Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group Research.
(EPA document number EPA-452/R-08-003, March 2008). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/452_R_08_003.pdf.
    \137\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010.
Section 3: Re-analysis of the Benefits of Attaining Alternative
Ozone Standards to Incorporate Current Methods. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s3-supplemental_analysis-updated_benefits11-5.09.pdf.
    \138\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical
support document: Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
PM2.5 Precursors from 17 Sectors. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, January. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/benmap/models/Source_Apportionment_BPT_TSD_1_31_13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM benefit-per-ton values are generated using two concentration-
response functions, Krewski et al. (2009) \139\ and Lepeule et al.
(2012).\140\ These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to
allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. Even though
we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between PM2.5 precursors
depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on
PM2.5 concentrations, which drive population exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Krewski D.; M. Jerrett; R. T. Burnett; R. Ma; E. Hughes;
Y. Shi, et al. 2009. Extended Follow-up and Spatial Analysis of the
American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and
Mortality. Health Effects Institute. (HEI Research Report number
140). Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute.
    \140\ Lepeule, J.; F. Laden; D. Dockery; J. Schwartz. 2012.
``Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended
Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.''
Environmental Health Perspective, 120(7), July, pp. 965-970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5
and ozone co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration response
functions for premature mortality and the value of a statistical life
used to value reductions in premature mortality. For PM2.5,
we use two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer
Society cohort study (Krewski et al., 2009) and one based on the
extended Six Cities cohort study (Lepuele et al., 2012). The
PM2.5 co-benefits results are presented as a range based on
benefit-per-ton estimates calculated using the concentration-response
functions from these two epidemiology studies, but this range does not
capture the full range of uncertainty inherent in the co-benefits
estimates. In the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket,
we also include PM2.5 co-benefits estimates using benefit-
per-ton estimates based on expert judgments of the effect of
PM2.5 on premature mortality (Roman et al., 2008) \141\ as a
characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-
mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Roman, H., et al. 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of
the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter
in the U.S.'' Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42, No. 7,
February, pp. 2268-2274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the ozone co-benefits, we present the results as a range
reflecting benefit-per-ton estimates which use several different
concentration-response functions for mortality, with the lower end of
the range based on a benefit-per-ton estimate using the function from
Bell et al. (2004) \142\ and the upper end based on a benefit-per-ton
estimate using the function from Levy et al. (2005).\143\ Similar to
PM2.5, the range of ozone co-benefits does not capture the
full range of inherent uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Bell, M.L., et al. 2004. ``Ozone and Short-Term Mortality
in 95 U.S. Urban Communities, 1987-2000.'' Journal of the American
Medical Association, 292(19), pp. 2372-8.
    \143\ Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. 2005.
``Ozone Exposure and Mortality: An Empiric Bayes Metaregression
Analysis.'' Epidemiology. 16(4): p. 458-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this analysis, in estimating the benefits-per-ton for
PM2.5 precursors, the EPA assumes that the health impact
function for fine particles is without a threshold. This is based on
the conclusions of the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter,\144\ which evaluated the substantial body of
published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology,
toxicology, and clinical studies, that documents the association
between elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health
effects, including increased premature mortality. This assessment,
which was twice reviewed by the EPA's independent Science Advisory
Board, concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that
a no-threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality
concentration-response relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). Research
Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, RTP
Division. (EPA document number EPA-600-R-08-139F, December 2009).
Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5
concentrations

that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies.
    For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not
available,\145\ and thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of
premature mortality associated with this specific rule that is above
the lowest measured PM2.5 levels (LML) for the two
PM2.5 mortality epidemiology studies that form the basis for
our analysis. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts above the
LML, we provide the percentage of the population exposed above the LML
in each of the two studies, using the estimates of baseline projected
PM2.5 from the air quality modeling for the proposed
guidelines used to calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for the EGU
sector. Using the Krewski et al. (2009) study, 88 percent of the
population is exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or
above the LML of 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). Using the
Lepeule et al. (2012) study, 46 percent of the population is exposed
above the LML of 8 [mu]g/m\3\. It is important to note that baseline
exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along
with baseline incidence rates, population, and change in air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ In addition, site-specific emission reductions will depend
upon how states implement the guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage), and
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we
believe the air quality co-benefit analysis for this rule provides a
reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the air
pollution emission reductions for the illustrative analysis of this
proposed action under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis
does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012) because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to conduct a
complete benefits assessment. In addition, using a benefit-per-ton
approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits
estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides
an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.
    We note that the monetized co-benefits estimates shown here do not
include several important benefit categories, including exposure to
SO2, NOX, and HAP (e.g., mercury and hydrogen
chloride), as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.
Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to
provide monetized estimates for this rule, a qualitative assessment of
these unquantified benefits is included in the RIA for this proposal.
In addition, in the RIA for this proposal, we did not estimate changes
in emissions of directly emitted particles. As a result, quantified
PM2.5 related benefits are underestimated by a relatively
small amount. In the RIA for the proposed Clean Power Plan EGs, the
benefits from reductions in directly emitted PM2.5 were less
than 10 percent of total monetized health co-benefits across all
scenarios and years.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rule, which is available in the rulemaking docket.

IX. Community and Environmental Justice Considerations

    In this section we provide an overview of the actions that the
agency is taking to help ensure that vulnerable communities are not
disproportionately impacted by this rulemaking.
    As described in the Executive Summary, climate change is an EJ
issue. Low-income communities and communities of color already
overburdened with pollution are likely to be disproportionately
affected by, and less resilient to, the impacts of climate change. This
rulemaking will provide broad benefit to communities across the nation,
as its purpose is to reduce GHGs, the most significant driver of
climate change. While addressing climate change will provide broad
benefits, it is particularly beneficial to low-income populations and
some communities of color (in particular, populations defined jointly
by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location) where people
are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (a more robust
discussion of the impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities
is provided in the Executive Order 12898 discussion in section X.J of
this preamble). While climate change is a global phenomenon, the
adverse effects of climate change can be very localized, as impacts
such as storms, flooding, and droughts are experienced in individual
communities.
    Vulnerable communities also often receive more than their fair
share of conventional air pollution, with the attendant adverse health
impacts.
    The changes in electricity generation that will result from this
rule will further benefit communities by reducing existing air
pollution that directly contributes to adverse localized health
effects. These air quality improvements will be achieved through this
rule because the EGUs that emit the most GHGs also have the highest
emissions of conventional pollutants, such as SO2,
NOX, fine particles, and HAP. These pollutants are known to
contribute to adverse health outcomes, including the development of
heart and lung diseases, such as asthma and bronchitis, increased
susceptibility to respiratory and cardiac symptoms, greater numbers of
emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and premature
deaths.\146\ The EPA expects that the reductions in utilization of
higher-emitting units likely to occur during the implementation of
federal plans will produce significant reductions in emissions of
conventional pollutants, particularly in those communities already
overburdened by pollution, which are often low-income communities,
communities of color, and indigenous communities. These reductions will
have beneficial effects on air quality and public health, both locally
and regionally. Further, this rulemaking complements other actions
already taken by the EPA to reduce conventional pollutant emissions and
improve health outcomes for overburdened communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Six Common Air Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By reducing millions of tons of CO2 emissions that are
contributing to global GHG levels and providing strong leadership to
encourage meaningful reductions by countries across the globe, this
rule is a significant step to address health and economic impacts of
climate change that will fall disproportionately on vulnerable
communities. By reducing millions of tons of conventional air
pollutants, this proposed rule will lead to better air quality and
improved health in those communities. In the comment period for the
Clean Power Plan, we heard from many commenters who recognize and
welcome those benefits.
    There are other ways in which the actions that result from this
rulemaking may affect overburdened communities in positive or
potentially adverse ways and we also heard about these from commenters
on the EGs.
    While the agency expects overall emission decreases as a result of
this rulemaking, we recognize that some EGUs may operate more
frequently. To the extent that we project increases in utilization as a
result of this rulemaking, we expect these increases to occur generally
in lower-emitting NGCC units,

which have minimal or no emissions of SO2 and HAP, lower
emissions of particulate matter, and much lower emissions of
NOX compared to higher-emitting steam units. We acknowledge
the concerns that have been raised on this point, but also the
difficulty in anticipating prior to plan implementation where those
impacts might occur. As described below, the EPA intends to conduct an
assessment of whether and where emission increases may result from plan
implementation and mitigate adverse impacts, if any, in overburdened
communities.
    In addition to the many positive anticipated health benefits of
this rulemaking, it also will increase the use of clean energy and will
encourage EE. These changes in the electricity generation system, which
are already occurring, but may be accelerated by this program, are
expected to have other positive benefits for communities. The
electricity sector is, and will continue to be, investing more in RE
and EE. The construction of renewable generation and the implementation
of EE programs such as residential weatherization will bring investment
and employment opportunities to the communities where they take place.
It is important to ensure that all communities share in these benefits.
And while we estimate that the benefits of this program will greatly
exceed its costs (as noted in the RIA for this rulemaking), it is also
important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in
electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on those
least able to afford them.
    The EPA has engaged with community groups throughout this
rulemaking and we received many comments on the issues outlined above
from community groups, EJ organizations, faith-based organizations,
public health organizations, and others. This input has informed this
proposed rulemaking and prompted the EPA to consider other steps that
the agency can take in the short and long term to consider EJ and
impacts to communities in federal plan development and implementation.
    It has also prompted us to work with our federal partners to make
sure that communities have information on federal resources available
to assist them. We describe these resources below, as well as resources
that the EPA will be providing to assist communities in accessing EE/RE
and financial assistance programs.
    Finally, and importantly, we recognize that communities must be
able to participate meaningfully in the development of this rulemaking.
In this section, we discuss the steps that the EPA will take to assist
communities in engaging with the agency throughout the comment period
of this rulemaking.

A. Proximity Analysis

    The EPA is committed to ensuring that there is no disproportionate,
adverse impact on overburdened communities as a result of this proposed
rulemaking. To provide information fundamental to beginning that
process, the EPA has conducted a proximity analysis for this proposed
rulemaking that summarizes demographic data on the communities located
near power plants.\147\ The EPA understands that, in order to prevent
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on these communities, both the agency and communities must have
information on the communities living near facilities, including
demographic data, and that accessing and using census data files
requires expertise that some community groups may lack. Therefore, the
EPA used census data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012
to conduct a proximity analysis that can be used by communities as they
engage with the agency throughout the comment period of this
rulemaking. The analysis and its results are presented in the EJ
Screening Report for the Clean Power Plan, which is located in the
docket for this rulemaking at EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ The proximity analysis was conducted using the EPA's
environmental justice mapping and screening tool, EJSCREEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proximity analysis provides detailed demographic information on
the communities located within a 3-mile radius of each affected power
plant in the United States. Included in the analysis is the breakdown
by percentage of community characteristics such as income and minority
status. The analysis shows a higher percentage of communities of color
and low-income communities living near power plants than national
averages. It is important to note that the impacts of power plant
emissions are not limited to a 3-mile radius and the impacts of both
potential increases and decreases in power plant emissions can be felt
many miles away. Still, being aware of the characteristics of
communities closest to power plants is a starting point in
understanding how changes in the plant's air emissions may affect the
air quality experienced by some of those already experiencing
environmental burdens.
    Although overall there is a higher fraction of communities of color
and low-income populations living near power plants than national
averages, there are differences between rural and urban power plants.
There are many rural power plants that are located near small
communities with high percentages of low-income populations and lower
percentages of communities of color. In urban areas, nearby communities
tend to be both low-income communities and communities of color. In
light of this difference between rural and urban communities proximate
to power plants and in order to adequately capture both the low-income
and minority aspects central to environmental justice (EJ)
considerations, we use the terms ``vulnerable'' or ``overburdened''
when referring to these communities. Our intent is for these terms to
be understood in an expansive sense, in order to capture the full scope
of communities, including indigenous communities most often located in
rural areas, that are central to our EJ and community considerations.
    As stated in the Executive Order 12898 discussion located in
section X.J of this preamble, the EPA believes that all communities
will benefit from this proposed rulemaking because this action directly
addresses the impacts of climate change by limiting GHG emissions
through the establishment of CO2 emission standards for
existing affected fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA also believes
that the information provided in the proximity analysis will promote
engagement between vulnerable communities and the agency throughout the
rulemaking process. In addition to providing the proximity analysis in
the docket of this rulemaking, the EPA will make it publicly available
on its Clean Power Plan Communities Portal that will be linked to this
rulemaking's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan). Furthermore,
the EPA has also created an interactive mapping tool that illustrates
where power plants are located and provides information on a state
level. This tool is available at: http://cleanpowerplanmaps.epa.gov/CleanPowerPlan/.

B. Community Engagement in This Rulemaking Process

    The EPA has heard from vulnerable communities throughout the
outreach process for the Clean Power Plan that it is imperative for
communities to have an understanding of how rulemakings that target
climate change work. They expressed a desire to know how these programs
may benefit their communities and what the potential adverse impacts of
the rules may be on their communities. We intend to provide

communities with the information that they need to engage with the
agency throughout the comment period.
    We have received feedback from communities that public hearings,
webinars, and in-person meetings are the most effective ways to engage
with them and to provide them with the information they need to
understand the rulemaking process. Therefore, for this rulemaking, in
addition to conducting public hearings for all members of the American
public, the agency will hold a national webinar for communities in the
early stages of the comment period. The goal of this webinar will be to
walk communities through the highlights of the preamble, so they have
an understanding of how the rulemaking may potentially affect their
communities and they will have the contextual information they need to
actively engage with the agency throughout the comment period.
    Additionally, because we received positive feedback on the
effectiveness of the face-to-face meetings conducted on the regional
level, each region will be offering an outreach meeting(s) for
communities. The goal of these meetings is to build a level of
understanding on this rulemaking to enable vulnerable communities to
actively engage with the agency throughout the comment period.
Furthermore, we will follow up on common issues raised during the
outreach meetings with national conference calls, specifically targeted
for vulnerable communities.

C. Providing Communities With Access to Additional Resources

    In section V.D of this preamble, we outline that we are seeking
comment on whether a portion of this set-aside should be targeted to RE
projects that benefit low-income communities. Furthermore, the EPA is
seeking comment on how a low-income community should be defined as
eligible under this set-aside. We also seek comment on how much of the
set-aside should be designated as targeted at over-burdened
communities. We also request comment on whether the methods of approval
and distribution of allowances to projects that benefit low-income
communities should differ, and if so, in what manner, from the methods
that are proposed to apply to other RE projects.
    As discussed below, there are also many federal programs that can
help low-income populations access the benefits of RE and EE, and the
economic benefits of a cleaner energy economy.
    In the coming months, the EPA will continue to provide information
and resources for low-income communities on existing federal, state,
local, and other financial assistance programs to encourage EE/RE
opportunities that are already available to communities. For example,
the EPA will provide a catalog of current or recent state and local
programs that have successfully helped communities adopt EE/RE
measures. The goal of these resources is to help vulnerable communities
gain the benefits of this rulemaking. The use of these RE/EE tools can
also help low-income households reduce their electricity consumption
and bills.
    Additionally, as part of the resources that we will be providing
low-income communities, the EPA will provide information on the
Administration's Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and
Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initative and other programs that
specifically target economic development assistance to communities
affected by changes in the coal industry and the utility power
sector.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ http://www.eda.gov/power/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Federal Programs and Resources Available to Communities

    Federal agencies have a history of bringing EE and RE to low-income
communities. Earlier this summer, the Administration announced a new
initiative to scale up access to solar energy and cut energy bills for
all Americans, in particular low- and moderate-income communities, and
to create a more inclusive solar workforce. As part of this new
initiative, the U.S. DOE, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the EPA launched a
National Community Solar Partnership to unlock access to solar energy
for the nearly 50 percent of households and businesses that are renters
or do not have adequate roof space to install solar systems, with a
focus on low- and moderate-income communities. The Administration also
set a goal to install 300 MW of RE in federally subsidized housing by
2020 and plants to provide technical assistance to make it easier to
install solar energy on affordable housing, including clarifying how to
use federal funding for EE and RE. To continue enhancing employment
opportunities in the solar industry for all Americans, AmeriCorps is
providing funding to deploy solar energy and create jobs in underserved
communities, and DOE is working to expand solar energy education and
opportunities for job training.
    These recent announcements build on the many existing federal
programs and resources available to improve EE and accelerate the
deployment of RE in vulnerable communities. Some examples of these
resources include: The DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program, Health
and Human Service's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the
Department of Agriculture's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan
Program, High Cost Energy Grant Program, and the Rural Housing
Service's Multi-Family Housing Program.
    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supports EE
improvements and the deployment of RE on affordable housing through its
Energy Efficient Mortgage Program, Multifamily Property Assessed Clean
Energy Pilot with the State of California, PowerSaver Program, and the
use of Section 108 Community Development Block Grants. The Department
of Treasury provides several tax credits to support RE development and
EE in low-income communities, including the New Markets Tax Credit
Program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. The EPA's RE-Powering
America's Land Initiative promotes the reuse of potentially
contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites--many of which are in low-
income communities--for RE through a combination of tailored
redevelopment tools for communities and developers, as well as site-
specific technical support. The EPA's Green Power Partnership is
increasing community use of renewable electricity across the country
and in low-income communities. The EPA partners with EE programs
throughout the country that leverage ENERGY STAR to deliver broad
consumer energy-saving benefits, of particular value to low-income
households who can least afford high energy bills. ENERGY STAR also
works with houses of worship to reduce energy costs--savings that can
then be repurposed to their community mission, including programs and
assistance to residents in low-income communities. The EPA will be
working with these federal partners and others to ensure that states
and vulnerable communities have access to information on these programs
and their resources.
    The federal government also has a number of programs to expand
employment opportunities in the energy sector, including for
underserved populations. Examples of these include the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, DOE, and the Department of
Education's ``STEM, Energy, and Economic Development'' program; DOE's
Diversity in Science and Technology Advances National Clean Energy in
Solar (DISTANCE-

Solar) Program; Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy
Deployment (GEARED); the DOL's Trade Adjustment Assistance Community
College and Career Training (TAACCCT), Apprenticeship USA Advancing
Apprenticeships in the Energy Field, Job Corps Green Training and
Greening of Centers, and YouthBuild; and the EPA's Environmental
Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT) program.

E. Assessing Impacts of Federal Plan Implementation

    It is important to the EPA that the implementation of federal plans
be assessed in order to identify whether they cause any adverse impacts
on communities already overburdened by disproportionate environmental
harms and risks. The EPA will conduct its own assessment during the
implementation phase of this rulemaking to determine whether the
implementation of federal plans and other air quality rules are, in
fact, reducing emissions and improving air quality in all areas and, or
whether there are localized air quality impacts that need to be
addressed under the Clean other CAA authorities.
    The EPA will provide trainings for communities on resources that
they can use to assess localized impacts, especially effects of co-
pollutants, of plans on their communities. This training will include
guidance in accessing the publicly available information that sources
and states currently report that can help with ongoing assessments of
federal plan impacts. For example, unit-specific emissions data and air
quality monitoring data are readily available. This information,
together with the assessment that the EPA will conduct in the
implementation phase of this rulemaking will enable the agency and
communities to monitor any disproportionate emissions that may result
in adverse impacts and address them.

F. Co-Pollutants

    Air quality in a given area is affected by emissions from nearby
sources and may be influenced by emissions that travel hundreds of
miles and mix with emissions from other sources.\149\ In the CSAPR the
EPA used its authority to reduce emissions that significantly
contribute to downwind exposures. The RIA for the final CSAPR
anticipates substantial health benefits for the population across a
wide region. Similarly, the EPA believes that, like the CSAPR, this
rulemaking will result in significant health benefits because it will
reduce co-pollutant emissions of SO2 and NOX on a
regional and national basis.\150\ Thus, localized increases in
NOX emissions may well be more than offset by NOX
decreases elsewhere in the region that produce a net improvement in
ozone and particulate concentrations across the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 76 FR 48348, August 11, 2011.
    \150\ See 76 FR 48347, August 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another effect of the final CO2 emission standards for
affected existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs may be increased utilization
of other, unmodified EGUs--in particular, high efficiency gas-fired
EGUs--with relatively low GHG emissions per unit of electrical output.
These plants may operate more hours during the year and could emit
pollutants, including pollutants whose environmental effects would be
localized and regional rather than global as is the case with GHG
emissions. Changes in utilization already occur in response to energy
demands and evolving energy sources, but the final CO2
emission standards for affected existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs can be
expected to cause more such changes. Increased utilization of solid
fossil fuel-fired units generally would not increase peak
concentrations of PM2.5, NOX, or ozone around
such EGUs to levels higher than those that are already occurring
because peak hourly or daily emissions generally would not change;
however, increased utilization may make periods of relatively high
concentrations more frequent. It should be noted that the gas-fired
sources likely to be dispatched more frequently have very low emissions
of primary PM, SO2, and HAP per unit of electrical output
and that they must continue to comply with other CAA requirements that
directly address the conventional pollutants, including federal
emission standards, rules included in SIPs, and conditions in title V
operating permits, in addition to the guidelines in the final EGs
rulemaking published elsewhere in this Federal Register. Therefore,
local (or regional) air quality for these pollutants is not likely to
be significantly affected. For natural gas-fired EGUs, the EPA found
that regulation of HAP emissions ``is not appropriate or necessary
because the impacts due to HAP emissions from such units are negligible
based on the results of the study documented in the utility RTC.''
\151\ Because gas-fired EGUs emit essentially no mercury, increased
utilization will not increase methyl mercury concentrations in water
bodies near these affected EGUs. In studies done by DOE/NETL comparing
cost and performance of coal- and NGCC-fired generation, they assumed
SO2, NOX, PM (and Hg) emissions to be
``negligible.'' Their studies predict NOX emissions from a
NGCC unit to be approximately 10 times lower than a subcritical or
supercritical coal-fired boiler.\152\ Many, although not all, NGCC
units are also very well controlled for emissions of NOX
through the application of after combustion controls such as selective
catalytic reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ 65 FR 79831, December 20, 2000.
    \152\ ``Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity'' Rev 2a,
September 2013 Revision 2, November 2010 DOE/NETL-2010/1397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. The EPA's Continued Engagement

    The EPA is committed to helping ensure that this action will not
have disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects on
vulnerable communities. Throughout the implementation phase of this
rulemaking, the agency will continue to provide trainings and resources
to assist communities and as they engage with the agency. The EPA,
through its outreach efforts during the comment period, will continue
to solicit feedback from communities on what they would like additional
trainings and resources on.
    As described above, the EPA will assess the impacts of this
rulemaking during its implementation. The EPA will house this
assessment, along with the proximity analysis and other information
generated throughout the implementation process, on its Clean Power
Plan Communities Portal that will be linked to this rulemaking's Web
site (http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan). In addition, the EPA has
expanded its set of resources that are being developed to help
communities understand the breadth of policy options and programs that
have successfully brought EE/RE to low-income communities. The EPA is
committed to continuing its engagement with communities from the
comment period of this rulemaking through federal plan implementation.
    The EPA consulted its May 2015, Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions,
when crafting this rulemaking.\153\ A more detailed discussion
concerning the application of Executive Order 12898 in this rulemaking
can be found in section X.J of this preamble. A summary of the EPA's
interactions with communities is

in the EJ Screening Report for the Clean Power Plan, available in the
docket of this rulemaking. Furthermore, the EPA's responses to public
comments, including comments received from communities, are provided in
the response to comments documents located in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf. May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the EPA in this proposed rulemaking has designed an
integrative approach that helps to ensure that vulnerable communities
are not disproportionately impacted by this rule. The proximity
analysis that the agency has conducted is a central component of this
approach. Not only is the proximity analysis a useful tool to help
identify communities that may be impacted by this rulemaking; it will
also help communities as they engage with the EPA throughout the
comment period. It will help the EPA as we help low-income communities
access EE/RE and financial assistance programs. Finally, in order to
continue to ensure that overburdened communities are not
disproportionately impacted by this rule, the EPA will be conducting an
assessment during the implementation phase of the effects of this and
other rules on air quality.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is an economically significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this rulemaking. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is
contained in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Federal
Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Utility
Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model
Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations'' (EPA-452/R-15-006,
July 2015), is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in
section VIII of this preamble.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563,
the EPA estimated the costs and benefits for two alternative federal
plan approaches to implementing the proposed federal plan and model
trading rules. The proposed action will achieve the same levels of
emissions performance as required of state plans under the CAA section
111(d) EGs for the control of CO2. Actions taken to comply
with the guidelines will also reduce the emissions of directly-emitted
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. The benefits
associated with these PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX reductions are referred to as co-benefits, as these
reductions are not the primary objective of this rule.
    The RIA for this proposal analyzed two implementation scenarios,
which we term the ``rate-based federal plan approach'' and the ``mass-
based federal plan approach.'' It is very important to note that the
differences between the analytical results for the rate-based and mass-
based federal plan approaches presented in the RIA may not be
indicative of likely differences between the approaches. In other
words, if one approach performs differently than the other on a given
metric during a given time period, this does not imply this will apply
in all instances.
    It is important to note that the potential regulatory impacts
presented in the Clean Power Plan Final Rule RIA and the RIA for this
proposed rule are not additive. Both RIAs present estimates of the
benefits and costs of achieving the emission performance rates of the
Clean Power Plan EGs. In the case of the Clean Power Plan Final Rule
RIA, the illustrative analysis assumes the performance rates are met
under state plans. In the case of this RIA for the proposed federal
plan and model trading rules, the same performance rates are
accomplished but are assumed to be achieved under the federal plan or
model trading rules.
    The EPA has used the social cost of carbon estimates presented in
the Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (May
2013, Revised July 2015) (``current TSD'') to analyze CO2
climate impacts of this rulemaking. We refer to these estimates, which
were developed by the U.S. government, as ``SC-CO2
estimates.'' The SC-CO2 is an estimate of the monetary value
of impacts associated with a marginal change in CO2
emissions in a given year. The four SC-CO2 estimates are
associated with different discount rates (model average at 2.5 percent
discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent),
and each increases over time. In this summary, the EPA provides the
estimate of climate benefits associated with the SC-CO2
value deemed to be central in the current TSD: The model average at 3
percent discount rate.
    The EPA estimates that, in 2020, this proposal will yield monetized
climate benefits (in 2011$) of approximately $2.8 billion for the rate-
based approach and $3.3 billion for the mass-based approach (3 percent
model average). For the rate-based approach, the air pollution health
co-benefits in 2020 are estimated to be $0.7 billion to $1.8 billion
(2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $0.64 billion to $1.7 billion
(2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the
air pollution health co-benefits in 2020 are estimated to be $2.0
billion to $4.8 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $1.8
billion to $4.4 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. The
annual compliance costs estimated by IPM and inclusive of DS-EE program
and participant costs and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
costs in 2020, are approximately $2.5 billion for the rate-based
approach and $1.4 billion for the mass-based approach (2011$). The
quantified net benefits (the difference between monetized benefits and
compliance costs) in 2020 are estimated to range from $1.0 billion to
$2.1 billion (2011$) for the rate-based approach and from $3.9 billion
to $6.7 billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, using a 3 percent
discount rate (model average).
    The EPA estimates that, in 2025, the proposal will yield monetized
climate benefits (in 2011$) of approximately $10 billion for the rate-
based approach and $12 billion for the mass-based approach (3 percent
model average). For the rate-based approach, the air pollution health
co-benefits in 2025 are estimated to be $7.4 billion to $18 billion
(2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $6.7 billion to $16 billion
(2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the
air pollution health co-benefits in 2025 are estimated to be $7.1
billion to $17 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $6.5
billion to $16 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. The
annual compliance costs estimated by IPM and inclusive of DS-EE program
and participant costs and MRR costs in 2025, are approximately $1.0
billion for the rate-based approach and $3.0 billion for the mass-based
approach (2011$). The quantified net benefits (the difference between
monetized benefits and compliance costs) in 2025 are estimated to range
from $17 billion to $27 billion (2011$) for the rate-based approach and
$16 billion to $26 billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, using a
3 percent discount rate (model average).

    The EPA estimates that, in 2030, the proposal will yield monetized
climate benefits (in 2011$) of approximately $20 billion for the rate-
based approach and $20 billion for the mass-based approach (3 percent
model average). For the rate-based approach, the air pollution health
co-benefits in 2030 are estimated to be $14 billion to $34 billion
(2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $13 billion to $31 billion
(2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. For the mass-based approach, the
air pollution health co-benefits in 2030 are estimated to be $12
billion to $28 billion (2011$) for a 3 percent discount rate and $11
billion to $26 billion (2011$) for a 7 percent discount rate. The
annual compliance costs estimated by IPM and inclusive of DS-EE program
and participant costs and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
costs in 2030, are approximately $8.4 billion for the rate-based
approach and $5.1 billion for the mass-based approach (2011$). The
quantified net benefits (the difference between monetized benefits and
compliance costs) in 2030 are estimated to range from $26 billion to
$45 billion (2011$) for the rate-based approach and from $26 billion to
$43 billion (2011$) for the mass-based approach, using a 3 percent
discount rate (model average).
    Table 18 and Table 19 of this preamble provide the estimates of the
climate benefits, health co-benefits, compliance costs and net benefits
of the proposal for rate-based and mass-based federal plan approaches,
respectively.

  Table 18--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposal in 2020, 2025 and 2030 Under the Rate-Based Federal
                                                                      Plan Approach
                                                                 [Billions of 2011$] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Rate-Based Approach
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2020
                                                             2025
                                                             2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Climate Benefits \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% discount rate............................                 $0.80
                                                             $3.1
                                                             $6.4
3% discount rate............................                 $2.8
                                                              $10
                                                              $20
2.5% discount rate..........................                 $4.1
                                                              $15
                                                              $29
95th percentile at 3% discount rate.........                 $8.2
                                                              $31
                                                              $61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air Quality Co-Benefits Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     3%                7%                3%                7%                3%                7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Health Co-benefits \c\..........     $0.70 to $1.8     $0.64 to $1.7       $7.4 to $18       $6.7 to $16        $14 to $34        $13 to $31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Costs \d\........................                 $2.5
                                                             $1.0
                                                             $8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits \e\............................      $1.0 to $2.1      $1.0 to $2.0        $17 to $27        $16 to $25        $26 to $45        $25 to $43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Monetized Benefits......................                                        Non-monetized climate benefits.
                                                                            Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2.
                                                                                Reductions in mercury deposition.
                                                       Ecosystem benefits associated with reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and mercury.
                                                                                Visibility impairment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum.
\b\ The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in non-CO2 GHG
  emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2 emissions are long-lived and subsequent
  damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SC-CO2 estimated for a 3 percent discount rate. However,
  we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full range of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are also estimated using
  the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2
  estimates are year-specific and increase over time.
\c\ The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of SO2 and NOX. The range
  reflects the use of concentration-response functions from different epidemiology studies. The co-benefits do not include the benefits of reductions in
  directly emitted PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase overall benefits by a few percent based on the analyses conducted for the Clean Power
  Plan proposed rule. The reduction in premature fatalities each year accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.
  These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the
  scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type.
\d\ Costs are approximated by the compliance costs estimated using the IPM for this proposal and a discount rate of approximately 5 percent. This
  estimate includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs and DS-EE program and participant costs.
\e\ The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The RIA
  includes combined climate and health estimates based on additional discount rates.

  Table 19--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposal in 2020, 2025 and 2030 Under the Mass-Based Federal
                                                                      Plan Approach
                                                                 [Billions of 2011$] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Mass-Based Approach
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2020
                                                             2025
                                                             2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Climate Benefits \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% discount rate............................                 $0.9
                                                             $3.6
                                                             $6.4
3% discount rate............................                 $3.3
                                                              $12
                                                              $20
2.5% discount rate..........................                 $4.9
                                                              $17
                                                              $29
95th percentile at 3% discount rate.........                 $9.7
                                                              $35
                                                              $60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air Quality Co-Benefits Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     3%                7%                3%                7%                3%                7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Health Co-benefits \c\..........      $2.0 to $4.8      $1.8 to $4.4       $7.1 to $17       $6.5 to $16        $12 to $28        $11 to $26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Costs \d\........................                 $1.4
                                                             $3.0
                                                             $5.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits \e\............................      $3.9 to $6.7      $3.7 to $6.3        $16 to $26        $15 to $24        $26 to $43        $25 to $40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Monetized Benefits......................                                        Non-monetized climate benefits.
                                                                            Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2.
                                                                                Reductions in mercury deposition.
                                                       Ecosystem benefits associated with reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and mercury.
                                                                                Visibility improvement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum.
\b\ The climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in non-CO2 GHG
  emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to SC-CO2 than to the other estimates because CO2 emissions are long-lived and subsequent
  damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SC-CO2 estimated for a 3 percent discount rate. However,
  we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full range of SC-CO2 values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are also estimated using
  the other three SC-CO2 estimates (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). The SC-CO2
  estimates are year-specific and increase over time.
\c\ The air pollution health co-benefits reflect reduced exposure to PM2.5 and ozone associated with emission reductions of SO2 and NOX. The co-benefits
  do not include the benefits of reductions in directly emitted PM2.5. These additional benefits would increase overall benefits by a few percent based
  on the analyses conducted for the Clean Power Plan proposed rule. The range reflects the use of concentration-response functions from different
  epidemiology studies. The reduction in premature fatalities each year accounts for over 98 percent of total monetized co-benefits from PM2.5 and
  ozone. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
  because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type.
\d\ Costs are approximated by the compliance costs estimated using IPM for this proposal and a discount rate of approximately 5 percent. This estimate
  includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs and DS-EE program and participant costs.
\e\ The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The RIA
  includes combined climate and health estimates based on additional discount rates.

    There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our estimates
of the benefits from reducing CO2 emissions do not include
important impacts like ocean acidification or potential tipping points
in natural or managed ecosystems. Unquantified benefits also include
climate benefits from reducing emissions of non-CO2 GHGs
(e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) and co-benefits from reducing direct
exposure to SO2, NOX, and HAP (e.g., mercury), as
well as from reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, it remains clear that the benefits
of this proposed action are substantial, and far exceed the costs.
Additional details on benefits, costs, and net benefits estimates are
provided in the RIA for this proposal.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2526.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until approved by OMB.
    This rule does not directly impose specific requirements on state
and U.S. territory governments with affected EGUs. The rule also does
not impose specific requirements on tribal governments that have
affected EGUs located in their area of Indian country. This rule does
impose specific requirements on affected EGUs located in states, U.S.
territories, or areas of Indian country.
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule are
consistent with those activities defined under the Carbon Pollution
Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units (i.e., the Clean Power Plan) finalized on August 3,
2015. The information collection requirements in this proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR
document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2526.01.
You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here.
    Aside from reading and understanding the rule, this proposed action
would impose minimal new

information collection burden on affected EGUs beyond what those
affected EGUs would already be subject to under the authorities of 40
CFR parts 75 and 98. OMB has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing part 75 and 98
regulations (40 CFR part 75 and 40 CFR part 98) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control numbers 2060-0626 and 2060-0629, respectively. Apart from
certain reporting costs based on requirements in the NSPS General
Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
owners/operators subject to CAA section 111 national emission
standards, there are no new information collection costs, as the
information required by this proposed rule is already collected and
reported by other regulatory programs. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Although the EPA cannot determine at this time how many affected
EGU respondents will submit information under the federal plan, the EPA
has estimated an ``upper bound'' burden estimate for this ICR that
estimates burden should every affected EGU read and understand the
rule. This is the only potential respondent activity that would be
required under the 3-year period following publication of the final
federal plan, as there are no obligations to respond in this period.
The results of this upper bound estimate of federal plan burden are
presented below:
    Respondents/affected entities: 1,028.
    Respondents' obligation to respond: Not applicable, no responses
are required during the period covered by the ICR.
    Estimated number of respondents: Unknown at this time, but have
assumed all affected entities are respondents for an upper bound
estimate.
    Frequency of response: None, no responses are required during the
period covered by the ICR.
    Total estimated burden: 17,133 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,706,501 (per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than November 23, 2015. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review
within the RIA in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199 and is summarized here.
    The small entities subject to the requirements of this proposed
rule may include privately-owned and publicly-owned entities, and rural
electric cooperatives that are majority owners of affected EGUs. The
EPA conducted this regulatory flexibility analysis at the highest level
of ownership, evaluating parent entities with the largest share of
ownership in at least one potentially-affected EGU included in EPA's
Base Case using the IPM v.5.15, used in the RIA for this proposed rule.
This analysis drew on parsed unit-level estimates using IPM results for
2030.
    The EPA identified 223 potentially affected EGUs owned by 74 small
entities included in 2030 projections from EPA's IPM v.5.15. Fifty-nine
of these potentially affected EGUs are projected to no longer be
operating by 2030 in the Base Case of EPA's version of IPM. Twenty-four
small entities are projected to have all of their potentially affected
EGUs cease operation by 2030 in this base case.
    The EPA estimated net compliance costs for individual EGUs for the
proposed rule using components for operating and annualized capital
costs, fuel costs, demand-side energy efficiency program costs, and
revenue changes. This approach is consistent with previous proposed
power sector regulations, but also adds the additional component of
change in demand-side energy efficiency program costs. Investment in
demand-side energy efficiency results in lower electricity demand, and
consequently fewer emissions as production is reduced to meet the lower
demand, an important emission-reduction strategy modeled in the rate-
based and mass-based federal plan approaches. For this analysis, the
EPA used the parsed unit-level estimates to estimate three of the four
components of the net compliance cost equation using IPM outputs: The
change in operating and annualized capital costs, the change in fuel
costs, and the change in revenue, where all changes are estimated as
the difference between the base case and federal plan scenario. These
impacts were then summed for each small entity, adjusting for ownership
share. An additional analysis was performed outside of EPA's IPM model
to estimate the change in demand-side energy efficiency program costs,
based largely on IPM-projected outputs.
    As noted earlier, there are 74 small entities with potentially
affected EGUs that are modeled in the IPM base case in 2030. Of these,
24 small entities are projected to withdraw all of their potentially
affected EGUs from operation under base case conditions. This leaves 50
small entities with potentially affected EGUs that are projected to be
generating electricity in 2030. Under the rate-based federal plan
approach, 7 of these 50 small entities are projected to withdraw all of
their potentially affected EGUs from operation by 2030. Under the mass-
based federal plan approach, 5 of these 50 small entities are projected
withdraw all of their potentially affected EGUs from operation by 2030.
    Under the rate-based federal plan approach, 23 small entities are
projected to incur net compliance costs greater than 3 percent of
generation revenues from their potentially affected EGUs. In contrast,
9 entities are estimated to have net compliance cost savings greater
than 3 percent of their generation revenues from affected EGUs. Under
the mass-based federal plan approach, 21 small entities are projected
to incur net compliance costs greater than 3 percent of generation
revenues from their potentially affected EGUs. In contrast, 11 entities
are estimated to have net compliance cost savings greater than 3
percent of generation revenues from their affected EGUs.
    There are uncertainties and limitations in this analysis that may
result in estimates that diverge from what we might see in reality. For
example, at the time of this proposal,

the EPA has no information on whether any or how many states will
require a federal plan. The rate-based and mass-based federal plan
approaches analyzed in this IRFA are based on a scenario where all
states of the contiguous United States will be regulated under a
federal plan. Another factor to consider is that entities operating in
regulated or cost-of-service markets are likely able to recover
compliance costs through rate adjustments; as a result these costs can
be viewed as likely being over-estimates for this set of utilities.
Other uncertainties and data limitations exist and are described in the
complete IRFA available for review within the RIA for this proposal.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, the reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements are most likely covered under 40 CFR
part 75 and part 98 programs for affected EGUs. Therefore, only a
marginal additional cost is expected for the monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the proposed federal plan for affected
EGUs.
    Owners of affected EGUs may be subject to other related rules. For
example, on September 20, 2013, the EPA proposed carbon pollution
standards for new fossil fuel fired EGUs. On June 2, 2014, the EPA
proposed carbon pollution standards for modified and reconstructed
fossil fuel-fired EGUs, in addition to the Clean Power Plan EGs, to cut
carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. These existing
EGUs are, or will be, potentially impacted by several other recently
finalized EPA rules. On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the mercury
and air toxics standards (MATS) rule (77 FR 9304) to reduce emissions
of toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal- and oil-fired EGUs.
On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule under section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)). This rule establishes new
standards to reduce injury and death of fish and other aquatic life
caused by cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and
manufacturing facilities. On June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34830), the EPA
promulgated the stream electric effluent limitation guidelines (SE ELG)
rule to strengthen the controls on discharges from certain steam
electric power plants. On April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302), the EPA
promulgated the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rule, which establishes
technical requirements for CCR landfills and surface impoundments under
subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
nation's primary law for regulating solid waste.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA also convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially
would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of an IRFA. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report is available
in the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA also considered whether the separate changes that we are
proposing to make, as explained in section VII of this preamble, to the
framework regulations in subpart B of part 60 of the CAA regulations
would have any impacts on small entities. Since these changes only
modify and enhance the procedures that the Administrator will follow in
processing state plans and promulgating a federal plan, and do not
alter the rules or requirements that states or regulated entities must
follow, the agency does not believe that there will be economic impacts
on small entities from this portion of this proposal. After considering
the economic impacts of the proposed changes to 40 CFR 60.27, I certify
those changes will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that could potentially result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. This federal plan will apply only to
those affected EGUs located in states that do not submit approvable
state plans, which is a subset of the EGUs considered in the RIA for
the final EGs (see RIA for this proposal for further discussion of
impacts). Because it is impossible to determine at this time which
states might be ultimately subject to a federal plan, the EPA cannot
determine whether this rule, when finalized, will be subject to UMRA.
However, as noted below, the agency has done substantial outreach to
government entities as part of both the federal plan and the related
CAA section 111(d) rulemaking. Further, regardless of whether the EPA
does determine that this action ultimately meets the UMRA threshold,
the agency intends to do additional outreach with government entities
between now and the final rule. Additionally, the EPA has determined
that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
    Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that there is substantial interest
in this rule among small entities (e.g., municipal and rural electric
cooperatives). In light of this interest, prior to this action, the EPA
sought early input from representatives of small entities while
formulating the provisions of the proposed regulation. Such outreach is
also consistent with the President's January 18, 2011 Memorandum on
Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation, which
emphasizes the important role small businesses play in the American
economy. This outreach process has enabled the EPA to hear directly
from these representatives, as the EPA developed the rule about how the
EPA should approach the complex question of how to apply section 111 of
the CAA to the regulation of GHGs from these source categories. We
invite comments on all aspects of this proposal and its impacts,
including potential adverse impacts, on small entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA believes that this proposed rule may be of significant
interest to state and local governments due to its relationship with
the Clean Power Plan EGs. Therefore, the EPA has determined that
consultations with state and local governments conducted during the
Clean Power Plan EGs development process are also relevant to this
proposed rule. Consistent with the EPA's policy to promote
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA
consulted with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the Clean Power Plan EGs to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. As described in the Federalism
discussion in the preamble to the proposed standards of performance for
GHG emissions from new EGUs (79 FR 1501; January 8, 2014), the EPA
consulted with state and local officials in the process of developing
the proposed standards for newly constructed EGUs. A detailed
Federalism Summary Impact Statement (FSIS) describing the most pressing
issues raised in pre-proposal and post-proposal comments will be
forthcoming with the final Clean Power Plan EGs, as required by section
6(b) of Executive Order 13132. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with the EPA's policy to promote communications between
the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits
comment on this

proposed action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action has tribal implications. However, it will
neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally
recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EGUs
potentially impacted by this proposed rulemaking located on Indian
reservations are primarily owned by private entities, and in one case,
partially owned by an agency of the U.S. government. As a result, the
tribes on whose areas of Indian country those units are located will
not be directly impacted by any costs of complying with this proposed
rulemaking incurred by the owners/operators of those units. There would
only be tribal implications in regards to compliance costs associated
with this proposed rulemaking in the case where a tribal government has
an ownership interest in a potentially affected EGU. A tribal
government could also incur costs in the event that it seeks and is
given delegated authority to enforce the federal plan proposed in this
rulemaking. The EPA has, nevertheless, offered consultation to the
tribes on whose areas of Indian country the units are located. As part
of its general outreach to tribes regarding this proposed rulemaking,
the EPA received feedback from a number of tribes regarding the
potential overall economic impact that both the proposed Clean Power
Plan and a proposed federal plan rulemaking may have on them. In these
instances, the EPA has reached out to these tribes and as part of the
consultation on the Clean Power Plan engaged with them on their
concerns regarding a potential federal plan.
    The EPA has conducted consultation with tribes on the Clean Power
Plan and the Supplemental Proposal for the Clean Power Plan and will
offer all tribes consultation on this proposed action. The EPA held
consultations with tribes on the Clean Power Plan in the fall of 2014
before the agency issued its Supplemental Proposal for Indian country
and U.S. Territories. Additionally, the EPA held consultations for
tribes shortly following the release of the supplemental proposal. The
agency also held a public hearing on the supplemental proposal on
November 19, 2014, in Phoenix, Arizona. At the public hearing the
agency received oral comments from community members representing a
number of tribes and a number of tribal officials. The agency also
conducted consultations with tribes in the spring and summer of 2015.
An overview of the consultations provided as part of the Clean Power
Plan is available in section XII.F of the final EGs.
    Additionally, the EPA engaged in meaningful dialogue with tribal
stakeholders to obtain their feedback in the pre-proposal stages of
this rulemaking. We provided an update on this proposed rulemaking on
the May 28, 2015, National Tribal Air Association and the EPA Air
Policy call. Staff attended the National Tribal Forum conference on May
20, 2015 and provided an overview of the Clean Power Plan and explained
that the agency would be proposing a federal plan.
    Consistent with previous rulemakings impacting the power sector,
there is significant tribal interest in these rulemakings because of
the potential indirect impacts that rules such as the Clean Power Plan
and this proposed federal plan may have on tribes. The EPA specifically
solicits additional feedback from tribal officials on all aspects of
this proposed rulemaking, including whether tribes whose areas of
Indian country contain affected EGU(s) are interested in developing
their own plan implementing the final EGs. Additionally, tribal
stakeholders will be included in the outreach that the agency will be
conducting with those communities already overburdened by pollution,
which are often low-income communities, communities of color, and
indigenous communities. The actions that the agency will be taking are
outlined in section IX of this preamble.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children. The EPA believes that the CO2 emission reductions
resulting from implementation of the proposed federal plan, as well as
substantial ozone and PM2.5 emission reductions as a
cobenefit, would further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action, which is a significant regulatory action under EO
12866, is likely to have a significant effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects for this action as follows. We estimate a 1 to 2 percent
change in retail electricity prices on average across the contiguous
United States in 2025, and a 22 to 23 percent reduction in coal-fired
electricity generation as a result of this rule. The EPA projects that
utility power sector delivered natural gas prices will increase by up
to 2.5 percent in 2030. For more information on the estimated energy
effects, please refer to the economic impact analysis for this
proposal. The analysis is available in the RIA, which is in the public
docket.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This proposed action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes
to recognize ANSI accreditation under ISO 14065 for GHG validation and
verification bodies as a component of accreditation of independent
verifiers under both proposed federal plan approachs. The EPA also
proposes that net energy output measurements must be performed using
0.2 accuracy class electricity metering instrumentation and calibration
procedures as specified under ANSI Standards No. C12.20.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice (EJ). Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA
has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It
will be achieved when everyone enjoys the

same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and
equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy
environment in which to live, learn, and work.
    Leading up to this rulemaking the EPA summarized the public health
and welfare effects of GHG emissions in its 2009 Endangerment Finding.
As part of the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator considered
climate change risks to minority populations and low-income
populations, finding that certain parts of the population may be
especially vulnerable based on their characteristics or circumstances.
Populations that were found to be particularly vulnerable to climate
change risks include the poor, the elderly, the very young, those
already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources. See
sections X.F and X.G of this preamble, above, where the EPA discusses
Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments and Protection of
Children. The Administrator placed weight on the fact that certain
groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most
vulnerable to climate-related health effects.
    The record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding summarizes the strong
scientific evidence in the major assessment reports by the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), and the National Research Council of the National Academies
that the potential impacts of climate change raise EJ issues. These
reports concluded that poor communities can be especially vulnerable to
climate change impacts because they tend to have more limited adaptive
capacities and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such
as local water and food supplies. In addition, Native American tribal
communities possess unique vulnerabilities to climate change,
particularly those impacted by degradation of natural and cultural
resources within established reservation boundaries and threats to
traditional subsistence lifestyles. Tribal communities whose health,
economic well-being, and cultural traditions that depend upon the
natural environment will likely be affected by the degradation of
ecosystem goods and services associated with climate change. The 2009
Endangerment Finding record also specifically noted that Southwest
native cultures are especially vulnerable to water quality and
availability impacts. Native Alaskan communities are already
experiencing disruptive impacts, including coastal erosion and shifts
in the range or abundance of wild species crucial to their livelihoods
and well-being.
    The most recent assessments continue to strengthen scientific
understanding of climate change risks to minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States.\154\ The new assessment
literature provides more detailed findings regarding these populations'
vulnerabilities and projected impacts they may experience. In addition,
the most recent assessment reports provide new information on how some
communities of color may be uniquely vulnerable to climate change
health impacts in the United States. These reports find that certain
climate change related impacts--including heat waves, degraded air
quality, and extreme weather events--have disproportionate effects on
low-income populations and some communities of color (in particular,
populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and
geographic location), raising EJ concerns. Existing health disparities
and other inequities in these communities increase their vulnerability
to the health effects of climate change. In addition, assessment
reports also find that climate change poses particular threats to
health, well-being, and ways of life of indigenous peoples in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W.
Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, 841 pp.
    IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp.
    IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, 688 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the scientific literature presented above and as the 2009
Endangerment Finding illustrates, low-income populations and some
communities of color are especially vulnerable to the health and other
adverse impacts of climate change. The EPA believes that communities
will benefit from this proposed federal plan because this action
directly addresses the impacts of climate change by limiting GHG
emissions through the establishment of CO2 emission
standards for existing affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs.
    In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, the guidelines
finalized in this rulemaking would reduce other emissions from affected
EGUs that reduce generation due to higher adoption of EE and RE. These
emission reductions will include SO2 and NOX,
which form ambient PM2.5 and ozone in the atmosphere, and
HAP, such as mercury and hydrochloric acid. In the final rule revising
the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,\155\ the EPA identified low-income
populations as being a vulnerable population for experiencing adverse
health effects related to PM exposures. Low-income populations have
been generally found to have a higher prevalence of pre-existing
diseases, limited access to medical treatment, and increased
nutritional deficiencies, which can increase this population's
susceptibility to PM-related effects.\156\ In areas where this
rulemaking reduces exposure to PM2.5, ozone, and
methylmercury, low-income populations will also benefit from such
emission reductions. The RIA for this rulemaking, included in the
docket for this rulemaking, provides additional information regarding
the health and ecosystem effects associated with these emission
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter, Final Rule,'' 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    \156\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as outlined in the community and EJ considerations
section IX of this preamble, the EPA has taken a number of actions to
help ensure that this action will not have potential disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on vulnerable
communities. The EPA consulted its May 2015, Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions,
when determining what actions to take.\157\ As described in section IX
of this preamble (community and EJ considerations), the EPA also
conducted a proximity analysis, which is available in the docket of
this rulemaking and is discussed in section IX of this preamble.
Additionally, as outlined in sections I and IX of this preamble the EPA
has

engaged meaningfully with communities throughout the development of the
Clean Power Plan and has devised a robust outreach strategy for
continual engagement throughout this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf. May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 78

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control.

    Dated: August 3, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
60, 62, and 78 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 60.27 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, and (c)(1);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3), (d), and (e)(1); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.27  Actions by the Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) After receipt of a complete plan or complete plan revision, the
Administrator will propose the plan or revision for approval or
disapproval. The Administrator shall, within 12 months after the date
on which the submission of a complete plan or complete plan revision is
received, approve or disapprove such plan or revision, or each portion
thereof.
    (c) The Administrator shall promulgate a federal plan within 12
months after the date the Administrator:
    (1) Finds the State failed to submit a complete plan or complete
plan revision within the time prescribed; or
* * * * *
    (3) Disapproves the State plan or plan revision or any portion
thereof, as unsatisfactory because the requirements of this subpart and
the applicable emission guidelines have not been met.
    (d) The Administrator will promulgate the regulations under
paragraph (c) of this section for all or a portion of a federal plan,
with such modifications as may be appropriate, unless, prior to such
promulgation, the State has adopted and submitted a plan or plan
revision which the Administrator approves. After the promulgation of a
federal plan, the Administrator may approve a State plan or plan
revision or portion thereof and withdraw all or a portion of the
federal plan.
    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
regulations promulgated by the Administrator under this section will
prescribe emission standards of the same stringency as the
corresponding emission guideline(s) specified in the final guideline
document published under Sec.  60.22(a) and will require final
compliance with such standards as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the times specified in the guideline document.
* * * * *
    (g) Completeness criteria--(1) General. Within 60 days of the
Administrator's receipt of a state submission, but no later than 6
months after the date, if any, by which a State is required to submit
the plan or revision, the Administrator shall determine whether the
minimum criteria for completeness have been met. Any plan or plan
revision that a State submits to the EPA, and that has not been
determined by the EPA by the date 6 months after receipt of the
submission to have failed to meet the minimum criteria, shall on that
date be deemed by operation of law to meet such minimum criteria. Where
the Administrator determines that a plan submission does not meet the
minimum criteria of this paragraph (g), the State will be treated as
not having made the submission.
    (2) Administrative criteria. In order to be complete, a State plan
must contain each of the following administrative criteria:
    (i) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or her designee
requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof;
    (ii) Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the state code
or body of regulations. That evidence must include the date of adoption
or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if
different from the adoption/issuance date;
    (iii) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority
under state law to adopt and implement the plan;
    (iv) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for
approval and incorporation by reference into the plan. The submittal
must be a copy of the official state regulation or document signed,
stamped and dated by the appropriate state official indicating that it
is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation
or document must, whenever possible, be indicated in the document
itself. The State's electronic copy must be an exact duplicate of the
hard copy. For revisions to the approved plan, the submittal must
indicate the changes made (for example, by redline/strikethrough) to
the approved plan;
    (v) Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural
requirements of the state's laws and constitution in conducting and
completing the adoption and issuance of the plan;
    (vi) Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change
with procedures consistent with the requirements of Sec.  60.23,
including the date of publication of such notice;
    (vii) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance
with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws
and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing
requirements in Sec.  60.23;
    (viii) Compilation of public comments and the State's response
thereto; and
    (ix) Such other criteria for completeness as may be specified by
the Administrator under the applicable emission guidelines.
    (3) Technical criteria. In order to be complete, a State plan must
contain each of the following technical criteria:
    (i) Description of the plan approach and geographic scope;
    (ii) Identification of each affected source, identification of
emission standards for the affected sources, and monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will determine compliance
by each affected source;
    (iii) Identification of compliance schedules and/or increments of
progress;
    (iv) Demonstration that the State plan submittal is projected to
achieve emissions performance under the applicable emission guidelines;
    (v) Documentation of state recordkeeping and reporting

requirements to determine the performance of the plan as a whole; and
    (vi) Demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable,
non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.
    (4) Parallel processing. A State may submit a State plan prior to
actual adoption by the State in order to expedite review and provide an
opportunity for the State to consider EPA comments prior to submission
of a final plan for final review and action. Under these circumstances,
the following exceptions to the criteria in this paragraph apply to
plans submitted explicitly for parallel processing:
    (i) The letter required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section must
request that EPA propose approval of the proposed plan by parallel
processing;
    (ii) In lieu of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section the State must
submit a schedule for final adoption or issuance of the plan;
    (iii) In lieu of paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section the plan must
include a copy of the proposed/draft regulation or document, including
indication of the proposed changes to be made to the existing approved
plan, where applicable; and
    (iv) The requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(v) through (ix) of this
section do not apply to plans submitted for parallel processing. The
exceptions granted in the preceding sentence apply only to EPA's
determination of proposed action and all requirements of paragraph
(g)(2) of this section must be met prior to publication of EPA's final
determination of plan approvability.
    (h) Full and partial approval and disapproval. If a portion of the
plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter,
the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part and disapprove
the plan revision in part. The Administrator may authorize partial plan
submissions in conjunction with a federal plan, where in combination,
the federal and State plans constitute a complete and approvable plan
meeting all of the requirements of this subpart and the applicable
emissions guidelines.
    (i) Conditional approval. The Administrator may approve a plan or a
plan revision based on a commitment of the State, by a date certain
established by the Administrator, to adopt specific enforceable
measures, review and revise if appropriate State plans, or otherwise
commit to making changes in the State's plan necessary to meet the
requirements of the applicable emission guidelines. Any such
conditional approval automatically converts to a disapproval if the
State fails to comply with such commitment by the date certain
established by the Administrator.
    (j) Calls for plan revisions. Whenever the Administrator finds that
the applicable plan is substantially inadequate to meet the
requirements of the applicable emission guidelines, to provide for the
implementation of such plan, or to otherwise comply with any
requirement of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator must require the
State to revise the plan as necessary to correct such inadequacies. The
Administrator must notify the State of the inadequacies, and may
establish reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the date
of such notice) for the submission of such plan revisions. Such
findings and notice must be public. Any finding under this paragraph
shall, to the extent the Administrator deems appropriate, subject the
State to the requirements of this part to which the State was subject
when it developed and submitted the plan for which such finding was
made, except that the Administrator may adjust any dates applicable
under such requirements as appropriate.
    (k) Error corrections. Whenever the Administrator determines that
the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any
plan or plan revision (or portion thereof) was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis
thereof shall be provided to the State and public.

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
4. Add subpart MMM to read as follows:
Subpart MMM--Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mass-based Model Trading Rule for
Electric Utility Generating Units That Commenced Construction on or
Before January 8, 2014

Introduction

Sec.
62.16205 What is the purpose of this subpart?

Applicability of This Subpart

62.16210 Am I subject to this subpart?
62.16215 What requirements apply to affected EGUs that retire?

General Requirements

62.16220 What requirements must I comply with?
62.16225 How should I compute time under the CO2 Mass-
based Trading Program?
62.16230 What are the administrative appeal procedures?
62.16231 How will the Clean Energy Incentive Program be administered
under the federal plan?

Emission Goals, Set-Asides, and Allowance Allocations

62.16235 What are the statewide mass-based emission goals, renewable
energy set-asides, output-based set-asides, and Clean Energy
Incentive Program early action set-asides?
62.16240 When are allowances allocated?
62.16245 How are set-aside allowances allocated?
62.16250 What is the process for revocation of qualification status
of an eligible resource?
62.16255 What is the process for error adjustments or misstatement,
and suspension of allowance issuance?

Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plans, Monitoring and
Verification Reports, and Verification

62.16260 What are the requirements for evaluation, measurement and
verification plans for eligible resources?
62.16265 What are the requirements for monitoring and verification
reports for eligible resources?
62.16270 What are the requirements for verification reports?
62.16275 What is the accreditation procedure for independent
verifiers?
62.16280 What are the procedures accredited independent verifiers
must follow to avoid conflict of interest?
62.16285 What is the process for the revocation of accreditation
status for an independent verifier?

Designated Representatives

62.16290 How are designated representatives and alternate designated
representatives authorized and what role do authorized designated
representatives and alternate designated representatives play?
62.16295 What responsibilities do designated representatives and
alternate designated representatives hold?
62.16300 What are the processes for changing designated
representatives, alternate designated representatives, owners and
operators, and affected EGUs at the facility?
62.16305 What must be included in a certificate of representation?
62.16310 What is the Administrator's role in objections concerning
designated representatives and alternate designated representatives?
62.16315 What process must designated representatives and alternate
designated representatives follow to delegate their authority?

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, Reporting

62.16320 How are compliance accounts and general accounts
established?

62.16325 When will CO2 allowances be recorded in
compliance accounts?
62.16330 How must transfers of CO2 allowances be
submitted?
62.16335 When will CO2 allowance transfers be recorded?
62.16340 How will deductions for compliance with a CO2
emission standard occur?
62.16345 What monitoring requirements must I comply with?
62.16350 May I bank CO2 annual allowances for future use
or transfer?
62.16355 How does the Administrator process account errors?
62.16360 What are my reporting, notification and submission
requirements?
62.16365 What are my recordkeeping requirements?
62.16370 What actions may the Administrator take on submissions?

Definitions

62.16375 What definitions apply to this subpart?
62.16380 What measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms apply to
this subpart?

Subpart MMM--Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mass-based Model Trading Rule
for Electric Utility Generating Units That Commenced Construction
on or Before January 8, 2014

Introduction

Sec.  62.16205  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    (a) This subpart sets forth the requirements for the Clean Power
Plan (CPP) CO2 Mass-based Trading Program, under section 111
of the Clean Air Act and subpart UUUU of part 60 of this chapter, as a
means of meeting emission guidelines limiting greenhouse gas emissions
from an affected steam generating unit, integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC), or stationary combustion turbine.
    (b) The pollutants regulated by this subpart are greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse gas limitations in this subpart are in the form of an
emission standard for carbon dioxide (CO2).
    (c) PSD and title V thresholds for greenhouse gases. (1) For the
purposes of Sec.  51.166(b)(49)(ii) of this chapter, with respect to
GHG emissions from affected facilities, the ``pollutant that is subject
to the standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act'' is
considered to be the pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation
under the Act as defined in Sec.  51.166(b)(48) and in any state
implementation plan approved by the EPA that is interpreted to
incorporate, or specifically incorporates, Sec.  51.166(b)(48) of this
chapter.
    (2) For the purposes of Sec.  52.21(b)(50)(ii) of this chapter,
with respect to GHG emissions from affected facilities, the ``pollutant
that is subject to the standard promulgated under section 111 of the
Act'' is considered to be the pollutant that otherwise is subject to
regulation under the Act as defined in Sec.  52.21(b)(49) of this
chapter.
    (3) For the purposes of Sec.  70.2 of this chapter, with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions from affected facilities, the ``pollutant that
is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act''
is considered to be the pollutant that otherwise is ``subject to
regulation'' as defined in Sec.  70.2 of this chapter.
    (4) For the purposes of Sec.  71.2 of this chapter, with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions from affected facilities, the ``pollutant that
is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act''
is considered to be the pollutant that otherwise is ``subject to
regulation'' as defined in Sec.  71.2 of this chapter.

Applicability of this Subpart

Sec.  62.16210  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you are the owner or
operator of an affected electric generating unit (EGU) located within a
State that has incorporated by reference this subpart as a State plan,
or portion of a State plan, that has been approved by the Administrator
and is effective under subpart UUUU of part 60 of this chapter, or if
this subpart is promulgated and effective as a federal plan in your
State under part 62 of this chapter.
    (b) An affected EGU is any steam generating unit, IGCC, or
stationary combustion turbine that meets the applicability requirements
in Sec. Sec.  60.5840(b) and 60.5845 of this chapter.

Sec.  62.16215  What requirements apply to affected EGUs that retire?

    (a) Exemption. (1) Any affected EGU that is permanently retired as
defined in Sec.  62.16375 is exempt from Sec. Sec.  62.16220(c)(1)
[CO2 Emissions Requirements], 62.16340 [Compliance
Requirements], 62.16345 [Monitoring], 62.16360 [Reporting], and
62.16365 [Recordkeeping].
    (2) The exemption under paragraph (a)(1) of this section will
become effective on the first day of the compliance period immediately
following the compliance period in which the retirement took effect.
Within 30 days of the affected EGU's permanent retirement, the
designated representative must submit a statement to the Administrator.
The statement must state, in a format prescribed by the Administrator,
that the affected EGU was permanently retired on a specified date and
will comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Special provisions. (1) An affected EGU exempt under paragraph
(a) of this section must not emit any CO2, starting on the
date that the exemption takes effect.
    (2) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created,
the owners and operators of an affected EGU exempt under paragraph (a)
of this section must retain, at the facility that includes the unit,
records demonstrating that the affected EGU is permanently retired. The
5-year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any
time before the end of the period, in writing by the Administrator. The
owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the affected EGU is
permanently retired.
    (3) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the
designated representative of an affected EGU exempt under paragraph (a)
of this section must comply with the requirements of the CO2
Mass-based Trading Program accruing during any compliance periods for
which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements must be
complied with after the exemption takes effect.

General Requirements

Sec.  62.16220  What requirements must I comply with?

    (a) Designated representative requirements. The owners and
operators must have a designated representative, and may have an
alternate designated representative, in accordance with Sec. Sec.
62.16290 through 62.16300.
    (b) Emissions monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements. (1) The owners and operators, and the designated
representative, of each facility and each affected EGU at the facility
must comply with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. Sec.  62.16345, 62.16360, and 62.16365.
    (2) The emissions data determined in accordance with Sec. Sec.
62.16345, 62.16360, and 62.16365 must be used to calculate allocations
of CO2 allowances under Sec.  62.16240(a) and (b) and to
determine compliance with the CO2 emission standard under
paragraph (c) of this section, provided that, for each monitoring
location from which mass emissions are reported, the mass emissions
amount used in calculating such allocations and determining such
compliance must be the mass emissions amount for the monitoring
location determined in accordance with

Sec.  62.16345 and rounded to the nearest ton.
    (c) CO2 emission standard requirements--(1) CO2 emission
standard. (i) As of the allowance transfer deadline for a compliance
period in a given year, the owners and operators of each facility and
each affected EGU at the facility with affected EGUs must hold, in the
facility's compliance account, CO2 allowances available for
deduction for such compliance period under Sec.  62.16340(a) in an
amount not less than the tons of total CO2 emissions for
such compliance period from all affected EGUs at the facility.
    (ii) If total CO2 emissions during a compliance period
in a given year from the affected EGUs at a facility are in excess of
the CO2 emission standard set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i)
of this section, then:
    (A) The owners and operators of the facility and each affected EGU
at the facility must hold the CO2 allowances required for
deduction under Sec.  62.16340(d); and
    (B) The owners and operators of the facility and each affected EGU
at the facility are subject to federal enforcement pursuant to sections
113(a) through (h), and section 304, of the Clean Air Act, and the
United States, States, and other persons have the ability to enforce
against violations (including if an affected EGU does not meet its
emission standard based on its allowances) and secure appropriate
corrective actions, and must pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or
comply with any other remedy imposed, for the same violations, under
the Clean Air Act, and each ton of such excess emissions and each day
of such compliance period will constitute a separate violation of this
subpart and the Clean Air Act.
    (2) Compliance periods. (i) An affected EGU will be subject to the
requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section for the compliance
period starting on January 1, 2022 and for each compliance period
thereafter.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) Vintage of allowances held for compliance. (i) A CO2
allowance held for compliance with the requirements under paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section for a compliance period must be a
CO2 allowance that was allocated for a year in such
compliance period or for a year in a prior compliance period.
    (ii) A CO2 allowance held for compliance with the
requirements under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for a
compliance period must be a CO2 allowance that was allocated
for a year in a prior compliance period, or the current compliance
period, or in the immediately following compliance period.
    (4) Allowance Tracking and Compliance System (ATCS) requirements.
Each CO2 allowance must be held in, deducted from, or
transferred into, out of, or between ATCS accounts in accordance with
this subpart.
    (5) Limited authorization. A CO2 allowance is a limited
authorization to emit one ton of CO2 during the compliance
period in one year. Such authorization is limited in its use and
duration as follows:
    (i) Such authorization must only be used in accordance with the
CO2 Mass-based Trading Program; and
    (ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the
Administrator has the authority to terminate or limit the use and
duration of such authorization to the extent the Administrator
determines is necessary or appropriate to implement any provision of
the Clean Air Act.
    (6) Property right. A CO2 allowance does not constitute
a property right.
    (d) Title V permit requirements. (1) Unless otherwise specified in
this paragraph, all requirements of this subpart are applicable
requirements that must be included in an affected EGU's title V permit.
    (2) The applicable requirements of this subpart, as well as other
terms or conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements, may be added to, or changed in, a title V permit using
minor permit modification procedures in accordance with Sec. Sec.
70.7(e)(2) and 71.7(e)(1) of this chapter, provided that such changes
do not conflict with any existing terms of the permit. This paragraph
explicitly provides that the addition of, or change to, an affected
EGU's description as described in the prior sentence is eligible for
minor permit modification procedures in accordance with Sec. Sec.
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B) of this chapter.
    (3) No title V permit revision will be required for any allocation,
holding, deduction, or transfer of CO2 allowances in
accordance with this subpart, provided that the requirements applicable
to such allocations, holdings, deductions, or transfers of
CO2 allowances are already incorporated in such permit.
    (e) Liability. (1) Any provision of the CO2 Mass-based
Trading Program that applies to an affected EGU at a facility or the
designated representative of affected EGUs at a facility will also
apply to the owners and operators of such facility and of the affected
EGUs at the facility.
    (2) Any provision of the CO2 Mass-based Trading Program
that applies to an affected EGU or the designated representative of an
affected EGU will also apply to the owners and operators of such
affected EGU.
    (f) Effect on other authorities. No provision of the CO2
Mass-based Trading Program or exemption under Sec.  62.16215 shall be
construed as exempting or excluding the owners and operators, and the
designated representative, of an affected EGU from compliance with any
other provision of the applicable, approved state implementation plan,
a federally enforceable permit, or any other requirement of the Clean
Air Act.

Sec.  62.16225  How should I compute time under the CO2
Mass-based Trading Program?

    (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the
CO2 Mass-Based Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence
of an act or event will begin on the day the act or event occurs.
    (b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the
CO2 Mass-Based Trading Program, to begin before the
occurrence of an act or event will be computed so that the period ends
the day before the act or event occurs.
    (c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period,
under the CO2 Mass-Based Trading Program, is not a business
day, then the time period will be extended to the next business day.

Sec.  62.16230  What are the administrative appeal procedures?

    The administrative appeal procedures for decisions of the
Administrator under the CO2 Mass-Based Trading Program are
set forth in part 78 of this chapter.

Sec.  62.16231  How will the Clean Energy Incentive Program be
administered under the federal plan?

    (a)(1) The Administrator will participate in the Clean Energy
Incentive Program, established under subpart UUUU of part 60 of this
chapter, on behalf of any state for which this subpart is promulgated
as a federal plan under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The
Administrator will award, on behalf of each such state, early action
allowances for generation and savings achieved in 2020 and/or 2021 that
result from the following types of eligible renewable energy (RE) and
demand-side energy efficiency (EE) projects:
    (i) Metered wind power;
    (ii) Metered solar power; and
    (iii) Demand-side EE implemented in a low-income community.
    (2) Eligible RE projects must commence construction, and eligible
demand-side EE projects must

commence implementation after September 6, 2018 for those states on
whose behalf the EPA is implementing the federal plan. Eligible
projects must be located in or benefit the state on whose behalf the
EPA is implementing the federal plan.
    (b) Early action allowances will be distributed pursuant to a
process to be prescribed by the Administrator, from an allowance set-
aside equal to 300 million allowances for all states. This set-aside
does not increase the total budget of allowances for the affected EGUs
in the state subject to this subpart.
    (c) The Administrator will match these early action allowances with
additional matching allowances pursuant to a process to be prescribed
by the Administrator. Matching awards will be made up to a limit
equivalent to the state's pro rata share of 300 million short tons of
CO2 emissions.
    (d) The awards, including the matching award, will be executed as
follows:
    (1) For RE projects that generate metered MWh from wind or solar
resources: for every two MWh generated, the project will receive a
number of early action allowances the Administrator determines to be
equivalent to one MWh from the set-aside under paragraph (b) of this
section and a number of matching allowances the Administrator
determines to be equivalent to one MWh from the match under paragraph
(c) of this section.
    (2) For EE projects implemented in low-income communities as
determined by the Administrator solely for purposes of this subpart:
for every two MWh in end-use demand savings achieved, the project will
receive a number of early action allowances the Administrator
determines to be equivalent to two MWh from the set-aside under
paragraph (b) of this section and a number of matching allowances the
Administrator determines to be equivalent to two MWh from the match
under paragraph (c) of this section.

Emission Goals, Set-Asides, and Allowance Allocations

Sec.  62.16235  What are the statewide mass-based emission goals,
renewable energy set-asides, output-based set-asides, and Clean Energy
Incentive Program early action set-asides?

    (a) The statewide mass-based emission goals with renewable energy
set-asides and output-based set-asides for allocations of
CO2 allowances for the interim 3- and 2-year compliance
periods in 2022 through 2029, and the final 2-year compliance periods
in 2030 and thereafter are specified in Table 1 of this subpart.

                                 Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 62--Statewide Mass-based Emission Goals \1\ (short tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Interim period                                     Final period
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State                                                                                2030-2031  and
                                                         Step 1  2022-2024        Step 2  2025-2027        Step 3  2028-2029            thereafter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................               66,164,470               60,918,973               58,215,989               56,880,474
Arizona.............................................               35,189,232               32,371,942               30,906,226               30,170,750
Arkansas............................................               36,032,671               32,953,521               31,253,744               30,322,632
California..........................................               53,500,107               50,080,840               48,736,877               48,410,120
Colorado............................................               35,785,322               32,654,483               30,891,824               29,900,397
Connecticut.........................................                7,555,787                7,108,466                6,955,080                6,941,523
Delaware............................................                5,348,363                4,963,102                4,784,280                4,711,825
Florida.............................................              119,380,477              110,754,683              106,736,177              105,094,704
Georgia.............................................               54,257,931               49,855,082               47,534,817               46,346,846
Idaho...............................................                1,615,518                1,522,826                1,493,052                1,492,856
Illinois............................................               80,396,108               73,124,936               68,921,937               66,477,157
Indiana.............................................               92,010,787               83,700,336               78,901,574               76,113,835
Iowa................................................               30,408,352               27,615,429               25,981,975               25,018,136
Kansas..............................................               26,763,719               24,295,773               22,848,095               21,990,826
Kentucky............................................               76,757,356               69,698,851               65,566,898               63,126,121