This comment does not object to, or otherwise raise issues concerning, EPA's identification of monitors or receptors used in the Transport Rule to determine which states significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance.   For example, the comment does not claim that the Charlotte, North Carolina monitor should be treated as a significant contribution or maintenance receptor in this rulemaking.  Additionally, the comment does not object to, or otherwise raise issues concerning, EPA's determination of the specific states covered under the Transport Rule or the methodology used by EPA in making that determination.  For example, the comment does not claim that any additional states should be covered by the Transport Rule because of the effect of their emissions on North Carolina.  In short, the comment does not raise any issues concerning the implementation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in this rulemaking and the final Transport Rule.  Instead, the comment requests that EPA adopt regulations establishing new procedures for implementing that section of the CAA  in future rulemakings.  Specifically, the comment states that EPA should adopt regulations providing for future evaluation of status of monitors (such as the Charlotte monitor) based on data in subsequent years and for "automatic" or "expedited" response to the results of such future evaluation.  As such, this comment relates to possible future actions under CAA section 110((a)(2)(D)(i)(I)  and is outside the scope of this rulemaking and the Transport Rule.  Moreover, the comment merely suggests that EPA adopt, for the future, a "true-up" mechanism  that would be used when "necessary and appropriate" and that would provide an "automatic trigger" or "expedited process".  The comment did not provide any information on exactly how and when such a mechanism might be applied, what the trigger or expedited process might be, and what measures might be taken as a result.
With respect to EPA's modeling of EGU retirements under the Transport Rule, EPA believes that its modeling appropriately takes into account retirement as a control strategy.  Details on emissions modeling can be found in section V and VI of the preamble for the final Transport Rule and in the Documentation Supplement for EPA Base Case v.4.10_FTransport  - Updates for Final Transport Rule.
Organization: Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L)
Comment:
Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L)
Key Terms within the Proposed Rule Should Be More Precisely Defined
Two key terms that drive many of the policy decisions reflected in the proposed rule remain undefined or vaguely defined. The EPA should establish clear standards defining what is a 'significant contribution' and an 'interfering contribution.' The definitions should also include an understandable standard for when the level of contribution has declined to a point where it is no longer making a 'significant contribution.' In its currently undefined status, the definition of 'significant contribution' could vary from year-to-year or administration-to-administration depending on what year EPA looks at it and how often EPA chooses to ratchet down emissions budgets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2637.1, pp. 6-7]
Response:
EPA believes that the Transport Rule's approach of using air-quality thresholds to determine upwind-to-downwind-state linkages and using the cost- and air quality-based multi-factor approach to quantify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance (i.e., to determine the specific amount of emissions that each upwind state must reduce) could serve as a precedent for quantifying upwind state emission reduction responsibilities with respect to potential future NAAQS.  For further discussion of this topic please refer to section VI.A of the final Transport Rule preamble.
Organization: Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA)
Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)
Comment:
Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA)
Further, there appears to be no Court ordered requirement for the additional reductions of NOx and SO2 beyond those established in the CAIR Rule. EPA should only address the Court remand of CAIR and that complements the Court directive "to preserve the environmental benefits of the CAIR rule" by developing a Transport rule that achieves the original CAIR SO2 and NOX reductions within the CAIR timelines. EPA's new emission requirements and protocols for determining significance levels beyond those validated by the Washington, D.C. District Court are unjustified and will leave EPA unnecessarily open to potential lawsuits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2731.1, p. 1]
Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)
Further, there appears to be no Court ordered requirement for the additional reductions of NOx and SO2 beyond those established in CAIR. GRU believes that EPA should only address the Court remand of CAIR and follow the Court directive 'to preserve the environmental benefits of the CAIR rule' by developing a Transport Rule that achieves the original CAIR SO2 and NOx reductions within the CAIR timelines. EPA's new emission requirements and protocols for determining significance levels beyond those validated by the DC District Court are unjustified and will leave EPA unnecessarily open to potential lawsuits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2674.1, p.1]
Response:
As described in preamble section VI.D of the final Transport Rule, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the state budgets in CAIR as arbitrary and capricious and not consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)D)(i)(I)  (North Carolina, 531 F.3d  918 and 921) and remanded CAIR to EPA to promulgate a new rule (the Transport Rule) replacing CAIR and consistent with the Court's decision (North Carolina, 550 F.3d 1178).  On remand EPA developed new, final state budgets for the Transport Rule that address the Court's concerns and meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements.  Further, because the Court reversed and remanded CAIR with instructions to "remedy" the rule's "fundamental flaws" (including specifically the state budgets found to be unlawful (North Carolina, 550 F.3d 1178), it is difficult to see how a comparison between new state budgets meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements and unlawful budgets could be viewed as informative.
As described in section VI of the preamble for the final Transport Rule, EPA reassessed SO2 and ozone season and annual NOX reductions for the final Transport Rule.  Please refer to this section for further details.
Organization: Machaver, Bob
Comment:
Machaver, Bob
Basic Approach: initial review of the proposed rule seems to indicate that EPA has an adopted an approach basically designed to require all EGUs in the states subject to this FIP to install control measures, by establishing a very low threshold for designating Interstate Impacts as "Significant". Therefore a state that is in compliance with the NAAQSs, and which contributes minimally to its neighbors could still be subject to a very onerous Budget Cap under this program. This type of approach could result in more onus being imposed on neighbors than on the state itself for achieving NAAQS compliance.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2873.1, p.1]
It is understood that in some cases pollutant (or precursor) transport is major contributor to local impacts, and in such cases, requiring controls on upwind sources certainly makes sense. However  this concept should not be extended to the point that an unjustified burden is imposed on neighboring states to provide reductions to support the achievement of NAAQS compliance in a Non-Attainment state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2873.1, pp.1-2]
Response:
As described in section III and section VI.D of the preamble for the final Transport Rule, EPA believes that downwind states also have control responsibilities because, among other things, the Clean Air Act requires each state to adopt enforceable plans to attain and maintain air quality standards.  Indeed, states have put in place measures to reduce local emissions that contribute to nonattainment within their borders.  Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only requires the elimination of emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; it does not shift to upwind states the responsibility for ensuring that all areas in other states attain the NAAQS.
Organization: Marquette Board of Light and Power
Comment:
Marquette Board of Light and Power
Unfortunately, the EPA has unintentionally structured the proposed Transport rule to encourage facilities to run to the upper limit of the permitted emission rates and we believe this is a precedent that will set the future operating decisions for clean efficient boilers such as Shiras Unit 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2764.1, p.1]
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and feel that reducing ozone related pollutants is important but it must be done responsibly, provide the light incentives for current low emitters of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, and use accurate background and projected data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2764.1, p.1]
Response:
EPA's final Transport Rule identifies state-level emission levels that will eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance and allows individual units, facilities, and entities to make their own decisions about how to meet these levels.  The final rule allows for air quality-assured trading while limiting the emissions from EGUs in each state.
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Comment:
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1938, p.113.]
For the states to have any chance of developing timely plans to adequately address transport, EPA must identify the reductions needed to eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance concurrent with the setting of air quality standards.
This proposed methodology should be quickly applied to identify the additional reductions in transport needed to meet the new ozone standard EPA expects to issue this fall.
Response:
This comment appears to apply to federal, state, and local programs to address future revised in new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA.  As such, it does not specifically apply to the final Transport Rule which is tied to existing NAAQS.
Organization: PPG Industries, Inc.
Comment:
PPG Industries, Inc.
In summary, PPG respectfully requests EPA to eliminate Louisiana from the scope of the CATR. In the alternative, and only in the event that EPA does not do so, PPG requests that at a minimum, EPA revise its methodology for determination of significant impact and interference with maintenance to make its methodologies into presumptive screening tools only, while providing states and potentially affected entities a reasonable opportunity to provide objective empirical evidence concerning whether an upwind state actually makes significant contribution to a downwind state's nonattainment or interferes with attainment in the downwind state.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2763.1, p. 19]
Response:
EPA took comment on it's methodologies to determine which states are included in the final Transport Rule.  Details on this methodology for the final Transport Rule and a discussion of comments can be found in section V of the preamble for the final Rule.   Please see preamble sections V and VI for results related to Louisiana.
Organization: Southern Company
Comment:
Southern Company
I. EPA Should Not Move Florida from a Group 2 S02 State to a Group 1 S02 State
For the annual PM2.5 standard, EPA's use of the air quality assessment tool projected that, after implementation of the proposed FIPs, the Birmingham, Alabama, annual PM2.5 monitors would not have a NAAQS air quality nonattainment or maintenance problem. However, the results of the refined air quality modeling, using the regional air quality model CAMx, projected that Birmingham, AL, would exceed the threshold for 'maintenance' by a slight amount (less than 0.1 ug/m-3 ). Based on these results of the refined modeling, EPA has requested comment on whether Florida should be moved from Group 2 to Group 1. We agree with EPA's conclusion that upwind reductions beyond those in the proposed FIPs are not required to address significant contribution and interference with maintenance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Birmingham, AL. As EPA states, 'the refined air quality modeling projects that Birmingham, AL, will exceed the maintenance criteria by only an extremely slight amount.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2864.1, p. 42]
Response:

Based on EPA's modeling and assessments for the final Transport Rule, Florida is not identified as a state with emissions that significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the annual or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Organization: Southern IL Power Cooperative
Comment:
Southern IL Power Cooperative
Southern Illinois Power Cooperative feels the deadlines and percentage of emission reductions are too stringent, and are unnecessary to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2863.1 p.2]
Response:
EPA performed a new analysis for removal of significant contribution for the final Transport Rule based on best available data (updated to incorporate comments from the Transport Rule proposal and Notices of Data Availability for the Transport Rule) and modeling.  EPA determined that the emission reductions required under the final Transport Rule are necessary to meet the requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--elimination of significant contribution and interference with maintenance.  Please refer to section VI of the preamble for the final Transport Rule for more details on EPA's assessment of significant contribution and section VII of the preamble for the final Transport Rule for details about timing of implementation for the final Transport Rule.
Organization: State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Comment:
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
The procedure EPA proposed for determining upwind states' emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance downwind is overly influenced by cost considerations and inadequate emphasis is given to addressing air quality. EPA's current procedure will result in adoption of a remedy where some downwind states will remain subject to post-remedy transport levels that will prevent them from reaching attainment solely through adopting additional local emission control programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.13]
EPA's 4-step procedure to quantify significant contribution does not take into account the concerns illustrated by the Greenwich ozone monitor in the example presented above. That is, the procedure doesn't account for the magnitude of the affected downwind state's contribution to its own nonattainment/maintenance monitors or the downwind state's corresponding ability to address any remaining nonattainment/maintenance issues strictly through additional in-state controls. Furthermore, on page 45271 of the proposed rule's preamble, EPA seems to shift the remaining burden of any "residual" nonattainment/maintenance concerns entirely to the downwind state: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.14]
"The Act requires upwind states to eliminate significant interstate pollution transport under section 110(a)(2)(D). It also requires each state to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS within its borders. Thus, a downwind state must adopt controls to demonstrate timely attainment of the NAAQS despite any pollution transport from upwind states that is not eliminated under section 110(a)(2)(D)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.14]
The final Transport Rule must satisfy each upwind state's interference with maintenance or it will fail to satisfy EPA's obligation pursuant to the CAA. Some states will be left with "residual" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.14]
Nonattainment/maintenance issues that cannot be rectified with additional in-state emission reductions. EPA's failure to fully address transport will become even more pronounced as future, more stringent NAAQS are promulgated, and transport becomes an even larger portion of the air quality challenges faced by downwind states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.14]
State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
State Contribution Thresholds. In Section III. A. of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA discusses that the proposed methodology of the rule uses air quality analysis to determine whether a state's contribution to downwind air quality problems is above specific thresholds. EPA states, 'If a state's contribution exceeds those thresholds, EPA takes a second step that uses a multi-factor analysis that takes into account both air quality and cost considerations to identify the portion of a state's contribution that is significant or that interferes with maintenance.' This statement is troubling to Delaware. It is Delaware's opinion that an upwind state's emissions contribution is significant or interferes with maintenance in a downwind state based on the emissions and their effect on air quality, and is independent of cost considerations. It is Delaware's opinion that cost considerations are relevant when selecting the source category or population of sources that are to be targeted for control, not in determining if the emissions contribute to significant contribution or interference with maintenance in a downwind state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2980.1, pp.6-7]
Response:
See preamble section VI.A.2 for a discussion of appropriateness with respect to EPA's use of cost in determining significant contribution.  EPA believes that it is appropriate to consider both cost and air quality metrics when quantifying each state's significant contribution.  The use of cost is also supported by the D.C. Circuit Court's determination that EPA may consider cost when measuring significant contribution, Michigan, 213 F.3d at 679.
Regarding residual non-attainment and maintenance problems at receptors in Connecticut, EPA's final modeling of the Transport Rule (section VIII of the preamble for the final Transport Rule) shows that these issues will be resolved in 2014.
Organization: State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources
American Lung Association
National Association of Clean of Air Agencies (NACAA)
American Lung Association of the Mid Atlantic
Clean Air Council
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
American Lung Association of Georgia
Geogians for Smart Energy Coalition
Clean Air Task Force
Comment:
American Lung Association
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August 19, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1746, pp.61 & 67.]
EPA should set a much tighter national limit on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions.
We call on EPA to set a nationwide limit on sulfur dioxide equivalent to 1.75 million tons by 2014.
Nitrogen oxide limits need to be lowered to 900,000 tons by 2014.
The control technology is widely available and effective. The investment in cleaning up even more means that we would see greater benefits including more lives saved each year.
We urge you today therefore to set stronger caps.
We urge that the limits should be 900,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide and 1.75 million tons of sulfur dioxide by 2014.
[This comment was also submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, p.48.]
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, pp.10-11.]
The Lung Association recommends that EPA strengthen the limits by 2014 to no more than 90,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 1.75 million tons of sulfer dioxide emissions. These two pollutants are harmful as they pour out of the smokestack, but in the air, they convert toharmful fine particles and ground-level ozone.
American Lung Association of Georgia
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, pp.58-59.]
EPA can and should require even more reductions.
We support a nationwide limit on sulfer dioxide of no more than 1.75 million tons by 2014. Nitrogen dioxide limits should be no more than 900,000 tons by 2014. We support EPA reviewing the calculations using the 2008 national standard for ozone to determine what is really needed now.
American Lung Association of the Mid Atlantic
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, pp.28 & 33.]
As proposed, the rule will decrease sulfur dioxide pollution by 72 percent and nitrogen oxide pollution by 52 percent. Those aren't just measurements. These reductions will save 14,000 to 36,000 lives each year. They will prevent many heart attacks each year and eliminate many visits to the emergency room or the hospital.
EPA should require even more reductions. The benefits so far outweigh the costs that we can and should require tighter reductions.
We urge the Administrator to set even stronger caps than are currently proposed for 2014, for sulfur dioxide, an 80 percent reduction to 1.75 million tons per year, and for nitrogen oxides, a 68 percent reduction to 900,000 tons per year.
Clean Air Council
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, p.44.]
The Council's biggest concern is that the NOX reductions are not adequate to truly address the transport issue. EPA should revisit the proposed emission caps for NOX and make sure they are adequate to ensure that areas like Western Pennsylvania can meet the federal health standards.
Clean Air Task Force
The Clean Air Act ("CAA" or the "Act") requires state implementation plans ("SIPs") to include measures that adequately address transported pollution, and EPA has a duty to enforce these requirements, including but not limited to the promulgation Federal Implementation Plans ("FIPs") in the absence of compliant transport SIPs. EPA's proposed TR fulfills that duty only partially, not completely. In order to protect public health adequately, and to allow many areas around the country that will be in violation of the ozone and fine particulate ("PM2.5") National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") to attain those standards, EPA must tighten the emission caps and expeditiously finalize the proposed rule. Tighter emission caps are necessary to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and maintenance problems in several remaining downwind areas, and are therefore required under the Act and governing regulatory precedent and policy. Additional reductions of power plant emissions are also feasible, cost-effective, and will produce public benefits dramatically higher than the costs of controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.2]
We believe that EPA's TR proposal is a good step towards requiring needed air pollution reductions in the electric power sector, and we commend EPA for bringing the proposal forward. We are concerned, however, that the proposal falls short of requiring the amount of cost-effective reductions that are reasonably obtainable, necessary to protect human health and the environment, and necessary to eliminate significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and maintenance problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.4]
We therefore urge EPA to: reduce the 2014 aggregate state budgets in the annual control region (including Texas) for SO2 to 1.75 million tons (approximately equivalent to a 2 million ton nationwide cap); reduce the 2014 aggregate state budgets in the annual control region (including Texas) for NOx to 900,000 tons (approximately equivalent to a 1.25 million ton nationwide cap); and include Texas, Arkansas, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Oklahoma in the control region for SO2 and annual NOx purposes, and include Massachusetts and Missouri in the control region for ozone season NOx purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.4; This comment can also be found at section IV.E.1 of this comment summary]
A. Basic Structure and Approach
The Clean Air Act requires states to include in their plans to implement the NAAQS 'adequate provisions...prohibiting...any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will...contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary air quality standard....' Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If a state does not meet that requirement on its own, EPA must require it to do so or impose a federal implementation plan (FIP). 18 Once EPA has determined that transported pollution significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment problems, it must require that pollution to be eliminated. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals stressed this requirement in its decision overturning CAIR.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.5]
EPA has thoroughly documented in the TR and elsewhere the problem of transported air pollution and its extensive and harmful effect of on downwind public health and welfare and resulting NAAQS attainment problems.  In this case, EPA has shown that in the absence of regional reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions, widespread ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment will be experienced in the East, South and Midwest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.5]
More specifically, EPA has found that NOx and SO2 emissions from 32 states (including) contribute significantly to nonattainment of the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS in other states. However, as we will discuss in detail below, and as EPA acknowledges in the TR proposal, EPA's air quality modeling shows that some downwind areas will continue to have nonattainment or maintenance problems even after the proposed rule is implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.6]
EPA also estimates that benefits from the rule will exceed costs by from 50 to over 120 times (an estimate which omits many substantial benefits that were not included because EPA could not reduce them to a fixed monetary value).  This enormous benefit-cost ratio not only provides ample support for the proposed reductions, but also makes clear that there is ample room for more stringent emissions limits in the TR. The incremental public health benefits that will flow from tighter rule will still exceed costs by an overwhelming margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.6]
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, pp.106-107.]
Therefore, we urge EPA to reduce the annual control region SO2 cap to 1.75 million tons and the NOX cap to 900,000 tons;
EPA's atmospheric modeling shows that even after the proposed rule is implemented, many downwind areas will still experience nonattainment or maintenance problems under the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS; the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS; and the ozone NAAQS.
At a minimum, these nonattainment areas should be brought into attainment by having appoint contribution.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, pp.75 & 77.]
EDF respectfully requests that the EPA significantly strengthen the limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in order to further improve the health and lives of millions of Americans.
We respectfully request that the EPA establish substantially more rigorous limits on SO2 and NOX by 2014 in order to prevent more premature deaths, further reduce lost work days and protect the millions of Americans who suffer from asthma and respiratory symptoms.
Geogians for Smart Energy Coalition
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, p.64.]
EPA should endorse a higher, tighter national limit on sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. And this investment in cleaning up even more means that we will see even greater health benefits, including more lives saved each year and fewer children gasping for breath. The choice is either that coal plant operators invest in emission controls or our families pay for distress and the costs of expensive healthcare needed for their children's illnesses caused by dirty coal pollution.
I wanted to also mention that we believe that the regional standards wouldn't address needed state regulatory limits and while still wouldn't impair any market trading. I urge you to courageously step up to the challenge and set aggressive standards that will protect our families from pollution-induced asthma, heart attacks, and other health ailments that we know result from coal-fired power plants.
National Association of Clean of Air Agencies (NACAA)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August 19, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1746, pp.105-108, 115.]
Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions contribute to fine particulate matter and ozone pollution which cause significant public health problems, including premature deaths, infant mortality, nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular issues and emergency room visits for asthma.
NACAA believes the NOx emission caps in the proposed Transport Rule are not stringent enough.
While EPA proposes to lower the SO2 cap in 2014, the Agency makes no such adjustment for NOx.
Instead, EPA proposes to keep the same overly generous NOx cap for 2014 that is proposed for 2012, which still leaves several areas vulnerable to interstate transport problem.
Although EPA says it will address the NOx reductions needed to meet the soon-to-be promulgated revised ozone standard in Transport Rule II, it is imperative that the Agency include in this Transport Rule a second, tighter NOx cap in 2014 to assist states in attaining the current ozone standard.
Well, obviously, modeling is a strong tool there to help us analyze that, and we did ask questions about the budgets, and even yesterday with our own calls tried to get a better understanding how the two models work together to set up the overall benefits versus the allocations and so forth. So we're still trying to understand, quite honestly, how it's coming together, but I think our general observations were that the NOx life seemed more lenient than what we needed to achieve.
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, pp.82-83.]
For example, the NOX emissions caps in the proposed Transport Rule are not stringent enough. While EPA proposes to lower the SO2 cap in 2014, the agency makes no such adjustment for NOX. Instead, EPA proposes to keep the same overly-generous NOX cap for 2014 that is proposed for 2012. This is especially problematic because EPAs Transport Rule still leaves several areas vulnerable to interstate transport problems even under the ozone standard of 85 parts per billion, adopted in 1997, let alone the proposed 60-70 ppb EPA revised the ozone standard in 2008, lowering it to 75 ppb.
However, implementation of that standard was stayed while EPAA reconsiders the standard. EPA has proposed a range of 60-70 ppb. Since the 2008 standard was stayed, state and local air agencies are not developing range EPA is considering. Although EPA says it will address the NOX reductions needed to meet the soon-to-be promulgated revised ozone standard in Transport Rule ll, it is imperative that the agency include in this Transport Rule a second, tighter NOX cap in 2014 to assist states in attaining the 85 ppb ozone standard.
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, pp.36-37.]
We urge the EPA to reduce the annual control region sulfer dioxide cap to 1.75 million tons and the nitrogen oxide cap to 900,000 tons.
State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Additionally, the proposed rule does not fully satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D) mandate to eliminate.upwind emissions that prevent downwind attainment or maintenance. If CAMx modeling shows that several areas will continue to be nonattainment or not maintain the standard, the Transport Rule should be re-evaluated. Because emissions are likely to increase in noncontributing states over time, these states could become contributing upwind states in the future. At a minimum, the additional fourteen (14) nonattainment and maintenance areas should be addressed by the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3806, p.2]
Response:
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS.  In this rule, therefore, EPA is only addressing such emissions.
As described in section VI of the preamble for the final Transport Rule, EPA reassessed SO2 and ozone season and annual NOX reductions for the final Transport Rule.  Please refer to this section for further details.

EPA finds that the final Transport Rule emission reductions of annual NOX and SO2 successfully address all emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the states covered by this rule for those NAAQS.  Regarding non-attainment of the ozone NAAQS, EPA believes it can best serve states with ozone non-attainment problems by quickly finalizing this rule and seeking further ozone season NOX reductions, if necessary, in subsequent rulemakings.  This does not preclude EPA from future transport-related rulemakings to address new standards.  See final Transport Rule preamble section VI.D for more details about elimination of significant contribution.

Additionally, air quality modeling results provided in section VIII.B of the final rule's preamble indicate that the final Transport Rule will resolve non-attainment with all PM2.5 standards for all receptors with the exception of 1 receptor with remaining non-attainment problems for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the Liberty-Clairton area--which EPA has noted is heavily influenced by a local source of organic carbon (75 FR 45281).  This modeling also indicates that only 1 area (Houston, TX) is expected to have remaining non-attainment problems for the ozone standard and only 1 area (Baton Rouge, LA) is expected to have remaining maintenance problems for the ozone standard.
Organization: State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources
Progress Energy Service Company
Duke Energy
Comment:
Duke Energy
Last year, the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium ("LADCO") strongly recommended that any CAIR replacement rule include an initial compliance date no earlier than 2017 for any significant additional emission reduction requirements. LADCO explained in its recommendations to EPA that it had conducted a state-by-state analysis that indicated that installation of significant new NOx and SO2 controls -- specifically, installation of selective catalytic reduction systems ("SCRs") and flue gas desulfurization systems ("FGDs" or "scrubbers") -- would not be possible in LADCO states before 2017. Id. at 1, attachment at 4-5.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.1] On the other hand, the PTR's compliance schedule is wholly unreasonable; particularly its imposition of a January 1, 2012 initial compliance deadline that will fall only a few months after EPA plans to take final action in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.1]
In addition, EPA has required additional emission reductions even where they have not been shown to be needed to meet the air quality objectives that EPA asserts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.1-2]
The Proposed Transport Rule Should Not Include an Initial Compliance Deadline of 2012.
It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect emission reductions required by the proposal to be achieved by January 1, 2012, barely six months after the date on which EPA expects to issue a final Transport Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.6]
An Initial Compliance Deadline of 2012 Will Not Allow Enough Time for Sources to Make the Changes Necessary to Comply with the Transport Rule
A compliance deadline of 2012, following a mid-2011 date for final promulgation of the rule,5 would not allow enough time for sources to take actions that might be needed for compliance, such as installing or upgrading controls or switching to lower sulfur coal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p. 8]
Additionally, notwithstanding these assertions that the emission reductions required in 2012 would occur even without the Proposed Transport Rule, EPA indicated in a presentation given in July 2010, when it announced the proposed rule, that it projects that the proposed rule would reduce SO2 emissions by an additional one million tons per year ("TPY") in 2012 beyond what CAIR would have accomplished: from an emission level of 5.1 million TPY under CAIR to 4.1 million TPY under the PTR. See Overview Presentation 7/26/10 at slide 33, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/actions.html. In fact, during a meeting held shortly after EPA issued the proposed rule but before its publication in the Federal Register, EPA acknowledged that, according to the Agency's projections, the 2012 state budgets in the Proposed Transport Rule would reduce SO2 emissions by 1.2 million TPY, from 5.1 million TPY under CAIR to 3.9 million TPY under the Proposed Transport Rule. EPA failed to explain this apparently substantial discrepancy or how over a million additional tons of emissions would be eliminated in a phase of the program that is intended merely to replicate what would have occurred anyway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.9]
Furthermore, EPA has not shown that emission reductions beyond those required by CAIR are necessary. EPA's own data show that existing controls are working to reduce emissions; the result is that concentrations of SO2 and NOx in the ambient air have declined steadily in recent years.8 The D.C. Circuit's opinion in North Carolina v. EPA did not require, or even remotely suggest, that the overall degree of emission reductions required under CAIR was less than that necessary to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Nor did the court include in its opinion any mandate that the replacement rule for CAIR must include a compliance date in 2012 or within any period of time as short as six months after final rule promulgation.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.9-10]
EPA should not adopt the 2012 compliance deadline in the Proposed Transport Rule In the event that EPA promulgates a Transport Rule that, like the proposed rule, includes requirements more stringent than CAIR, the compliance deadline should reflect the degree of stringency of those requirements, when a final rule is promulgated, and a realistic assessment of the actual time it takes to retrofit controls on existing coal-fired power plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.10]
As economic activity picks up in the coming years, the implications of having to meet as a sector 2012 emissions cap that are based in large measure on less than representative base year periods and activity levels is unclear. It's critically important that if EPA finalizes the PTR with an unreasonable 2012 compliance period that the 2012 budgets be reasonably achievable for the sector because, as EPA acknowledges in the PTR, there will not be time between when EPA expects to finalize a rule (mid-2011) and January, 2012 for the addition of new emission controls or to upgrade existing controls. One possible result of extremely tight budgets in 2012 could be excessively high allowance prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.29]
EPA Underestimates the Complexity of Retrofitting FGD and SCR Systems.
In various prior rule makings, EPA has asserted what it believes to be appropriate times for the construction of additional controls. Unfortunately EPA has consistently and significantly underestimated the amount of time that it takes to implement these projects. On multiple occasions, Duke Energy and other entities have provided numerous comments in an attempt to correct EPA's understanding. Unfortunately in this rule making, EPA has continued to under estimate the time required for retrofit controls. This shortcoming is more egregious given the rush to regulate and impose additional controls upon the industry without giving sufficient time to construct those controls. Duke Energy once again requests that EPA defer to industry's estimates for the amount of time that it budgets for the installation of retrofit controls to allow for all phases of the project such as design engineering, financing, environmental permitting, as well as reasonable times for construction across the entire fleet. Duke Energy believes that the industry has earned this deference because of its extensive experience in adding retrofit controls over the last decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.53-54]
EPA places all FGD and SCR installation activities into one of essentially three broad overlapping categories: (1) conducting an engineering review of the facility and awarding a procurement contract; (2) obtaining a construction permit; and (3) installing the control technology. EPA, "Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipoint Strategies" (2002) at 7-8, 20, available at www.epa.gov/clearskies/pdfs/multi102902.pdf (hereinafter "2002 EPA Report").19 Categorizing the numerous activities involved in installing FGD and SCR systems in such a general way, however, masks the overall complexity of the numerous steps that are involved in the design, permitting, and construction of FGD and SCR retrofit systems at coal-fired power plants.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.54]
FGD and SCR retrofits are complex projects requiring significant engineering, planning, permitting, construction, testing, and commissioning efforts. There are three major phases for a project of this type  -  engineering & permitting, construction, and commissioning. The timeframe required to begin and complete all of the required tasks in each phase is the relevant duration for how long it takes to complete and bring a FGD or SCR on line. Simply looking at the time it might take to actually construct a FGD or SCR is not appropriate and does not capture a significant amount of a given project's duration. None of the tasks preceding the actual construction of a FGD or SCR are optional and every phase is critical to the overall project completion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.55]
1. Engineering and Permitting.
What needs to occur during this phase of a project is considerably more than what EPA refers to as an engineering review. The engineering and permitting stage includes the development of the engineering drawings and specifications to support the bidding of the major equipment and construction contracts and the submission of permit applications to the various agencies from which we are required to obtain permits prior to construction and operation of these facilities. After an initial preliminary engineering phase during which the plant layout and process flows of the new systems are produced, the development of detailed engineering drawings and specifications are required to prepare the bid packages for the major contracts. The bid period for some of the contracts is 1 to 2 months because of the complexity of some of the systems required. The bid evaluation period by the owner can take 4 to 6 months in order to arrive at the lowest evaluated cost, as required by obligations to our customers and shareholders. Add to this the time required to negotiate contract terms and issuing the requisite contracts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.55]
Some of the major equipment contracts will need to be in place so detailed information can be included in permit applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.56]
Similarly, EPA seems to underestimate the complexity of permitting a FGD or SCR retrofit. For many projects permitting may take longer than actually fabricating the facility. Nearly all permitting aspects, which include more than simply air permitting, as explained below, require public notice, provide for public hearing and comment, and provide an opportunity for opponents to challenge the permit. It can take several years. Thus, it's far more complex than simply obtaining a construction permit. Rather than merely getting a single "construction permit" -- which may have been a relatively quick-and-easy process at the time of the writing of the 2002 EPA Report -- retrofitting FGD and SCR systems today requires numerous authorizations before construction can begin or before a unit can start operating the new systems, including authorizations and permits that were not required a decade ago or that did not take as long to get 10 years ago as they do now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.56]
Permits must also be obtained to address the byproduct of a wet FGD systems including the benign byproducts of those systems, such as gypsum. In the past it has taken Duke Energy anywhere from 42 to 48 months to secure a land use management permit for scrubber byproducts when the landfill is located on the power plant property. This timeline includes locating and assessing the suitability of the site (18-22 months), securing the permit to construct (10-12 months), construction (12 months), and securing the operating permit (2 months). Duke Energy has no reason to believe that a future landfill permit would not take the same amount of time to obtain. In situations where property must be purchased for a new FGD landfill, the time it would take to obtain the permits necessary to construct and operate a landfill would be considerably longer than 42 to 48 months. Additionally, permitting and construction of a landfill will likely be much longer depending upon the classification of the FGD gypsum byproduct that may result from the proposed EPA Coal Combustion Residual rule now out for comment, should FGD gypsum be classified as a "special waste" under RCRA Subtitle C.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1,p.58]
In addition, unmentioned in the 2002 EPA Report is that in some states companies cannot proceed with the installation of new FGD or SCR systems unless and until they receive authorization from their public utility commissions to do so. Obtaining this approval can add to the overall project duration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.58]
2. Construction.
The construction phase includes grading of the site, foundations, superstructure, and erection of the mechanical systems and auxiliary power systems. As noted above, construction of permanent structures and foundations cannot be started until after the proper permits are received. During this phase, the materials and equipment ordered in the first phase will arrive on site and be set in place. Testing of the mechanical equipment and the power and control systems will occur. Tie-ins to existing plant equipment will occur during a unit outage during this phase. After tie-ins and the testing and check out of the new systems, the new FGD or SCR will be available for start-up.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.59]
Spanning the engineering and permitting and construction phases is the fabrication of the equipment required for the project. This phase of a project deserves special mention here due to the long lead times associated with some of the major equipment and systems associated with FGD and SCR systems. Typical lead times for the longer duration equipment are 18 to 20 months after receipt of the purchase order by the vendor. These durations reflect current durations in a slow market. These durations will increase significantly when many utilities begin installing these systems to meet EPA regulations due to limitations on vendor production capacity for this specialized equipment and for the raw materials, such as copper and special metals and steel alloys that are utilized in the manufacture of some of the components. This phenomenon occurred during the most recent flurry of FGD installations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1,p.59]
3. Commissioning.
The commissioning phase begins as the unit outage is complete and the equipment is started up and operated for the first time. Although the unit is in operation at this time, critical tuning of the equipment and systems occurs during this phase in order to get the system to perform as designed. The duration of this phase is highly dependent on the individual system and a typical duration for a system without serious issues is 3 months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.60]
Duke Energy's Experience Demonstrates that EPA Has Substantially Underestimated The Amount of Time it Takes to Retrofit FGD and SCR Systems at Coal-Fired Power Plants.
Apparently based in large part or entirely on a March 2005 report, EPA concludes that FGD retrofits can be completed in only 27 months and SCR retrofits can be completed in only 21 months. Based on these durations, EPA concludes that because there are approximately 30 months between mid-2011 (when EPA anticipates finalizing the PTR) and January 1, 2014 (the start of phase 2), there is sufficient time for sources to install the FGD and SCR systems projected by IPM to be retrofit to meet the PTR budgets.21 Based on its experience with retrofitting its coal-fired power plants with FGD and SCR systems, EPA has vastly underestimated the amount of time that it takes to design, permit, construct, and start up these systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.60-61]
Duke Energy has retrofit many coal-fired electric generating units with FGD and/or SCR systems, and never has it been able to complete an FGD retrofit in 27 months or an SCR retrofit in 21 months. The following table provides information regarding the duration of some of Duke Energy's FGD and SCR completed retrofits. These projects clearly demonstrate that the 21 month and 27 month durations cited by EPA for SCR and FGD retrofits respectively are not achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1,p.61][[See Docket Number
Duke Energy has retrofit many coal-fired electric generating units with FGD and/or SCR systems, and never has it been able to complete an FGD retrofit in 27 months or an SCR retrofit in 21 months. The following table provides information regarding the duration of some of Duke Energy's FGD and SCR completed retrofits. These projects clearly demonstrate that the 21 month and 27 month durations cited by EPA for SCR and FGD retrofits respectively are not achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.61]  [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.61 for the table.]]
As further evidence that it takes far longer than 27 months to complete an FGD installation, a number of years ago Duke Energy contracted with Sargent and Lundy to develop a detailed project schedule for the possible installation of FGD systems on units 4, 5, and 6 of Duke Energy's W B Beckjord power plant in Ohio (W B Beckjord unit 6 is one of the units to which IPM adds an FGD in 2014). The schedule that Sargent and Lundy developed shows 52 month duration from project initiation to the date that the FGD for unit 6, the first of the 3 FGD retrofits to be completed based on the schedule, is available for service. As of today no work has been performed on this project so if Duke Energy were to proceed with this FGD retrofit, it would be anticipated to take the entire 52 months. It would not be possible to have this FGD operating by January 1, 2014 even if the project were to begin today, almost a year before EPA plans to finalize the PTR, which is the point in time when EPA believes (and Duke Energy agrees) it is appropriate to initiate any new emission control projects that are needed to meet the rule's requirements.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.61-62]
In summary, EPA has greatly underestimated the amount of time that it takes to design, permit, construct, and start up new retrofit FGD and SCR systems. It will take significantly longer than 30 months for affected EGUs to complete the retrofits of FGD and SCR units at coal-fired power plants. Thus, it will not be possible for affected EGUs to achieve all the SO2 and NOx emission reductions that -- under the terms of the PTR -- must be achieved by that rule's January 2014 deadline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.62]
Footnote 19: The 2002 EPA Report also notes that source owners must obtain an operating permit for new control equipment but does not suggest that the process of getting such a permit will add months to the overall process of getting SCR and FGD equipment ready to operate. This step can in fact add many months to the timeline for pollution control retrofits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.54]
Footnote 21: In presenting the schedule that affected source owners would face in making the additional emission reductions that the final Transport Rule will impose, EPA implies throughout the PTR preamble that the appropriate time for source owners to initiate work on any emission controls that are needed to meet the rule's requirements is when the Transport Rule is finalized. See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. at 45273/1, where EPA makes "mid-2011 (when the Agency anticipates finalizing this rule)" the start of the time period in which source owners are to design and construct additional FGD and SCR systems at their plants. EPA is correct in taking this approach. It would be entirely inappropriate for EPA either to require affected source owners to initiate serious work on additional control systems or to assume that source owners will voluntarily start such efforts before the Transport Rule is final. Indeed, it would be imprudent for regulated sources to start making major investments in the design and construction of controls that may or may not be needed dependent on the terms of the final Transport Rule and the terms of other emission control rules that are scheduled to be published by EPA in the near future and that could affect the control options faced by power plant owners. This is particularly so given the uncertainty as to the outcome of the present rulemaking that EPA has created by publishing the NODA and indicating that the emission budgets and allowance allocations in the final Transport Rule could be very different from those that EPA has proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1,p.60]
Progress Energy Service Company
Many of Progress Energy's concerns regarding the proposed Transport Rule, described in the sections that follow, could be resolved to a significant degree by eliminating the 2012 compliance date. Progress Energy believes that it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect reductions - particularly the additional S02 reductions in Group I states - required in the proposal by January 2012, a mere six months after the date on which EPA proposes to issue a final Transport Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.3]
According to EPA, the emission levels required in the 2012 phase generally reflect only the emission reductions that would occur even in the absence of the Transport Rule. However, in a number of cases, EPA has made incorrect assumptions regarding emission reductions that will occur at units by 2012. In addition, the approach set forth in the Proposed Transport Rule penalizes early emission reductions under the CAIR and seriously weakens market incentives.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.3]
Notwithstanding EPA's assertion that the emission reductions required in 2012 would occur even without the proposed Transport Rule, a presentation given by EPA in July, when it announced the proposed rule, indicates that the proposed rule would reduce S02 emissions by an additional one million tons per year ('TPY') in 2012 beyond what CAIR would have accomplished: from a level of 5.1 million TPY under CAIR to 4.1 million TPY under the proposed rule. In fact, during a meeting held shortly after the proposed rule was issued, the Director of EPA's Clean Air Markets Division acknowledged that the 2012 state budgets in the Proposed Transport Rule would reduce S02 emissions by 1.2 million TPY, from 5.1 million TPY under CAIR to 3.9 million TPY under the Proposed Transport Rule. Progress Energy urges EPA to explain this apparent discrepancy and how over a million tons of emissions would be eliminated by using controls already available.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.3]
Moreover, the Company believes that emissions reductions beyond those required by CAIR are not necessary. EPA's data show that existing controls are working to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx have declined steadily in recent years. The D.C. Circuit's opinion in North Carolina v. EPA did not require that the overall levels of reductions required under CAIR be less than the levels necessary to comply with the section II0(a)(2)(D)(i)(J) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), nor did the court include in its opinion a mandate that the replacement rule for CAIR include a compliance date in 2012 or within any period of time as short as six months after final rule promulgation.  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.3]
Progress Energy urges EPA to eliminate the 2012 compliance deadline in the Proposed Transport Rule and instead establish an initial compliance date no earlier than January 1,2014. In the event that EPA promulgates a Transport Rule that includes requirements more stringent than CAIR, as EPA's July 2010 presentation on the proposal suggests, the initial compliance deadline should be later. Concern regarding the initial compliance date is not confined to utilities. Last year, the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (·'LADCO') recommended that any CAIR replacement rule include an initial compliance date no earlier than 2017. See lener from LADCO to Administrator Jackson (Sept. 10, 2009). Phase I of CAIR would remain in place and continue to maintain emission reductions pending the initial compliance deadline for the Transport Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.3-4]
2012 Deadline
EPA correctly recognizes that new FGD and SCR installations could not be added by January 2012 unless they are already under construction. However, EPA incorrectly claims that between final rule promulgation and January I, 2012, utilities could install 10w-NOx burners and switch to burning lower sulfur coal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.4]
2014 Deadline
EPA claims that additional FaD and SCR systems can be permitted, designed and installed between June 2011 (the date EPA plans to issue the final Transport Rule) and the end of2013 because, EPA claims, it takes about 27 months to design, permit, and build FaDs and about 21 months to design, permit, and build SCRs. Progress Energy believes that EPA has not adequately justified these assumptions. Progress Energy's experience in installing nine FaD system retrofits as well as nine SCR system retrofits is that the actual time to construct the equipment is in the range oftime that EPA has assumed for the entire design, permitting, and construction process. However, the design and permitting parts of the process add approximately 18 months to the total time for installation, making EPA's estimates of27 months for FaD installation and 21 months for SCR installation much too short. Progress Energy urges the EPA to make these assumed timeframes more realistic at approximately 44 months for FGD installation and 38 months for SCR installation. In addition, EPA should take into account the additional workload on state permitting authorities to process additional pollution control projects. This likely will extend the pennitting portion of the project timelines and add to the total amount of time needed for project completion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.5]
EPA's Determinations of 'Significant Contribution' and 'Interference with Maintenance' Presuppose EGU Emissions as the Primary Cause of Downwind Nonattainment Problems and Underestimate the Contribution of Local Sources
Section IV of the preamble to the Proposed Transport Rule explains the complicated process by which EPA defined 'significant contribution' and 'interference with maintenance.' Ultimately, EPA proposes that the amount of emissions each upwind contributing state can reduce at $2OO/ton for NOx and $2000/ton for S02 constitutes the upwind states' 'significant contribution.' Following this explanation, EPA states that only a few nonattainment and maintenance areas are projected to remain. Then, at the end of the process, EPA concludes that the few remaining nonattainment or maintenance problems are caused by and can be addressed by local controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.5]
Therefore, the proposed rule puts all or most of the emission reduction burden on sources located outside the local area. Proper accounting for local controls may well have resulted in different emission budgets. In addition, EPA may have failed to include binding state emission control requirements in its base case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2831.1 p.6]
State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources
Provide a clear, achievable and reasonably equitable structure to ensure Wisconsin sources in the sector(s) addressed are able to plan, fund and install emission control equipment sufficient to address all likely [Sec 110] significant contributions to downwind states that originate from the sector in Wisconsin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2829.2, p.1; This comment can also be found at section III.D of this comment summary]
EPA needs to include within the current framework the capability to consider other sector emissions and additional EGU sectors emissions as being sufficiently cost effective to be addressed within any definition of 'significant contribution'. Midwest states suggested a two-step contribution assessment with two core components. A first step which EPA did pursue in this proposal identifies significant air quality impact and as a result, significant contribution. The second step would go beyond a core regional remedy specific to the power sector, identifying states with residual contribution and direct liability within state SIP planning processes to meet commit toward crafting viable SIPs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2829.2, p.4]
Under EPA's proposed rule assessment, the following states were identified as contributing towards Wisconsin's non-attainment and/or maintenance concerns related to the 1997 and 2006 PM-2.S standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2829.2, p.5; See EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2829.2, p.5 for the table entitled: Significant Contribution for the 1996/ 1997/ 2006 air quality standards]
EPA's assessments also indicate that additional EGU sector reductions would cost relatively less per ton on average than equivalent non-EGU point source controls already acknowledged as necessary by EPA. Hence even a cost driven assessment of significant contribution relative to control levels achieved through RACT, BART and BACT would indicate a rationale for deeper post-2014 EGU control budgets in states with residual contribution demonstrated in years after the early program implementation period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2829.2, p.8]
Response:
Regarding installation of EGU controls and the timing of Transport Rule implementation (2012 and 2014), EPA received extensive comment and took these comments into consideration when designing the final Transport Rule.  For a detailed description of EPA's rationale for the final Transport Rule, please refer to section VII.C of the preamble for the final Transport Rule.
Organization: Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
E.ON U.S.
First Energy
National Mining Association (NMA)
George Washington University Regulatory Study Center
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Southeastern States Air Resource Managers (SESARM)
Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP)
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Cleco Corporation
Comment:
Cleco Corporation
Under EPA's proposed rule, EPA identifies downwind receptors and then links upwind states to those receptors. With few exceptions, under this proposed rule, once a state is linked to a downwind area, EPA requires EGU controls necessary to bring that downwind area into full attainment and ensure that there are no projected maintenance issues. As a result, EPA's methodology essentially shifts the burden of air quality attainment out of state, and upwind EGUs effectively bear the full burden of resolving local nonattainment and maintenance problems in downwind states. The "good neighbor" provision was intended to supplement, not supplant, state and local efforts to attain and maintain the NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.7]
The proposed rule's application with respect to the relationship between Louisiana and Harris County, Texas (Clinton Drive monitor) provides a prime example of how EPA improperly shifts the burden of air quality attainment to upwind state EGUs. As discussed above, Louisiana is in the PM-2.5 programs because the Clinton Drive monitor is projected to have maintenance problems under the 1997 annual PM-2.5 standard. EPA completely ignores the state and local efforts specifically designed to address potential maintenance problems at that monitor and instead proposes NOx and SO2 reductions and permanent emissions caps for all EGUs in Louisiana sufficient to eliminate the projected issues. Yet the record demonstrates that Texas and Harris County have been able to quickly improve air quality at the Clinton Drive monitor with costeffective local controls. This is how the Clean Air Act is designed to work. Each State has primary responsibility for its air quality. Louisiana's obligation as a good neighbor should be triggered only when those local controls have been implemented and have failed to produce results. This relationship between Louisiana EGU's and the Clinton Drive monitor clearly demonstrates the need for EPA to reconsider its assessment of local controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2859.1 p.7]
E.ON U.S.
Using EPA approved modeling protocols and updated inputs, Alpine Geophysics concluded that the ozone targets specified in the Proposed Transport Rule can be achieved no later than 2014 without any controls beyond the existing CAIR and other business as usual requirements. They determined that the same is true for 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 targets, with the possible exception of two locations that appear to be influenced by local sources. Consequently, it is unnecessary for EPA to adopt emission targets more stringent than CAIR to eliminate interstate transport interfering with downwind nonattainment with NAAQS requirements. EPA's proposedreduction targets in the Proposed Transport Rule are unjustified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2797.1, pp.4-5]
Invalid assumptions on switching to lower sulfur coals.
EPA states that its analyses do not add capital or operations and maintenance costs for coal switching from higher to lower sulfur bituminous coals (Federal Register page 45273). This assumption is incorrect. All pulverized coal (PC) boilers are designed for a very specific coal specification; changes could invalidate manufacturer guarantees. Switching to lower sulfur coal can result in the boiler operating outside its design specification which will result in reduced efficiency (higher CO2 emissions per MW produced) or in many cases significant operational problems such as slagging. Overcoming these operational problems will requires significant boiler modifications which EPA has not considered in their implementation timeframe or cost analysis. Also, the use of lower sulfur fuels will likely require modifications to electrostatic precipitators and potentially for the coal handling equipment (mills, etc.). EPA states that "[e]astern bituminous coals used for power generation typically have more than sufficient sulfur content to facilitate highly efficient collection of fly ash in a cold-side electrostatic precipitator." Our operating experience shows that this is not the case and we have had to maintain minimum fuel sulfur content to avoid opacity issues. The additional cost and implementation time were not considered in EPA's cost analysis and implementation timeframes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2797.1, pp.7-8]
First Energy
More fundamentally, EPA needs to revisit the level of emissions reductions required under CATR. Simply by using the most recent (2006-2009) monitoring data released by EPA, 80% of residual non-attainment areas identified by EPA in 2012 actually are already in attainment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.1; This comment can also be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3772.1_NODA, pp.1-2 10/15/2010]
Further, all Ozone monitors and all but two PM 2.5 monitors come into attainment by 2014 for the 1997 and 2006 standards, respectively, without any additional controls requirements based on air quality modeling conducted by MOG, utilizing a more representative base year and accounting for enforceable federal, state, and local regulations. Because the Court did not assign a deadline for EPA to address a remedy to CAIR and because revised standards for PM and Ozone are imminent (which will still bring the EPA-sought after health benefits referenced in CATR), the additional emission reductions imposed by the CATR rule are simply not needed at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.2; This comment can also be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3772.1_NODA, p.2 10/15/2010]
Please see Appendices A and C for details regarding the modeling completed by Alpine Geophysics on behalf of MOG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.2] [[See Docket Number  EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, pp.15-26 for Appendix A and pp. 28-32 for Appendix C.]
Even modeling just using the most recent monitoring data (2006-2009), 80% of residual non-attainment areas identified by EPA in 2012 actually are already in attainment (see Appendix C for details) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.3; these comments can also be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3772.1_NODA, p.3 10/15/2010]
In developing the CATR rule, FE believes the EPA has a responsibility to confer with the regional coordinating agencies that manage the ambient program as an additional step to verify the "Significant Contribution" at a particular monitoring site. The EPA does specifically highlight a significant Coking Plant in Allegheny County, PA as the main driver in Allegheny County's non-attainment. Similarly, FE recommends the EPA list the significant monitoring site pollutant sources for all sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, pp.3-4;; these comments can also be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3772.1_NODA, p.4 10/15/2010]
George Washington University Regulatory Study Center
The SO2 and NOx emissions reductions from the Transport Rule would result in corresponding reductions in fine particulate matter (PM) concentrations. Indeed, it is these PM concentrations in downwind areas that the Transport Rule is primarily designed to address. Many downwind areas are violating air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM, or might do so in the future if upwind emissions are not reduced. The extent to which upwind states' emissions produce either result -- in legal terms, the extent to which upwind emissions "significantly contribute" to a NAAQS violation or "interfere with maintenance" of the NAAQS -- determines whether and how the Transport Rule emissions restrictions will apply. The EPA therefore must define in the Transport Rule exactly what contribution of upwind emissions to downwind PM concentrations could be classified as either a significant contribution or interference with maintenance. The second section of these comments examines a potential problem with the high level of precision chosen by the EPA for the proposed thresholds for significant contribution and interference with maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2573.1, pp.5-6]
Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public hearing on August 26, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-1938, pp.191-194.]
Southwestern Pennsylvania is home to the Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 nonattainment area, this is a tiny area made up of five municipalities just southeast of Pittsburgh along the Monongahela River.
The Liberty-Clairton area has quite possibly the most severe PM 2.5 problem in the nation. This area also has the unfortunate distinction of being the only place in the eastern half of the United States that will still fail to meet the annual PM 2.5 standard after the proposed transport rule is fully implemented. This is not acceptable.
Over 20,000 people live in the Liberty-Clairton area. So long as we fail to address the areas continued nonattainment, well se additional cases of childhood asthma, heart attacks, and premature deaths. These are very real and very grave consequences of our failure to act, and they are completely avoidable.
EPAs reasoning for not addressing the Liberty-Clairton problem in the transport rule is that the area is heavily influenced by local emissions from the nearby US Steel Clairton Coke Works. In other words, EPA is saying, it's a local problem, not a transport problem.
It's true that the coke works has a huge influence on local PM 2.5 concentrations. However, long-range transport also plays a significant role in the problem. Based on 2001-2003 data used to develop the 1997 PM 2.5 state implementation plan for the area roughly 14 ug/m3 of the annual PM 2.5 measured at the Liberty monitor was emitted by sources other than the coke works. Thats about two-thirds of the total annual measured PM 2.5 concentration. Nearly 12 ug/m3 originate from sources beyond the areas long range transport modeling domain-thats a 150 x150 kilometer area centered on Liberty-Clairton.
So even before accounting for emissions from the coke works, the Liberty monitor is nearly violating the PM 2.5 annual standard, and the bulk of those 14 micrograms are from sources nowhere near Liberty-Clairton.
EPA cannot use the emissions from the Clairton Coke Works to justify a transport rule that essentially pretends Liberty-Clairton doesn't exist. Liberty-Clairtons PM 2.5 problem is caused by a combination of local and distant sources, and it can only be addressed by achieving reductions from both local and distant sources.
The Clairton Coke Works must do its part, upwind sources must do theirs. If the transport rule is finalized in its current form, the local emission reductions currently being developed would not be sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard until 2017-the absolute latest deadline the Clean air Act allows.
Maybe the transport rule cant fully resolve the Liberty-Clairton problem
National Mining Association (NMA)
The Proposed Rule Does not Assume Sufficient Emission Reductions from Local Controls
The premise behind the proposed rule is that, to cure nonattainment or preserve attainment, upwind sources should control first, then downwind sources should address any remaining problem. As EPA stated, "EPA continues to believe that a strategy based on adopting cost effective controls on sources of transported pollutants as a first step will produce a more reasonable, equitable, and optimal strategy than one beginning with local controls." In the court decision overturning CAIR, however, the court ruled that EPA's notions of what is "reasonable," "equitable," or "optimal" are irrelevant in applying the CAA. Congress determines what is the "reasonable," "equitable," and "optimal strategy for addressing nonattainment and interference with maintenance; EPA then carries out Congress' wishes. Section 107(a) of the CAA plainly states that "[e]ach State shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State." EPA thus has it exactly backwards -- under the statute, the nonattaining state must first seek to achieve attainment through local controls, and the upwind states may then be required to address any remaining increment of nonattainment.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2868.1, pp.19-20]
 EPA's flawed legal analysis is reflected in its base case modeling. That modeling does not assume any further controls on local sources. Had new local controls been assumed, the burden on upwind sources would have been reduced. Moreover, EPA's Emission Inventory TSD states that modeling of the 2014 control case is indeed intended as a complete remedy for nonattainment ("The 2014 TR Control Case was intended to represent the implementation of NOX and SO2 reductions to attain the existing ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in the eastern U.S."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2868.1, p.20]
EPA's policy requiring upwind states to go first is based on the Agency's conclusion that upwind controls are lower cost than local controls. Whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant under the CAA. The notion that (presumably) lower cost controls in upwind states should be installed before (presumably) higher cost local controls derives from the Agency's views of interstate equity, a concept that the North Carolina court specifically found to be beyond the scope of EPA's power to implement under the CAA. Thus, EPA should at least have modeled a reasonable level of local controls to achieve and maintain attainment, a level that cannot be determined with reference to the cost of upwind controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2868.1,p.20]
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago, Illinois public hearing on August 19, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1746, pp.42-43.]
Second, EPA's regulation of coal-fired power plant is timely because reductions from these highly-polluting facilities are long overdue.
The vast majority of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants comes from the 50 percent of facilities that lack basic emission controls for these pollutants.
These plants are, for the most part, decades old and were initially grandfathered when the Clean Air Act was passed, and improperly continue to operate today much as they did when they were built in the 1950s and 60s.
Finally, on behalf of NRDC's hundreds of thousands of members living in areas adversely affected by out-of-state air pollution, I urge U.S. EPA to go further in the final version of the Transport Rule by requiring additional reductions in pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The record appears to show that the emissions used in the modeling to determine the levels for eliminating significant contribution and interference with maintenance are lower than the emissions budgets set for states. EPA should better explain the emissions used in the modeling to determine the level of reductions required for each individual state to eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance. EPA must also explain how these emissions compare to the emissions budgets proposed in the FIP. If the emissions used in analysis are indeed lower than the FIP budgets, then we need to understand how the budgets will eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance. Failure to limit state-level emissions at the level used in the analysis would seem to deviate from the court's mandate:
On remand, EPA must determine what level of emissions constitutes an upwind state's significant contribution to a downwind non attainment area "consistent with the provisions of [Title I]," which include the deadlines for attainment of NAAQS and set the emissions reduction levels accordingly."  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2694.1 p.5-7]
In the proposed rule, EPA states that "a downwind state must adopt controls to demonstrate timely attainment of the NAAQS despite any pollution transport from upwind states that is not eliminated under section 110(a)(2)(D)' (75 FR 45271). We understand that EPA's intent, with this statement, is to clarify a nonattainment area's obligation to adopt reasonable local controls, notwithstanding transport, to make progress towards attainment. It is not meant to imply that a downwind area is solely responsible for implementing all measures to attain the standard while being affected by significant contribution of transport. This is especially of concern if the final transport rule does not provide relief sufficient to address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment. We request that EPA clarify its intent in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2694.1 pp.8-9]
Southeastern States Air Resource Managers (SESARM)
[These comments were submitted as testimony at the Atlanta, Georgia public hearing on September 1, 2010.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-0491-1939, pp.43-44.]
Two, levels of control should be based on sound air quality analysis using accepted evaluation tools.
Three, establishment of emission reduction mandates should be guided solely by what is needed to achieve and maintain attainment with national standards. Such analyses must give consideration to the impacts of emissions of local origin, as well as transported emissions.
However, the cost in relative air quality value 25 of local versus distant emission controls must be evaluated and final emission limits should be based on cost-effectiveness and proven technology.
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA's Approach Places an Undue and Unlawful Burden on Sources in Upwind States To Reduce Emissions.
EPA's Proposed Transport Rule improperly puts all or most of the emission reduction burden on sources located outside the local nonattainment or maintenance area. Indeed, EPA admits as much. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA explains that "EPA continues to believe that a strategy based on adopting cost effective controls on sources of transported pollutants as a first step will produce a more reasonable, equitable, and optimal strategy than one beginning with local controls." 75 Fed. Reg. at 45226/3. EPA recites several reasons for its decision to assign "substantial responsibility" to upwind states to decrease their emissions in an effort to decrease or eliminate nonattainment in downwind states, 75 Fed. Reg. at 45272/1, but none can justify EPA's failure to adhere to the terms of the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, p.69]
Section 107(a) of the Act states that "[e]ach State shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State." 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a) (emphasis added). EPA's proposal instead would impose on upwind states the "primary responsibility" for assuring air quality in the downwind states that contain the nonattainment and maintenance sites, in direct contradiction to this fundamental principle of the CAA. EPA is bound by the terms of the Act to recognize that the primary responsibility for attaining and maintaining air quality standards in a given state is to be borne by that state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, pp.69-70]
One consequence of this principle is that EPA was required to account for local controls in the first instance. EPA did not comply with this requirement. For example, EPA states that in the development of the future year emission scenarios, "[f]or nonEGU point and nonpoint stationary sources, any local control programs that may be necessary for areas to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the ozone NAAQS are not included in the future base case projections." 75 Fed. Reg. at 45241/2. Proper accounting for local controls may well have resulted in different emission budgets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, p.70]
EPA gave recognition to the terms of section 107(a) in the NOx SIP Call rule and CAIR, at least to a certain degree. Both the NOx SIP Call rule and CAIR were based on the concept of residual nonattainment -- that downwind states containing designated nonattainment areas would be unable to reach attainment in those areas through the use of local controls alone. See 63 Fed. Reg. at 57377/1-2 ("The fact that a nonattainment problem persists, notwithstanding fulfillment of CAA requirements by the downwind sources, is a factor suggesting that it is reasonable for the upwind sources to be part of the solution to the ongoing nonattainment problem."); 70 Fed. Reg. at 25184/3 (explaining that regional emission reductions are necessary because "it would be difficult if not impossible for many nonattainment areas to reach attainment through local measures alone"). In the final CAIR, for example, EPA explained that it evaluated emission control options to determine the average emission reductions that were possible in nonattainment areas using local controls, and then determined, based on this analysis, that reductions from sources in upwind states were necessary -- in addition to local controls -- in order for downwind states to reach attainment. 70 Fed. Reg. at 25194/1-2. As mentioned above, this reasoning gives at least a degree of recognition to the requirement of section 107(a), discussed above, that states bear the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within their borders. EPA's failure to do so here requires the Agency to revise and reissue the proposed rule based on a proper assessment of the -ole of local controls in NAAQS attainment strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2756.1, pp.70-71]
Response:

EPA made numerous updates and corrections to its significant contribution analysis for the final rule.  Among other things, EPA updated the modeling used to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors, EPA's source apportionment modeling, and EPA's development and use of CAMx and AQAT for identifying significant contribution to non-attainment and interference with maintenance.  Details on these methods can be found in section V and VI of the preamble for the final Transport Rule.
These sections include a discussion of the appropriateness of EPA's baseline for the Transport Rule in comparison to alternative baselines (such as 2006-2009 monitoring data) which EPA determined to be inappropriate for use.
With respect to EPA's treatment of local sources for the final Transport Rule, see section V of the final Transport Rule preamble.  EPA recognizes the role that local controls play (as defined by the Clean Air Act) in attaining national air quality standards.  As such, EPA specifically requested comment on local control data as part of the proposal and the October 27 NODA, and incorporated any usable data that was provided into the final inventories.
Regarding inclusion of Louisiana for PM2.5, please see updated air quality analysis is section V of the final Transport Rule preamble.
With respect to air quality modeling conducted by MOG, EPA's evaluation of this modeling can be found in section V.C.2 of the preamble for the final Transport Rule.
A discussion of EPA's assessment regarding the Liberty-Clairton area can be found in section VI.D of the preamble for the final Transport Rule.
EPA modified the methods used to determine state emissions budgets for the final Transport Rule.  Details on the methods used for the final rule can be found in section VI.D of the preamble for the final Transport Rule and in the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule Technical Support Document.

IV.D.1. Overall Approach: Emissions Reduction Cost Curves

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Comment:
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Transport cannot be considered completely addressed pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) if the remedy, based solely on a cost threshold, leaves residual nonattainment. In the event that EPA persists with the use of cost thresholds to set the proposed remedy, EPA must identify thresholds necessary to level the playing field between Connecticut and upwind states. Based on the level and cost of controls already in place in Connecticut and other Northeast states, the proposed Transport Rule's $500/ton cost threshold (2006 dollars) for NOx is far below the costs already incurred by electric generating units in Connecticut. EPA must recognize the costs already incurred and the reductions already achieved by Connecticut and other states that are impacted by transport when devising this and future Transport Rules. Since EPA acknowledged (75 FR 45288) in the 2003-04 NOx SIP Call that highly cost-effective ozone season compliance costs of $3200/ton (in 2006 dollars) are reasonable, the Transport Rule would achieve much greater health benefits if EPA used a similar cost threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.8]
Connecticut's increasingly stringent emission limits, coupled with market forces and CTDEP's efforts to encourage cleaner energy generation through participation in the New England Independent System Operator ( ISO-NE) and Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) processes, have resulted in installation of new electric generating facilities that are much lower emitting than in the past. In addition, at least 80 new units, many of which are small distributed generators that also utilize combined heat and power to increase efficiency, resulted in the net capacity of a 350MW base-loaded facility (representing almost 10% of total new capacity). Table A-1 summarizes emission limits for new facilities that are subject to the Transport Rule sited in Connecticut over the last 14 years, with all units permitted at NOx emission limits ranging from 0.008 to 0.09 lbs/MMBtu: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.8]
Table A-1. Emissions Limits of Connecticut's New Facilities [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.8]
[[Data Table Here]]
These newer, cleaner installations have transformed the emission characteristics of Connecticut's EGU sector. Table A-2 displays the NOx emission rate of Connecticut's EGUs that report to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) compared to emission rates of similar EGUs in upwind states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.9]
Table A-2. 2007 NOx Emissions Rates For Northeast States (CAMD)
Table A-2 shows that Connecticut's EGUs have an average NOx rate of 0.069 lbs/MMBtu, which is significantly lower than the average NOx rate of key upwind states such as Pennsylvania at 0.178 lbs/MMBtu and Ohio at 0.182 lbs/MMBtu. Furthermore, the average NOx rate for new capacity added in Connecticut since 1996 is 0.021 lbs/MMBtu. EPA should account for states with lower emitting, higher efficiency EGU infrastructure by ensuring that the final Transport Rule and future Transport Rules are structured to level the playing field with upwind states whose EGU sectors are higher emitting and less efficient. CTDEP recommends EPA adopt EGU performance standards by 2014. However, if EPA persists in using cost to establish the scope of the proposed remedy, EPA must use a more appropriate cost threshold, such as the cost per ton of actual EGU controls in downwind states most impacted by transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.1 p.9]
EPA requested comment on whether it should consider and analyze NOx reductions that could be achieved for greater than $500/ton in states linked to the New York area sites. EPA goes on to indicate that any future analysis deemed necessary would be conducted as part of a future notice that would also consider similar issues identified for the Houston and Baton Rouge areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.11 ]
CTDEP strongly urges EPA to strengthen the current proposal with appropriate additional control requirements to ensure that states fully meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) transport obligations as soon as possible for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA should base all proposed and final decisions regarding appropriate transport control remedies on analyses conducted with the more refined CAMx model, which includes algorithms to simulate non-linear photochemistry and the spatial differences associated with emissions from the various source sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2780.11 ]
Response:

See Transport Rule preamble for an explanation of how the final Transport Rule implements the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) and a  discussion of residual nonattainment areas.  Section V.B of the preamble provides more information about the baseline used.  The final Transport Rule analysis did not identify Connecticut, in part because of the relatively low state wide emission rate, as a state with emissions that significant contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state.  Consequently, Connecticut is not subject to the final Transport Rule.
See section VI.B and D of the Transport Rule preamble for a discussion of the NOX cost thresholds used in the final Transport Rule
Organization: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Comment:
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
In addition, EPA arbitrarily adjusted costs, using "higher and lower cost thresholds, based on the downwind air quality impact of emissions from different groups of states.' 75 FR 45233/2. Based on the charts indicating cost per ton by State, it appears that States that still have fossil-fueled plants are targeted, whereas those that do not seem to escape this cost effective analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2751.1]
Response:
See section VI.B and VI.D of the Transport Rule preamble for a discussion of "cost curves" and how cost thresholds were applied to states.  The multi-factor analysis takes into account the downwind air quality benefit and the cost considerations when determining the levels of reductions in each state.  Even at the same cost threshold, states may have different emission reduction opportunities depending, among other things, on the control status of its EGU fleet.
Organization: Duke Energy
Comment:
Duke Energy
IPM Has Improperly Switched Units from Bituminous to Subbituminous Coal
In its proposal, EPA states that its "...analysis does not allow a unit designed for bituminous coal to switch to (very low sulfur) subbituminous coal unless the unit has demonstrated that capability in the past. EPA assumes units with that capability have already made any investments needed to handle a switch to subbituminous coals. EPA therefore assumes that any modeled coal switching from bituminous to subbituminous has no cost or schedule impact." (Emphasis added.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, p.34]
EPA has provided no information about what in its view constitutes a demonstration of the capability to burn subbituminous coal. In cases where IPM has modeled a 100% fuel switch to subbituminous coal, it seems reasonable that having demonstrated the capability would mean that the unit IPM has switched has actually operated on 100% subbituminous coal in the past. Certainly units that have never burned subbituminous coal in any quantity would not be considered to have demonstrated the capability to burn such coal. Yet IPM has fuel-switched a number of Duke Energy units from bituminous to subbituminous coal where those units have never burned any amount of subbituminous coal in the past, not even a test burn. This is clearly an error that should be corrected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2689.1, pp.34-35]
Response:
See "Documentation Supplement for EPA Base Case v.4.10_FTransport  -  Updates for Final Transport Rule" for discussion on coal switching in the IPM model.  In particular, the section titled "Restriction on coal choice in 2012" discuss some modification EPA made to its IPM modeling in response to concerns expressed by commenters on coal switching in the proposed modeling.
Organization: First Energy
Comment:
First Energy
FE understands, but does not support the EPA's assumption that utilities and their electric generating units (EGU's) are the lowest cost control option based on their cost curves. The EPA does not identify which sector has the greatest impact on each monitoring site. A better option for the EPA is to prioritize all source category impacts on a monitoring site and use that priority list as the first option used to bring a non-attainment site into attainment. This is in part the role the State has filled in the past, and EPA's strategy to issue a "FIP-first" focusing solely on EGU's is inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that EPA is under no court ordered timeline to expedite this process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2657.1, p.3; ; these comments can also be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-3772.1_NODA, pp.3-4 10/15/2010]
Response:

Section VI of the preamble discusses what sources categories are included and why.  Additionally, Section IV.C of the preamble and section III.A of this RTC explains EPA's FIP authority.
Organization: Independence Power & Light (IPL)
Comment:
Independence Power & Light (IPL)
EPA Gave No Consideration to the Challenges Faced by Municipal Utilities
Finally, many municipal utilities own and operate a relatively small number of relatively small EGUs units. The ability to achieve emissions reductions on small units is not as postulated by the Rule due to simple economies of scale. The cost of controls on smaller units can be as much as three times the cost per MW that the Rule assigns in order to determine required reductions. This calls into question the assignment of costs per ton of reduction that forms the basis for regulation of many small municipal EGUs subject to the Rule.. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2741.1, pp.17-18]
Response:
EPA does consider the cost challenges faced by units less than 100 MW (smaller units) when developing its IPM modeling (see Documentation Supplement for EPA Base Case v.4.10_FTransport - Updates for Final Transport Rule).
Additionally, EPA conducts a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) analysis that examines the impact on small EGUs covered by the Transport Rule.
Organization: Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)
Comment:
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)
EPA Should Consider Alternative Post-Combustion Cost-Effective Technologies for Reducing SO2 and NOx Emissions (75 FR 45273/1). EPA's analysis does not consider lower capital-cost options for SO2 capture, such as Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and upgrades to existing scrubbers that could be implemented much more quickly than installation of new scrubbers and could provide substantial reductions of SO2 well within the time frame considered for the new rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2695.1, p. 6]
DSI reduces SO2 through injection of trona, sodium bicarbonate or hydrated lime upstream of a particulate control device and has been proven to reduce SO2 by over 50% when an ESP is installed and over 80% when a fabric filter is used for particulate control. These technologies can be implemented very quickly  -  typically within one year.
It may be possible to improve the scrubber performance of many older scrubbers that were installed in the 1970's and 1980's. For example, limestone forced oxidation wet scrubber system upgrades at the Vectren Culley Station Units 2 & 3, E.On's Trimble County Unit 1, and Michigan South Central Power's Endicott Station resulted in removal efficiencies in the range of 98% being achieved for each of these units. 4, 5, 6 Upgrades such as these can also be implemented very quickly and inexpensively when compared to installation of a new scrubber.
These lower-cost approaches for SO2 control that can be implemented quickly lend themselves well to the flexibility envisioned in EPA's preferred approach. These methods do not require large commitments of capital. Utility companies can implement these methods and delay or avoid installation of more capital intensive technologies for SO2 control.
ICAC also requests that EPA include circulating dry scrubber technology (CDS) in the modeling for the proposed Transport Rule. As an example, the Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project was conducted as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Power Plant Improvement Initiative to demonstrate an innovative combination of air pollution control technologies that can cost effectively reduce emissions of SO2, NOx, Hg, acid gases (SO3, HCl, and HF), and particulate matter from smaller coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs).
CDS technology is an example of the improvements made by the APC industry to provide sources more flexibility in meeting their compliance requirements. The final project report can be accessed at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/PPII/bibliography/demonstration/environmental/bib_greenidge.html.

Footnotes:
4 Quatidamo, M., Erickson, C., Langone, J., "SO2 Removal Enhancement to the Vectren Culley Generating Station Units 2&3 Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization System", ICAC Forum '05, Baltimore, MD, March 7-10, 2005.
5 Erickson, C., Jasinski, M., VanGansbeke, L., "Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (WFGD) Upgrade at the Trimble County Generation Station Unit 1", EPRI-DOE-EPA-AWMA Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, Baltimore, MD, August 28-31, 2006.
6 Silva, A., Williams, P., Balbo, J., "WFGD Case Study  -  Maximizing SO2 Removal by Retrofit with Dual Tray Technology", EPRI-DOE-EPA-AWMA Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, Baltimore, MD, August 28-31, 2006.
Response:
EPA has updated its IPM modeling used in the Final Transport Rule analysis to reflect lower capital-cost options for SO2 capture - including Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI).  See IPMv.4.10 documentation for further explanation.
Organization: Midwest Ozone Group
Comment:
Midwest Ozone Group
MOG recommends using 2018 as the year for eliminating significant contribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.10]
EPA requests comment on which year within 2012 to 2018 it should select for further analysis. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 45,286/1-2 ("EPA may select a year between 2012 and 2018 that is as expeditious as practicable as the appropriate year for eliminating significant contribution. Because, as explained later, further analysis is needed to quantify any additional reductions necessary to eliminate significant contribution to Houston, EPA requests comment on which year we should select within this 2012 to 2018 time period for this analysis."). MOG urges EPA to use 2018 as the year for determining significant contribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.10]
With respect to the ozone NAAQS, the year 2018 is the deadline for emissions reductions for the Houston severe ozone NAA, and Houston is an area that EPA has identified as a residual nonattainment area for ozone in 2014 even with the CATR. See 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, 45,285-86.The year 2018 is also the deadline for emissions reductions for ozone NAAs classified as severe and above. See id. at 45,285. Further, if an area comes close to attainment, EPA may grant states two 1-year attainment date extensions provided certain criteria are met. See id. at 45,285/3. BAU control strategies will help improve air quality in areas with attainment deadlines after 2010. See id. at 45,301/1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.11]
As for the PM2.5 NAAQS, designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS had not even been promulgated at the time of the D.C. Circuit's decision. Designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were not published until November 13, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 58,688) and were not effective until December 14, 2009. The presumptive attainment deadline for nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is December 14, 2009, with a possible extension to December 14, 2019. All of the reasons that EPA relies upon for examining beyond 2012 to determine significant contribution (e.g., "unique situation created by the Court's remand of CAIR," missed deadline for transport SIPs, bump-up provisions, two 1-year extensions of attainment date provisions, long history of nonattainment areas failing to meet their nonattainment deadlines, and maintenance requirements) are equally applicable to looking beyond 2014 and to 2018 to determine source-receptor relationships and significant contribution. See Fed. Reg. at 45,285/2-3. Moreover, using 2018 for 24-hour PM2.5 does not rely on the two, one-year extensions beyond the additional ten years after the effective designations date allowed in the CAA. Using 2018 would harmonize implementation of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS programs while avoiding an arbitrary use of different years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.11]
Using 2018 would be consistent with EPA's interpretation that reductions must occur in the year immediately preceding an area's attainment date. In any case, using the year 2018 does not create public health concerns because the most recent modeling data shows that, except for two areas influenced by local sources, all areas achieve attainment in 2014. Therefore, using 2018 is reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.11]
Further, using 2018 as the year for determining significant contribution gives states time to develop quality SIPs, submit them to EPA, and receive EPA approval. This approach is consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that states have the "primary responsibility" for air quality within the state. See CAA § 101(a)(3) & § 107(a). EPA's approach of proposing federal implementation plans puts the "cart before the horse". The CAA contemplates that EPA may promulgate a FIP within two years after the EPA Administrator makes a finding of failure to submit or incompleteness or disapproves a SIP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.11]
Finally, 2018 is the appropriate year to use for determining maintenance of the NAAQS. See 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, 45,285/3 ("Even if a downwind area attains on time, further upwind reductions may be important to assure continued maintenance of the standard."). As discussed above, these modeling results, which assume that CAIR requirements remain in place, demonstrate that with no new controls beyond CAIR and BAU controls, all ozone nonattainment areas, all annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas except Allegheny County, PA, and all 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas except Allegheny County, PA and Brooke County, WV, will achieve attainment no later than 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, pp.11-12]
Clearly, the additional stringent reductions EPA is proposing are not needed to achieve the air quality objective EPA is targeting  -  attainment and maintenance of the applicable ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. MOG urges EPA to reanalyze the CATR using 2018 as the year for projecting nonattainment and maintenance areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2809.1, p.12]
Response:
See section VII.C of the Transport Rule preamble for an explanation of the compliance deadlines.  Also, EPA notes that the independent modeling referenced by the commenter assumes that CAIR stays in place, this is an assumption that EPA cannot make in its Transport Rule modeling for reasons explained in the both the proposed and final Transport Rule.
Organization: National Mining Association (NMA)
Comment:
National Mining Association (NMA)
As with EPA's assumptions on coal-switching, if EPA is wrong about the amount of scrubbers that can be installed by 2014, the result will be the closing of coal plants or the ramping down of production at those plants. That result, which EPA has not analyzed, would completely change the basis for EPA's conclusion that its phase two emission reductions are cost-effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2868.1,p.17]
Response:
As explained in Section VII.C of the Preamble, EPA believes the installation of approximately 6 GW of FGD by 2014 is feasible.  Additionally, EPA believes that while feasible, these controls are not necessary for compliance with Transport Rule emission limits in 2014.  The flexibility afforded through the trading component of the Final Transport Rule, allows sources to choose among an array of compliance options that include control retrofits, fuel switching, allowance purchase, etc.  EPA analyzed, and made available in the docket, a Transport Rule 2014 scenario where the FGD retrofit option was not available to sources in that time period.  The same Transport Rule state budget requirements were applied.  In this scenario, as discussed in Section VII.C, sources simply relied on additional DSI, subbituminous, and increased gas generation as a substitute for FGD retrofit.  By doing so, the modeling suggested they were still able to comply with the budget at reasonable cost and with no additional requirements.
Organization: Nebraska Public Power District
Comment:
Nebraska Public Power District
9) Better Significant Contribution Metric. EPA says it has defined "significant contributions" based on the cost of avoiding emissions from each given state or emissions source. EPA states in the preamble of the proposed TR:
"The methodology defines each state's significant contribution and interference with maintenance [of NAAQS] as the emissions that can be eliminated for a specific cost." [Federal Register, Aug. 2, 2010, Page 45271] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2711.1, p.8]
Controlling emissions most cost-effectively on a $/ton removed basis is an appropriate strategy in performing a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis as part of a permitting action on a particular facility. We agree with bringing the cost element into consideration for the TR. However, because the purpose of the TR is to bring specific geographic areas into attainment with the NAAQS, the proper focus should be not on mass of emissions, but rather on the impacts. In other words, instead of using $/ton of pollutant emissions eliminated as a metric, the analysis should be looking primarily at a metric of $/μg/m3 of pollutant concentration reduced at each receptor of interest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2711.1, p.8]
Response:
As described in section VI of the final Transport Rule, EPA uses a multi-factor analysis that considers both cost and air quality when determining significant contribution at the state level.
Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Clean Air Task Force
Comment:
Clean Air Task Force
EPA solicits comment on several aspects of this issue, including whether:
any Group 2 states should be moved to Group 1 for purposes of SO2 requirements;
the $2000/ton SO2 marginal cost cut-off should be raised; and
the $500/ton NOx marginal cost cut-off should be raised.
We submit that the answer to all of these questions is clearly "yes." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2738.1, p.13]
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
The USEPA used a very low cost threshold to exempt sources from addressing significant contribution. The cost level of $500 per ton of NOx removed, which was used by USEPA, is much too low, leaving reasonably achievable reductions unrealized. In the prior Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the rule that the Transport Rule is to replace, the USEP A cited $2,500 per ton reduced as highly cost effective for controlling NOx. Section 185 of the Clean Air Act specifies a penalty of over $8,000 per ton (in today's dollars) for exceeding attainment deadlines for the ozone NAAQS. States in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) have adopted rules that control NOx from smaller sources at well over $10,000 per ton. The USEPA needs to require NOx reductions that cost more than $500 per ton, to reflect the much greater public health and welfare benefits that result from better control air pollution control, as well as to address significant air quality impacts.   [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2684.1 p.3]
Response:
See section VI of the preamble for explanation and discussion of cost thresholds used in final Transport Rule and identification of "Group 1" and "Group 2" states
Organization: New York University School of Law, Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment:
:: The determination of significant contribution should be based solely on the cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.1]
2. Cost-Effectiveness and a Clear Methodology Should Determine Significant Contribution
EPA should modify the process by which it determines significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance by basing that determination solely on the cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions. Determining significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance based on cost-effectiveness represents the most efficient and rational approach to reducing interstate transport of air pollution, and comports with relevant judicial opinions -- including North Carolina v. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.8]
In its preferred approach, in order to determine significant contribution and interference with maintenance, EPA states that its "methodology defines each state's significant contribution and interference with maintenance as the emissions that can be eliminated for a specific cost." However, when determining the appropriate cost thresholds, EPA weighs air quality and cost considerations in a "multi-factor assessment" that includes identifying "cost breakpoints" on the relevant emissions reductions cost curves. While this represents a meaningful attempt by the Agency to address the complex set of circumstances surrounding the relationship between upwind and downwind emissions across various air quality districts, this approach is needlessly complicated and, ultimately, arbitrary. Cost breakpoints, which EPA defines as places where there are noticeable changes on emissions reductions cost curves, do not inherently correspond with the point on those cost curves that would provide the most efficient level of emissions reductions. In fact, cost breakpoints may simply reflect limitations in the data used to set the cost curve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, pp.8-9]
The most appropriate approach to determining significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance would be based solely on the cost-effectiveness of state-specific emissions reductions. EPA should determine the distribution of emissions reduction burdens between upwind and downwind sources by comparing the cost of those reductions in linked upwind and downwind states. In other words, the Agency should identify the least expensive emissions reductions that would lead to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in a particular air quality district, whether or not those emissions reduction opportunities are located in the upwind or downwind state. The upwind state's share of those least-cost emissions reductions should then represent that upwind state's significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by, the downwind state. This approach would ensure that attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS are achieved in the most cost-effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.9]
A Cost-Effectiveness Criterion Comports with Judicial Opinions
Section 110(a)(2)(D), as well as judicial opinions interpreting that provision of the Clean Air Act, give EPA discretion to determine significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance based on the cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions in upwind states and linked downwind air quality districts. In fact, interpreting section 110(a)(2)(d) in this way is the most rational approach to reducing interstate transport of air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.9]
Neither the text nor the legislative history of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provides a clear definition of "contribute significantly." In the congressional findings that introduce the Act, however, Congress provides an important guiding principle -- "A primary goal of this Act is to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for pollution prevention." This congressional objective should help elucidate the meaning of the section 110(a)(2)(D) statutory mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.9]
Ultimately, "where Congress leaves a statutory term undefined, it makes an implicit `delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute' through reasonable interpretation." While the word "significant" does not have a single dictionary definition, it generally operates to mean a measurable quantity. 40 According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, terms that "admit[] of degree" (such as "best," "minimize," "significant," or "reasonable") often give agencies discretion to consider both the costs and benefits of regulation -- "Whether it is reasonable to bear a particular cost may well depend on the resulting benefits." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, pp.9-10]
When a statute requires an agency to achieve a particular set of benefits -- in the case of section 110(a)(2)(D), attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- the agency should pursue the most cost-effective regulatory option that meets those required benefits. OMB Circular A-4 recognizes that in those situations, cost-effectiveness analysis is a "rigorous way to identify options that achieve the most effective use of resources." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.10]
In Michigan v. EPA -- a case that also dealt with EPA's interpretation of section 110(a)(2)(D) -- the D.C. Circuit held that "[i]n some contexts, `significant' begs a consideration of costs," and that "the upshot of inserting the adjective `significant' was a consideration of which risks are worth the cost of elimination." The court has also noted that since the Benzene decision, OSHA has interpreted `"significant risk' to require `cost-effective protective measures.'" The Michigan court further concluded, "there is nothing in the text, structure, or history of § 110(a)(2)(D) that bars EPA from considering cost in its application." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.10]
The D.C. Circuit further addressed the permissibility of cost-effectiveness in North Carolina v. EPA. The North Carolina court stated, "EPA may require `termination of only a subset of each state's contribution,' by having states `cut [] back the amount that could be eliminated with `highly cost-effective controls.'" Relying on its holding in Michigan, the court in North Carolina stated, "we held that EPA may `after [a state's] reduction of all [it] could . . . cost-effectively eliminate[ ],' consider `any remaining "contribution"' insignificant." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.10]
While the court in North Carolina cautioned that "EPA can't just pick a cost for a region, and deem `significant' any emissions that sources can eliminate more cheaply," this is not the suggestion here. Instead, the cost of emissions reductions, and the share of emissions reductions required for each upwind state, should be evaluated at the state-specific level. This would satisfy the D.C. Circuit's requirement that significant contribution be determined at the state-specific level and would do so in the most efficient manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.10]
Methodology Must Be More Transparent
Ultimately, the description in the proposed rule fails to clearly explain the details of the decision-making process involved in determining significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance. It is unclear from the text of the rule just how much weight is given to each of the factors considered by the Agency. In fact, it appears that EPA intends to vary the importance of both air quality and cost considerations on a case-by-case basis. This ad hoc decision making and lack of transparency reduce the legitimacy and effectiveness of EPA's determinations. EPA acknowledges that a key guiding principle of its efforts to reduce interstate transport of air pollution is to "Provide for Cost-Effectiveness." EPA should embrace this principle, by determining significant contribution and interference with maintenance at the state-specific level based solely on a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions in linked states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.11]
If EPA elects not to do so, the Agency should, at the very least, provide a clearer and more detailed description of the process by which significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance are determined. An explanation of the precise weight given to each factor in the analysis would at least increase the transparency and legitimacy of the Agency's determinations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2691.1, p.11]
Response:
In section VI of the preamble (as well as in other sections of the preamble), EPA describes the approach to define significant contribution and interference with maintenance.  In sections VI.A, VI.D and VI.G of the preamble, EPA describes its rationale for using both cost and air quality factors and its justification for using a uniform cost.
EPA notes that in the proposed Transport Rule, EPA extensively discusses its assessment of two cost/air quality improvement methodologies in the Technical Support Document for the proposed Transport Rule, called "Alternative Significant Contribution Approaches Evaluated" that are directly relevant to this comment.  In stating that EPA should be utilizing only "cost-effectiveness"  emission reductions leading to attainment of the NAAQS, regardless of which upwind or downwind state the emission reductions are available in, the commenter is in fact utilizing an air quality and cost factor approach to defining significant contribution.  It specifically weighs the air quality impact and the cost of each upwind emission reduction.  EPA applied a similar approach in the final Transport Rule by analyzing specific cost and air quality impacts between specific upwind states and downwind monitoring sites.  EPA undertook the most detailed analysis of these linkages available at the time of promulgation.
Organization: Ohio Coal Association
Comment:
Ohio Coal Association
:: The Transport Rule unlawfully forces fuel switching away from Eastern coals. In fact, EPA's expressly states a belief that unit compliance can be accomplished via additional controls along with fuel switching away from Eastern coals. 75 Fed. Reg. at 45273. Additionally, EPA unlawfully fails to provide any economic analysis of the devastating results on the economies in states like Ohio driven by EPA's forced fuel switching. Ohio Coal strongly opposes EPA's actions directing against the use of Ohio coal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2743.1, p.2]
Response:
The Transport Rule does not force coal switching at any sources.  It simply anticipates some coal switching as one mechanism sources may use to meet the applicable state caps and thus eliminate emissions within the state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. EPA action does not target coal supplies from certain states, it is an emission reduction program for SO2, NOX, and ozone season NOX, and consequently would provide an increased incentive for coals with lower emission rates for each of these pollutants.  However, TR covered states were already using a portfolio of coal types in 2010 that are similar to those forecasted under a least cost compliance scenario.
Organization: Omaha Public Power District
Comment:
Omaha Public Power District
EPA says it has defined 'significant contributions' based on the cost of avoiding emissions from each given state or emissions source. EPA states in the preamble of the proposed TR:
'The methodology defines each state's significant contribution and interference with maintenance [of NAAQS] as the emissions that can be eliminated for a specific cost.' [Federal Register, Aug. 2, 2010, Page 45271]
Controlling emissions most cost-effectively on a $/ton removed basis is an appropriate strategy in performing a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis as part of a permitting action on a particular facility. We agree with bringing the cost element into consideration for the. TR. However, because the purpose of the TR is to bring specific geographic areas into attainment with the NAAQS, the proper focus should be not on mass of emissions, but rather on the impacts. In other words, instead of using $/ton of pollutant emissions eliminated as a metric, the analysis should be looking primarily at a metric of $/ug/m3 of pollutant concentration reduced at each receptor of interest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2680.1, p. 5]
Response:
As described in section VI of the Transport Rule preamble, EPA used a multi-factor analysis that considered both cost and air quality when determining significant contribution at the state level.
Organization: Pfeiff, Mike
Comment:
If finalized, the Proposed Transport Rule will result in unnecessary increases to the cost of producing energy. While I recognize that the cost of pollution abatement is not zero, an overarching goal of the EPA should be to promulgate regulations that minimize the cost of pollution reduction. In this regard, Proposed Transport Rule fails utterly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2742.1, p.2]
19. Cost/Benefit Estimates - The EPA provides point estimates for the expected cost and benefits of the Proposal. 75 Fed. Reg. at 45354. With the exception of some limited undocumented estimates of ranges for the health benefit, the EPA's estimates are static. The fact that the EPA does not provide a distribution of estimates that reflect their estimate of the probability of each outcome indicates that the EPA's modeling and analytical techniques are grossly deficient. At the very minimum, for a proposal of this magnitude, the EPA should provide the public with sensitivities around the key assumptions.
I request the EPA to provide sensitivities of the cost of the Proposed Transport rule for key assumptions including but not limited to the price of Natural Gas, the price of Coal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-2742.1, p.14]
Response:

As described in the preamble, the benefits (human health, environmental, etc.) of this rule greatly outweigh the costs.  However, this rule is intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act, which requires upwind states to eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance.  This rule helps the states to address that requirement, using market-based solutions and thereby minimizing costs to consumers.

As is documented throughout the preamble and this response to comments document, EPA utilized many comments on the price of natural gas, the price and availability of coal, control technologies, etc. in its power sector modeling and updated the emission inventories used for the air quality modeling.  In utilizing the cost curves (see section VI of the preamble), EPA is conducting a sensitivity test relating the cost and utilization of the emission control options suggested by the commenter.  These estimates, along with the corresponding air quality estimates using the Air Quality Assessment Tool, provide a range of emissions, costs, and air quality outcomes.  These were weighed using the multi-factor analysis presented in section VI.D.   Further sensitivity scenarios were examined (including air quality assessments using CAMx, and other electric generation and emissions modeling using IPM -- see the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD, the Significant Contribution and Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD).
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center
Comment: