40 § 60.5876b. will apply to that affected EGU until
CFR 51.166(b)(49)(ii), with respect to you submit, and the EPA approves, a
§ 60.5715b What is the review and
GHG emissions from facilities regulated approval process for my State plan? State plan.
in the State plan, the ‘‘pollutant that is State Plan Requirements
subject to the standard promulgated (a) The EPA will determine the
under section 111 of the Act’’ shall be completeness of your State plan § 60.5740b What must I include in my
considered to be the pollutant that submission according to § 60.27a(g). The federally enforceable State plan?
otherwise is subject to regulation under timeline for completeness (a) You must include the components
the Act as defined in 40 determinations is provided in described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
CFR 51.166(b)(48) and in any State § 60.27a(g)(1). (13) of this section in your State plan
Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by (b) The EPA will act on your State submittal. The final State plan must
the EPA that is interpreted to plan submission according to § 60.27a. meet the requirements and include the
incorporate, or specifically incorporates, The Administrator will have 12 months information required under § 60.5775b
after the date the final State plan or
40 CFR 51.166(b)(48). and must also meet any administrative

(2) For the purposes of 40 State plan revision (as allowed under and technical completeness criteria
CFR 52.21(b)(50)(ii), with respect to § 60.5790b) is found to be complete to listed in § 60.27a(g)(2) and (3) that are
GHG emissions from facilities regulated fully approve, partially approve, not otherwise specifically enumerated
in the State plan, the ‘‘pollutant that is conditionally approve, partially here.
subject to the standard promulgated disapprove, and/or fully disapprove (1) Identification of affected EGUs.
under section 111 of the Act’’ shall be such State plan or revision or each Consistent with § 60.25a(a), you must
considered to be the pollutant that portion thereof. identify the affected EGUs covered by
your State plan and all affected EGUs in natural gas- and oil-fired subcategories, required elements for affected EGUs in
your State that meet the applicability the sum of the heat input during each the long-term coal-fired steam
criteria in § 60.5845b. You must also quarter in the 5-year period. generating unit and medium-term coal-
identify the subcategory into which you (C) The heat input for each fuel type fired steam generating unit
have classified each affected EGU. combusted during each quarter in the 5- subcategories.
States must subcategorize affected EGUs year period. (i) For affected EGUs in the long-term
into one of the following subcategories: (D) The start date and end date of the coal-fired steam generating unit
(i) Long-term coal-fired steam most representative continuous 8- subcategory using carbon capture to
generating units, consisting of coal-fired quarter period used to determine the meet their applicable standard of
steam generating units that are not baseline of emission performance under performance and affected EGUs in the
medium-term coal-fired steam § 60.5775b(d), the sum of the CO2 mass medium-term coal-fired steam
generating units and do not plan to emissions during that period, the sum of generating unit subcategory using
permanently cease operation before the gross energy output or, for affected natural gas co-firing to meet their
January 1, 2039. EGUs in the low load natural gas-fired applicable standard of performance,
(ii) Medium-term coal-fired steam subcategory or low load oil-fired State plans must assign calendar-date
generating units, consisting of coal-fired subcategory, the sum of the heat input deadlines to each of the increments of
steam generating units that have elected during that period, and sum of the heat progress described in subsection (a)(5)(i)
to commit to permanently cease input for each fuel type combusted and meet the website reporting
operations by a date after December 31, during that period. obligations of subsection (a)(5)(iii):
2031, and before January 1, 2039. (3) Standards of Performance. You (A) Submittal of a final control plan
(iii) Base load oil-fired steam must include all standards of for the affected EGU to the appropriate
generating units, consisting of oil-fired performance for each affected EGU air pollution control agency. The final
steam generating units with an annual according to § 60.5775b. Standards of control plan must be consistent with the
capacity factor greater than or equal to performance must be established at a subcategory declaration for each
45 percent. level of performance that does not affected EGU in the State plan.
(iv) Intermediate load oil-fired steam exceed the level calculated through the (1) For each affected unit in the long-
generating units, consisting of oil-fired use of the methods described in term coal-fired steam generating unit
steam generating units with an annual § 60.5775b(b), unless a State establishes subcategory, the final control plan must
capacity factor greater than or equal to a standard of performance pursuant to include supporting analysis for the
8 percent and less than 45 percent. § 60.5775b(e). affected EGU’s control strategy,
(v) Low load oil-fired steam (4) Requirements related to including a feasibility and/or front-end
generating units, consisting of oil-fired Subcategory Applicability. (i) You must engineering and design (FEED) study.
steam generating units with an annual include the following enforceable (2) For each affected unit in the
capacity factor less than 8 percent. requirements to establish an affected medium-term coal-fired steam
(vi) Base load natural gas-fired steam EGU’s applicability for each of the generating unit subcategory, the final
generating units, consisting of natural following subcategories: control plan must include supporting
gas-fired steam generating units with an (A) For medium-term coal-fired steam analysis for the affected EGU’s control
annual capacity factor greater than or generating units, you must include a strategy, including the design basis for
equal to 45 percent. requirement to permanently cease modifications at the facility, the
(vii) Intermediate load natural gas- operations by a date after December 31, anticipated timeline to achieve full
fired steam generating units, consisting 2031, and before January 1, 2039. compliance, and the benchmarks the
of natural gas-fired steam generating (B) For steam generating units that facility anticipates along the way.
units with an annual capacity factor meet the definition of natural gas- or oil- (B) Completion of awarding of
greater than or equal to 8 percent and fired, and that either retain the contracts. The owner or operator of an
less than 45 percent. capability to fire coal after May 9, 2024, affected EGU can demonstrate
(viii) Low load natural gas-fired steam that fired any coal during the 5-year compliance with this increment of
generating units, consisting of natural period prior to that date, or that will fire progress by submitting sufficient
gas-fired steam generating units with an any coal after that date and before evidence that the appropriate contracts
annual capacity factor less than 8 January 1, 2030, you must include a have been awarded.
percent. requirement to remove the capability to (1) For each affected unit in the long-
(2) Inventory of Data from Affected fire coal before January 1, 2030. term coal-fired steam generating unit
EGUs. You must include an inventory of (C) For each affected EGU, you must subcategory, awarding of contracts for
the following data from the affected also estimate coal, oil, and natural gas emission control systems or for process
EGUs: usage by heat input for the first 3 modifications, or issuance of orders for
(i) The nameplate capacity of the calendar years after January 1, 2030. the purchase of component parts to
affected EGU, as defined in § 60.5880b. (D) For affected EGUs that plan to accomplish emission control or process
(ii) The base load rating of the affected permanently cease operation, you must modification.
EGU, as defined in § 60.5880b. include a requirement that each such (2) For each affected unit in the
(iii) The data within the continuous 5- affected EGU comply with applicable medium-term coal-fired steam
year period immediately prior to May 9, State and Federal requirements for generating unit subcategory, awarding of
2024 including: permanently ceasing operation, contracts for boiler modifications, or
(A) The sum of the CO2 emissions including removal from its respective issuance of orders for the purchase of
during each quarter in the 5-year period. State’s air emissions inventory and component parts to accomplish boiler
(B) For affected EGUs in all amending or revoking all applicable modifications.
subcategories except the low load permits to reflect the permanent (C) Initiation of on-site construction
natural gas- and oil-fired subcategories, shutdown status of the EGU. or installation of emission control
the sum of the gross energy output (5) Increments of Progress. You must equipment or process change.
during each quarter in the 5-year period; include in your State plan legally (1) For each affected unit in the long-
for affected EGUs in the low load enforceable increments of progress as term coal-fired steam generating unit
subcategory, initiation of on-site subcategory, a report identifying the 30 business days after the owner or
construction or installation of emission geographic location where CO2 will be operator of the affected EGU knew or
control equipment or process change injected underground, how the CO2 will should have known of the event. This
required to achieve 90 percent carbon be transported from the capture location report must explain the cause or causes
capture on an annual basis. to the storage location, and the of the deviation and describe all
(2) For each affected unit in the regulatory requirements associated with measures taken or to be taken by the
medium-term coal-fired steam the sequestration activities, as well as an owner or operator of the EGU to cure the
generating unit subcategory, initiation of anticipated timeline for completing reported deviation and to prevent such
on-site construction or installation of related permitting activities. deviations in the future, including the
any boiler modifications necessary to (G) Compliance with the standard of timeframes in which the owner or
enable natural gas co-firing at a level of performance as follows: operator intends to cure the deviation.
40 percent on an annual average basis. (1) For each affected unit in the You must also include in your State
(D) Completion of on-site construction medium-term coal-fired subcategory, by plan a requirement that the owner or
or installation of emission control January 1, 2030. operator of the affected EGU to post a
equipment or process change. (2) For each affected unit in the long- report of any deviation from any
(1) For each affected unit in the long- term coal-fired steam generating federally enforceable increment of
term coal-fired steam generating unit subcategory, by January 1, 2032. progress on the Carbon Pollution
subcategory, completion of on-site (ii) For any affected unit in the long- Standards for EGUs website required by
construction or installation of emission term coal-fired steam generating unit § 60.5740b(a)(10) within 30 business
control equipment or process change subcategory that will meet its applicable days.
required to achieve 90 percent carbon standard of performance using a control (6) Reporting Obligations and
capture on an annual basis. other than CCS or in the medium-term Milestones for Affected EGUs that Have
(2) For each affected unit in the coal-fired steam generating unit Demonstrated They Plan to Permanently
medium-term coal-fired steam subcategory that will meet its applicable Cease Operations. You must include in
generating unit subcategory, completion standard of performance using a control your State plan legally enforceable
of on-site construction of any boiler other than natural gas co-firing: reporting obligations and milestones for
modifications necessary to enable (A) The State plan must include affected EGUs in the medium-term coal-
natural gas co-firing at a level of 40 appropriate increments of progress fired steam generating unit
percent on an annual average basis. consistent with 40 CFR 60.21a(h) (§ 60.5740b(a)(1)(ii)) subcategory, and
(E) Commencement of permitting specific to the affected unit’s control for affected EGUs that invoke RULOF
actions related to pipeline construction. strategy. based on a unit’s remaining useful life
The owner or operator of an affected (1) The increment of progress according to paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through
EGU must demonstrate that they have corresponding to 40 CFR 60.21a(h)(1) (v) of this section:
commenced permitting actions by a date must be assigned the earliest calendar (i) Five years before the date the
specified in the State plan. Evidence in date among the increments. affected EGU permanently ceases
support of the demonstration must (2) The increment of progress operations (either the date used to
include pipeline planning and design corresponding to 40 CFR 60.21a(h)(5) determine the applicable subcategory
documentation that informed the must be assigned calendar dates as under these emission guidelines or the
permitting process, a complete list of follows: for affected EGUs in the long- date used to invoke RULOF based on
pipeline-related permitting applications, term coal-fired steam generating remaining useful life) or 60 days after
including the nature of the permit subcategory, no later than January 1, State plan submission, whichever is
sought and the authority to which each 2032; and for affected EGUs in the later, the owner or operator of the
permit application was submitted, an medium-term coal-fired steam affected EGU must submit an Initial
attestation that the list of pipeline- generating subcategory, no later than Milestone Report to the applicable air
related permits is complete with respect January 1, 2030. pollution control agency that includes
to the authorizations required to operate (iii) The owner or operator of the the information in paragraphs
each affected unit at full compliance affected EGU must post within 30 (a)(6)(i)(A) through (D) of this section:
with the standard of performance, and business days of the State plan (A) A summary of the process steps
a timeline to complete all pipeline submittal a description of the activities required for the affected EGU to
permitting activities. or actions that constitute the increments permanently cease operations by the
(1) For affected units in the long-term of progress and the schedule for date included in the State plan,
coal-fired steam generating unit achieving the increments of progress on including the approximate timing and
subcategory, this increment of progress the Carbon Pollution Standards for duration of each step and any
applies to each affected EGU that adopts EGUs website required by notification requirements associated
CCS to meet the standard of § 60.5740b(a)(10). As the calendar dates with deactivation of the unit.
performance and ensure timely for each increment of progress occurs, (B) A list of key milestones that will
completion of CCS-related pipeline the owner or operator of the affected be used to assess whether each process
infrastructure. EGU must post within 30 business days step has been met, and calendar day
(2) For affected units in the medium- any documentation necessary to deadlines for each milestone. These
term coal-fired steam generating unit demonstrate that each increment of milestones must include at least the
subcategory, this increment of progress progress has been met on the Carbon initial notice to the relevant reliability
applies to each affected EGU that adopts Pollution Standards for EGUs website authority or authorities of an EGU’s
natural gas co-firing to meet the required by § 60.5740b(a)(10). deactivation date and submittal of an
standard of performance and ensures (iv) You must include in your State official retirement filing with the EGU’s
timely completion of any pipeline plan a requirement that the owner or relevant reliability authority or
infrastructure needed to transport operator of each affected EGU shall authorities.
natural gas to designated facilities. report to the State regulatory agency any (C) An analysis of how the process
(F) For each affected unit in the long- deviation from any federally enforceable steps, milestones, and associated
term coal-fired steam generating unit State plan increment of progress within timelines included in the Milestone
Report compare to the timelines of ceases operations (either the date used (8) State reporting. You must include
similar EGUs within the State that have to determine the applicable subcategory in your State plan a description of the
permanently ceased operations within under these emission guidelines or the process, contents, and schedule for State
the 10 years prior to the date of date used to invoke RULOF based on reporting to the EPA about State plan
promulgation of these emission remaining useful life), the owner or implementation and progress.
guidelines. operator of the affected EGU must (9) Specific requirements for existing
(D) Supporting regulatory documents, submit a Final Milestone Status Report. coal-fired steam generating EGUs. Your
which include those listed in This report must document any actions State plan must include the
paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(D)(1) through (3) of that the EGU has taken subsequent to requirements in paragraphs (a)(9)(i)
this section: ceasing operation to ensure that such through (iii) of this section specifically
(1) Any correspondence and official cessation is permanent, including any for existing coal-fired steam generating
filings with the relevant Regional regulatory filings with applicable EGUs:
Transmission Organization (RTO), authorities or decommissioning plans. (i) Your State plan must require that
Independent System Operator, (iv) The owner or operator of the any existing coal-fired steam-generating
Balancing Authority, Public Utilities affected EGU must post their Initial EGU shall operate only subject to a
Commission (PUC), or other applicable Milestone Report, as described in standard of performance pursuant to
authority; paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section; § 60.5775b or under an exemption of
(2) Any deactivation-related reliability annual Milestone Status Reports, as applicability provided under § 60.5850b
assessments conducted by the RTO or described in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this (including any extension of the date by
Independent System Operator; section; and Final Milestone Status which an EGU has committed to cease
(3) Any filings with the United States Report, as described in paragraph operating pursuant to the reliability
Securities and Exchange Commission or (a)(6)(iii) of this section; including the assurance mechanism, described in
notices to investors, including but not schedule for achieving milestones and paragraph (a)(13) of this section).
limited to, those listed in paragraphs (ii) You must include a list of the
any documentation necessary to
(a)(6)(i)(D)(3)(i) through (v) of this coal-fired steam generating EGUs that
demonstrate that milestones have been
section. are existing sources at the time of State
achieved, on the Carbon Pollution
(i) References in forms 10–K and 10– plan submission and that plan to
Standards for EGUs website required by permanently cease operation before
Q, in which the plans for the EGU are paragraph (a)(10) of this section within
mentioned; January 1, 2032, and the calendar dates
30 business days of being filed. by which they have committed to cease
(ii) Any integrated resource plans and
(v) You must include in your State operating.
PUC orders approving the EGU’s
plan a requirement that the owner or (iii) The State plan must provide that
deactivation;
(iii) Any reliability analyses operator of each affected EGU shall an existing coal-fired steam generating
developed by the RTO, Independent report to the State regulatory agency any EGU operating past the date listed in the
System Operator, or relevant reliability deviation from any federally enforceable State plan pursuant to paragraph
authority in response to the EGU’s State plan reporting milestone within 30 (a)(9)(ii) of this section is in violation of
deactivation notification; business days after the owner or that State plan, except to the extent the
(iv) Any notification from a relevant operator of the affected EGU knew or existing coal-fired steam generating EGU
reliability authority that the EGU may should have known of the event. This has received an extension of its date for
be needed for reliability purposes report must explain the cause or causes ceasing operation pursuant to the
notwithstanding the EGU’s intent to of the deviation and describe all reliability assurance mechanism,
deactivate; and measures taken or to be taken by the described in paragraph (a)(13) of this
(v) Any notification to or from an owner or operator of the EGU to cure the section.
RTO, Independent System Operator, or reported deviation and to prevent such (10) Carbon Pollution Standards for
Balancing Authority altering the timing deviations in the future, including the EGUs Websites. You must require in
of deactivation for the EGU. timeframes in which the owner or your State plan that owners or operators
(ii) For each of the remaining years operator intends to cure the deviation. of affected EGUs establish a publicly
prior to the date by which an affected You must also include in your State accessible ‘‘Carbon Pollution Standards
EGU has committed to permanently plan a requirement that the owner or for EGUs Website’’ and that they post
cease operations that is included in the operator of the affected EGU to post a relevant documents to this website. You
State plan, the owner or operator of the report of any deviation from any must require in your State plan that
affected EGU must submit an annual federally enforceable reporting owners or operators of affected EGUs
Milestone Status Report that includes milestone on the Carbon Pollution post their subcategory designations and
the information in paragraphs Standards for EGUs website required by compliance schedules as well as any
(a)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section: § 60.5740b(a)(10) within 30 business emissions data and other information
(A) Progress toward meeting all days. needed to demonstrate compliance with
milestones identified in the Initial (7) Identification of applicable a standard of performance to this
Milestone Report, described in monitoring, reporting, and website in a timely manner. This
§ 60.5740b(a)(6)(i); and recordkeeping requirements for each information includes, but is not limited
(B) Supporting regulatory documents affected EGU. You must include in your to, emissions data and other information
and relevant SEC filings, including State plan all applicable monitoring, relevant to determining compliance
reporting and recordkeeping with applicable standards of
correspondence and official filings with

the relevant RTO, Independent System requirements, including initial and performance, information relevant to the
Operator, Balancing Authority, PUC, or ongoing quality assurance and quality designation and determination of
other applicable authority to control procedures, for each affected compliance with increments of progress
demonstrate compliance with or EGU and the requirements must be and reporting obligations including
progress toward all milestones. consistent with or no less stringent than milestones for affected EGUs that plan
(iii) No later than six months from the the requirements specified in to permanently cease operations, and
date the affected EGU permanently § 60.5860b. any extension requests made and
granted pursuant to the compliance date time to install the identified controls. State plan provisions for a short-term
extension mechanism or the reliability This may include: reliability mechanism for affected EGUs
assurance mechanism. Data should be (1) Information gathered from control in your State that operate during a
available in a readily downloadable technology vendors or engineering firms system emergency, as defined in
format. In addition, you must establish demonstrating that the necessary § 60.5880b. Such a mechanism must
a website that displays the links to these controls cannot be installed or started include the components listed in
websites for all affected EGUs in your up by the applicable compliance date paragraphs (a)(12)(i) through (vi) of this
State plan. listed in § 60.5740b(a)(4)(i); section.
(11) Compliance Date Extension. You (2) Documentation of any permit (i) A requirement that the short-term
may include in your State plan delays; or reliability mechanism is available only
provisions allowing for a compliance (3) Documentation of delays in during system emergencies as defined in
date extension for owners or operators construction or permitting of § 60.5880b. The State plan must identify
of affected EGU(s) that are installing infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines) that the entity or entities that are authorized
add-on controls and that are unable to is necessary for implementation of the to issue system emergencies for the
meet the applicable standard of control technology; State.
performance by the compliance date (E) Identify a proposed compliance (ii) A provision that, for the duration
specified in § 60.5740b(a)(4)(i) due to date no later than one year after the of a documented system emergency, an
circumstances beyond the owner or applicable compliance date listed in impacted affected EGU may comply
operator’s control. Such provisions may § 60.5740b(a)(4)(i) and, if necessary, with an emission limitation
allow an owner or operator of an updated calendar dates for the corresponding to its baseline emission
affected EGU to request an extension of increments of progress that have not yet performance rate, as calculated under
no longer than one year from the been met. § 60.5775b(d), in lieu of its otherwise
specified compliance date and may only (ii) The State air pollution control applicable standard of performance. The
allow the owner or operator to receive agency is charged with approving or State plan must clearly identify the
an extension once. The optional State disapproving a compliance date alternative emission limitation that
plan mechanism must provide that an extension request based on its written corresponds to the affected EGU’s
extension request contains a determination that the affected EGU has baseline emission rate and include it as
demonstration of necessity that includes or has not made each of the necessary an enforceable emission limitation that
the following: demonstrations and provided all of the may be applied only during periods of
(i) A demonstration that the owner or necessary documentation according to system emergency.
operator of the affected EGU cannot paragraphs (a)(11)(i)(A) through (E) of (iii) A requirement that an affected
meet its compliance date due to this section. The following provisions EGU impacted by the system emergency
circumstances beyond the owner or for approval must be included in the and complying with an alternative
operator’s control and that the owner or mechanism: emission limitation must provide
operator has met all relevant increments (A) All documentation required as documentation, as part of its
of progress and otherwise taken all steps part of this extension must be submitted compliance demonstration, of the
reasonably possible to install the by the owner or operator of the affected system emergency according to
controls necessary for compliance by EGU to the State air pollution control (a)(12)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section
the specified compliance date up to the agency no later than 6 months prior to and that it was impacted by that system
point of the delay. The demonstration the applicable compliance date for that emergency.
shall: affected EGU. (A) Documentation that the system
(A) Identify each affected unit for (B) The owner or operator of the emergency was in effect from the entity
which the owner or operator is seeking affected EGU must notify the relevant issuing the system emergency and
the compliance extension; EPA Regional Administrator of their documentation of the exact duration of
(B) Identify and describe the controls compliance date extension request at the event;
to be installed at each affected unit to the time of the submission of the (B) Documentation from the entity
comply with the applicable standard of request. issuing the system emergency that the
performance pursuant to § 60.5775b; (C) The owner or operator of the system emergency included the affected
(C) Describe and demonstrate all affected EGU must post their source/region where the unit was
progress towards installing the controls application for the compliance date located;
and that the owner or operator has itself extension request to the Carbon (C) Documentation that the source
acted consistent with achieving timely Pollution Standards for EGUs website, was instructed to increase output
compliance, including: described in § 60.5740b(a)(10), when beyond the planned day-ahead or other
(1) Any and all contract(s) entered they submit the request to the State air near-term expected output and/or was
into for the installation of the identified pollution control agency. asked to remain in operation outside of
controls or an explanation as to why no (D) The owner or operator of the its scheduled dispatch during
contract is necessary or obtainable; and affected EGU must post the State’s emergency conditions from a Reliability
(2) Any permit(s) obtained for the determination on the compliance date Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or
installation of the identified controls or, extension request to the Carbon Independent System Operator/RTO; and
where a required permit has not yet Pollution Standards for EGUs website, (D) Data collected during the event
been issued, a copy of the permit described in § 60.5740b(a)(10), upon including the sum of the CO2 emissions,
application submitted to the permitting receipt of the determination and, if the the sum of the gross energy output, and
authority and a statement from the request is approved, update the the resulting CO2 emissions
permit authority identifying its information on the website related to performance rate.
anticipated timeframe for issuance of the compliance date and increments of (iv) A requirement to document the
such permit(s). progress dates within 30 days of the hours an affected EGU operated under a
(D) Identify the circumstances that are receipt of the State’s approval. system emergency and the enforceable
entirely beyond the owner or operator’s (12) Short-Term Reliability emission limitation, whether the
control and that necessitate additional Mechanism. You may include in your applicable standard of performance or
the alternative emission limitation, (iv) The State plan must provide that part of their established procedures for
under which that affected EGU operated any applicable standard of performance that particular region; specifically, this
during those hours. for an affected EGU must remain in requires a clear demonstration that the
(v) A provision that, for the purpose place during the duration of an eligible EGU would be needed to
of demonstrating compliance with the extension provided under this maintain the targeted level of resource
applicable standard of performance, the mechanism. adequacy.
affected EGU would comply with its (v) The State plan may provide for (B) Certification from the relevant
baseline emissions rate as calculated requests for an extension of up to 12 reliability planning authority that the
under § 60.5775b(d) in lieu of its months without a State plan revision. claims of reliability risk are accurate
otherwise applicable standard of (A) For an extension of 6 months or and that the identified reliability
performance for the hours of operation less, the owner or operator of the problem both exists and requires the
that correspond to the duration of the eligible EGU requesting the extension specific relief requested. This
event. must submit the information in certification must be accompanied by a
(vi) The inclusion of provisions paragraph (a)(13)(vi) to the applicable written analysis by the relevant
defining the short-term reliability EPA Regional Administrator to review planning authority consistent with
mechanism must be part of the public and approve or disapprove the paragraph (a)(13)(vi)(A) of this section,
comment process as part of the State extension request. confirming the asserted reliability risk if
plan’s development. (B) For an extension of more than 6 the eligible EGU was not in operation.
(13) Reliability Assurance months and up to 12 months, the owner The information from the relevant
Mechanism. You may include or operator of the eligible EGU reliability planning authority must also
provisions for a reliability assurance requesting the extension must submit include any related system-wide or
mechanism in your State plan. If the information in paragraph (a)(13)(vii) regional analysis and a substantiation of
included, such provisions would allow to the Federal Energy Regulatory the length of time that the eligible EGU
for one extension, not to exceed 12- Commission (through a process and at is expected to be reliability critical.
months of the date by which an affected an office of the Federal Energy (C) Copies of any written comments
EGU has committed to permanently Regulatory Commission’s designation) from third parties regarding the
cease operations based on a and to the applicable EPA Regional extension.
demonstration consistent with this Administrator to review and approve or (D) Demonstration from the owner or
paragraph (a)(13) that operation of the disapprove the extension request. operator of the eligible EGU, grid
affected EGU is necessary for electric (vi) The State plan must require that operator, and other relevant entities of
grid reliability. to apply for an extension for 6 months a plan, including appropriate actions to
(i) The State plan must require that or less, described in paragraph bring on new capacity or transmission,
the reliability assurance mechanism (a)(13)(v)(A) of this section, the owner to resolve the underlying reliability
would only be appliable to the or operator of an eligible EGU must issue is leading to the need to employ
following EGUs which, for the purpose submit a complete written application this reliability assurance mechanism,
of this paragraph (a)(13), are collectively that includes the information listed in including the steps and timeframes for
referred to as ‘‘eligible EGUs’’: paragraphs (a)(13)(vi)(A) through (D) of implementing measures to rectify the
(A) Coal-fired steam generating units this section no less than 30 days prior underlying reliability issue.
that are exempt from these emission to the cease operation date, but no (E) Any other information requested
guidelines pursuant to § 60.5850b(k), earlier than 12 months prior to the cease by the applicable EPA Regional
(B) Affected EGUs in the medium- operation date. Administrator or the Federal Energy
term coal-fired steam-generating (A) An analysis of the reliability risk Regulatory Commission.
subcategory that have enforceable that clearly demonstrates that the (vii) The State plan must require that
commitments to permanently cease eligible EGU is critical to maintaining to apply for an extension longer than 6
operation before January 1, 2039, in the electric reliability. The analysis must months but up to 12 months, described
State plan, and include a projection of the length of in paragraph (a)(13)(v)(B) of this section,
(C) Affected EGUs that have time that the EGU is expected to be the owner or operator of an eligible EGU
enforceable dates to permanently cease reliability-critical and the length of the must submit a complete written
operation included in the State plan requested extension must be no longer application that includes the
pursuant to § 60.24a(g). than this period or 6 months, whichever information listed in (a)(13)(vi)(A)
(ii)The date from which an extension is shorter. In order to show an through (E) of this section, except that
would run is the date included in the approvable reliability need, the analysis the period of time under (a)(13)(vi)(A)
State plan by which an eligible EGU has must clearly demonstrate that an would be 12 months. For requests for
committed to permanently cease eligible EGU ceasing operation by the extensions longer than 6 months, this
operation. date listed in the State plan would cause application must be submitted to the
(iii) The State plan must provide that one or more of the conditions listed in EPA Regional Administrator no less
an extension is only available to owners paragraphs (a)(13)(vi)(A)(1) or (2) of this than 45 days prior to the date for
or operators of affected EGUs that have section. An eligible EGU that has ceasing operation listed in the State
satisfied all applicable increments of received a Reliability Must Run plan, but no earlier than 12 months
progress and reporting obligations and designation, or equivalent from a prior to that date.
milestones in paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) Reliability Coordinator or Balancing (viii) The State plan must provide that
of this section. This includes requiring
Authority, would fulfill those extensions will only be granted for the
that the owner or operator of an affected conditions. period of time that is substantiated by
EGU has posted all information relevant (1) Result in noncompliance with at the reliability need and the submitted
to such increments of progress and least one of the mandatory reliability analysis and documentation, and shall
reporting obligations and milestones on standards approved by FERC; or not exceed 12 months in total.
the Carbon Pollution Standards for (2) Would cause the loss of load (ix) The State plan must provide that
EGUs website, described in expectation to increase beyond the level the reliability assurance mechanism
§ 60.5740b(a)(10). targeted by regional system planners as shall not be used more than once to
extend an eligible EGU’s planned cease (5) An affected EGU’s standard of percent to reflect the preexisting level of
operation date. performance is enforceable if: natural gas co-firing).
(x) The EPA Regional Administrator (i) A technically accurate limitation or (3) Base load oil-fired steam
may reject the application if the requirement, and the time period for the generating units.
submission is incomplete with respect limitation or requirement, are specified; (i) BSER is routine methods of
to the requirements listed in paragraphs (ii) Compliance requirements are operation and maintenance.
(a)(13)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section clearly defined; (ii) Degree of emission limitation is a
or if the submission does not adequately (iii) The affected EGUs are responsible 0 percent increase in emission rate (lb
support the asserted reliability risk or for compliance and liable for violations CO2/MWh-gross).
the period of time for which the eligible identified; (iii) Presumptively approvable
EGU is anticipated to be reliability (iv) Each compliance activity or standard of performance is an annual
critical. measure is enforceable as a practical emission rate limit of 1,400 lb CO2/
(b) [Reserved] matter, as defined by 40 CFR 49.167; MWh-gross.
and (4) Intermediate load oil-fired steam
§ 60.5775b What standards of performance (v) The Administrator, the State, and generating units.
must I include in my State plan? (i) BSER is routine methods of
third parties maintain the ability to
(a) For each affected EGU, your State enforce against violations (including if operation and maintenance.
plan must include the standard of an affected EGU does not meet its (ii) Degree of emission limitation is a
performance that applies for the affected standard of performance based on its 0 percent increase in emission rate (lb
EGU. A standard of performance for an emissions) and secure appropriate CO2/MWh-gross).
affected EGU may take the following corrective actions: in the case of the (iii) Presumptively approvable
forms: Administrator, pursuant to CAA standard of performance is an annual
(1) A rate-based standard of sections 113(a)–(h); in the case of a emission rate limit of 1,600 lb CO2/
performance for an individual affected State, pursuant to its State plan, State MWh-gross.
EGU that does not exceed the level law or CAA section 304, as applicable; (5) Low load oil-fired steam
calculated through the use of the and in the case of third parties, pursuant generating units.
methods described in § 60.5775b(c) and to CAA section 304. (i) BSER is uniform fuels.
(d). (ii) Degree of emission limitation is
(c) Methodology for establishing
(2) A standard of performance in an 170 lb CO2/MMBtu.
presumptively approvable standards of
alternate form, which may apply for (iii) Presumptively approvable
performance, for affected EGUs in each
affected EGUs in the long-term coal- standard of performance is an annual
subcategory.
fired steam generating unit subcategory emission rate limit of 170 lb CO2/
(1) Long-term coal-fired steam
or the medium-term coal-fired steam MMBtu.
generating units
generating unit subcategory, as provided (6) Base load natural gas-fired steam
(i) BSER is CCS with 90 percent
for in § 60.5775b(e). generating units.
capture of CO2. (i) BSER is routine methods of
(b) Standard(s) of performance for (ii) Degree of emission limitation is
affected EGUs included under your operation and maintenance.
88.4 percent reduction in emission rate (ii) Degree of emission limitation is a
State plan must be demonstrated to be (lb CO2/MWh-gross). 0 percent increase in emission rate (lb
quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, (iii) Presumptively approvable CO2/MWh-gross).
permanent, and enforceable with standard of performance is an emission (iii) Presumptively approvable
respect to each affected EGU. The State rate limit defined by an 88.4 percent standard of performance is an annual
plan submittal must include the reduction in annual emission rate (lb emission rate limit of 1,400 lb CO2/
methods by which each standard of CO2/MWh-gross) from the unit-specific MWh-gross.
performance meets each of the following baseline. (7) Intermediate load natural gas-fired
requirements: (2) Medium-term coal-fired steam steam generating units.
(1) An affected EGU’s standard of generating units (i) BSER is routine methods of
performance is quantifiable if it can be (i) BSER is natural gas co-firing at 40 operation and maintenance.
reliably measured in a manner that can percent of the heat input to the unit. (ii) Degree of emission limitation is a
be replicated. (ii) Degree of emission limitation is a 0 percent increase in emission rate (lb
(2) An affected EGU’s standard of 16 percent reduction in emission rate (lb CO2/MWh-gross).
performance is verifiable if adequate CO2/MWh-gross). (iii) Presumptively approvable
monitoring, recordkeeping and (iii) Presumptively approvable standard of performance is an annual
reporting requirements are in place to standard of performance is an emission emission rate limit of 1,600 lb CO2/
enable the State and the Administrator rate limit defined by a 16 percent MWh-gross.
to independently evaluate, measure, and reduction in annual emission rate (lb (8) Low load natural gas-fired steam
verify compliance with the standard of CO2/MWh-gross) from the unit-specific generating.
performance. baseline. (i) BSER is uniform fuels.
(3) An affected EGU’s standard of (iv) For units in this subcategory that (ii) Degree of emission limitation is
performance is non-duplicative with have an amount of co-firing that is 130 lb CO2/MMBtu.
respect to a State plan if it is not already reflected in the baseline operation, (iii) Presumptively approvable
incorporated as an standard of States must account for such preexisting
standard of performance is an annual

performance in the State plan. co-firing in adjusting the degree of emission rate limit of 130 lb CO2/
(4) An affected EGU’s standard of emission limitation (e.g., for an EGU co- MMBtu.
performance is permanent if the fires natural gas at a level of 10 percent (d) Methodology for establishing the
standard of performance must be met of the total annual heat input during the unit-specific baseline of emission
continuously unless it is replaced by applicable 8-quarter baseline period, the performance.
another standard of performance in an corresponding degree of emission (1) A State shall use the CO2 mass
approved State plan revision. limitation would be adjusted to 12 emissions and corresponding electricity
generation or, for affected EGUs in the performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross) that (3) Measures to implement and
low load oil- or natural gas-fired applies for a group of affected EGUs that enforce the annual limit on mass CO2
subcategory, heat input data for a given share the same owner or operator, as emissions, including provisions that
affected EGU from the most calculated on a gross generation address assurance of achievement of
representative continuous 8-quarter weighted average basis, your State plan equivalent emission performance.
period from 40 CFR part 75 reporting must include: (4) A demonstration of how the
within the 5-year period immediately (1) The presumptively approvable application of the mass CO2 limit for the
prior to May 9, 2024. rate-based standard of performance (lb affected EGU will achieve equivalent or
(2) For the continuous 8 quarters of CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply better emission reduction as would be
data, a State shall divide the total CO2 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, achieved through the application of a
emissions (in the form of pounds) over and as determined in accordance with rate-based standard of performance (lb
that continuous time period by either paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, to CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply
the total gross electricity generation (in each of the affected EGUs that form the pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this
the form of MWh) or, for affected EGUs group. section, and as determined in
in the low load oil- or natural gas-fired (2) Documentation of any accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d)
subcategory, total heat input (in the assumptions underlying the calculation of this section.
form of MMBtu) over that same time of the aggregate rate-based standard of (5) The backstop rate-based emission
period to calculate baseline CO2 performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross). rate requirement (lb CO2/MWh-gross)
emission performance in lb CO2 per (3) The process for calculating the that will also be applied to the affected
MWh or lb CO2 per MMBtu. aggregate gross generation weighted EGU on an annual basis.
(e) Your State plan may include a (6) For affected EGUs in the long-term
average emission rate (lb CO2/MWh-
standard of performance in an alternate coal-fired steam generating unit
gross) at the end of each compliance
form that differs from the presumptively subcategory, in lieu of paragraphs (g)(2),
period, based on the reported emissions
approvable standard of performance (4), and (5) of this section, you may
(lb CO2) and utilization (MWh-gross) of
specified in § 60.5775b(a)(1), as follows: include a presumptively approvable
(1) An aggregate rate-based standard each of the affected EGUs that form the mass CO2 limit based on the product of
of performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross) that group. the rate-based standard of performance
applies for a group of affected EGUs that (4) Measures to implement and (lb CO2/MWh-gross) under paragraph
share the same owner or operator, as enforce the annual aggregate rate-based (a)(1) of this section multiplied by a
calculated on a gross generation standard of performance, including the level of utilization (MWh-gross)
weighted average basis, provided the basis for determining owner or operator corresponding to an annual capacity
standard of performance meets the compliance with the aggregate standard factor of 80 percent for the individual
requirements of paragraph (f) of this of performance and provisions to affected EGU with a backstop rate-based
section. address any changes to owners or emission rate requirement equivalent to
(2) A mass-based standard of operators in the course of a reduction in baseline emission
performance in the form of an annual implementation. performance of 80 percent on an annual
limit on allowable mass CO2 emissions (5) A demonstration of how the calendar-year basis.
for an individual affected EGU, application of the aggregate rate-based (h) Where your State plan includes a
provided the standard of performance standard of performance will achieve standard of performance in the form of
meets the requirements of paragraph (g) equivalent or better emission reduction a rate-based standard of performance (lb
of this section. as would be achieved through the CO2/MWh-gross) implemented through
(3) A rate-based standard of application of a rate-based standard of a rate-based emission trading program,
performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross) performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross) that your State plan must include:
implemented through a rate-based would apply pursuant to paragraph (1) The presumptively approvable
emission trading program, such that an (a)(1) of this section, and as determined rate-based standard of performance (lb
affected EGU must meet the specified lb in accordance with paragraphs (c) and CO2/MWh-gross) that applies to each of
CO2/MWh-gross rate that applies for the (d) of this section. the affected EGUs participating in the
affected EGU, and where an affected (g) Where your State plan includes a rate-based emission trading program
EGU may surrender compliance standard of performance in the form of under paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
instruments denoted in 1 short ton of an annual limit on allowable mass CO2 and as determined in accordance with
CO2 to adjust its reported lb CO2/MWh- emissions for an individual affected paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
gross rate for the purpose of EGU, your State plan must include: (2) Measures to implement and
demonstrating compliance, provided the (1) The presumptively approvable enforce the rate-based emission trading
standard of performance meets the rate-based standard of performance (lb program, including the basis for
requirements of paragraph (h) of this CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply to awarding compliance instruments
section. the affected EGU under paragraph (a)(1) (denoted in 1 ton of CO2) to an affected
(4) A mass-based standard of of this section, and as determined in EGU that performs better on an annual
performance in the form of an annual accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) basis than its rate-based standard of
CO2 budget implemented through a of this section. performance, and the process for
mass-based CO2 emission trading (2) The utilization level used to demonstration of compliance that
program, where an affected EGU must calculate the mass CO2 limit, by includes the surrender of such
surrender CO2 allowances in an amount multiplying the assumed utilization compliance instruments by an affected
equal to its reported mass CO2 level (MWh-gross) by the presumptively EGU that exceeds its rate-based standard
emissions, provided the standard of approvable rate-based standard of of performance.
performance meets the requirements of performance (lb CO2/MWh-gross), (3) A demonstration of how the use of
paragraph (i) of this section. including the underlying data used for the rate-based emission trading program
(f) Where your State plan includes a the calculation and documentation of will achieve equivalent or better
standard of performance in the form of any assumptions underlying this emission reduction as would be
an aggregate rate-based standard of calculation. achieved through the application of a
rate-based standard of performance (lb electric reliability such that requiring it generating subcategory, the low load oil-
CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply to comply with the applicable fired subcategory, the base load natural
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this requirements under paragraph (c) of this gas-fired subcategory, the intermediate
section, and as determined in section or § 60.5780b would trigger non- load natural gas-fired subcategory, and
accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) compliance with at least one of the the low load natural gas-fired
of this section. mandatory reliability standards subcategory, the State plan must require
(i) Where your State plan includes a approved by the Federal Energy compliance with the applicable
mass-based standard of performance Regulatory Commission or would cause standards of performance starting no
implemented through a mass-based CO2 the loss of load expectation to increase later than January 1, 2030, unless State
emission trading program, where an beyond the level targeted by regional has applied a later compliance date
affected EGU must surrender CO2 system planners as part of their pursuant to § 60.24a(e) through (h).
allowances in an amount equal to its established procedures for that (b) The State plan must require
reported mass CO2 emissions, your State particular region; specifically, a clear affected EGUs to achieve compliance
plan must include: demonstration is required that the with their applicable standards of
(1) The presumptively approvable particular affected EGU would be performance for each compliance period
rate-based standard of performance (lb needed to maintain the targeted level of as defined in § 60.5880b.
CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply to resource adequacy. The analysis must
each affected EGU participating in the also include a projection of the period § 60.5785b What are the timing
trading program under paragraph (a)(1) requirements for submitting my State plan?
of time for which the particular affected
of this section, and as determined in EGU is expected to be reliability critical (a) You must submit a State plan or
accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) and substantiate the basis for applying a negative declaration letter with the
of this section. a less stringent standard of performance information required under § 60.5740b
(2) The calculation of the mass CO2 or longer compliance schedule by May 11, 2026.
budget contribution for each consistent with 40 CFR 60.24a(e). (b) You must submit all information
participating affected EGU, determined (2) An analysis by the relevant required under paragraph (a) of this
by multiplying the assumed utilization reliability planning authority that section according to the electronic
level (MWh-gross) of the affected EGU corroborates the asserted reliability risk reporting requirements in § 60.5875b.
by its presumptively approvable rate- identified in the analysis under
based standard of performance (lb CO2/ § 60.5790b What is the procedure for
paragraph (j)(1) of this section and revising my State plan?
MWh-gross), including the underlying confirms that requiring the particular
data used for the calculation and affected EGU to comply with its EPA-approved State plans can be
documentation of any assumptions applicable requirements under revised only with approval by the
underlying this calculation. paragraph (c) of this section or Administrator. The Administrator will
(3) Measures to implement and § 60.5780b would trigger non- approve a State plan revision if it is
enforce the annual budget of the mass- compliance with at least one of the satisfactory with respect to the
based CO2 emission trading program, mandatory reliability standards applicable requirements of this subpart
including provisions that address approved by the Federal Energy and all applicable requirements of
assurance of achievement of equivalent Regulatory Commission or would cause subpart Ba of this part. If one (or more)
emission performance. the loss of load expectation to increase of State plan elements in § 60.5740b
(4) A demonstration of how the require revision, the State must submit
beyond the level targeted by regional
application of the CO2 emission budget a State plan revision pursuant to
system planners as part of their
for the group of participating affected § 60.28a.
established procedures for that
EGUs will achieve equivalent or better
particular region, and also confirms the § 60.5795b Commitment to review
emission performance as would be
period of time for which the EGU is emission guidelines for coal-fired affected
achieved through the application of a
projected to be reliability critical. EGUs
rate-based standard of performance (lb (3) A certification from the relevant
CO2/MWh-gross) that would apply to EPA will review and, if appropriate,
reliability planning authority that the revise these emission guidelines as they
each participating affected EGU under claims of reliability risk are accurate
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and as apply to coal-fired steam generating
and that the identified reliability affected EGUs by January 1, 2041.
determined in accordance with problem both exists and requires the
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Notwithstanding this commitment, EPA
specific relief requested. need not review these emission
(5) The backstop rate-based emission
rate requirement (lb CO2/MWh-gross) § 60.5780b What compliance dates and guidelines if the Administrator
that will also be applied to each compliance periods must I include in my determines that such review is not
participating affected EGU on an annual State plan? appropriate in light of readily available
basis. (a) The State plan must include the information on their continued
(j) In order to use the provisions of following compliance dates: appropriateness.
§ 60.24a(e) through (h) to apply a less (1) For affected EGUs in the long-term Applicability of State Plans to Affected
stringent standard of performance or coal-fired subcategory, the State plan EGUs
longer compliance schedule to an must require compliance with the
affected EGU based on consideration of applicable standards of performance § 60.5840b Does this subpart directly
affect EGU owners or operators in my
electric grid reliability, including starting no later than January 1, 2032,

resource adequacy, under these unless the State has applied a later State?
emission guidelines, a State must compliance date pursuant to § 60.24a(e) (a) This subpart does not directly
provide the following with its State plan through (h). affect EGU owners or operators in your
submission: (2) For affected EGUs in the medium- State, except as provided in
(1) An analysis of the reliability risk term coal-fired subcategory, the base § 60.5710b(b). However, affected EGU
clearly demonstrating that the particular load oil-fired subcategory, the owners or operators must comply with
affected EGU is critical to maintaining intermediate load oil-fired steam the State plan that a State develops to
implement the emission guidelines fuel at the base load rating) that are that have not met the required
contained in this subpart. subject to a federally enforceable permit frequency for relative accuracy audit
(b) If a State does not submit a State limiting fossil fuel use to 10 percent or testing are not considered to be valid
plan to implement and enforce the less of the annual capacity factor; data and
standards of performance contained in (f) CHP units that are subject to a (ii) The corresponding hourly gross
this subpart by May 11, 2026, or the federally enforceable permit limiting energy output value is also valid data
EPA disapproves State plan, the EPA annual net-electric sales to no more than (Note: For operating hours with no
will implement and enforce a Federal either 219,000 MWh or the product of useful output, zero is considered to be
plan, as provided in § 60.5720b, the design efficiency and the potential a valid value).
applicable to each affected EGU within electric output, whichever is greater; (3) For rate-based standards of
the State. (g) Units that serve a generator along performance, the owner or operator of
with other EGUs, where the effective an affected EGU must measure and
§ 60.5845b What affected EGUs must I generation capacity (determined based
address in my State plan? report the hourly CO2 mass emissions
on a prorated output of the base load (lbs) from each affected unit using the
(a) The EGUs that must be addressed rating of each EGU) is 25 MW or less; procedures in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
by your State plan are: (h) Municipal waste combustor units through (vi) of this section, except as
(1) Any affected EGUs that were in subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb; otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(4)
operation or had commenced (i) Commercial or industrial solid of this section.
construction on or before January 8, waste incineration units that are subject
(i) The owner or operator of an
2014; to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC; or
(j) EGUs that derive greater than 50 affected EGU must install, certify,
(2) Coal-fired steam generating units
percent of the heat input from an operate, maintain, and calibrate a CO2
that commenced a modification on or
industrial process that does not produce continuous emissions monitoring
before May 23, 2023.
(b) An affected EGU is a steam any electrical or mechanical output or system (CEMS) to directly measure and
generating unit that meets the relevant useful thermal output that is used record CO2 concentrations in the
applicability conditions specified in outside the affected EGU. affected EGU exhaust gases emitted to
paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of this (k) Existing coal-fired steam the atmosphere and an exhaust gas flow
section, as applicable, except as generating units that have demonstrated rate monitoring system according to 40
provided in § 60.5850b. that they plan to permanently cease CFR 75.10(a)(3)(i). As an alternative to
(1) Serves a generator capable of operations before January 1, 2032, direct measurement of CO2
selling greater than 25 MW to a utility pursuant to § 60.5740b(a)(9)(ii). concentration, provided that the
power distribution system; and affected EGU does not use carbon
Recordkeeping and Reporting separation (e.g., carbon capture and
(2) Has a base load rating (i.e., design
Requirements storage (CCS)), the owner or operator of
heat input capacity) greater than 260 GJ/
hr (250 MMBtu/hr) heat input of fossil an affected EGU may use data from a
§ 60.5860b What applicable monitoring,
fuel (either alone or in combination recordkeeping, and reporting requirements certified oxygen (O2) monitor to
with any other fuel). do I need to include in my State plan for calculate hourly average CO2
affected EGUs? concentrations, in accordance with 40
§ 60.5850b What EGUs are excluded from (a) Your State plan must include CFR 75.10(a)(3)(iii). However, when an
being affected EGUs? monitoring for affected EGUs that is no O2 monitor is used this way, it only
EGUs that are excluded from being less stringent than what is described in quantifies the combustion CO2;
affected EGUs are: (a)(1) through (9) of this section. therefore, if the EGU is equipped with
(a) New or reconstructed steam (1) The owner or operator of an emission controls that produce non-
generating units that are subject to affected EGU (or group of affected EGUs combustion CO2 (e.g., from sorbent
subpart TTTT of this part as a result of that share a monitored common stack) injection), this additional CO2 must be
commencing construction after the that is required to meet standards of accounted for, in accordance with
subpart TTTT applicability date; performance must prepare a monitoring section 3 of appendix G to part 75 of
(b) Modified natural gas- or oil-fired plan in accordance with the applicable this chapter. If CO2 concentration is
steam generating units that are subject provisions in 40 CFR 75.53(g) and (h), measured on a dry basis, the owner or
to subpart TTTT of this part as a result unless such a plan is already in place operator of the affected EGU must also
of commencing modification after the under another program that requires install, certify, operate, maintain, and
subpart TTTT applicability date; CO2 mass emissions to be monitored calibrate a continuous moisture
(c) Modified coal-fired steam and reported according to 40 CFR part monitoring system, according to 40 CFR
generating units that are subject to 75. 75.11(b). Alternatively, the owner or
subpart TTTTa of this part as a result of (2) For rate-based standards of operator of an affected EGU may either
commencing modification after the performance, only ‘‘valid operating use an appropriate fuel-specific default
subpart TTTTa applicability date; hours,’’, i.e., full or partial unit (or stack) moisture value from 40 CFR 75.11(b) or
(d) EGUs subject to a federally operating hours for which: submit a petition to the Administrator
enforceable permit limiting net-electric (i) ‘‘Valid data’’ (as defined in under 40 CFR 75.66 for a site-specific
sales to one-third or less of their § 60.5880b) are obtained for all of the default moisture value.
potential electric output or 219,000 parameters used to determine the hourly (ii) For each ‘‘valid operating hour’’
CO2 mass emissions (lbs). For the (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this
MWh or less on an annual basis and

annual net-electric sales have never purposes of this subpart, substitute data section), calculate the hourly CO2 mass
exceeded one-third or less of their recorded under part 75 of this chapter emission rate (tons/hr), either from
potential electric output or 219,000 are not considered to be valid data; data Equation F–11 in appendix F to 40 CFR
MWh; obtained from flow monitoring bias part 75 (if CO2 concentration is
(e) Non-fossil fuel units (i.e., units adjustments are not considered to be measured on a wet basis), or by
that are capable of deriving at least 50 valid data; and data provided or not following the procedure in section 4.2 of
percent of heat input from non-fossil provided from monitoring instruments appendix F to 40 CFR part 75 (if CO2
concentration is measured on a dry (ii) For each measured hourly heat equipment to continuously measure and
basis). input rate, use Equation G–4 in record on an hourly basis useful thermal
(iii) Next, multiply each hourly CO2 appendix G to 40 CFR part 75 to output and, if applicable, mechanical
mass emission rate by the EGU or stack calculate the hourly CO2 mass emission output, which are used with gross
operating time in hours (as defined in rate (tons/hr). electric output to determine gross
40 CFR 72.2), to convert it to tons of (iii) For each ‘‘valid operating hour’’ energy output. The owner or operator
CO2. Multiply the result by 2,000 lbs/ton (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this must use the following procedures to
to convert it to lbs. section), multiply the hourly tons/hr calculate gross energy output, as
(iv) The hourly CO2 tons/hr values CO2 mass emission rate from paragraph appropriate for the type of affected
and EGU (or stack) operating times used (a)(4)(ii) of this section by the EGU or EGU(s).
to calculate CO2 mass emissions are stack operating time in hours (as
required to be recorded under 40 CFR defined in 40 CFR 72.2), to convert it to (i) Determine Pgross/net the hourly gross
75.57(e) and must be reported tons of CO2. Then, multiply the result or net energy output in MWh. For rate-
electronically under 40 CFR 75.64(a)(6), by 2,000 lbs/ton to convert it to lbs. based standards, perform this
if required by a State plan. The owner (iv) The hourly CO2 tons/hr values calculation only for valid operating
or operator must use these data, or and EGU (or stack) operating times used hours (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of
equivalent data, to calculate the hourly to calculate CO2 mass emissions are this section). For mass-based standards,
CO2 mass emissions. required to be recorded under 40 CFR perform this calculation for all unit (or
(v) Sum all of the hourly CO2 mass 75.57(e) and must be reported stack) operating hours, i.e., full or
emissions values from paragraph electronically under 40 CFR 75.64(a)(6), partial hours in which any fuel is
(a)(3)(ii) of this section. if required by a State plan. You must combusted.
(vi) For each continuous monitoring use these data, or equivalent data, to (ii) If there is no net electrical output,
system used to determine the CO2 mass calculate the hourly CO2 mass but there is mechanical or useful
emissions from an affected EGU, the emissions. thermal output, either for a particular
monitoring system must meet the (v) Sum all of the hourly CO2 mass valid operating hour (for rate-based
applicable certification and quality emissions values (lb) from paragraph applications), or for a particular
assurance procedures in 40 CFR 75.20 (a)(4)(iii) of this section. operating hour (for mass-based
and appendices A and B to 40 CFR part. (vi) The owner or operator of an applications), the owner or operator of
(4) The owner or operator of an affected EGU may determine site- the affected EGU must still determine
affected EGU that exclusively combusts specific carbon-based F-factors (Fc)
the net energy output for that hour.
liquid fuel and/or gaseous fuel may, as using Equation F–7b in section 3.3.6 of
an alternative to complying with appendix F to 40 CFR part 75 and may (iii) For rate-based applications, if
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, use these Fc values in the emissions there is no (i.e., zero) gross electrical,
determine the hourly CO2 mass calculations instead of using the default mechanical, or useful thermal output for
emissions according to paragraphs Fc values in the Equation G–4 a particular valid operating hour, that
(a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(vi) of this section. nomenclature. hour must be used in the compliance
(i) Implement the applicable (5) For rate-based standards, the determination. For hours or partial
procedures in appendix D to part 75 of owner or operator of an affected EGU (or hours where the gross electric output is
this chapter to determine hourly EGU group of affected units that share a equal to or less than the auxiliary loads,
heat input rates (MMBtu/hr), based on monitored common stack) must install, net electric output shall be counted as
hourly measurements of fuel flow rate calibrate, maintain, and operate a zero for this calculation.
and periodic determinations of the gross sufficient number of watt meters to (iv) Calculate Pgross/net for your affected
calorific value (GCV) of each fuel continuously measure and record on an EGU (or group of affected EGUs that
combusted. The fuel flow meter(s) used hourly basis gross electric output. share a monitored common stack) using
to measure the hourly fuel flow rates Measurements must be performed using the following equation. All terms in the
must meet the applicable certification 0.2 accuracy class electricity metering equation must be expressed in units of
and quality-assurance requirements in instrumentation and calibration MWh. To convert each hourly gross or
sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 of appendix D procedures as specified under ANSI No. net energy output value reported under
to 40 CFR part 75 (except for qualifying C12.20–2010 (incorporated by reference, 40 CFR part 75 to MWh, multiply by the
commercial billing meters). The fuel see § 60.17). Further, the owner or corresponding EGU or stack operating
GCV must be determined in accordance operator of an affected EGU that is a time.
with section 2.2 or 2.3 of appendix D to combined heat and power facility must
40 CFR part 75, as applicable. install, calibrate, maintain, and operate Equation 1 to Paragraph (a)(5)(iv)
Pgross/net = (Pe)sT + (Pe)cTTDF

+ (Pe)1s - (Pe)A + [(Pt)ps + (Pt)HR + (Pt)IE]
Where: stationary combustion turbine(s) in (PT)PS = Useful thermal output of steam

PGROSS/NET = Gross or net energy output of MWh. (measured relative to SATP conditions,
your affected EGU for each valid (PE)IE = Electric energy output plus as applicable) that is used for
operating hour (as defined in mechanical energy output (if any) of applications that do not generate
60.5860b(a)(2)) in MWh. your affected egu’s integrated equipment additional electricity, produce
(PE)ST = Electric energy output plus that provides electricity or mechanical mechanical energy output, or enhance
mechanical energy output (if any) of energy to the affected EGU or auxiliary the performance of the affected EGU.
steam turbines in MWh. equipment in MWh. This is calculated using the equation
(PE)CT = Electric energy output plus (PE)A = Electric energy used for any auxiliary specified in paragraph (a)(5)(V) of this
ER09MY24.062</GPH>
mechanical energy output (if any) of loads in MWh. section in MWh.
(PT)HR = Non-steam useful thermal output mechanical energy output, or enhance output on a 12-operating month rolling
(measured relative to SATP conditions, the performance of the affected EGU in average basis, or 1.0 for all other affected
as applicable) from heat recovery that is MWh. EGUs.
used for applications other than steam TDF = Electric transmission and distribution
generation or performance enhancement factor of 0.95 for a combined heat and (v) If applicable to your affected EGU
of the affected EGU in MWh. power affected egu where at least on an (for example, for combined heat and
(PT)IE = Useful thermal output (relative to annual basis 20.0 percent of the total
SATP conditions, as applicable) from gross or net energy output consists of power), you must calculate (Pt)PS using
any integrated equipment is used for electric or direct mechanical output and the following equation:
applications that do not generate 20.0 percent of the total gross or net
additional steam, electricity, produce energy output consist of useful thermal
Equation 2 to Paragraph (a)(5)(v)
(Pt)ps = Qm X H
CF
Where: the hourly CO2 mass emissions and the on site for at least 2 years after the date
QM = Measured steam flow in kilograms (KG) ‘‘stack operating time’’ (as defined in 40 of each occurrence, measurement,
(or pounds (LBS)) for the operating hour. CFR 72.2) at each stack or duct must be maintenance, corrective action, report,
H = Enthalpy of the steam at measured monitored separately. In this case, the or record, whichever is latest, according
temperature and pressure (relative to owner or operator of an affected EGU to § 60.7. The owner or operator of an
SATP conditions or the energy in the
condensate return line, as applicable) in
must determine compliance with an affected EGU may maintain the records
joules per kilogram (J/KG) (or BTU/LB). applicable emissions standard by off site and electronically for the
CF = Conversion factor of 3.6 × 109 J/MWH summing the CO2 mass emissions remaining year(s).
or 3.413 × 106 BTU/MWh. measured at the individual stacks or (2) The owner or operator of an
ducts and dividing by the gross or net affected EGU must keep all of the
(vi) For rate-based standards, sum all
energy output for the affected EGU. following records, in a form suitable and
of the values of Pgross/net for the valid
(8) Consistent with § 60.5775b, if two readily available for expeditious review:
operating hours (as defined in paragraph
or more affected EGUs serve a common (i) All documents, data files, and
(a)(2) of this section). Then, divide the
electric generator, you must apportion calculations and methods used to
total CO2 mass emissions for the valid
the combined hourly gross or net energy demonstrate compliance with an
operating hours from paragraph (a)(3)(v)
output to the individual affected EGUs affected EGU’s standard of performance
or (a)(4)(v) of this section, as applicable,
according to the fraction of the total under § 60.5775b.
by the sum of the Pgross/net values for the (ii) Copies of all reports submitted to
steam load contributed by each EGU.
valid operating hours to determine the the State under paragraph (b) of this
Alternatively, if the EGUs are identical,
CO2 emissions rate (lb/gross or net
you may apportion the combined hourly section.
MWh). (iii) Data that are required to be
(6) In accordance with § 60.13(g), if gross or net electrical load to the
individual EGUs according to the recorded by 40 CFR part 75 subpart F.
two or more affected EGUs (c) Your State plan must require the
implementing the continuous emissions fraction of the total heat input
contributed by each EGU. owner or operator of an affected EGU
monitoring provisions in paragraph covered by your State plan to include in
(9) The owner or operator of an
(a)(3) of this section share a common a report submitted to you the
affected EGU must measure and report
exhaust gas stack and are subject to the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through
monthly fuel usage for each affected
same emissions standard, the owner or source subject to standards of (3) of this section.
operator may monitor the hourly CO2 performance with the information in (1) Owners or operators of an affected
mass emissions at the common stack in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this EGU must include in the report all
lieu of monitoring each EGU separately. section: hourly CO2 emissions, for each affected
If an owner or operator of an affected (i) The calendar month during which EGU (or group of affected EGUs that
EGU chooses this option, the hourly the fuel was used; share a monitored common stack).
gross or net electric output for the (ii) Each type of fuel used during the (2) For rate-based standards, each
common stack must be the sum of the calendar month of the compliance report must include:
hourly gross or net electric output of the period; and (i) The hourly CO2 mass emission rate
individual affected EGUs and the (iii) Quantity of each type of fuel values (tons/hr) and unit (or stack)
operating time must be expressed as combusted in each calendar month in operating times, (as monitored and
‘‘stack operating hours’’ (as defined in the compliance period with units of reported according to part 75 of this
40 CFR 72.2). measure. chapter), for each valid operating hour;
(7) In accordance with § 60.13(g), if (b) Your State plan must require the (ii) The gross or net electric output
the exhaust gases from an affected EGU
owner or operator of each affected EGU and the gross or net energy output
implementing the continuous emissions covered by your State plan to maintain (Pgross/net) values for each valid operating
monitoring provisions in paragraph the records, for at least 5 years following hour;
(a)(3) of this section are emitted to the the date of each occurrence, (iii) The calculated CO2 mass
atmosphere through multiple stacks (or measurement, maintenance, corrective emissions (lb) for each valid operating
if the exhaust gases are routed to a action, report, or record. hour;
common stack through multiple ducts (1) The owner or operator of an (iv) The sum of the hourly gross or net
ER09MY24.063</GPH>
and you elect to monitor in the ducts), affected EGU must maintain each record energy output values and the sum of the
hourly CO2 mass emissions values, for approval of the waiver on evidence of § 60.5870b What are my reporting and
all of the valid operating hours; and releases of CO2 or other pollutants. The notification requirements?
(v) The calculated CO2 mass emission Administrator will provide notice to the (a) In lieu of the annual report
rate (lbs/gross or net MWh). public of any application under this required under § 60.25(e) and (f), you
(3) For each affected EGU the report provision and provide public notice of must report the information in
must also include the applicable any proposed action on a petition before paragraph (b) of this section.
standard of performance and the Administrator takes final action. (b) You must submit an annual report
demonstration that it met the standard to the EPA that must include the
of performance. An owner or operator § 60.5865b What are my recordkeeping
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through
must also include in the report the requirements?
(10) of this section. For each calendar
affected EGU’s calculated emission (a) You must keep records of all year reporting period the report must be
performance as a CO2 emission rate in information relied upon in support of submitted by March 1 of the following
units of the standard of performance. any demonstration of State plan year.
(d) The owner or operator of an components, State plan requirements, (1) The report must include the
affected EGU must follow any supporting documentation, and the emissions performance achieved by
additional requirements for monitoring, status of meeting the State plan each affected EGU during the reporting
recordkeeping and reporting in a State requirements defined in the State plan. period and identification of whether
plan that are required under § 60.5740b (b) You must keep records of all data
each affected EGU is in compliance with
if applicable. submitted by the owner or operator of
its standard of performance during the
(e) If an affected EGU captures CO2 to each affected EGU that are used to
compliance period, as specified in the
meet the applicable standard of determine compliance with each
State plan.
performance, the owner or operator affected EGU emissions standard or
must report in accordance with the (2) The report must include, for each
requirements in an approved State plan,
requirements of 40 CFR part 98 subpart affected EGU, a comparison of the CO2
consistent with the affected EGU
PP and either: standard of performance in the State
requirements listed in § 60.5860b.
(1) Report in accordance with the (c) If your State has a requirement for plan versus the actual CO2 emission
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart all hourly CO2 emissions and gross performance achieved.
RR, or subpart VV, if injection occurs generation or heat input information to (3) The report must include, for each
on-site; be used to calculate compliance with an affected EGU, the sum of the CO2
(2) Transfer the captured CO2 to a annual emissions standard for affected emissions, the sum of the gross energy
facility that reports in accordance with EGUs, any information that is submitted output, and the sum of the heat input
the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, by the owners or operators of affected for each fuel type.
subpart RR, or subpart VV, if injection EGUs to the EPA electronically pursuant (4) Enforcement actions initiated
occurs off-site; or to requirements in 40 CFR part 75 meets against affected EGUs during the
(3) Transfer the captured CO2 to a the recordkeeping requirement of this reporting period, under any standard of
facility that has received an innovative section and you are not required to keep performance or compliance schedule of
technology waiver from the EPA records of information that would be in the State plan.
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. duplicate of paragraph (b) of this (5) Identification of the achievement
(f) Any person may request the section. of any increment of progress required by
Administrator to issue a waiver of the (d) You must keep records for a the applicable State plan during the
requirement that captured CO2 from an minimum of 10 years from the date the reporting period.
affected EGU be transferred to a facility record is used to determine compliance (6) Identification of designated
reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart with an emissions standard or State facilities that have ceased operation
RR, or subpart VV. To receive a waiver, plan requirement. Each record must be during the reporting period.
the applicant must demonstrate to the in a form suitable and readily available (7) Submission of emission inventory
Administrator that its technology will for expeditious review. data as described in paragraph (a) of this
store captured CO2 as effectively as (e) If your State plan includes section for designated facilities that
geologic sequestration, and that the provisions for the compliance date were not in operation at the time of
proposed technology will not cause or extension, described in State plan development but began
contribute to an unreasonable risk to § 60.5740b(a)(11), you must keep operation during the reporting period.
public health, welfare, or safety. In records of the information required in (8) Submission of additional data as
making this determination, the § 60.5740b(a)(11)(i) from affected EGUs necessary to update the information
Administrator shall consider (among that use the compliance date extension. submitted under paragraph (a) of this
other factors) operating history of the (f) If your State plan includes section or in previous progress reports.
technology, whether the technology will provisions for the short-term reliability (9) Submission of copies of technical
increase emissions or other releases of mechanism, as described in reports on all performance testing on
any pollutant other than CO2, and § 60.5740b(a)(12), you must keep designated facilities conducted under
permanence of the CO2 storage. The records of the information required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
Administrator may test the system or § 60.5740b(a)(12)(iii) from affected EGUs complete with concurrently recorded
require the applicant to perform any that use the short-term reliability process data.
tests considered by the Administrator to mechanism. (10) The report must include all other
(g) If your State plan includes required information, as specified in
be necessary to show the technology’s

effectiveness, safety, and ability to store provisions for the reliability assurance your State plan according to § 60.5740b.
captured CO2 without release. The mechanism, described in (c) If you include provisions for the
Administrator may grant conditional § 60.5740b(a)(13), you must keep compliance date extension, described in
approval of a technology, with the records of the information required in § 60.5740b(a)(11), in your State plan,
approval conditioned on monitoring § 60.5740b(a)(13)(vi) from affected EGUs you must report to the EPA the
and reporting of operations. The that use the reliability assurance information listed in
Administrator may also withdraw mechanism. § 60.5740b(a)(11)(i).
(d) If you include provisions for the also submit the names of the State plan each step and any notification
short-term reliability mechanism, preparers via a separate letter prior to requirements associated with
described in § 60.5740b(a)(12), in your the designation letter from the Governor deactivation of the unit. These process
State plan, you must report to the EPA in order to expedite the State plan steps may include, e.g., initial notice to
the following information for each administrative process. Required the relevant reliability authority of the
event, listed in § 60.5740b(a)(12)(iii). contact information for the designee and deactivation date and submittal of an
(e) If you include provisions for the preparers includes the person’s title, official retirement filing (or equivalent
reliability assurance mechanism, organization, and email address. filing) made to the EGU’s relevant
described in § 60.5740b(a)(13) in your (d) The submission of the information reliability authority.
State plan, you must report to the EPA by the authorized official must be in a (ii) Supporting regulatory documents,
the information listed in non-editable format. In addition to the which include those listed in
§ 60.5740b(a)(13)(vi). non-editable version all State plan paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (G) of
components designated as federally this section:
§ 60.5875b How do I submit information
enforceable must also be submitted in (A) Correspondence and official
required by these emission guidelines to
the EPA? an editable version. Following initial filings with the relevant regional RTO,
State plan approval, States must provide Independent System Operator,
(a) You must submit to the EPA the
the EPA with an editable copy of any Balancing Authority, PUC, or other
information required by these emission
submitted revision to existing approved applicable authority;
guidelines following the procedures in (B) Any deactivation-related
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this federally enforceable State plan
components, including State plan reliability assessments conducted by the
section. RTO or Independent System Operator;
(b) All State plan submittals, backstop measures. The editable copy of
any such submitted State plan revision (C) Any filings pertaining to the
supporting materials that are part of a affected EGU with the SEC or notices to
State plan submittal, any State plan must indicate the changes made at the
State level, if any, to the existing investors, including but not limited to
revisions, and all State reports required references in forms 10–K and 10–Q, in
to be submitted to the EPA by the State approved federally enforceable State
plan components, using a mechanism which plans for the EGU are mentioned;
plan must be reported through the (D) Any integrated resource plans and
EPA’s State Plan Electronic Collection such as redline/strikethrough. These
changes are not part of the State plan PUC orders approving the EGU’s
System (SPeCS). SPeCS is a web deactivation;
accessible electronic system accessed at until formal approval by the EPA.
(e) You must provide the EPA with (E) Any reliability analyses developed
the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by the RTO, Independent System
(http://www.epa.gov/cdx/). States that non-editable and editable copies of any
submitted revision to existing approved Operator, or relevant reliability
claim that a State plan submittal or authority in response to the EGU’s
supporting documentation includes federally enforceable State plan
components. The editable copy of any deactivation notification;
confidential business information (CBI) (F) Any notification from a relevant
must submit that information on a such submitted State plan revision must
indicate the changes made at the State reliability authority that the EGU may
compact disc, flash drive, or other be needed for reliability purposes
commonly used electronic storage level, if any, to the existing approved
federally enforceable State plan notwithstanding the EGU’s intent to
media to the EPA. The electronic media deactivate; and
must be clearly marked as CBI and components, using a mechanism such as
redline/strikethrough. These changes (G) Any notification to or from an
mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI RTO, Independent System Operator, or
Office, Attention: State and Local are not part of the State plan until
formal approval by the EPA. relevant reliability authority altering the
Programs Group, MD C539–01, 4930 timing of deactivation of the EGU.
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. § 60.5876b What are the recordkeeping (2) For each of the remaining years
(c) Only a submittal by the Governor and reporting requirements for EGUs that prior to the date by which an EGU has
or the Governor’s designee by an have committed to permanently cease committed to permanently cease
electronic submission through SPeCS operations by January 1, 2032? operations, the owner or operator of the
shall be considered an official submittal (a) If you are the owner or operator of EGU must submit an annual status
to the EPA under this subpart. If the an EGU that has committed to report to the EPA that includes the
Governor wishes to designate another permanently cease operations by information listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
responsible official the authority to January 1, 2032, you must maintain and (ii) of this section:
submit a State plan, the EPA must be records for and submit the reports listed (i) Progress on each of the identified
notified via letter from the Governor in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this process steps identified in the initial
prior to the May 11, 2026, deadline for section according to the electronic report as described in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
State plan submittal so that the official reporting requirements in paragraph (b) of this section; and
will have the ability to submit the initial of this section. (ii) Supporting regulatory documents,
or final State plan submittal in the (1) Five years before any planned date including correspondence and official
SPeCS. If the Governor has previously to permanently cease operations or by filings with the relevant RTO,
delegated authority to make CAA the date upon which the State plan is Independent System Operator,
submittals on the Governor’s behalf, a submitted, whichever is later, the owner Balancing Authority, PUC, or other
State may submit documentation of the or operator of the EGU must submit an applicable authority to demonstrate
delegation in lieu of a letter from the
initial report to the EPA that includes progress toward all steps described in
Governor. The letter or documentation the information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
must identify the designee to whom and (ii) of this section. (3) The owner or operator must
authority is being designated and must (i) A summary of the process steps submit a final report to the EPA no later
include the name and contact required for the EGU to permanently than 6 months following its committed
information for the designee and also cease operation by the date included in closure date. This report must document
identify the State plan preparers who the State plan, including the any actions that the EGU has taken
will need access to SPeCS. A State may approximate timing and duration of subsequent to ceasing operation to
ensure that such cessation is permanent, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric (iii) A description of measures taken
including any regulatory filings with Utility Generating Units Sector Lead. If or to be taken to minimize the delay in
applicable authorities or assistance is needed with submitting reporting; and
decommissioning plans. large electronic files that exceed the file (iv) The date by which you propose to
(b) Beginning November 12, 2024, if size limit for email attachments, and if report, or if you have already met the
you are the owner or operator of an EGU you do not have your own file sharing reporting requirement at the time of the
that has committed to permanently service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov notification, the date you reported.
cease operations by January 1, 2032, you to request a file transfer link. (6) The decision to accept the claim
must submit all the information (2) If you cannot transmit the file of EPA system outage and allow an
required in paragraph (a) of this section electronically, you may send CBI extension to the reporting deadline is
in a Permanent Cessation of Operation information through the postal service solely within the discretion of the
report in PDF format following the to the following address: U.S. EPA Attn: Administrator.
procedures specified in paragraph (c) of OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mail (7) In any circumstance, the report
this section. Drop: C404–02, 109 T.W. Alexander must be submitted electronically as
(c) If you are required to submit Drive P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711. soon as possible after the outage is
notifications or reports following the All other files should also be sent to the resolved.
procedure specified in this paragraph attention of the Greenhouse Gas (f) If you are required to electronically
(c), you must submit notifications or Emissions for Electric Utility Generating submit a report through CEDRI in the
reports to the EPA via the Compliance Units Sector Lead. The mailed CBI EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface material should be double wrapped and force majeure for failure to timely
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through clearly marked. Any CBI markings comply with that reporting requirement.
the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) should not show through the outer To assert a claim of force majeure, you
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will envelope. must meet the requirements outlined in
make all the information submitted (d) Any records required to be paragraphs(f)(1) through (5) of this
through CEDRI available to the public maintained by this subpart that are section.
without further notice to you. Do not submitted electronically via the EPA’s (1) You may submit a claim if a force
use CEDRI to submit information you CEDRI may be maintained in electronic majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
claim as CBI. Although we do not format. This ability to maintain or has occurred or there are lingering
expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, electronic copies does not affect the effects from such an event within the
if you wish to assert a CBI claim for requirement for facilities to make period of time beginning five business
some of the information in the report or records, data, and reports available days prior to the date the submission is
notification, you must submit a upon request to a delegated air agency due. For the purposes of this section, a
complete file in the format specified in or the EPA as part of an on-site force majeure event is defined as an
this subpart, including information compliance evaluation. event that will be or has been caused by
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following (e) If you are required to electronically circumstances beyond the control of the
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and submit a report through CEDRI in the affected facility, its contractors, or any
(2) of this section. Clearly mark the part EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of entity controlled by the affected facility
or all of the information that you claim EPA system outage for failure to timely that prevents you from complying with
to be CBI. Information not marked as comply with that reporting requirement. the requirement to submit a report
CBI may be authorized for public release To assert a claim of EPA system outage, electronically within the time period
without prior notice. Information you must meet the requirements prescribed. Examples of such events are
marked as CBI will not be disclosed outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
except in accordance with procedures of this section. earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI (1) You must have been or will be terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
claims must be asserted at the time of precluded from accessing CEDRI and hazard beyond the control of the
submission. Anything submitted using submitting a required report within the affected facility (e.g., large scale power
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. time prescribed due to an outage of outage).
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) You must submit notification to
emissions data is not entitled to (2) The outage must have occurred the Administrator in writing as soon as
confidential treatment, and the EPA is within the period of time beginning five possible following the date you first
required to make emissions data business days prior to the date that the knew, or through due diligence should
available to the public. Thus, emissions submission is due. have known, that the event may cause
data will not be protected as CBI and (3) The outage may be planned or or has caused a delay in reporting.
will be made publicly available. You unplanned. (3) You must provide to the
must submit the same file submitted to (4) You must submit notification to Administrator:
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the Administrator in writing as soon as (i) A written description of the force
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described possible following the date you first majeure event;
earlier in this paragraph (c). knew, or through due diligence should (ii) A rationale for attributing the
(1) The preferred method to receive have known, that the event may cause delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
CBI is for it to be transmitted or has caused a delay in reporting. deadline to the force majeure event;
electronically using email attachments, (5) You must provide to the (iii) A description of measures taken
File Transfer Protocol, or other online
Administrator a written description or to be taken to minimize the delay in

file sharing services. Electronic identifying: reporting; and
submissions must be transmitted (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX (iv) The date by which you propose to
directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the or CEDRI was accessed and the system report, or if you have already met the
email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as was unavailable; reporting requirement at the time of the
described above, should include clear (ii) A rationale for attributing the notification, the date you reported.
CBI markings and be flagged to the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory (4) The decision to accept the claim
attention of the Emission Guidelines for deadline to EPA system outage; of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely EGU to comply with a standard of ISO conditions means 288 Kelvin (15
within the discretion of the performance. °C, 59 °F), 60 percent relative humidity
Administrator. Derate means a decrease in the and 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi, 1 atm)
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting available capacity of an electric pressure.
must occur as soon as possible after the generating unit, due to a system or Mechanical output means the useful
force majeure event occurs. equipment modification or to mechanical energy that is not used to
(g) Alternatives to any electronic discounting a portion of a generating operate the affected facility, generate
reporting required by this subpart must unit’s capacity for planning purposes. electricity and/or thermal output, or to
be approved by the Administrator. Fossil fuel means natural gas, enhance the performance of the affected
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid facility. Mechanical energy measured in
Definitions fuel, liquid fuel, or gaseous fuel derived horsepower hour must be converted into
§ 60.5880b What definitions apply to this from such material for the purpose of MWh by multiplying it by 745.7 then
subpart? creating useful heat. dividing by 1,000,000.
Gross energy output means: Nameplate capacity means, starting
As used in this subpart, all terms not (1) For stationary combustion turbines
defined herein will have the meaning from the initial installation, the
and IGCC, the gross electric or direct
given them in the Clean Air Act and in maximum electrical generating output
mechanical output from both the EGU
subparts A, Ba, TTTT, and TTTTa, of that a generator, prime mover, or other
(including, but not limited to, output
this part. from steam turbine(s), combustion electric power production equipment
Affected electric generating unit or turbine(s), and gas expander(s)) plus 100 under specific conditions designated by
Affected EGU means a steam generating percent of the useful thermal output. the manufacturer is capable of
unit that meets the relevant (2) For steam generating units, the producing (in MWe, rounded to the
applicability conditions in section gross electric or mechanical output from nearest tenth) on a steady-state basis
§ 60.5845b. the affected EGU(s) (including, but not and during continuous operation (when
Annual capacity factor means the limited to, output from steam turbine(s), not restricted by seasonal or other
ratio between the actual heat input to an combustion turbine(s), and gas deratings) as of such installation as
EGU during a calendar year and the expander(s)) minus any electricity used specified by the manufacturer of the
potential heat input to the EGU had it to power the feedwater pumps plus 100 equipment, or starting from the
been operated for 8,760 hours during a percent of the useful thermal output; completion of any subsequent physical
calendar year at the base load rating. (3) For combined heat and power change resulting in an increase in the
Base load rating means the maximum facilities where at least 20.0 percent of maximum electrical generating output
amount of heat input (fuel) that an EGU the total gross energy output consists of that the equipment is capable of
can combust on a steady-state basis, as useful thermal output on a 12-operating- producing on a steady-state basis and
determined by the physical design and month rolling average basis, the gross during continuous operation (when not
characteristics of the EGU at ISO electric or mechanical output from the restricted by seasonal or other
conditions, as defined below. For a affected EGU (including, but not limited deratings), such increased maximum
stationary combustion turbine or IGCC, to, output from steam turbine(s), amount (in MWe, rounded to the nearest
base load rating includes the heat input combustion turbine(s), and gas tenth) as of such completion as
from duct burners. expander(s)) minus any electricity used specified by the person conducting the
Coal-fired steam generating unit to power the feedwater pumps (the physical change.
means an electric utility steam electric auxiliary load of boiler Natural gas means a fluid mixture of
generating unit or IGCC unit that meets feedwater pumps is not applicable to hydrocarbons (e.g., methane, ethane, or
the definition of ‘‘fossil fuel-fired’’ and IGCC facilities), that difference divided propane), composed of at least 70
that burns coal for more than 10.0 by 0.95, plus 100 percent of the useful percent methane by volume or that has
percent of the average annual heat input thermal output. a gross calorific value between 35 and
during any continuous 3-calendar-year Heat recovery steam generating unit 41 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard
period after December 31, 2029, or for (HRSG) means a unit in which hot cubic meter (950 and 1,100 Btu per dry
more than 15.0 percent of the annual exhaust gases from the combustion standard cubic foot), that maintains a
heat input during any one calendar year turbine engine are routed in order to gaseous state under ISO conditions.
after December 31, 2029, or that retains extract heat from the gases and generate Finally, natural gas does not include the
the capability to fire coal after December useful output. Heat recovery steam following gaseous fuels: Landfill gas,
31, 2029. generating units can be used with or digester gas, refinery gas, sour gas, blast
Combined cycle unit means a without duct burners. furnace gas, coal-derived gas, producer
stationary combustion turbine from Integrated gasification combined gas, coke oven gas, or any gaseous fuel
which the heat from the turbine exhaust cycle facility or IGCC means a combined produced in a process which might
gases is recovered by a heat recovery cycle facility that is designed to burn result in highly variable CO2 content or
steam generating unit to generate fuels containing 50 percent (by heat heating value.
additional electricity. input) or more solid-derived fuel not Natural gas-fired steam generating
Combined heat and power unit or meeting the definition of natural gas unit means an electric utility steam
CHP unit, (also known as plus any integrated equipment that generating unit meeting the definition of
‘‘cogeneration’’) means an electric provides electricity or useful thermal ‘‘fossil fuel-fired,’’ that is not a coal-
generating unit that uses a steam- output to either the affected facility or
fired or oil-fired steam generating unit,

generating unit or stationary combustion auxiliary equipment. The Administrator that no longer retains the capability to
turbine to simultaneously produce both may waive the 50 percent solid-derived fire coal after December 31, 2029, and
electric (or mechanical) and useful fuel requirement during periods of the that burns natural gas for more than 10.0
thermal output from the same primary gasification system construction, startup percent of the average annual heat input
energy source. and commissioning, shutdown, or during any continuous 3-calendar-year
Compliance period means an annual repair. No solid fuel is directly burned period after December 31, 2029, or for
(calendar year) period for an affected in the unit during operation. more than 15.0 percent of the annual
heat input during any calendar year pressure. The enthalpy of water at SATP (e.g., economizer output is not useful
after December 31, 2029. conditions is 50 Btu/lb. thermal output, but thermal energy used
Net electric output means the amount State agent means an entity acting on to reduce fuel moisture is considered
of gross generation the generator(s) behalf of the State, with the legal useful thermal output), or to supply
produce (including, but not limited to, authority of the State. energy to a pollution control device at
output from steam turbine(s), Stationary combustion turbine means the affected EGU. Useful thermal output
combustion turbine(s), and gas all equipment including, but not limited for affected EGU(s) with no condensate
expander(s)), as measured at the to, the turbine engine, the fuel, air, return (or other thermal energy input to
generator terminals, less the electricity lubrication and exhaust gas systems, the affected EGU(s)) or where measuring
used to operate the plant (i.e., auxiliary control systems (except emissions the energy in the condensate (or other
loads); such uses include fuel handling control equipment), heat recovery thermal energy input to the affected
equipment, pumps, fans, pollution system, fuel compressor, heater, and/or EGU(s)) would not meaningfully impact
control equipment, other electricity pump, post-combustion emission the emission rate calculation is
needs, and transformer losses as control technology, and any ancillary measured against the energy in the
measured at the transmission side of the components and sub-components thermal output at SATP conditions.
step up transformer (e.g., the point of comprising any simple cycle stationary Affected EGU(s) with meaningful energy
sale). combustion turbine, any combined in the condensate return (or other
Net energy output means: cycle combustion turbine, and any thermal energy input to the affected
(1) The net electric or mechanical combined heat and power combustion EGU) must measure the energy in the
output from the affected facility, plus turbine based system plus any condensate and subtract that energy
100 percent of the useful thermal output integrated equipment that provides relative to SATP conditions from the
measured relative to standard ambient electricity or useful thermal output to measured thermal output.
temperature and pressure conditions the combustion turbine engine, heat Valid data means quality-assured data
that is not used to generate additional recovery system, or auxiliary generated by continuous monitoring
electric or mechanical output or to equipment. Stationary means that the systems that are installed, operated, and
enhance the performance of the unit combustion turbine is not self-propelled maintained according to 40 CFR part 75.
(e.g., steam delivered to an industrial or intended to be propelled while For CEMS, the initial certification
process for a heating application). performing its function. It may, requirements in 40 CFR 75.20 and
(2) For combined heat and power however, be mounted on a vehicle for appendix A to 40 CFR part 75 must be
facilities where at least 20.0 percent of portability. A stationary combustion met before quality-assured data are
the total gross or net energy output turbine that burns any solid fuel directly reported under this subpart; for on-
consists of electric or direct mechanical is considered a steam generating unit. going quality assurance, the daily,
output and at least 20.0 percent of the Steam generating unit means any quarterly, and semiannual/annual test
total gross or net energy output consists furnace, boiler, or other device used for requirements in sections 2.1, 2.2, and
of useful thermal output on a 12- combusting fuel and producing steam 2.3 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 75
operating month rolling average basis, (nuclear steam generators are not must be met and the data validation
the net electric or mechanical output included) plus any integrated criteria in sections 2.1.4, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2
from the affected EGU divided by 0.95, equipment that provides electricity or of appendix B to 40 CFR part 75 apply.
plus 100 percent of the useful thermal useful thermal output to the affected For fuel flow meters, the initial
output; (e.g., steam delivered to an facility or auxiliary equipment. certification requirements in section
industrial process for a heating System Emergency means periods 2.1.5 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 75
application). when the Reliability Coordinator has must be met before quality-assured data
Oil-fired steam generating unit means declared an Energy Emergency Alert are reported under this subpart (except
an electric utility steam generating unit level 2 or 3 as defined by NERC for qualifying commercial billing meters
meeting the definition of ‘‘fossil fuel- Reliability Standard EOP–011–2, or its under section 2.1.4.2 of appendix D),
fired’’ that is not a coal-fired steam successor. and for on-going quality assurance, the
generating unit, that no longer retains Uprate means an increase in available provisions in section 2.1.6 of appendix
the capability to fire coal after December electric generating unit power capacity D to 40 CFR part 75 apply (except for
31, 2029, and that burns oil for more due to a system or equipment qualifying commercial billing meters).
than 10.0 percent of the average annual modification.
heat input during any continuous 3- Useful thermal output means the Waste-to-Energy means a process or
calendar-year period after December 31, thermal energy made available for use in unit (e.g., solid waste incineration unit)
2029, or for more than 15.0 percent of any heating application (e.g., steam that recovers energy from the
the annual heat input during any one delivered to an industrial process for a conversion or combustion of waste
calendar year after December 31, 2029. heating application, including thermal stream materials, such as municipal
Standard ambient temperature and cooling applications) that is not used for solid waste, to generate electricity and/
pressure (SATP) conditions means electric generation, mechanical output or heat.
298.15 Kelvin (25 °C, 77 °F) and 100.0 at the affected EGU, to directly enhance [FR Doc. 2024–09233 Filed 5–8–24; 8:45 am]
kilopascals (14.504 psi, 0.987 atm) the performance of the affected EGU BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EPA Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPA Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming

United States Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan,

Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled

“New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating

Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing

Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable

attached a copy of that final rule.

authority and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and

unlawful and vacate Respondents’ final action.

PATRICK MORRISEY THEODORE E. ROKITA

/s/ Michael R. Williams /s/ James A. Barta

Counsel for State of West Virginia

/s/ Edmund G. LaCour Jr. /s/ Garrison Todd

Office of the Attorney General Alaska Department of Law

Counsel for State of Alabama

TIM GRIFFIN ASHLEY MOODY

/s/ Nicholas J. Bronni /s Henry C. Whitaker

Office of the Arkansas Attorney Office of the Attorney General

Counsel for State of Arkansas Counsel for State of Florida

/s/ Stephen J. Petrany /s/ Joshua N. Turner

Counsel for State of Idaho

/s/ Eric H. Wessan /s/ Matthew F. Kuhn

Counsel for the Commonwealth of

LIZ MURRILL LYNN FITCH

/s/ J. Benjamin Aguiñaga /s/ Justin L. Matheny

Counsel for State of Louisiana

/s/ Joshua M. Divine /s/ Christian B. Corrigan

Counsel for State of Montana

MICHAEL T. HILGERS JOHN FORMELLA

/s/ Zachary A. Viglianco /s/ Mark W. Dell’Orfano

Office of the Attorney General of New Hampshire Department of

Counsel for State of Nebraska Counsel for State of New

/s/ Philip Axt /s/ Garry M. Gaskins, II

Counsel for State of Oklahoma

Robert D. Cook /s/ Steven Blair

Office of the Attorney General of

Counsel for State of South Carolina

Office of the Attorney General and James Lloyd

Counsel for State of Tennessee /s/ Wesley S. Williams

Office of the Attorney General of

Counsel for State of Texas

/s/ Stanford E. Purser /s/ Erika L. Maley

BRIDGET HILL Counsel for Commonwealth of

/s/ D. David DeWald

Office of the Attorney General of

Counsel for State of Wyoming

Dated: May 9, 2024

served on the following Respondents by U.S. Mail on May 9, 2024:

Hon. Michael S. Regan

Correspondence Control Unit

Hon. Merrick Garland

/s/ Michael R. Williams

C. Establishing Standards of Performance change are already far-reaching and worsening

emissions. Moreover, with the increased

greenhouse-gas-emissions. advanced age of much of the existing house-bill/4346.

and determination of the BSER and

13 87 FR 8808, 8809 (February 16, 2022).