Commenter 3593 states, the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign has a stated objective that is perfectly aligned with that result as well as with then-candidate Obama's vow, put into practice immediately by his EPA political appointees and manifesting itself in the instant proposed rule. Commenter says, featured prominently on their website, the Sierra Club states that it is its goal "to prevent new coal plants from being built," to 'Retire one-third of the nation's more than 500 coal plants by 2020,' and to 'Keep coal in the ground." Commenter says, it is the principal objective of the environmentalist pressure group industry, and by chance we have obtained records documenting the Agency's improperly close collaboration with Sierra Club, as that industry's lead point of contact and advocate, on this shared agenda. Commenter says, however, this agenda is explicitly contrary to the stated public goals of the EPA as it pursues the instant rulemaking.
Commenter 3593 states, it is noteworthy that every member of the EPA's senior leadership who has not made his or her career in the EPA or state level environmental agencies has a history of employment with environmental pressure groups, including most of the groups that expressly urged the executive branch to use all means potentially at its disposal to eliminate coal, and ultimately all hydrocarbon or "fossil" fuels. Commenter says, the emails cited herein and obtained via FOIA requests show clearly that people who spend years or decades trying to do something as activists, then migrate into government, do not arrive at the issues anew, but come in to perform the same objective but as government. Commenter says, indeed -- as most obviously manifested in EPA bringing in Massachusetts v. EPA advocate Lisa Heinzerling nominally to explore whether or not the Agency should do what she had committed years of her professional life demanding it do -- these activists are brought in precisely because of these predispositions and histories. Commenter says, the courts have recognized that, at some level, this is to be expected, but that when "a clear and convincing showing that he has an unalterably closed mind on matters critical to the disposition of the rulemaking," is shown, they should be disqualified.
Commenter 3593 states, the EPA paid the equivalent of lip-service to the obvious, formal (associational) conflicts of interest with these same groups -- such that, e.g., a former Sierra Club activist would liaise with Natural Resources Defense Council, and vice versa, yet still with former allies and colleagues with whom they worked together on the issues such as Sierra's John Coequyt working with former NRDC official Michael Goo to stop "Zombie" coal plants from being resurrected, or serially corresponding with Coequyt on plants the greens' and EPA's campaign are forcing off-line. Commenter says, agency correspondence reveals EPA officials with a predetermined bias colluding on this rule making (and the efforts that EPA says compelled this rule making) with outside groups that have the same predetermined bias, achieving a predetermined outcome. Commenter says, problematically for this proposed rulemaking, this outcome is the stated objective of the environmental pressure groups, and contrary to the stated (legally required) position of the EPA.
Commenter 3593 states, what's more, the closed mind of these officials creates a situation where they "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem." Commenter says, ostensibly, all of these regulations are in pursuit of mitigating climate change by limiting man's contribution of CO2 emissions to the global CO2 budget, which we are told by some defenders is the most "urgent" problem that we face. Commenter says, however, under no scenario will this actually lead to lower global levels of CO2 let alone a detectable climatic impact, which is also the consensus view of even the "global treaty" Kyoto, perfectly implemented for 100 years. Commenter says, even as EPA and its third-party allies proceeded with this rulemaking despite knowing it would have no impact on the asserted problem being addressed -- climate change -- they completely ignored the economic problems caused by this regulation which by law must be considered. Commenter says, the rule represented a shared vision, a political and/or ideological one (to end the use of coal in America) but most certainly was not a rule making intended to mitigate climate change. Commenter says, this altered and improper purpose likely explains the Agency's decision to not consider the balance of interests, Commenter says, rather, the Agency managers who had come to EPA had already decided this proposed rule was something that they were going to put in place, before they ever entered federal service. Commenter says, incorporating by reference our discussion here and in Comment of the president's stated objective of propping up an economically failed but political selected industry. Commenter says, that these failings of the rulemaking were not considered is further evidence of predetermination, of course; it had been decided, here is our answer, now get us there.
Commenter 3593 states, the president on whose behalf this rule is promulgated has plainly stated the objectives of this rule and related rules that EPA insists it is compelled to issue as a result of the endangerment finding, which are to "bankrupt' coal-fired power plants and "finally make [renewables] profitable". Commenter says, he has either consistently misstated the objectives or he consistently told the truth about them. Commenter says, we believe it is the latter, and his effort to use the instant rule to "bankrupt' coal is in fact problematic for the instant rulemaking, for reasons asserted elsewhere in this Comment.
Commenter 3593 states, regardless, that this objective not grounded in the urgency of a climate crisis was known to EPA officials, who nonetheless proceeded in spite of relevant evidence that these regulations would not accomplish their stated goal and would have serious economic consequences, because the real goal was to bring about the economic viability of politically favored industries and the end of politically disfavored industries. Commenter says, it amounts to nothing but a massive transfer of wealth from one industry to another. Commenter says, this, along with other factors, such as their conflicts of interests, lead to a predetermined, arbitrary outcome that was not based on the facts on record or the law, but personal bias and for reasons not on the record or that Congress could not have considered in passing the CAA.
Commenter 5631 states, the proposed limits on CO2 emissions seem to be aimed at pricing coal out of the next generation of electricity production, eliminating one of our country's major competitive advantages - energy. Commenter says, the results of the proposal will ultimately be higher electricity costs and lower energy reliability. Commenter says, a U.S. economy that has always thrived on abundant, affordable energy could soon be an economy facing energy scarcity if we outlaw our most abundant resources. Commenter says, policy actions that increase the cost of energy will have a direct negative impact on the U.S. economy at a time when jobs and household incomes are the overriding quality of life issues in America.
Commenter 8971 states, the CO2 NSPS will have a significant negative impact on America's domestic energy market going forward and the trickle-down effects of this rulemaking will hit every American consumer, producer, business, State, and municipality. Commenter says, in Ohio, the negative impacts of the CO2 NSPS will be fundamental and profound, both directly and indirectly. Commenter says, carrying an "end justifies any means" policy perspective, the EPA has ignored science, economics and common sense when developing the CO2 NSPS. Commenter says, further, the EPA seeks to expressly destroy the coal industry and destabilize this country's energy industry by directly forcing the power markets to hastily move from coal to gas. Commenter says, this bias against coal will have long-lasting effects on this nation which will far outlive the current policy whims in Washington. Commenter says, from a human perspective, the EPA seeks to fundamentally alter the lives of families in our Appalachian mining regions by taking away any ability to earn a living as a hard-working, highly-skilled coal miner.
Commenters (9194, 9396) state, the EPA's aggressive coal-related regulatory agenda is adding unprecedented systemic risk and threatens electricity supplies and potential blackouts. Commenter 9396 says, the EPA has declined to conduct cumulative analyses of its multiple rulemakings and their potential impact on electric reliability. Commenter says, private sector analyses consistently attribute much higher costs and far greater coal-fired power plant retirements than EPA. Commenter says, the EPA's application of national averages in estimating the impacts of this rule serve to disguise far greater vulnerability of certain regions in the country to potential electric shortages and price spikes.
Commenter 9396 states, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) in January 2014 updated a list of coal retirements or conversion announcements for the time period of 2010-2022 using a SNL Financial Database and company announcements. Commenter says, while there are multiple reasons that coal plants might be shuttered, this list only included those retirements and conversions directly attributed to EPA regulations by the source. Commenter says, those attributed to EPA regulations totaled 330 units (51,000 MW) in 33 states; approximately 16 percent of the U.S. coal fleet. Commenter says, this stands in sharp contrast to EPA' projected 9,500 MW coal retirements due to its CSAPR and MATS rule.
Commenter 9396 states, various regions of the country are going to experience a far greater impact from these rules than the national average. Commenter says, several regional entities and Regional Transmission Organizations indicate EPA regulations are going to cause severe electric reliability problems. Commenter says, both the Electric Reliability Corporation of Texas and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), that are responsible for grid operations in eight states in the southwest, have stated that the CSAPR rule threatens reliable operations. Commenter says, according to SPP in a September 9, 2011 letter to EPA on CSAPR, SPP expects "negative implications to the reliable operation of the electric grid in the SPP region raising the possibility of rolling blackouts or cascading outages that would likely have significant impacts on human health, public safety and commercial activity."
Commenters (9194, 9396) state, the EPA should develop a proposal which specifically considers important national goals, including fuel diversity, electricity affordability and reliability, economic growth, jobs and national energy security.
Commenter 9650 states, the EPA's action mandating implementation of CCS technology for new coal-burning EGUs, is the latest in a string of regulations promulgated under the CAA that will undermine private industry by imposing erroneous and unjustified burdens on the national economy. Commenter says, the Agency proposes a rule serving no other purpose than to establish an erroneous foundation for imposing massive restrictions on sources providing nearly one quarter of this country's energy.
Commenter 10046 states, since the experts agree that the only predictable result of the EPA proposal is the end of development of new clean-coal technology and the furtherance of an imprudent "dash to gas," the proposal lacks any legitimate environmental objective. Commenter says, it is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the proposal is an ultra vires attempt to use the "obligation" to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA to achieve a pre-determined political objective of dramatically reducing the use of coal in the United States, even if that means sacrificing the Obama Administration's stated climate change objectives and the CCS-development policies that would be logically necessary to pursue those objectives. Commenter says, using the federal government's regulatory machinery to further an unlawful "no-new-coal" agenda is not a permissible use of the CAA.
Commenter 10046 states, finding no plausible climate change policy basis for EPA's proposal, one is left to conclude that it is motivated by a desire to ban construction of new coal units for the foreseeable future, which will undoubtedly be the unfortunate result if this proposal is finalized. The proposal cynically uses a climate change imperative to set a GHG performance standard that vendors cannot guarantee, and establishes a risk that developers cannot assume. But EPA cannot even claim any GHG reductions for its efforts because, as it acknowledges, "EPA does not project any new coal-fired EGUs without CCS to be built in the absence of this proposal." It also specifically contradicts the Administration's claimed "all of the above" energy strategy, or at least revises that strategy to one of "all of the above, except coal." This is clearly at odds with the President's promise set forth in the February 3, 2010 Presidential Memorandum establishing the CCS Task Force.
Commenter 10046 states, for decades, the coal industry has supported high-paying jobs for American workers, and coal has provided an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. [GHG] emissions and coal accounts for 40 percent of global emissions. Charting a path toward clean coal is essential to achieving my Administration's goals of providing clean energy, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly [CCS], will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.
Commenter 10046 states,  the EPA's proposal contradicts the President's own clean coal policy promises by mandating CCS before it is ready, and, in so doing, defeats the Administration's own stated policies and goals on climate change, objectives which cannot be met without CCS for both coal and gas generation. A new coal-fired plant developer will have to bet billions of dollars on commercially unproven CCS technology to comply with the new GHG emissions standard. It defies common sense to establish an NSPS that pays mere lip-service to the technical viability of the immature CCS technologies without accounting for the effects that added compliance risk will have on developers and financers of new CCS projects. The Global CCS Institute specifically cautions that government policies not "disadvantage" CCS, and that because "first mover projects incur higher risks and upfront costs than later projects[,] appropriate recognition of this should be taken into consideration in the framing of financial and policy support for first movers."
Commenter 10951 states, the experience of this past winter reveals just how dangerous EPA's anti-coal policy is. Commenter says, at the same time as EPA has forced tens of gigawatts of existing coal plants to retire, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest experienced record-setting electricity and natural gas prices. Commenter says, spot prices for natural gas in the Mid-Atlantic on January 22 surged almost 340 percent to $45 per million British thermal units, and natural gas prices in New York City rose more than 780 percent. Commenter says, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was forced to waive its $1,000/MWh cap on wholesale electric prices as Midwest and Mid-Atlantic Prices shot up by $857/MWh. Commenter says, American Electric Power, one of the nation's biggest utilities, said that 89 percent of its coal generation scheduled for shutdown beginning in May 2015 was running to keep the lights on during the early January cold snap. Commenter says, consumers were hit with hundreds and even thousands of dollars of unexpected electricity and natural gas bills.
Commenter 10951 states, as Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, recently stated, "[w]e are now in an era of rising electricity prices" because of the steady reduction in generating capacity. "If you take enough supply out of the system, he said, "the price is going to increase." Commenter says, warning that the nation's electric grid is unprepared for the expected coal plant retirements, Moeller testified to Congress that "the experience of the past winter indicates that the power grid is already at the limit". Commenter says, we can hope for mild winters and summers over the next several years, but hoping for mild weather is not a practical method of planning to meet economic growth and public safety."
Commenter 10951 states, the EPA's anti-coal policies are profoundly misplaced and will undermine the dramatic societal benefits that low-cost electricity from coal has created. Commenter says, it is not necessary to speculate on the effects EPA's anti-coal policies will have. Commenter says, they have been tested in other countries and the verdict is in: large-scale electric rate increases are the result. Commenter says, every country that has aggressively sought to promote renewable and discourage coal usage has experienced large electricity increases. Commenter says, comparing U.S. electricity prices to European Union electricity prices tells the story.
Commenter 10951 states, between 2009 and 2013, the average energy bill for EU consumers increased by some 17 percent, while energy costs for industrial users jumped by 21 percent. Commenter says, between 2005 and late 2013, the average price of residential electricity in the EU rose by 55 percent, and industrial electric rates jumped by 26 percent. Commenter says, the average U.S. household now pays 12 cents per kilowatt-hour; about a third of what the same amount of electricity costs in Germany. Commenter says, European steelmakers now pay twice as much for their electricity as do U.S. manufacturers.
The rhetoric in these comments is significantly misplaced.  The final standard of performance is structured to assure that new coal capacity can be both lower CO2 emitting and be cost competitive with other non-NGCC baseload dispatchable capacity.  The EPA withdrew its initial proposal to base the standard on performance of NGCC; adopted a less stringent standard of performance in this proceeding than proposed; rejected full CCS as BSER; and exempted sources under development from the standard, even though such sources are "new" under the Act.  These actions are at odds with the commenters' narrative.  The EPA notes that responsible members of the generating industry itself have indicated that CCS can be a key to a viable future of coal-fired capacity.  See e.g., statement of Alstom senior Vice President for Power and Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton's statement (August 4, 2011): "AEP's decision to put Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain climate policy.  The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant's emissions.  The technology works.  But without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hard-pressed to invest in its continued refinement."  The press release further states that Vice President Macnaughton "presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear."

The Proposed Rule relates to new generation facilities only, and existing coal-fired facilities were clearly sufficient to meet electricity demand even during the polar vortex in New England, where the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative already regulates GHG emissions from both new and existing power plants.
It is the proposed rule that will preclude new coal-fired generation
Commenters (9193, 9196, 9600, 9666, 9723) provide comments arguing that it is the proposed rule that will preclude new coal-fired generation.
Commenter 9193 states, at a time when the U.S. needs to consider all types of energy, the proposed standard appears to eliminate one of the most widely used and inexpensive sources of energy.
Commenter 9196 is concerned that EPA is seeking to use the NSPS program to impose an effective ban on new coal-fired power plants in the US. Commenter says, claims that new coal plants are not precluded by the proposed rule are not consistent with the design or operation of the rule. Commenter says, as David Wright, President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, has explained:
"Even the best performing coal units cannot meet the NSPS without CCS. The Proposed NSPS for GHG goes on to state that, "we are not proposing that CCS, including the 30-year averaging compliance option, does or does not qualify as the [best system of emission reduction] adequately demonstrated" but solicits comments on that decision. A commitment to resource diversity would encourage a separate NSPS [best system of emission reduction] for coal-fired plants and natural gas combined cycle units, keeping the categories separate as they have been historically."
Commenters (9600, 9666) state, that the EPA is wrong that, without a CCS-based NSPS, no coal-fired generation will be constructed; it is the promulgation of the proposed CCS-based NSPS that would preclude such generation.
Commenter 9600 disagrees with EPA's conclusion that the proposal if finalized will have no cost. Commenter says, the EPA reasons that few or no coal-fired units will be built in the future; therefore there will be little or no cost. Commenter says, however, the EPA has put "the cart before the horse". Commenter says, without this proposal, coal-fired EGUs could be built; with this proposal, a coal-fired EGU could not be built due to the extreme costs for CO2 capture. Commenter says, the EPA theorizes that future baseload generation will be natural-gas fired.
Commenter 9666 says, the EPA asserts that "the current costs of coal, natural gas, and construction of coal-fired or natural gas-fired EGUs have led to little currently announced or projected new coal-fired generating capacity." 79 Fed. Reg. at 1477. Commenter says, the EPA further states that it "does not project any new coal-fired EGUs without CCS to be built in the absence of this proposal." Id. at 1498. Commenter says the basis for this projection is EPA's assumption that, for the period from 2020 to 2040, supercritical PC plants cannot economically compete with NGCC combustion turbines.
Commenter 9666 states, that the EPA states that it "does not project any new coal-fired [electric generating units ("EGUs")] without [carbon capture and storage (or sequestration) ("CCS") ]" will be constructed "in the absence of this proposal." Commenter says, the EPA bases this prediction on its assertion that, for the period 2020 through 2040, supercritical pulverized coal ("PC") units cannot compete economically with natural gas-fired combined cycle ("NGCC") combustion turbines.
Commenter 9666 states, that the EPA's prediction is specious. Commenter says, an analysis undertaken by their consultant shows that the cost of supercritical PC plants becomes competitive with NGCC plants with only modest changes to the inputs that underpin EPA's prediction (i.e., overnight capital cost, finance charges, fixed and variable operating and maintenance charges, and fuel prices).
Commenter 9666 says, the EPA relies on two inputs that are highly uncertain: (i) the "overnight" cost of capital for supercritical PC plants and NGCC plants; and (ii) fuel cost. Commenter says, to test the reliability of EPA's prediction, their consultant conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the effect of modest changes in overnight capital cost, finance charges, fixed and variable operating and maintenance charges, and fuel prices. Commenter says, these analyses show that the cost of supercritical PC plants becomes competitive with NGCC plants with only modest changes in these four inputs.
Commenter 9666 states, in sum, if this rule is finalized, new coal-fired generation will not be built, notwithstanding the national interest in utilities maintaining a diverse generation fleet to hedge against fuel price fluctuations and to maintain reliability. Commenter says, for decades, coal-fired generation has mitigated against natural gas price increases and gas-fired generation has hedged against coal price increases. Commenter says utilities must protect ratepayers from wide swings in fuel prices by maintaining a diverse portfolio of generation assets. Commenter says for most of their members, a balanced generation portfolio is not merely an objective; it is an obligation that comes with a duty to serve their customers. Commenter says, for these reasons, their members will construct new coal-fired power plants as part of their future generation mix if that generation is an economic alternative to natural gas. Commenter states, this proposal, if finalized, will prevent their members from doing so by making new coal-fired plants uneconomical as compared to natural gas-fired plants.
Commenter 9666 states, in its analysis, EPA fails to acknowledge the costs to the electric generating sector (and to the economy generally) of the fact that this proposed rule, and its April 2012 predecessor, have had a considerable chilling effect on companies and organizations that were planning before April 2012 to construct new EGUs and on those that would have planned to build such units absent this proposed rule.  Commenter says, this proposed rule - even prior to being finalized - represents a game-changer for the industry because, with CCS being undemonstrated, extremely expensive, and completely unfeasible in many parts of the country, the proposed standard for Subpart Da units effectively eliminates the use of coal as a viable option for the electric sector for the foreseeable future.  Commenter states, the proposed rule also will encourage owners and operators of existing coal-fired EGUs to continue to operate these units rather than retire them, out of concern that no new coal-fired units could be constructed for the foreseeable future if the proposed rule is promulgated.
Commenter 9723 states, coal continues to be an economic electric generation resource option in the regions where Montana-Dakota operates, despite low natural gas prices. Commenter says, however, the EPA's re-proposal essentially eliminates coal as a new resource option for the company in the future.
See previous responses, including response 3.3-16a (response to Cichanowicz).  The EPA reiterates that the new source performance standard does not ban new coal capacity, and, as part of the agency's responsibility to consider costs, is structured to preserve coal as price competitive with other non-NGCC baseload dispatchable technologies.

("There is, indeed, a war on coal going on. But while politicians and industry lobbyists tend to identify the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama administration as coal's chief antagonists, the array of forces facing the powerful black fuel is far greater..... The main foe coal faces is cheap natural gas. Along with renewables (which are getting cheaper and offer the prospect of emissions-free power), natural gas has captured significant territory that once belonged to the legions of coal").
The proposal portends a risky national energy policy
Commenters (9001, 9407, 9428, 9595, 9601, 9767, 10086, 10097, 10238, 10358, 10387, 10501, 10518, 10952) state that the proposed rule promotes a risky national energy policy.
Commenters (9428, 9595, 9601, 9767, 10086, 10358, 10387, 10518) state, the EPA has one standard of performance for fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units and IGCC units and another for natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. Commenters say, left unchanged, these standards will drive the power industry to a natural gas only energy strategy. Commenters say, a national energy policy based on one fuel is foolhardy, and unnecessary under the CAA. Commenters (9001, 9428, 9595, 9601, 9767, 10238, 10501, 10358, 10387) say, the current proposal virtually ensures that new coal-based generation will be prohibitively expensive and will not be built.
Commenter 10952 states, when determining appropriate costs to be borne in connection with this rulemaking, any analogy between cost of cement manufacturing and cost of electric utility service is a poor one. Commenter says electricity service is vital for business and is a life staple for residential consumers, but in many rural areas it is a matter of life and death. Commenter says certainly for many electric cooperative consumers any increase in electricity costs must be compensated by curtailing expenses somewhere else in the family budget. For this reason Commenter believes any potential increase in the cost of electric service should be closely linked to rational justification. Commenter says, also, countervailing factors including non-air quality health impacts are among the factors EPA is to consider in determining BSER. See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 191 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Commenter's concern is whether the rural electric consumers can reasonably afford their electric service under this proposal. Commenter says even assuming EPA's unrealistically low cost assumptions under this proposal are valid, the rule would set national electricity energy policy for years to come by absolutely ensuring coal-based generation would be the most expensive new base-load generation option and likely too expensive as a realistic future generation option. Commenter says consistent with Portland Cement v. EPA 665 F.3d 177 EPA is required to take into account energy impacts and include a discussion of the proposal's impacts. Commenter thinks the countervailing factor of leaving the nation with one choice, natural gas, for virtually all new baseload generation weighs heavily against any proposal, like this one, that eliminates the coal option for nation's future energy mix. Commenter says, and yet the rulemaking docket lacks any disclosure that EPA even considered this broader national policy implication of forcing a one fuel baseload option.
Commenter 10952 states, it is noteworthy that concerns over natural gas availability prompted the U.S. Congress to enact the 1978 Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act that required all new electric generating facilities to be "coal capable." Commenter says due to the capital cost differentials between facilities constructed to be coal capable compared to those designed solely for natural gas use, and the significantly higher fuel costs associated with using natural gas as compared to coal at that time, the Fuel Use Act economically prohibited new EGUs that were coal-capable from using natural gas as the primary fuel. Commenter says the Act was repealed in 1987, but during the time the Fuel Use Act was in effect, electric cooperative generation needs grew substantially. Commenter says, as a consequence about 60 percent of cooperative total baseload electric generation was constructed under Fuel Use Act and is coal based.
Commenter 10952 states, recently the cooperatives are utilizing more electric generation fueled by natural gas for two primary reasons; EPA regulations continue to drive costs of coal-fired generation upwards due to costs of additional emission controls, and lower natural gas prices make EGU natural gas fired generation more affordable. Commenters (9407, 10097, 10952) say, the EPA's supposition in this proposed rulemaking is that the affordability of natural gas for base-load generation will continue, making it the generation of choice over the foreseeable future, thus virtually eliminating any need for future coal-fired generation.
Commenters (9407, 10097, 10952) say, of course requiring new coal-fired EGUs equip with extremely costly and unproven carbon capture technologies, as this proposal does, will all but guarantee none would be built. Commenters say, additionally, with nuclear power generation facing geographical as well as other policy constraining issues, as EPA would have it under this proposal, natural gas would be the sole fuel for practically all new baseload generation. Commenters say, this national energy approach of placing "all your eggs in one basket" is short sighted, high risk and low reward. Commenters say, even if EPA had the regulatory discretion to promulgate a NSPS that virtually mandates a one fuel national energy policy for electric generation, and we believe it does not; it should refrain from doing so for the sake of common sense and rational decision-making.
Commenters (10097 and 10952) state, in this proposal, EPA does not dispute the fact that there are geographic locations where new coal-fired generation of any size or configuration will be unable to meet the proposed NSPS because the infrastructure is not available to allow either EOR or deep well sequestration. Commenters say, in fact EPA believes a NSPS with this geographical constraint is consistent with its regulatory discretion. Commenters say, according to EPA "[c]ertain sources may be precluded from locating in certain areas." Proposal at 1467. Commenters state, in EPA's view it is permissible that under this proposal new coal-fired generation will be impossible in many areas of the country for an indeterminate amount of time. Commenters say thus, this proposal dictates that natural gas generation is the only permissible means of new fossil electric base load generation in large geographic areas throughout the country because it is the only fossil fuel that could technically meet its proposed NSPS. Commenters say, of course should natural gas not be available in some geographic areas, which is the case as pointed out previously in these comments, this proposal allows no options for baseload generation in these geographic areas where coal-based generation requiring CCS is effectively precluded.
Commenter 10952 states, to summarize, many factors requiring coal utilization may well fall within a given new source's purpose and need, in other words its definition. Commenter says, obviously, new generating units may need to be located where needed electric transmission capacity would allow the source's effective contribution to grid reliability but where no or limited natural gas supply capabilities or carbon sequestration infrastructure exist. Commenter says, a source's definition may well include local coal utilization as a means of contributing to the local tax base, economic development, or employment opportunities. Commenter says, in any of these and other circumstances where source definition includes the need to locate the source to fulfill a local need or take advantage of a local resource and that definition include coal utilization, the imposition of the proposed NSPS allowing only CCS where resources are unavailable to do so would be unlawful as requiring source redefinition. Commenter says, for these reasons coupled with this proposal's requirements that prohibit source location where CCS infrastructure is unavailable thus prohibiting new coal-fired EGUs, the proposal is unlawful.
The EPA disagrees and notes that the final standard of performance is not geographically constrained, as so many of the commenters mistakenly maintain.  See generally preamble sections V.H. and I.
The proposed rule is contrary to and unlawfully usurps Congressional intent and power
Commenters (9194, 9487, 9594) believe the proposed rule is contrary to Congressional intent, and exceeds the EPA's authority.
Commenter 9194 states, the selection of CCS technology as BSER is a discretionary decision by EPA and not a requirement of the CAA or a Congressionally-sanctioned policy. Commenter says, the EPA's decision appears arbitrary and targeted at assuring the de facto prohibition of significant new coal-fired generation, closing the door to near-term technological advancements in coal-fired generation. Commenter says, by requiring new coal-fired EGUs to employ CCS prior to its being "adequately demonstrated," EPA will eliminate coal as a future fuel option for electric generating utilities. Commenter says, such a radical departure from past practice and such a far reaching energy policy decision to essentially eliminate coal-fired electric generation in the United States should remain the purview of Congress. Commenter is deeply concerned that EPA will create future guidance to the states for an existing source NSPS under Section 111 that will force the premature closure of our existing coal-fired generating units and fuel switching to natural gas.
Commenter 9487 states, the proposed NSPS will wreak substantial and unwarranted harm on the American public, driving up the cost of energy with little to no corresponding environmental benefit. Commenter says, the proposed rule will effectively and illegally ban the construction of new, modem, low-emission coal-fueled power plants, significantly increase electricity prices, and essentially abandon the future of our most abundant and affordable domestic energy resource. Commenter says, while the NSPS program provides EPA with limited authority to promulgate adequately demonstrated technology based "standards of performance," EPA does not have authority to use the NSPS program to effectively ban new coal-fueled power plants.
Commenter 9487 states, in addition, the proposed rule represents an unprecedented abuse of the NSPS program - and the Clean Air Act in general - to usurp Congressional authority and contravene Congress's manifest commitment to keeping coal as an important component of the nation's electricity mix. Commenter says, the EPA simply has no authority to "enact" new laws, such as a ban on coal-fired plants. Commenter says, if such is to occur, it must happen through measures properly enacted by Congress. Commenter says, indeed, not only is EPA foreclosed from "enacting" a new and different NSPS program, EPA has an affirmative duty under the United States Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3) Commenter says that is, EPA must assure that it executes the NSPS program precisely and properly as Congress intended.
Commenter 9487 states, in April 2012, EPA estimated that CCS would add about 80% to the cost of a new coal -  fueled power plant. Commenter says, such excess costs may exceed $1 billion for a typically-sized power plant. Commenter says, thus, the proposed rule will have the real world effect of banning new coal-fueled power plants in the U.S. Commenter says, for the reasons expressed above, this is no doubt the intent of the EPA and Administration, but EPA's failure of candor on this point throws all of EPA's analysis into question.
Commenter 9594 states, the EPA is improperly expanding its role by setting national energy policy. Commenter says, the proposed rule is unprecedented in its policy reach, and they believe it exceeds the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. Commenter says additionally, because of its de facto ban on certain types of energy facilities, the proposal places EPA in the posture of regulating energy rather than the environment. Commenter says, because the proposal would control not only the emissions of air pollutants, but the choice of fuel and energy that a power generation facility must utilize, EPA is dictating the type of energy sources that may be constructed or operated in the U.S., contrary to Congressional intent and EPA's authority.
This rule faithfully applies the criteria set out by Congress in section 111 (a): to adopt standards of performance for air pollutants based on a best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated.  The plant utilizing the BSER (actually full CCS, not partial) was recently voted POWER magazine's power plant of the year (August 1, 2015).  The basis for the award echos the findings EPA makes in preamble section V.D.:
   * The technology is highly effective
   * The technology came in on budget
   * Parasitic load is less than anticipated and can be reduced further
   * Many of the expenses of the project were redundancies built in because the plant was first-of-a-kind; successor plants will be less expensive
Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate one type of fuel or plant design out of existence
Commenter 10239 states Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate one type of fuel or plant design out of existence. Commenter says as a practical matter, the proposed rule would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired EGUs because these units will be unable to achieve, through application of a best system of emissions reduction ("BSER"), the proposed 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh performance standard. Commenter says the EPA seeks to justify this de facto prohibition by asserting that coal-fired EGUs will not be constructed for unrelated economic reasons. See generally RIA, Chapt. 5. Commenter says while there may be some market forces at play, there is no doubt that the EPA's proposal would dictate fuel choices by increasing the barriers to entry into the utility market to the point that new coal-fired EGUs are not economically viable. Commenter says by setting CO2 emissions limits that are more than 25% lower than what the best performing coal-fired EGUs can attain, finalizing the proposed standard would ensure that no new coal-fired EGUs would be built, regardless of any current or future underlying economic conditions.
Commenter 10239 states when enacting the Clean Air Act, Congress did not delegate authority to the EPA to dictate fuel or design choice. Commenter says instead, Section 111 provides a flexible standard that requires the EPA to consider costs, non-air impacts, and "energy requirements." Commenter says the EPA cannot simply ignore these factors because it disagrees with them. Commenter says in fact, a regulation that effectively bans the use of coal would be contrary to Congress' intent when it "designed this section and the entire bill, to encourage and facilitate the increased use of coal ". See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 95-294 at 192. Commenter says policy considerations in favor of eliminating new coal-fired EGUs, such as the President's "Climate Action Plan," are contrary to the text and legislative history of the CAA and do not provide a lawful basis for the EPA's actions. See The President's Climate Acton Plan at 18 (June 2012) ("Going forward, we will promote fuel switching from coal to gas for electricity production"."). Commenter says only Congress may determine whether, as a matter of energy, economic security, or environmental policy, one type of fuel should essentially be banned.
The final standard of performance simply does not ban the use of coal for new capacity.  It may even create a lifeline to the industry.  See public statements of American Electric Power and Alstom cited in preamble section V.I.4, V.F. and RTC 6.  See also statement of SaskPower executive David Jobe, quoted in POWER magazine, that "if coal has a future, this is it".  The standard is achievable, and the CCS technology is already operating successfully at full commercial scale.  The standard imposes costs, but they are similar to those previously adopted in NSPS for this industry, and allow coal to remain a cost-competitive technology for entities seeking an alternative to natural gas which is available at baseload and is dispatchable.  See statement of Alstom Vice President Macnaughton who "presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear."
EPA cannot use Section 111 to regulate the use of one type of fuel or design out of existence
Commenter 10098 states EPA cannot use Section 111 to regulate fuel choice with the practical consequence of regulating one type of fuel and design out of existence. Commenter says the proposed rule amounts to a de facto ban on new coal-fired EGUs because they will not be able to meet the proposed standard for "best system of emissions reduction" (BSER) that is based on the CCS technology that is economically and technically infeasible. Commenter says Congress clearly did not authorize EPA to exercise such sweeping legislative power to impose a de facto ban on an entire category of fuel and source of energy.
Commenter 10098 states their (AFPM and API) members will be harmed by the proposed NSPS rule. Commenter says first, their members will be harmed by the de facto ban on new coal-fired EGUs because they are part of the supply chain for solid-fuel feedstocks and because they are large retail electricity consumers who will be harmed by a lack of energy diversity.
Commenter 10098 states in its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed NSPS GHG rule, EPA projects that the rule will have no real effect because the natural gas units covered by the rule will meet the standard with no significant change and because coal-fired units otherwise will not be constructed for economic reasons. Commenter says EPA is incorrect. Commenter says in actuality, if finalized, the proposed rule will itself drive fuel and EGU design choices in the United States. Commenter says the rule would be a de facto ban on the construction of coal-fired EGUs because such units cannot, through application of any best system of emissions reduction (BSER) that satisfies the requirements of Section 111(a)(1), meet the 1,100 lbs CO2/MWH standard EPA proposes to establish here.
Commenter 10098 states the Agency is using Section 111 to make the barriers to entry into the utility market so steep for new coal-fired EGUs that they will not be constructed. Commenter says EPA's approach is contrary to the CAA and the intent of Congress. Commenter states in fact, the legislative history of Section 111 shows that Congress clearly both understood and intended that coal would continue to be a viable fuel for source categories covered by NSPS standards.
Commenter 10098 states instead, EPA's proposal appears to be part of a concerted effort on the part of the Agency to systematically reduce or eliminate the use of coal, including petcoke, for energy production in the United States. Commenter says such policy concerns expressed by EPA in favor of the proposal have no grounding in the text of Section 111 and do not provide a lawful basis for this action.
Commenter 10098 states EPA's approach is fundamentally at odds with Congressional intent and is arbitrary and capricious. Commenter says only the legislature should determine whether, as a matter of energy, economic, security, or environmental policy, one type of fuel should essentially be banned. Commenter says, even if Congress were to delegate such authority to ban an entire energy sector to an administrative agency, EPA's mission is to protect the environment not regulate an energy source effectively out of existence.
Commenter 10098 states EPA incorrectly asserts that it is permissible to enact a de facto ban on coal-fired EGUs in areas that lack access to geologic storage sites. Commenter states EPA lacks authority to prohibit coal-fired power plants in areas without EOR or geologic sequestration. Commenter states EPA tacitly accepts that requiring the use of EOR or geologic sequestration would be a de facto prohibition on constructing new coal-fired power plants in areas where sequestration is not reasonably possible by stating that it has the authority, based on the Clean Air Act's legislative history, to ban the use of coal-fired power plants in such areas. 79 Fed. Reg. at 1,466-67. Commenter says reliance on this legislative history is plainly wrong for at least two reasons.
Commenter 10098 states, first the legislative purpose of requiring uniform national standards does not apply to GHGs. Commenter says as the proposed rule explains, the NSPS was created "to prevent pollution havens - caused by some states seeking competitive advantage by limiting their pollution control requirements - and to assure that areas that had good air quality would be able to maintain good air quality even after new industrial sources located there"." Commenter says GHGs are global in nature and do not cause or contribute to localized adverse air quality impacts. Commenter says thus, EPA's "pollution haven" justification is not only irrational in light of the unique nature of GHGs, but runs counter to the cited legislative purpose.
Commenter 10098 states under the proposed rule, new coal-fired power plants could only be constructed in states with established EOR operations or well-characterized and suitable geological storage sites. Commenter says the proposed rule is thus contrary to the desire of the Clean Air Act's legislative sponsors, who sought to avoid providing individual states with competitive advantages in the siting of industrial facilities, because it would confer such a competitive advantage to states with viable EOR operations.
Commenter 10098 states as the proposed rule also notes, any given industrial facility could be prohibited from being constructed in a certain area due to the Clean Air Act's attainment provisions under Section 110. 79 Fed. Reg. at 1,466-67 ("[A]n area at or above the NAAQS limits might not have enough room in its airshed to accommodate these new facilities."). Commenter says but there are no National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs, a fact which wholly undercuts EPA's reliance on Section110 here. Commenter says EPA admits that the legislative history that it relies upon was premised on "local air quality concerns," but then states that allotting for itself carte blanche authority to ban the construction of new sources in some or all parts of the country without regard to localized air quality concerns "should not be viewed as inconsistent with congressional intent for Section 111." Commenter says not only does EPA lack a scintilla of legislative history in support of this proposition, its statement that EPA is free to use Section 111 to allow new stationary sources to be constructed "in only certain parts of the country and not other parts," contradicts the proposed rule's proffered "pollution haven" rationale.
Commenter 10098 states not only does EPA concede that it is imposing a de facto ban on coal-fired EGUs, but its rationale for such a ban is baseless. Commenter says it finds no authority in Section 111 itself, no endorsement of its approach in the legislative history, and no precedent in the two inapposite cases cited in the proposed rule. Commenter states the very need to argue that EPA has the authority to prohibit the use of certain types of stationary sources eviscerates its claim that CCS is "adequately demonstrated." Commenter concludes, therefore, EPA should withdraw the rule and either propose a new rulemaking that relies on energy efficiency requirements (in accordance with its own GHG Guidance) or wait until commercial operations validate the use of CCS.
See previous response.  In addition, the commenters are mistaken that the final standard of performance imposes a geographic constraint on new coal capacity due to lack of access to sequestration.  See preamble section V.M. and Geographic Availability TSD showing that there are ample sequestration and EOR sites, plus coal-by-wire opportunities in virtually all areas of the country.  Moreover, there are alternative compliance pathways not involving sequestration should a new coal plant wish to site in an area with the unlikely combination of no sequestration or coal-by-wire access exists, and state prohibitions do not restrict siting.  The EPA also notes that no commenter has presented evidence that such a circumstance might arise.  That is, all comments on this issue have been hypothetical, with no evidence presented of new coal capacity planned for any area, much less one fitting the unlikely set of circumstances just described.  See also preamble V.J. describing how facilities which may qualify as new sources but whose designs were sufficiently advanced are not subject to the final standard of performance.  This provision is hardly consistent with the commenters' claim of `war on coal'.
The proposed NSPS will constitute a de facto ban on new coal-fired EGUs
Commenters (9197, 10239) state, the proposed NSPS will constitute a de facto ban on new coal-fired EGUs.
Commenter 9197 supports EPA's decision to establish separate standards for coal- and gas-fired generation, but remains concerned that EPA's revised approach to setting performance standards for fossil-fueled boilers and IGCC units still amounts to a de facto ban on new coal-fired generation.
Commenter 10239 says, despite the EPA's unsubstantiated assertion that the proposed rule will have no costs, the proposed standards will significantly harm the Associations' members and the energy and manufacturing sectors as a whole. Commenter says, the proposed standards of performance will constitute a de facto ban on the development of new coal-fired electric generating capacity because CCS cannot be implemented at a commercial scale. Commenter says, prior EPA rules, such as the Mercury Air Transport Rule, have already had a significant effect on existing coal-fired EGUs, with more than 60 gigawatts of capacity scheduled to retire by 2020. Commenter says, as the EPA acknowledges, without the proposed rule, a portion would likely be replaced by new coal-fired EGUs. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 1,443. Commenter says this position is further supported by NERA's analysis, which found a "substantial probability" that economic conditions will, in the near term, favor coal-fired EGUs in some parts of the country.
Commenter 10239 states eliminating the possibility of new coal-fired EGUs will have a significant detrimental effect on the Associations' members who generate both coal- and petcoke-fired energy and plan to do so in the future and are part of the supply chain for coal and petcoke. Commenter says, thus, the new rule will reduce options for creating new capacity, as well as demand for coal and petcoke, harming everyone in the supply chain for each product. Commenter says, the increased costs and decreased reliability also will harm the Associations' members who must rely upon efficient, cost effective, and reliable electricity in their operations. Commenter adds, the impact of the rule will be felt almost immediately, as EGUs make long-term, strategic decisions regarding future generating capacity.
Commenter 10239 states, further, eliminating coal-fired EGUs will reduce fuel diversity for baseload energy, creating an increased risk to grid stability and price volatility. Commenter says, while NGCC turbines are expanding, coal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power markets are contracting due in part to regulatory pressure. Commenter says the shift away from a diverse baseload power portfolio and toward an ever increasing reliance on a narrow set of energy sources creates significant risks. Commenter says, changes in market conditions for energy commodities including natural gas, coal, and petcoke raise significant risks. Commenter says, while the Associations have a strong interest in the production of low-cost natural gas, a balanced portfolio is essential to protect against price volatility and changing market conditions. Commenter says, a de facto ban on new coal-fired EGUs would diminish that flexibility. Commenter says, because many of the Associations' members are large retail electricity consumers, they would be directly impacted by service disruptions or price increases. Commenter states, even defensive, preparatory measures to guard against grid instability would require expenditure of valuable resources.
Commenter 10239 states, the EPA cannot simply ignore all of these impacts by suggesting that market forces alone are dictating a shift from coal to natural gas. Commenter says the EPA acknowledges that even in these market conditions, coal-fired EGUs serve important functions for reliability and fuel diversity, and will remain viable even under current price spreads. Commenter says, thus, the EPA is wrong that it is the current cost difference between coal and natural gas that will preclude their future use; instead, the dearth of future coal facilities will arise from the inability of coal-fired EGUs, under any circumstance, to achieve the proposed standard. Commenter says, the EPA cannot hide behind market forces in an attempt to ignore the costs that the proposed rule will impose on the Associations' members.
In response to commenter 10239, The EPA does not acknowledge that, without the proposed rule, a portion of existing plants would likely be replaced by new coal-fired EGUs and we do find such a statement at the cited location in the proposal. In fact, the EPA there stated that " ... even in the absence of this rule, (i) existing and anticipated economic conditions mean that few, if any, solid fossil fuel-fired EGUs will be built in the foreseeable future; and (ii) electricity generators are expected to choose new generation technologies (primarily natural gas combined cycle) that would meet the proposed standards." (79 FR 1433) and we acknowledged that "... for a variety of reasons, some companies may consider coal units that the modeling does not anticipate". We further noted that "[W]e are aware of another segment of the industry, which includes electricity suppliers who have indicated a preference for new coal-fired generation to establish or maintain fuel diversity in their generation portfolio because their customers have expressed a willingness to pay a premium for that diversity. It appears these utilities and project developers see lower risks to long-term reliance on coal-fired generation and greater risks to long-term reliance on natural gas-fired generation, compared to the rest of the industry." (79 FR 1478) These facts contributed to the agency's decision to withdraw the previous CAA 111(b) proposal and issue a new proposal that specifically proposed separate standards for fossil fuel-fired steam generating EGUs and natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines.
NSPS is not an appropriate vehicle for establishing a domestic energy policy
Commenter 10618 states EPA indicates that the proposed rule "reduces uncertainty...for new coal-fired generation." Commenter says the agency is absolutely correct. Commenter says the proposed rule will not just reduce uncertainty, it will eliminate it altogether as the requirements will effectively prohibit the development of new coal-based generation units, and will have little, if any, impact on future natural gas-fired combustion turbine units. Commenter adds admittedly, EPA recognizes that the proposed rule will result in "negligible CO2 emissions changes [or] quantified benefits."

Commenter 10618 states that the EPA view on the role of coal within a balanced portfolio of energy options has evolved significantly. Commenter says only a few short years ago did EPA prepare a final report as part of "several initiatives to facilitate and incentivize [the] development and deployment of [IGCC] technology." Commenter says EPA noted the following in the forward of that report:

"Currently, over 50 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from coal. Given that coal reserves in the U.S. are estimated to meet our energy needs over the next 250 years, coal is expected to continue to play a major role in the generation of electricity in this country. With dwindling supplies and high prices of natural gas and oil, a large proportion of the new power generation facilities built in the U.S can be expect to use coal as the main fuel... EPA considers integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) as one of the most promising technologies in reducing the environmental consequences of generating electricity from coal. EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and incentivize development and deployment of this technology."

Commenter 10618 states with the proposed rule, EPA has not only eliminated any opportunity for coal "to continue to play a major role in the generation of electricity in this country," but also has eliminated the chance for future coal units to play any role. Commenter says in fact, EPA somewhat disparagingly discusses those who consider energy diversity to include coal by noting that:

"We are aware of another segment of the industry.....who have indicated a preference for new coal-fired generation to establish or maintain fuel diversity in their generation portfolio because their customers have a expressed a willingness to pay a premium for that diversity. It appears these utilities and project developers see lower risks to long- term reliance on coal-fired generation and greater risks to long-term reliance on natural gas-fired generation, compared to the rest of the industry."

Commenter 10618 states without question, in the eight years since EPA finalized this report, significant developments within the energy industry have occurred that have dramatically transformed the natural gas and oil industries and that have accelerated the development and use of alternative energy technologies. Commenter says however, EPA should not misconstrue such developments to automatically assume that natural gas is the fuel of the future and will be a readily available substitute to coal- based generation. Commenter says to do so is extremely naive, devalues the benefits of energy diversity, ignores a long history of volatility in energy supply expectations, and is complacent to the ever increasing challenges to the development of natural gas generating units.

Commenter 10618 gives a brief history of the volatility of the energy sector, starting with nuclear in the 1950's.  Commenter continues, most recently, the development of shale gas techniques has increased the supply and reduced the price of domestic natural gas, which has again shifted new generation development to natural gas processes. Commenter says EPA's confidence that the deployment of natural gas generating units will continue well into the future is evident in the proposed rule where the agency notes that:

"we recognize that...the higher costs of CCS may tilt the economics against new coal- fired construction. Even in this case the standard would remain valid..., particularly because the basic demand for electricity could still be served by NGCC."

and,

"...even if requiring CCS adds sufficient costs to prevent a new coal-fired plant from constructing in a particular part of the country to due to the lack of available EOR to defray the costs, or, in fact, from constructing at all, a new NGCC plant can be built to serve the electricity demand that the coal-fired plant would otherwise serve. Thus, the present rulemaking does not prevent basic electricity demand from being met." 79 Fed. Reg. 1481 (January 8, 2014)

Commenter 10618 states whether or not, and for how long, a strong reliance on natural gas will continue for new generation resources is to be determined. Commenter says a long history of natural gas price volatility and pattern of shifting interest in energy resources suggest great caution against any strategy that devalues the importance of a balanced energy portfolio. Commenter says the proposed rule states that

"EPA believes that it is appropriate....to set a standard that is robust across a full range of possible futures in the energy and electricity sectors." 79 Fed. Reg. 1434 (January 8, 2014)

Commenter 10618 states the "full range of possible futures" that EPA contemplates is premised solely on the expanded use of natural gas. Commenter says EPA's logic that natural gas units will continue to be a readily available option and can be readily developed as replacement for coal-fired generation is greatly misguided as EPA ignores the mounting pressures on natural gas generation development. Commenter says the press headlines below are just a small sampling of the increased development concerns.

Commenter 10618 states clearly, the development timeline and scope of concerns for natural gas-fired generation resources is becoming and will continue to be more challenging. Commenter says as such, there is no certainty that future natural gas generating units can automatically "be built to serve the electricity demand that the coal-fired power plant would otherwise serve" or that "the present rulemaking does not prevent basic electricity demand from being met." Commenter says nonetheless, EPA references EIA estimates that over 45 GW of new natural gas generation capacity will come online by 2025. Commenter says based on conservative estimates, potential CO2 emissions from this added capacity alone would be over 70 million tonnes per year. Commenter says that EPA states that it is "crucial to take initial steps now to limit GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants" because these emissions "threatens the American public's health and welfare." Commenter says yet, the agency points out that the proposed rule will only "limit GHG emissions from new sources...to levels consistent with current projections for new fossil fuel-fired generating units." Commenter asks therefore, if the magnitude of these threats is as severe as EPA has stated; if the significance of these risks require immediate reductions in GHG emissions; and if EPA's logic for determining that CCS is available for coal-based generation is equally compelling for NGCC process, then why doesn't EPA require NGCC units to use CCS to reduce the potential 70 million tonnes of new CO2 emissions from these sources as well? Commenter says the answer is two-fold. Commenter says, first, as noted throughout our comments, CCS has not been proven to be technically feasible or adequately demonstrated at a commercial scale for NGCC or coal-based generating units. Commenter says, second, requiring CCS for NGCC units would effectively prohibit the development of any fossil fuel based generation technology; an outcome that would prevent meeting the "basic electricity demand," and would "threaten the American public's health and welfare."
Commenter 10618 (American Electric Power) states that "with the proposed rule, EPA has not only eliminated any opportunity for coal `to continue to play a major role in the generation of electricity in this country,' but also has eliminated the chance for future coal units to play any role.  The commenter's own public statements are to the contrary, indicating that CCS is critical to the industry's future.  See preamble section V.I.4.  See also the statement of Alstom senior Vice President for Power and Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton's statement (August 4, 2011): "AEP's decision to put Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain climate policy.  The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant's emissions.  The technology works.  But without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hard-pressed to invest in its continued refinement."  The press release further states that Vice President Macnaughton "presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear."

See preamble section IX.C.4 for why EPA is not selecting CCS as BSER for new NGCC units.
Commenter 8954 states with its "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units", EPA is setting the stage for significantly altering the U.S. energy mix, and indeed, its energy policy. Commenter says these new standards effectively take coal off the table as an option for new generation resources. Commenter says implementation of the rule will reduce American energy diversity and security, stop the development of cleaner coal technologies, and increase the risk of higher electricity prices to consumers and businesses. Commenter says moreover, it will "result in negligible CO2 emissions changes", as the EPA concluded.
Commenter 8954 is gravely concerned about the widespread impacts of the standards as proposed. Commenter believes there are four key areas that must be addressed: 1) the rule's lack of a meaningfully different standard between coal and gas, which will reduce energy competition, diversity, security, and reliability by eliminating coal and increasing natural gas, 2) the impacts on jobs, consumers, and businesses and manufacturers, with the rule causing job loss, increasing energy prices, lowering living standards, and limiting business and manufacturer's ability to compete, 3) the rule's requirement for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and EPA's assumption that CCS is feasible and has been adequately demonstrated, which will serve only to thwart the development of CCS and cleaner coal technology, and 4) the unilateral approach for reducing U.S. carbon emissions absent a global approach and commitments, which will affect our nation's ability to compete internationally and will result in very little impact on global carbon emissions due to other countries greatly increasing coal generation to benefit their citizens and economies.
Commenter 8954 states in addition to price impacts to consumers, the electric grid reliability issue looms large, especially with the impending shutdown of coal generation plants to comply with EPA MATS rules. Commenter says coal plants were key in enabling electric generators to meet electricity demand and avoid brownouts or blackouts during cold weather this 2013-2014 winter. Commenter says American Electric Power's (AEP) Chairman, President, and CEO Nick Akins has stated that 89% of AEP's generation planned for retirement in 2015 was running in January to meet demand in the PJM electricity region. Commenter says in his recent April 10, 2014 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at its hearing on grid reliability and security, Mr. Akins also said, "The weather events experienced this winter provided an early warning about serious issues with electric supply and reliability. PJM was not alone. Many of the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Balancing Authorities need to call on Emergency Procedures to ensure reliable operations. This country did not just dodge a bullet - we dodged a cannon ball." Commenter says, further, he testified that AEP plans to retire 6,586 megawatts (nearly one fourth) of its coal generation capacity, with most of those retirements occurring in mid-2015. Commenter says, in PJM, he stated that 12,909 megawatts of capacity is scheduled to retire within two years. Commenter says that Mr. Akins cautioned that capacity replacements may not provide the same level of reliability experienced historically."
Commenter 8954 states EPA's presumption that the rule drives technology and that costs will decrease over time does not hold up since the rule dramatically tilts the playing field away from new coal plants and will prohibit the construction of new facilities where those technologies would be employed. Commenter asks, why would developers continue down the CCS and clean coal technology path? Commenter says utilities are pushed to make other decisions for generating capacity given the costs and constraints of CCS. Commenter says without ongoing, meaningful governmental support for CCS to propel development beyond first generation technologies and a reasonable timeline to achieve development, too many obstacles and too much uncertainty exists for private developers to move forward. Commenter says Department of Energy (DOE) programs for federal investments in technologies to reduce emissions have played an essential role for decades, and that role should continue for carbon reduction technologies. Commenter says public and private investments to develop mature technologies should be encouraged. Commenter notes however, this EPA rule will have the opposite effect.
Commenter 8954 states absent a push for new technologies, the U.S. will lose on many fronts. Commenter says other countries not bound by the EPA's rules and regulations will continue to take advantage of coal's low cost and abundance, developing generation fleets without CCS and with far weaker environmental standards for other pollutants. Commenter says they will produce low cost electricity for their consumers and emissions will increase. Commenter says this will overwhelm any efforts by the U.S to reduce carbon emissions or other emissions, and it will diminish the ability of American businesses to compete internationally. Commenter says other countries will also forge ahead with coal technology development and sales around the world. Commenter believes the U.S. will have lost the opportunity to innovate and will cede our global leadership role in developing CCS and other clean coal technologies.
Commenter 8954 states there is no upside to the rule as written. Commenter believes EPA should go back to the drawing board on BSER. Commenter says the assumptions on which the proposed rule is based are fundamentally flawed and fundamentally skewed against coal.
Commenter 8954 states in more recent years, U.S. electric utilities have faced a huge number of environmental regulations on all fronts - air, water, and waste - which have contributed to widespread shuttering of existing coal generating capacity. Commenter says according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, EPA's rules have contributed to the closure of over 300 existing coal units totaling more than 50,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity.
Commenter adds, the regulatory uncertainty caused by the April 2012 precursor to EPA's currently-proposed GHG rule had the effect of stopping development plans for most of the approximately 15 plants that had received a PSD permit but not begun construction, in spite of the exemption EPA included in that proposed rule. Commenter says when EPA did not propose that rule within a year and instead re-proposed it in 2013 without any exemption for transitional sources, the impact was fully manifested.
The EPA disagrees that this rule and other EPA rules foreclose the option of building new coal-fired generation. On the contrary, the EPA finds that the final standard of performance can be met by a new SCPC EGU implementing 16% partial CCS at a reasonable cost.  However, the EPA also notes that numerous studies have found that, in the current and projected market context, new coal without CCS is not competitive with NGCC.
Precludes new coal-fired generation and is inconsistent with the President's "all-of-the-above" strategy
Commenters (1959, 3360, 6871, 6949, 7433, 7977, 8024, 8501, 9002, 9197, 9396, 9472, 9596, 9648, 9655, 10929) state that the proposed rule will preclude new coal-fired generation, and is inconsistent with the President's "all-of-the-above-strategy".
Commenter 1959 states, since CCS is not commercially viable, with this proposal the Administration is clearly abandoning its "all-of-the-above" energy strategy and embracing an "all-but-one" approach that effectively prevents construction of new coal-based generation.
Commenter (3360, 6949) strongly support a diversified energy mix that evolves with an "all-of- the-above" energy strategy. Commenters say, this proposed rule promotes an "all-but-one" approach that restricts the future use of coal to generate affordable electricity. Commenters say, by limiting the further utilization of coal-fired electricity, the proposed rule could cause economic harm to the families and businesses in our districts.
Commenters (6871, 8024) state, the EPA's proposed rule requiring CCS technology on new coal power plants is unreasonable, and is not supported by the record in this rulemaking or by applicable law.  Commenters say, it will force the nation and electric consumers to a future of higher electricity prices and restricted energy choices. Commenters say, the proposed rule is directly at odds with an "all-of-the-above" energy policy.
Commenter 7433 states, rather than rely on a "one size fits all" approach, Commenter urges the EPA to allow greater flexibility for regions to evaluate their options in complying with future rules and avoid the continued "dash to gas" that this rule appears to mandate. Commenter fully supports the development and use of domestic fuel supplies of all sources, including natural gas. Commenter says, on the federal level, Commenter has been supportive of the "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that holds the promise of ensuring improved long-term energy security, affordability, and reliability. Commenter says, however, the proposed rule may create an unnecessary challenge to electric resource diversity given the fact that coal-fired generation cannot truly be considered a viable generation option in the future. Commenter says, the proposed rule relies heavily on the development of natural gas, reasoning that "in light of a number of economic factors, including the increased availability and significantly lower price of natural gas, energy industry modeling forecasts uniformly predict that few, if any, new coal-fired plants will be built in the foreseeable future." Commenter says, indeed, the EPA's rules will make a perceived zero coal future a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Commenter 7977 states recent winter weather events dramatically demonstrate that there will always be a need and demand for reliable, cost-effective sources of electricity, such as coal. Commenter says, therefore, the narrowing of energy options by this proposed rule is inconsistent with President Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy and is detrimental to national security and to the economies of Kentucky and the nation.
Commenter 8501 states the EPA has proposed a rule that contradicts President Obama's intentions to diversify energy development in the US by channeling new electric power production towards natural gas, at the expense of new technology development in coal resources (over 80% of Indiana's electricity generation is fueled by coal). Commenter says, instead, the US will hurtle towards natural gas as the predominant source of new electrical generation, which in turn will create economic instability and discourage investment in other fuels, including coal, our nation's most abundant and economically stable fuel option.
Commenter 9002 states, diversity and an all-of-the-above energy strategy is needed for the U.S.  Commenter says, the EPA's environmental policies and regulations cannot inadvertently create a platform where only EGUs are "green power" providers and manufacturing facilities are no longer able to sell green power. Commenter says, manufacturing facilities in the pulp and paper sector generate a significant amount of green power. Commenter, along with others in their sector, sell green power to the grid thereby increasing the availability of renewable energy and providing an additional economic incentive for manufacturers that are able to produce green power. Commenter says, the ability to have this diversity with facilities for renewable energy generation allows for additional renewable energy credits to be available.
Commenter 9197 states, only coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric facilities can realistically provide baseload electric power in most areas of the country. Commenter says, because the future expansion of nuclear and hydroelectric power plants is severely limited by siting and permitting requirements, the proposed rule's ban on new coal facilities would commit the country, by operation of law, to complete dependency on a single fuel - natural gas - for meeting demand for new baseload generation. (Although the addition of renewables such as solar and wind can help to address some increase in demand, these sources are inherently non-dispatchable, and so cannot be relied upon to generate baseload electricity.) In Commenter's view, this is neither a wise energy strategy for the United States, nor a good approach to maintaining a healthy economy or supporting American workers - particularly the skilled and highly-trained Boilermaker members, who build and maintain the U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants.
Commenter 9197 states, rather than moving to a single fuel for all new baseload generation, they urge the EPA to ensure that the proposed rule does not go against the Obama Administration's laudable commitment to supporting all forms of American energy through an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy - a commitment that the President reaffirmed most recently in his State of the Union address. Commenter supports an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy because such an approach helps to ensure an adequate, safe supply of reliable, low-cost electricity to meet our economy's long-term, without exposing the American economy to the risk of supply interruptions or price spikes that have resulted from over-reliance on particular energy sources in the past.
Commenter 9197 states, the proposed ban on new coal generation will compromise the reliability and security of America's electric system. Commenter says, in order to ensure that Americans can continue to depend on low-cost, reliable electricity to power their homes and businesses, the proposed NSPS for power plants must not foreclose utilities and consumers' abilities to generate power from all sources-including from coal. Commenter says, therefore, rather than encouraging the electric industry to move to a single energy source for baseload generation, the EPA should develop environmental regulations that allow all sources of energy to compete with each other on a level playing field. Commenter says, the EPA can help achieve the President's goal of encouraging a diverse "all-of-the-above" mix of American energy resources by ensuring that any rule addressing GHG emissions from power plants does not impose unreasonably stringent restrictions on coal-fueled EGU's - restrictions that could prevent these facilities from contributing to a reliable mix of electric generation in the future.
Commenter 9396 states, the EPA must take local and regional concerns about fuel availability into account when setting the NSPS. The Agency must offer a standard that allows for fuel diversity and does not discriminate against areas of the country without ready access to natural gas, sequestration capability, or the ability to readily utilize other alternatives. As noted, such flexibility is a practical necessity and consistent with President Obama's goal of pursuing an "all of the above" energy strategy in the United States.
Commenter 9472 urges EPA to withdraw the proposal because it is profoundly flawed, biased against the future use of coal to generate electricity, and inconsistent with the President's "all-of-the-above strategy" for domestic energy. Commenter says, the proposal effectively bans future coal-fueled power plants because it requires such plants to use CCS, a technology that is not commercially available or economically viable for coal-fueled power plants. Commenter says banning new coal-fueled power plants is bad energy policy for our nation because it will result in an overreliance on natural gas for new base load generation - a fuel that has a long history of price volatility and deliverability challenges. Commenter says, rather, EPA should adopt an NSPS that keeps coal, our nation's most abundant fossil energy resource, as a fuel option to generate electricity if it makes good economic and business sense to do so. Commenter says EPA should not be picking winners and losers in energy markets. Commenter states, to correct these fatal flaws in the NSPS proposal, they ask that EPA withdraw its proposal, and re-propose a CO2 performance standard with emissions levels based on new high efficiency coal-fueled power plants without CCS. Commenter believes this is required by the Clean Air Act and will allow continued technology development.
Commenter 9596 states, the EPA should regulate CO2 emissions in a manner that does not foreclose future fuel-use options. Commenter says, the Obama Administration has committed itself to an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy of supporting and developing "every source of American-made energy." Commenter says, such an approach can ensure an adequate supply of reliable, low-cost electricity by allowing all energy sources (including coal) to play a role in meeting our Nation's future energy needs. Commenter supports such an approach, and believes that any NSPS EPA develops for power plants must be consistent with this "all-of-the-above" strategy.
Commenter 9648 states, the EPA states in the preamble that, "... even in the absence of this rule, existing and anticipated economic conditions mean that few, if any, solid fossil-fuel EGUs will be built in the foreseeable future..." Commenter believes that the states and the country must maintain an "all-of-the-above" energy generation mix strategy to allow cost effective, environmentally friendly solutions to its citizens. Commenter says, overreliance on natural gas, particularly during a period of rising gas prices, jeopardizes electricity reliability and economic prosperity for all. Commenter says, common sense pathways must be explored that balances the risk to the economy and the environment. Commenter says, the proposal fails to demonstrate this balance among energy, environmental, economic, and health concerns.
Commenter 9655 states, the proposed regulation is not consistent with an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Commenter says, consumers of energy, whether they are large manufacturers or individual households, benefit greatly from an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Commenter says, diversity of energy supply is not only critical in keeping costs reasonable, it is essential in ensuring steady and reliable streams of electricity to power our factories and heat our homes. Commenter says, for many U.S. businesses that compete in a global economy, energy represents a major input cost that can ultimately determine viability. Commenter says, right now, electricity is an advantage for many U.S. industries in large part because of the abundant and diverse supplies of resources that are collectively keeping energy costs reasonable and supply reliable. Commenter says, however, if regulations such as this proposal take energy options off the table, prices will become more volatile, costs will increase, reliability will be threatened and, ultimately, U.S. firms' viability will be in jeopardy.
Commenter 9655 states, the impact that the January 2014 "polar vortex" had on energy markets demonstrates the importance of a diverse electric generation fleet and how Federal regulations that limit fuel options could threaten the reliability of the nation's electrical grid. Commenter says, in many regions of the country, households depend on natural gas for heat. Commenter says, when temperatures drop, demand for natural gas increases for all consumers, including households, commercial buildings and the electric-power sector. Commenter says, natural gas supplies can be temporarily strained, particularly in regions where there is insufficient pipeline capacity to meet these coinciding spikes in demand. Commenter says, during the 2014 polar vortex, some regions of the country experienced situations where demand for natural gas exceeded supply, which would have led to interruptions of electricity service if other sources of generation (particularly coal-fired generation) were not available to support electricity demand.
Commenter 9655 states, several recently-issued federal regulations [such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)]are leading to the closure of a significant number of coal-fired power plants, including many of those that were necessary to maintain reliable electric service this past winter. Commenter says, any shift such as this will only intensify energy diversity concerns and increase electrical grid stress during periods of peak demand. Commenter says, by effectively banning the construction of new coal plants, this proposed rule will only exacerbate these growing grid vulnerabilities. Commenter urges the EPA to carefully consider the potentially dangerous long-term implications of this policy.
Commenter 10929 states, the EPA's economic justification for their proposed coal CO2 performance standard lacks technically sound references. Commenter says, consequently, base load and intermediate load duty cycle service, typical for coal unit operation, may still benefit from construction of new coal that is able to reliably serve customer needs during periods of energy market upsets, making it presumptuous of EPA to assert that natural gas alternatives to coal will dominate future new unit deployment. Commenter says, in turn, system reliability will be at risk absent preservation of a diverse, "all of the above" electricity supply system.
Boundary Dam, POWER magazine's power plant of the year, uses the technology which commenter 1959 calls unproven and non-existent.  This is a graphic indication that standards reflecting use of CCS on slip streams is doable, reliable, and not a back-door means of preventing new coal capacity.
Precludes construction of new coal-fired generation due to costly and unproven CCS
Commenters (2470, 3360, 6949, 8501, 8966, 8968, 9427, 9597, 9767, 9773, 9777, 10017, 10047, 10050, 10051, 10086, 10098, 10104, 10134, 10240, 10388, 10520, 10552, 10929) believe the proposed rule will preclude the construction of new coal-fired generation due to costly and unproven CCS.
Commenter 2470 is concerned that under the provisions of the proposed rule, electric utilities will be precluded from constructing coal-fired generation to meet future needs because the standard can be met solely with costly and unproven CCS technology. Commenter believes, however, that utilities should not be precluded from considering coal for future projects due to EPA's decision to set a standard for CO2 based on costly and unproven CCS technology. Commenter says, the proposed standard will significantly increase the cost of new coal capacity. Commenter says, as a result, coal-fired generating units will most likely not be constructed in Florida. Therefore, Commenter is concerned about the potential impact on fuel diversity and compliance costs.
Commenters (3360, 6949) state, given that CCS remains technically and economically infeasible on a large scale, the likelihood that industry will construct any new coal-fired power plants remains highly uncertain for the foreseeable future. Commenters (3360, 10104) say, the Edison Electric Institute estimated that 63 gigawatts of coal-fired power will be retired between 2010 and 2022 due to regulatory, market and other factors. Commenters say, this represented 18.5 percent of America's generating capacity in 2010. Commenters say, the EPA's forthcoming proposed rule on GHG standards for existing power plants may accelerate these closures and require additional plants to close prematurely. Commenters say, without the ability to construct economically new coal plants to account for the closure of existing plants, the proposed rule will have a long-term impact on our energy mix.
Commenter 8501 states, in the most favorable light, the proposed GHG NSPS rule fails to eliminate any uncertainty about coal or promote energy diversity. Commenter says, instead of clarifying the status of coal as EPA purports, the proposed GHG NSPS muddies the future of coal-fired generation even further. Commenter says, because commercial utilization of CCS is highly uncertain due to economic, technological, legal and regulatory issues, the proposed GHG NSPS exacerbates an already uncertain situation for coal. Commenter says, no one will invest in coal generation with so many uncertainties regarding the capabilities of CCS.
Commenter 8966 firmly believes that the proposed rule, by requiring CCS that is unproven and cost-prohibitive technology at new coal-fired power plants, will decimate the coal industry and coal-fired economies in Pennsylvania. Commenter says, essentially, the proposed rule is a deeply flawed policy that fails to appreciate the magnitude of harm that will be done to the coal industry, the national and state economies, coal utility workers and electric ratepayers with its enactment. Commenter says, by setting an emissions standard that improvidently requires the installation of CCS equipment, the proposal effectively bars the construction of any new coal-fired power plant. Commenter says, this comes at a time when many existing plants are over 50 years old and will soon need to be retired. Commenter says, as a result, tens of thousands of workers in coal-related jobs will likely be laid off due to significant reductions in demand for coal for energy generation.
Commenter 8968 urges the EPA to consider alternatives to the proposed NSPS to limit emissions of CO2 from new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units. Commenter says, some of the studies of emerging technologies to capture carbon are very exciting, and Commenter shares EPA's desire to adopt such technologies on a national scale. Commenter does not believe these technologies today are affordable or can be scaled to industrial production. Commenter says, forcing new plants to meet standards that are very difficult, and maybe impossible to meet, will likely have the effect of eliminating the construction of new power plants in the United States.
Commenter 9427 states, the EPA's proposal to require new coal-fueled power plants to deploy the technology CCS would effectively prohibit the construction of any such plants. Commenter says, consequently, the proposal exceeds EPA's authority because such unproven technology is not "adequately demonstrated," because the NSPS program cannot be used to eliminate or threaten the future of an industrial sector, and because Congress clearly intends for coal to continue to maintain an important role in the nation's energy mix.
Commenter 9597 states, as drafted, the proposal would effectively ban construction of new coal-fired EGUs. Commenter says, the EPA's proposal eliminates coal-fired boilers as a future generating asset by way of requiring CCS to be installed; a technology which has yet to be adequately demonstrated at this scale and is hampered with numerous legal issues, such as liability associated with pore space ownership, safety issues with the long distance transport of a super-critical fluid, and long-term concerns surrounding indemnification of any potential release of stored materials.
Commenter 9773 states, their most significant concern is that EPA, in its proposal, vastly overstates the viability of CCS. Commenter says, at this time, CCS is not achievable for new coal-fired generating units in Wisconsin and throughout the utility sector as a whole. Commenter says, this is because carbon sequestration sites remain vastly unproven by EPA's own admission. Commenter says, further, carbon sequestration sites simply are not available in fourteen states, including Wisconsin. Commenter says, given the lack of CCS viability, the proposed rule would effectively prohibit construction of new coal-fired generation in Wisconsin and many other states. Commenter says, as a result, electric utilities will be forced to continue operating existing coal-fired generating units past their normal lifetimes instead of replacing them with new, more efficient generation. Commenter says, this condition could actually impede the reduction of electric utility CO2 emissions. Commenter says, the EPA should not set an NSPS that prohibits siting new coal generation in this manner.
Commenter 10047 asks, if EPA's analysis shows that no new coal units are planned because of the competitive advantage of natural gas, then how can a coal-fired unit with the added cost of CCS be considered economically feasible?
Commenter 10050 states, the proposed standard would essentially prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants by setting a standard that is yet to be demonstrated as achievable.
Commenter 10051 states, the uncertainty and costs related to CCS effectively guarantee that no new coal-fired EGUs will be built in the US until the technology becomes commercially available.
Commenter 10098 states, if adopted, the proposed NSPS for solid fuel-fired EGUs will effectively prohibit any new development of coal-fired electric generating capacity. Commenter says, the proposed NSPS for solid-fuel-fired EGUs will effectively prohibit new development of solid-fuel-fired electric generating capacity because CCS technology is not feasible at a commercial scale. Commenter says, as a result, electric utilities seeking to add baseload capacity will not be able to even consider solid-fuel-fired EGUs as an option and will thus be faced with a limited menu of options to provide additional capacity. Commenter says, by eliminating solid-fuel-fired EGUs as an option for energy generation, EPA's regulations will threaten the continued production of reliable, low-cost energy to consumers and will harm the Associations' members. Commenter says, members who produce and transport petcoke will be harmed because the rule will reduce demand for petcoke as a solid fuel energy feedstock.  Commenter says, members who consume retail electricity will be harmed because by eliminating solid fuel-fired EGUs as an alternative to NGCC, the proposal will reduce energy diversity by eliminating any new solid-fuel fired electric capacity. Commenter says, any potential risk to the consistent and reliable production of energy will, at a minimum, increase operational costs through contingency planning.  Commenter says, thus, it is not the cost of solid fuel-fired EGUs, but their inability, under any circumstance, to achieve the proposed standard that will preclude their use. Commenter says, the EPA cannot hide behind market forces in an attempt to ignore the costs of the proposed standard for coal-fired EGUs.
Commenter 10134 states, the EPA appears to have considered two paths to determine a standard of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from new fossil fuel fired electric generating units. Commenter says, the first was highly efficient generation technologies and efficiency measures, and the second was CCS technologies. Commenter submits that the EPA failed to adequately and holistically evaluate these two options because they ultimately settled on an option (CCS) for new coal-fired generation that has never been demonstrated in a commercial scale application. Commenter says, this decision is contrary to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and it effectively bans the development of new coal-based electric generation in the United States, without the benefit of meaningful CO2 emission changes or any other quantified benefits.
Commenter 10240 finds CCS as BSER to effectively eliminate the construction of future coal-fired plants and remove from the marketplace any incentive for innovative development of clean coal technologies which will allow for environmentally sound use of this abundant natural resource.
Commenter 10388 states, as it now stands, the proposal requires new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (both natural gas-fired and coal-fired) to meet a CO2 emissions rate that can only be achieved using new natural gas combined cycle units or new coal-fired units equipped with CCS technology. Commenter says, since CCS technology is still under development, it is not economical for use on electricity generating units. Commenter says, while the EPA has proposed an extension for coal-fired units to install CCS within the first ten years of operation, the proposed rule will prevent the construction of even the highest-efficiency coal-fired power plants which otherwise comply with stringent federal and state clean air regulations.
Commenter 10520 states, the simple fact of the matter is that the NSPS as proposed would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Commenter says, despite EPA's assertion that CCS technology would allow new coal-fired power plants to meet the standard of 1,100 pounds CO2 per kilowatt hour, the fact is that CCS is an unproven and cost-prohibitive technology that has not been demonstrated on any commercial power plant anywhere in the world.
Commenter 10552 states, the proposed standards inhibit their customers from building new coal-fired EGUs without partial CCS, a technology that is not commercially available.
Commenter 10929 is concerned that the EPA's regulation of new unit CO2 emissions under Clean Air Act, NSPS provisions does so in a manner that precludes the reasonable use of new coal based generation, considering the tenuous nature of the development of CCS technology for large scale, commercial use.
Commenters 2420, 10389, 10520, 10552, 10929 maintain that the standard of performance bans new coal because it is based on a technically undemonstrated technology, unproved at commercial scale.  This is incorrect.  See preamble sections V.D and V.E (should a source wish to pursue pre-combustion CCS, an available compliance alternative).  Nor is a source limited to use of CCS technology to meet the final standard of performance.  Consistent with the request of commenter 8698, the final standard is flexible in that it is achievable by a variety of means, not all of which are based on CCS technology.  (The agency is adopting a less stringent final standard, in part, based on comments urging such flexibility  -  again, not consistent with the claim of `war on coal' or `banning coal').  Issues of legal issues regarding acquiring pore-space or other property rights related to sequestration are discussion in preamble section V.I.5 and V.N.

Commenter 9773 indicates that the standard would not allow coal capacity in Wisconsin due to lack of sequestration capacity.  As just noted, there are alternative compliance pathways not involving sequestration to meet the final standard of performance.  Second, there is sequestration capacity in the southern part of the state (see Geographic Availability TSD Fig.1.) In addition, as shown in the coal-by-wire chapter of the Geographic Availability TSD, Wisconsin is served by the MISO transmission network.  That is, the state is located in an RTO which provides open access to transmission service and a large set of resources within the RTO to serve load. MISO in fact has a number of coal-fired power plants in areas within geological sequestration.

Commenter 10134 urges BSER to be highly efficient SCPC.  This is part of the BSER, but not all.  See preamble section V.K. and P.1.

Commenter 10047 asks if coal is non-competitive with NGCC without using CCS, how it can be competitive with CCS.  This misstates EPA's proposal and final rule.  All analysis and market information indicates that coal is not cost-competitive with NGCC, and will not be for the foreseeable future, even as natural gas prices increase.  See RIA chapter 4.  However, new capacity may be added for reasons other than cost, and in that case, the final standard of performance is structured so that coal remains cost-competitive with other baseload non-NGCC dispatchable capacity.  See preamble section V.I.5.
Precludes new coal-fired generation and will discourage development of CCS and other technology innovation
Commenters (7977, 8501, 9196, 9735, 9683, 10395, 10500) state that the proposed rule will preclude new coal-fired generation and will discourage the development of CCS (or advanced coal) technology.
Commenter 7977 states, this regulatory action eliminates coal-fired electric generating units from the competitive marketplace.  Commenter says, the EPA's repeated logic that no coal-fired EGUs are expected to be built in proposing this unattainable standard is counterintuitive to promoting CCS or even advanced coal combustion technologies, such as ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (USCPC). Commenter says, In conjunction with the current market forces of competitive natural gas prices, this standard ensures that no coal technologies, with or without CCS, will be pursued. Commenter says, thus, this rulemaking creates an inherent bias, which will drive fuel switching to natural gas and put the country at a greater risk than a balanced energy profile will provide.
Commenter 8501 states, the EPA claims the benefit of the rule is to clarify that any future coal-fired power plants will be required to utilize CCS and thus eliminate any uncertainty about GHG requirements for future coal-fired generation. Commenter says, by removing this uncertainty, EPA argues, CCS will be seen as an essential aspect of coal-fired power, which will promote further development of CCS technology, which will eventually lead to economical implementation of CCS, which in turn will ultimately assure energy diversity. Commenter says, the EPA, however, could not be more mistaken about the value of the signal it is sending to the marketplace with regard to future coal-fired generation and CCS. Commenter says, instead of providing a path forward for future coal-fired electrical generation, EPA's proposed GHG NSPS simply eliminates coal as a prospective fuel choice for new generation facilities.
Commenter 9196 is concerned that, absent sufficient clarity, the proposed rule could even discourage technology innovation and energy-efficiency projects at existing facilities. Commenter says, this combination of results would result in severe threats to the reliability of the US electricity supply, higher electricity prices for consumers, and would set back the continuing technology and efficiency gains in the power sector.
 Commenter 9735 states, the emission levels required in the proposed rule are currently unattainable on a commercial scale at an affordable level, therefore ensuring that no new, cleaner burning coal plants will be built and CCS technologies will not be advanced. Commenter says, as a result of this federal freeze on the construction of new, cleaner burning, more efficient coal-fired power plants, the full potential for CO2 reductions through CCS will not be realized if we continue to see older plants retired and no new plants constructed. Commenter says, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that by 2040 coal will represent 32% of electric generation, down from 37% in 2012, that is still a significant portion of our generation, especially when you consider that number in context of an increased energy demand overall in this country as the population increases. Commenter says, coal will therefore continue to play a critical role in delivering electricity to families and businesses across the country well into the future.
Commenter 9735 states, considering the unanswered environmental, technical and regulatory issues related to CCS, we should focus our efforts on addressing these barriers instead of creating a rule that effectively blocks CCS development. Commenter believes that CCS must play a role in our national energy infrastructure, as it is one of the only ways to make significant GHG reductions while meeting our energy demand. Commenter concludes, therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure it is implemented in a safe and economically efficient manner.
Commenter 9683 states that a regulation or law that requires GHG emission limits on power plants will not encourage CCS unless other laws and regulations are concurrently amended to resolve what can be called the "triple jeopardy" circumstance. Commenter says the proposed rule makes possible the circumstance that a coal-fired plant must run for an area to maintain compliance with electric reliability requirements, which are now binding and enforceable by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a result of Section 215 of the Federal Power Act ("FPA"), enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; cannot sequester CO2 if the only available geologic sequestration facility is found to be leaking in violation of the Underground Injection Control program; and cannot emit CO2 to the air because of this rule. Commenter asks, what is an operator of a facility covered by a rule supposed to do in such a circumstance? Commenter says rather than subject itself to such jeopardy, project developers may choose other generation options. Commenter says thus, the proposed mandate likely will have a chilling effect, not only on pursuing CCS, but on proceeding with coal-fired generation projects as a general matter.
Commenter 10395 states, the EPA has considered and rejected the only rational and legally permissible option at this time for a coal-fired EGU CO2 NSPS, which is achievable only with optimized and reasonable heat rate efficiencies. Commenter encourages EPA to rethink its rejection of this approach (for coal-based EGUs in general, and for SCPC in particular) if it continues to promulgate CO2 NSPS based on a claim that partial CCS is an available technology for coal-fired EGUs in general, and for SCPC EGUs in particular, at this time. Commenter says, new coal-fueled power plants will need to be built so that less-expensive and more cost-effective second generation CCS demonstrations can occur. Commenter says, because the proposed NSPS will effectively ban new coal-fueled power plants, second generation CCS will likely never be demonstrated in the U.S. Commenter says, while CCS is a promising CO2 emissions control technology, it has not been demonstrated at scale and remains very costly, as shown by the limited and unique circumstances in which the technology has been deployed.
Commenter 10500 believes that this rule will hinder the development of CCS and consequently increase worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide. Commenter says, due to the high cost of CCS, the technology will not be developed, refined, or improved so as to make it technologically or economically viable. Commenter says, even EPA estimates that no coal plants with CCS will be built before 2022 and possibly up to 2040.
See preamble section V.I.4 and other responses in this unit and unit 6.
The proposed rule will delay CO2 emission reductions
Commenters (1681, 7977, 9774) state that the proposed rule will delay CO2 emission reductions and keep existing, less-efficient units operating longer.
Commenter 1681 states, unfortunately, the EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. Commenter says, and recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants to replace those old plants. Commenter says, using current, market ready technology, a newly constructed coal plant will produce low cost electricity while reducing emissions by up to 90% when compared to the recently closed units.
Commenter 7977 states, preventing the construction of new, more efficient ultra super critical coal-fired generation plants will make it more difficult to retire additional older, less efficient, more expensive to operate plants because of the need to maintain grid reliability
Commenter 9774 states ultimately, the proposed rule will likely delay utility sector CO2 emission reductions because of the CCS requirement for new coal-fired generation. Commenter says one of the primary compliance options to any utility sector NSPS will be to replace existing generation with new, more efficient generation. Commenter says, however, because new coal generation cannot be constructed under EPA's proposal, utilities are likely to keep existing, less efficient coal generating units operating beyond their normal lifetime. Commenter believes the outcome may very well be that CO2 emissions will not be reduced as rapidly as intended under the rule.
The final standard of performance is based on performance of demonstrated technology and is achievable by a number of means.  The commenters' argument that existing plants will remain open because the new source standard is unachievable thus is not correct.
Precluding new coal-fired generation is good
Commenter 1624 states, that his analysis of the EPA's values suggests they were chosen to allow efficient gas powered units to achieve the set values without any additional effort. Commenter says, the choice seems intended to favor the use of natural gas. Commenter says, the proposed values do not appear to be based on protecting human health or the environment. Commenter says, such limits will encourage the use of natural gas and will most likely prevent another coal fired power plant from being permitted in the US. Commenter concludes, that is good news for the criteria pollutants and mercury.
Commenter 2059 states, this rule will benefit emissions because: (1) Natural gas plants emit 45% less carbon dioxide than coal plants, per kilowatt generated so it rightfully encourages new plants that generate by gas instead of coal. (2) Natural gas plants can augment wind and solar generation, because gas turbines can be spooled up immediately to compensate for lapses in renewable energy generation. Coal generation requires much longer times to boost power. Wind and solar power will be viewed as competition to be resisted by new coal-fired plants. (3) Gas plants produce no soot or mercury health hazards. Coal generation plants do both.
The rule is not structured to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants or Hg.  However, it has the incidental effect of removing additional increments of SO2 if CCS is utilized assuming (against our view) that new non-compliant coal capacity would be built.  See RIA chapter 5; POWER magazine's award to Boundary Dam likewise recognizes that SO2 emissions are reduced due to the need for high purity solvent in the CCS process.
3.7.2 Coal-Fired Generation Can/Cannot Compete With Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Generation
Coal can compete with NGCC
Commenter 9666 states their consultants prepared an independent analysis that disagrees with EPA's conclusions, finding instead that the LCOE from coal-fired and natural gas-fired EGUs, at least for some regions of the U.S., are both about $69-70/MWh (2011 dollar basis). Cichanowicz Economic Analysis. (Attachment 1 to these comments) His analysis found that EPA's erroneous conclusion was driven by three mistakes.
EPA biases its technical analysis by classifying coal-fired EGUs as "high-risk" for financing and NGCC EGUs as "low-risk" for financing purposes. There is no justification for assigning non-equivalent financing charges because new NGCC projects can also be controversial. EPA's discussion of whether CCS at NGCC EGUs constitutes BSER, 79 Fed. Reg, at 1485, opens the door to similar risks for NGCC projects. Many of the same organizations that object to new coal-fired EGUs are objecting to hydraulic fracturing which provides the abundant natural gas that is the underpinning for EPA's natural gas price assumptions.
EPA's inputs for operating and capital costs failed to account for variability and instead picked the "overnight" capital costs for coal-fired and NGCC EGUs that may not fully reflect present market conditions. Cichanowicz Economic Analysis at 1-2, 13-14. EPA wrongly assumed that the capital cost of coal-fired EGU and NGCC EGU projects can be extrapolated from a single proprietary database, where most inputs appear to be derived from the 2004-2007 timeframe, and escalated to present day market conditions. Both the capital and non-fuel operating costs vary widely, even among six DOE-funded reports, and results have not been peer-reviewed.
EPA conducts what it describes as a sensitivity analysis, but this analysis does not account for the role of market forces, or how overnight capital can vary in the U.S. due to site-specific conditions. Rather, EPA's sensitivity analysis assumes overnight capital cost is essentially identical at all sites, and only varies across the entire country in a well-behaved and predictable manner as determined by changes in construction labor rates.
EPA has more confidence in EIA projections of gas prices than history warrants. As the commenter's consultant report makes very clear, the efforts of the EIA - and for that matter any other fuels forecasting group - over a multi-decade period in predicting natural gas prices is, to put it mildly, inaccurate..
Commenter's analysis indicates that coal is competitive in several regions of the U.S. for new EGU projects, with slight revisions to EPA's calculation assumptions. These revisions are not major, and are less than the differences in cost predicted by six DOE-funded reports since 2007.
Most significant are overnight capital and non-fuel operating costs, and natural gas and coal prices. If coal can compete with natural gas across large regions of the U.S., surely there will be many specific applications where coal is the favored fuel for an EGU developer. Such applications may, for example, be at locations near coal supplies or distant from natural gas supplies.
See response 3.3-16a for response to Cichanowocz appendix.  The commenter's assertion that the NETL studies have never been peer reviewed is false.
EPA's conclusion that coal cannot compete with natural gas for new electric generation is based on an arbitrary set of presumptions
Commenters (9407, 10097, 10952) state that EPA's conclusion that coal cannot compete with natural gas for new electric generation is based on an arbitrary set of presumptions.
Commenter 10952 states natural gas availability and affordability has caused a significant increase in its use to fuel EGU base-load generation over the last several years. Commenter says, but as pointed out above, there are numerous uncertainties associated with its reliance as essentially the sole fossil-fuel resource to provide the Nation's basic electric power needs. Commenter says based on models and associated assumptions referenced in this proposal, EPA concludes there will be little demand for additional coal-based generation over the foreseeable future and thus this proposal has little if any cost impact. Proposal at 1455. Commenter says, the proposal does recognize however that some utility planners may choose to evaluate new generation options based on other factors aside from economic models that EPA relies on in this proposal, such as fuel diversification. Proposal at 1443. Commenters (9407, 10952) say, of course maintaining a diversified electric generation portfolio is justified as a hedge against the unknown. Commenters say, in the case at hand, a national policy that allows for additional new coal-fired generation in lieu of relying exclusively on natural gas for a new EGU would amount to risk aversion based on unpredictable natural gas prices and lack of adequate gas supply where additional baseload generation may need to locate. Commenters say, having a reliable and affordable natural gas supply at a given site where new base-load generation is needed likely presents transportation obstacles and unforeseen impediments outside the control EPA or any other regulatory body.
Commenters (9407, 10097, 10952) state this proposal essentially ignores common sense concerns associated with virtually ensuring that new coal-based generation cannot be built by proposing a coal-based NSPS that that would make new coal based EGU prohibitively expensive. Commenters say, the EPA's justification for this is twofold; that presently new coal without carbon capture cannot compete with new natural gas EGUs on a cost basis, and that EPA can require an NSPS so long as cost can be accommodated by industry and passed on the consumer. Proposal at 1475. Commenter 10952 first addresses the contention that that new coal-based generation without CCS cannot compete with new natural gas generation on a cost basis presently.
Commenters (10097 and 10952) state, included in these comments as Enclosure 1 (A Critique of the September 2013 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Coal-Fired Power without CCS is competitive with Natural Gas Combined Cycle without CCS, pg 57) is a study prepared by J.E. Cichanowicz to evaluate the proposal's conclusion that new coal-fired SCPC units cannot compete with new base-load NGCC units on a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) $/MWh basis. Commenter 10952 says, utilizing six DOE studies referenced in the RIA for this rulemaking, EPA concludes an LCOE of $92/MWh for new SCPS EGUs and $59/MWh for new NGCC EGUs. Proposal at 1476 (Table 6). Commenters (9407, 10952) say, based on this LCOE differential EPA surmises that new coal generation cannot compete with new natural gas generation on a cost basis even without considering carbon capture costs. Commenters go on, however, by using a different set of assumptions for capital, financing and fuel costs, all well within the margins of error and variability contained in the studies of which EPA relies, the Cichanowicz study concludes that the LCOE for new SCPC (without carbon capture) can be comparable, indeed virtually equal to that of new NGCC. Commenters depict these findings in graphic form (Levelized Cost of Electricity: SCPC vs. NGCC, Per Sensitivity Analysis).
Commenters (10097 and 10952) state as an initial conclusion the six studies used for EPA's cost comparison analysis were never meant to be utilized for this purpose. Commenters say, the six studies' noted uncertainty range of -15 to +30 percent speaks for itself. Commenters say the study found that performing cost comparisons based on the cost of electricity as opposed to the levelized cost of electricity, LCOE, requires fewer assumptions regarding unit life operating characteristics. Commenters say, as explained above, EPA used the LCOE metric in its cost comparisons. Commenters say, thus, for example, regional differences resulting in lower costs in some geographic areas are not reflected in LCOE calculations. Commenters state, the EPA also inserts a 'climate uncertainty adder'' that serves to drive up the cost of coal-fired EGUs but not NGCC EGUs. Commenters say, the insertion of any 'climate uncertainty adder' involves deriving at nothing more than an arbitrary number, reflecting nothing technical in nature. Commenters note lastly that for coal-fired EGU capital costs, EPA ignored the figure in the most recent 2013 DOE study that presumably would reflect the best estimate and instead used a higher figure derived from an earlier DOE study. Commenters say, these and other factors used in EPA cost methodology serve to increase the projected costs of coal-fired EGUs. Commenters conclude, by using different assumptions, all within the uncertainty ranges in the DOE studies, their analysis demonstrates that coal can compete with natural gas regarding future generation on a cost basis as Figure 2 (Levelized Cost of Electricity: SCPC vs. NGCC, Per Sensitivity Analysis, pg 16) depicts.
See response 3.3-16a.  See also preamble section V.I.2 again documenting reliability of NETL estimates, and their consistency with recent estimates of other private experts and current vendor market quotations.
Proposal treats coal and natural gas inequitably
Commenters (10017, 10092) state that while EPA recognized the need to consider both natural gas and solid fossil fuels, the proposal treats coal and natural gas inequitably, requiring a degree of control on coal plants that has not yet been achieve in practice. Commenter 10017 says that natural gas plants are able to meet the proposed standard for CO2 by building a well-designed plant with technologies presently achievable unlike CCS.
See preamble section IX.C.4 regarding why CCS is not BSER for new NGCC.  Partial post-combustion CCS is a demonstrated technology.  See preamble section V.B.
Dash to gas will not promote climate change goals
Commenter 10046 states, the problem with imposing a technology-forcing mandate on coal alone while leaving gas untouched has been emphasized elsewhere. Commenter says, Professor Richard Macrory, Director of the University College London's Carbon Capture Legal Programme, suggests that if a CCS performance standard is to achieve its technology development and other objectives, then it needs to be applied to both coal and gas, and not to coal alone. Commenter says, in a submission to the U.K. Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, Professor Macrory opined that it is important to ensure that the design and application of an EPS does not have a perverse or unintended effect and that the performance standard for GHGs applies equally to generating stations or other processes whatever the source of power.
Commenter 10046 states, the position that a CCS mandate imposed only on new coal units will not achieve any advancement in CCS development is a key consideration that EPA wholly fails to address. Commenter says, for EPA's conclusion that a CCS mandate only on new coal units will nevertheless spur development of CCS to be correct, there has to be some evidence that EPA's approach will influence the behavior of power plant developers. Commenter says no such evidence exists and key independent analysts have concluded that EPA's policy will simply encourage developers to build new gas units, which does not promote the development of CCS technology, and in fact impedes it. Commenter says, Bellona made this point in its CCS policy report, asserting that an EPS "in the absence of other supporting policies may be underinvestment, as polluters avoid the development of affected technologies, preferring instead to switch fuel or process with the resulting impacts on energy supply diversity and security."
Commenter 10046 states, the EPA's second fundamental climate change policy error is to cement an unwise "dash to gas." Commenter says, the proposal effectively precludes development of new coal units and impedes development of coal-related CCS technologies. Commenter says, in turn, it does not place any GHG emissions regulatory burden on natural gas EGUs. Commenter says, hence, while the coal industry is precluded from technology development, the gas industry is given no obligations at all because EPA concludes new gas units can meet the standard without doing anything. Commenter says, instead of merely accepting the status quo trend of fuel-switching to natural gas-fired generation, the rule nonsensically mandates this transition without any appreciation of the implications that an unfettered "dash to gas" will have on the Administration's stated climate change objectives. Commenter noted that EPA says that they already consider natural gas to be a low-GHG-emitting fuel and NGCC to be low-emitting technology, natural gas remains a fossil fuel and IEA has specifically argued against an overreliance on natural gas at the expense of CCS development as a mechanism for short term GHG reductions.