Since GHG is not a criteria pollutant, it is regulated under the CAA's PSD program, but not under the NNSR or minor NSR programs. For new sources and modifications that are subject to PSD, the permitting authority must establish emission limitations based on BACT for each pollutant that is subject to PSD at the major stationary source or at each emissions unit involved in the major modification. BACT is assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the permitting authority, in its analysis of BACT for each pollutant, evaluates the emission reductions that each available emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, as well as the energy, environmental, economic, and other costs associated with each technology or technique. The CAA also specifies that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard of performance under the NSPS. Permitting authorities may determine BACT by applying the EPA's five-step "top down" approach. The ultimate determination of BACT is made by the permitting authority after a public notice and comment period of at least 30-days on the draft permit and supporting information.
NSR Implications of a CAA Section 111(b) Standard
As noted above, BACT cannot be set at a level that is less stringent than the standard of performance established by an applicable NSPS, and the EPA refers to this minimum control level as the "BACT floor." While a proposed NSPS does not establish the BACT floor for affected facilities seeking a PSD permit, once an NSPS is promulgated, it then serves as the BACT floor for any new major stationary source or major modification that meets the applicability of the NSPS and commences construction after the date of the proposed NSPS in the Federal Register. In the context of combustion turbines that would be subject to this NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTTa, for any new major stationary source or major modification that commences construction or reconstruction of a stationary combustion turbine EGU after the date of publication of this proposed NSPS, the PSD permit should reflect a BACT determination that is at least as stringent as the promulgated NSPS for each of the source's affected EGUs.
However, the fact that a minimum control requirement is established by an applicable NSPS does not mean that a permitting authority cannot select a more stringent control level for the PSD permit or consider technologies for BACT beyond those that were considered in developing the NSPS. As explained above, BACT is a case-by-case review that considers a number of factors, and the review should reflect advances in control technology, reductions in the costs or other impacts of using particular control strategies, or other relevant information that may have become available after development of an applicable NSPS.
NSR Implications of a CAA Section 111(d) Standard
With respect to the proposed action for emission guidelines, should it be promulgated, states will be called upon to develop a plan that establish standards of performance for each affected EGU that meets the requirements in the emission guidelines. In doing so, a state agency may develop a plan that results in an affected source undertaking a physical or operational change. Under the NSR program, undertaking a physical or operational change may require the source to obtain a preconstruction permit for the proposed change, with the type of NSR permit (i.e., NNSR, PSD, or minor NSR) depending on the amount of the emissions increase resulting from the change and the air quality designation at the location of the source for its emitted pollutants. More specifically, any time an existing source adds equipment or otherwise makes physical or operational changes to its facility, regardless of whether it has done so to comply with a national or state level requirement, the source may be required to obtain a NSR permit prior to making the changes unless the permitting authority determines that the action is exempt from permitting.
Thus, there are circumstances in which an affected source that is implementing a BSER requirement from a state plan is required to obtain a major NSR permit for one or more of its pollutants. One scenario in which this could occur is if an affected source experiences greater unit availability and reliability as a result of its BSER requirement (perhaps from implementing an efficiency based BSER) that, in turn, lowers the operating costs of its EGU. Since EGUs that operate at lower costs are generally preferred in the dispatch by the system operator over units that have higher operational costs, the BSER implementation could result in improving the source's relative economics that would, in turn, increase its utilization of its EGU(s). With an increase in utilization resulting from the source implementing the BSER, the annual emissions from the EGU could increase, and if the emissions increase equals or exceeds the relevant SER for one or more of its pollutants, the source may be required to obtain a major NSR permit for the modification.
However, while it may be possible for an affected source to trigger major NSR requirements from actions it takes to implement a BSER requirement, we expect this situation to not occur often. As previously discussed in this preamble, states will have considerable flexibility in adopting varied compliance measures as they develop their plans to meet the standards of performance of the emission guidelines. One of these flexibilities is the ability for states to establish the standards of performance in their plans in such a way so that their affected sources, in complying with those standards, in fact would not have emission increases that trigger major NSR requirements. To achieve this, the state would need to conduct an analysis consistent with the NSR regulatory requirements that supports its determination that as long as affected sources comply with the standards of performance, their emissions would not increase in a way that trigger major NSR requirements. For example, a state could, as part of its state plan, develop conditions for a source expected to trigger major NSR that would effectively limit the unit's ability increase its emissions in amounts that would trigger NSR (effectively establishing a synthetic minor limitation).
Implications for Title V Program
Title V is implemented through 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. Part 70 defines the minimum requirements for state, local and tribal (state) agencies to develop, implement and enforce a title V operating permit program; these programs are developed by the state and the state submits a program to the EPA for a review of consistency with part 70. There are about 117 approved part 70 programs in effect, with about 14,000 part 70 permits currently in effect. (See Appendix A of 40 CFR part 70 for the approval status of each state program.) Part 71 is a Federal permit program run by the EPA, primarily where there is no part 70 program in effect (e.g., in Indian country, the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, and for offshore Liquified Natural Gas terminals). There are about 100 part 71 permits currently in effect (most are in Indian country).
The title V regulations require each permit to include emission limitations and standards, including operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Requirements resulting from these rules that are imposed on EGUs or other potentially affected entities that have title V operating permits are applicable requirements under the title V regulations and would need to be incorporated into the source's title V permit in accordance with the schedule established in the title V regulations. For example, if the permit has a remaining life of three years or more, a permit reopening to incorporate the newly applicable requirement shall be completed no later than 18 months after promulgation of the applicable requirement. If the permit has a remaining life of less than three years, the newly applicable requirement must be incorporated at permit renewal.
If a state needs to include provisions related to the state plan in a source's title V permit before submitting the plan to the EPA, these limits should be labeled as "state-only" or "not federally enforceable" until the EPA has approved the state plan. The EPA solicits comment on whether, and under what circumstances, states might use this mechanism.
EPA Partnership Programs
For over thirty years, EPA partnership programs have worked alongside the Agency's power sector air regulatory programs. The EPA partnerships do not play a role under any regulations, including the proposed standards. Through non-regulatory efforts, partnerships can help ease the way toward meeting public and private sector air quality and climate goals. These partnership programs seek out and overcome market barriers, support policy implementation at the state, tribal, and local level, and channel marketplace ingenuity toward measurable climate action and greenhouse gas reductions. These efforts can contribute to technology adoption and subnational policy that can lower emissions and reduce compliance costs. Partnership programs support private and sub-national government action with unbiased information including specifications for efficient appliances and equipment, methodologies for measurement, and standardized platforms and templates for program implementation. These efforts are transparent, rigorous, and agreeable to all stakeholders.
For example, ENERGY STAR plays a critical unifying role to guide hundreds of utility energy efficiency programs. ENERGY STAR enables utilities to leverage a common national program platform, avoiding the need to produce individual specifications and resources for each utility energy efficiency program across the nation, which could fragment the market and stall innovation and implementation. Similarly, the EPA's partnership programs provide a suite of off-the-shelf policy tools and guidance that states, cities, and tribes can use to cost-effectively develop and implement policies that are based on widely adopted tools and approaches.
Partnerships relevant to the power sector drive private-sector investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and related technologies that produce public benefits. Programs that potentially complement EGU new source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions are:
 ENERGY STAR, which provides simple, credible, and unbiased information that consumers and businesses rely on to make well-informed decisions on energy efficient measures. ENERGY STAR programs focus on residential and commercial products, commercial buildings and multifamily housing, industrial plants, and new homes.
 EPA's Green Power Partnership, which drives voluntary participation in the green power market. The program provides information, technical assistance, and recognition to companies that use green power. In return, the companies commit to using green power for all, or a portion, of their annual electricity consumption.
 The State and Local Climate and Energy Program, which offers free tools, data, and technical expertise to help state, local, and tribal governments achieve their environmental, energy, equity, and economic objectives. These freely available tools help stakeholders overcome limited access to proprietary tools and analysis.
 Additional EPA resources are also provided to inform organizations' emission reduction measures, including guidance and tools to help measure and manage organizational GHG inventories and targets and impartial tools, policy information, and other resources to help promote environmentally beneficial CHP.
The IRA provides significant funding for Federal, state, and local voluntary policies and programs affecting electricity generation and use and greatly expands incentives for GHG emission reductions in the power sector and electricity end-use sectors. The EPA's partnership programs are well positioned to leverage these new policies to enable significant additional voluntary action, including upgrading homes, buildings, and schools for energy efficiency; achieving a carbon-free power sector; and accelerating low-carbon manufacturing.
Impacts of Proposed Actions
In accordance with EO 12866 and 13563, the guidelines of OMB Circular A-4 and the EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the EPA prepared an RIA for these proposed actions. This RIA presents the expected economic consequences of the EPA's proposed rules, including analysis of the benefits and costs associated with the projected emission reductions for three illustrative scenarios. The first scenario represents the proposed CAA 111(b) and 111(d) proposals in combination. The second and third scenarios represent different stringencies of the combined policies. All three illustrative scenarios are compared against a single baseline. For detailed descriptions of the three illustrative scenarios and the baseline, see Section 1 of the RIA, which is titled "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule."
The three scenarios detailed in the RIA, including the proposal scenario, are illustrative in nature and do not represent the plans that states may ultimately pursue. As there are considerable flexibilities afforded to states in developing their state plans, the EPA does not have sufficient information to assess specific compliance measures on a unit-by-unit basis. Nonetheless, the EPA believes that such illustrative analysis can provide important insights.
In the RIA, the EPA evaluates the potential impacts of the three illustrative scenarios using the present value (PV) of costs, benefits, and net benefits, calculated for the years 2024 - 2042 from the perspective of 2024, using both a three percent and seven percent discount rate. In addition, the EPA presents the assessment of costs, benefits, and net benefits for specific snapshot years, consistent with the Agency's historic practice. These specific snapshot years are 2028, 2030, 2035, and 2040. In addition to the core benefit-cost analysis, the RIA also includes analyses of anticipated economic and energy impacts, environmental justice impacts, and employment impacts.
The analysis presented in this preamble section summarizes key results of the illustrative policy scenario. For detailed benefit-cost results for the three illustrative scenarios and results of the variety of impact analysis just mentioned, please see the RIA, which is available in the docket for this action.
Air Quality Impacts
Total cumulative power sector CO2 emissions between 2028 and 2042 are projected to be 617 million metric tonnes lower under the illustrative proposal scenario than under the baseline. Table 5 shows projected aggregate annual electricity sector emission changes for the illustrative proposal scenario, relative to the baseline.
Table 5 -- Projected Electricity Sector Emission Impacts for the Illustrative Proposal Scenario, Relative to the Baseline

                          CO2 (million metric tonnes)
                       Annual NOX (thousand short tons)
                    Ozone Season NOX (thousand short tons)
                       Annual SO2 (thousand short tons)
                      Direct PM2.5 (thousand short tons)
                                     2028
                                      -10
                                      -7
                                      -3
                                      -12
                                      -1
                                     2030
                                      -89
                                      -64
                                      -22
                                     -107
                                      -6
                                     2035
                                      -37
                                      -21
                                      -7
                                      -41
                                      -1
                                     2040
                                      -24
                                      -13
                                      -4
                                      -30
                                      -1

The emissions changes in these tables do not account for changes in HAP that may occur as a result of this action.
Compliance Cost Impacts
The power industry's "compliance costs" are represented in this analysis as the change in electric power generation costs between the baseline and illustrative scenarios, including the cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. In simple terms, these costs are an estimate of the increased power industry expenditures required to comply with the proposed action.
The compliance assumptions -- and, therefore, the projected compliance costs -- set forth in this analysis are illustrative in nature and do not represent the plans that states may ultimately pursue. The illustrative proposal scenario is designed to reflect, to the extent possible, the scope and nature of the proposed guidelines. However, there is uncertainty with regards to the precise measures that states will adopt to meet the requirements because there are flexibilities afforded to the states in developing their state plans.
We estimate the present value (PV) of the projected compliance costs over the 2024 - 2042 period, as well as estimate the equivalent annual value (EAV) of the flow of the compliance costs over this period. The EAV represents a flow of constant annual values that, had they occurred annually, would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. All dollars are in 2019 dollars. Consistent with Executive Order 12866 guidance, we estimate the PV and EAV using 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The PV of the compliance costs, discounted at the 3-percent rate, is estimated to be about $14 billion, with an EAV of about $0.95 billion. At the 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the compliance costs is estimated to be about $10 billion, with an EAV of about $0.98 billion.
Section 3 of the RIA presents a detailed discussion of the compliance cost projections for the proposed requirements, as well as projections of compliance costs for less and more stringent regulatory options. For a detailed description of these compliance cost projections, please see Section 3 of the RIA.
Economic Impacts
These proposed actions have economic and energy market implications. The energy impact estimates presented here reflect the EPA's illustrative analysis of the proposed rules. States are afforded flexibility to implement the proposed rules, and thus the impacts could be different to the extent states make different choices than those assumed in the illustrative analysis. Table 6 presents a variety of energy market impact estimates for 2028, 2030, 2035, and 2040 for the illustrative proposal scenario, relative to the baseline.
Table 6 -- Summary of Certain Energy Market Impacts for the Illustrative Proposal Scenario, Relative to the Baseline
                               [Percent change]

                                   2028 (%)
                                   2030 (%)
                                   2035 (%)
                                   2040 (%)
                Average price of coal delivered to power sector
                                      -1%
                                      0%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                     Coal production for power sector use
                                      -2%
                                     -40%
                                     -23%
                                     -15%
                Price of natural gas delivered to power sector
                                      0%
                                      9%
                                      -2%
                                      -3%
                       Price of average Henry Hub (spot)
                                      0%
                                      10%
                                      -2%
                                      -2%
                  Natural gas use for electricity generation
                                      0%
                                      8%
                                      -1%
                                      -2%

These and other energy market impacts are discussed more extensively in Section 3 of the RIA.
More broadly, changes in production in a directly regulated sector may have effects on other markets when output from that sector  -  for this rule electricity  -  is used as an input in the production of other goods. It may also affect upstream industries that supply goods and services to the sector, along with labor and capital markets, as these suppliers alter production processes in response to changes in factor prices. In addition, households may change their demand for particular goods and services due to changes in the price of electricity and other final goods prices. Economy-wide models -- and, more specifically, computable general equilibrium (CGE) models -- are analytical tools that can be used to evaluate the broad impacts of a regulatory action. A CGE-based approach to cost estimation concurrently considers the effect of a regulation across all sectors in the economy.
In 2015, the EPA established a Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel to consider the technical merits and challenges of using economy-wide models to evaluate costs, benefits, and economic impacts in regulatory analysis. In its final report, the SAB recommended that the EPA begin to integrate CGE modeling into applicable regulatory analysis to offer a more comprehensive assessment of the effects of air regulations. In response to the SAB's recommendations, the EPA developed a new CGE model called SAGE designed for use in regulatory analysis. A second SAB panel performed a peer review of SAGE, and the review concluded in 2020. The EPA used SAGE to evaluate potential economy-wide impacts of these proposed rules, and the results are contained in an appendix of the RIA. The EPA solicits comment on the SAGE analysis presented in the RIA appendix.
Environmental regulation may affect groups of workers differently, as changes in abatement and other compliance activities cause labor and other resources to shift. An employment impact analysis describes the characteristics of groups of workers potentially affected by a regulation, as well as labor market conditions in affected occupations, industries, and geographic areas. Employment impacts of these proposed actions are discussed more extensively in Section 5 of the RIA.
Benefits
Pursuant to EO 12866, the RIA for these actions analyzes the benefits associated with the projected emission reductions under the proposals to inform the EPA and the public about these projected impacts. These proposed rules are projected to reduce emissions of CO2, SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 nationwide. The potential climate, health, welfare, and water quality impacts of these emission reductions are discussed in detail in the RIA. In the RIA, the EPA presents the projected monetized climate benefits due to reductions in CO2 emissions and the monetized health benefits attributable to changes in SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions, based on the emissions estimates in illustrative scenarios described previously. We monetize benefits of the proposed standards and evaluate other costs in part to enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to EO 12866, but we recognize there are substantial uncertainties and limitations in monetizing benefits, including benefits that have not been quantified or monetized.
We estimate the climate benefits from these proposed rules using estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), specifically the SC-CO2. The SC-CO2 is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in CO2 emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-CO2 includes the value of all climate change impacts (both negative and positive), including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-CO2, therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton and is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO2 emissions. In practice, data and modeling limitations naturally restrain the ability of SC-CO2 estimates to include all the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change, such that the estimates are a partial accounting of climate change impacts and will therefore, tend to be underestimates of the marginal benefits of abatement. The EPA and other Federal agencies began regularly incorporating SC-GHG estimates in their benefit-cost analyses conducted under EO 12866 since 2008, following a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remand of a rule for failing to monetize the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions in a rulemaking process.
We estimate the global social benefits of CO2 emission reductions expected from the proposed rule using the SC-GHG estimates presented in the February 2021 TSD: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under EO 13990. These SC-GHG estimates are interim values developed under EO 13990 for use in benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of the impacts of climate change can be developed based on the best available climate science and economics. We have evaluated the SC-GHG estimates in the TSD and have determined that these estimates are appropriate for use in estimating the global social benefits of CO2 emission reductions expected from this proposed rule. After considering the TSD, and the issues and studies discussed therein, the EPA finds that these estimates, while likely an underestimate, are the best currently available SC-GHG estimates. These SC-GHG estimates were developed over many years using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. As discussed in Section 4 of the RIA, these interim SC-CO2 estimates have a number of limitations, including that the models used to produce them do not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate-change literature and that several modeling input assumptions are outdated. As discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) finds that, taken together, the limitations suggest that these SC-CO2 estimates likely underestimate the damages from CO2 emissions. The IWG is currently working on a comprehensive update of the SC-GHG estimates (under EO 13990) taking into consideration recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, recent scientific literature, public comments received on the February 2021 TSD and other input from experts and diverse stakeholder groups. The EPA is participating in the IWG's work. In addition, while that process continues, the EPA is continuously reviewing developments in the scientific literature on the SC-GHG, including more robust methodologies for estimating damages from emissions, and looking for opportunities to further improve SC-GHG estimation going forward. Most recently, the EPA has developed a draft updated SC-GHG methodology within a sensitivity analysis in the regulatory impact analysis of the EPA's November 2022 supplemental proposal for oil and gas standards that is currently undergoing external peer review and a public comment process. See Section 4 of the RIA for more discussion of this effort.
In addition to CO2, these proposed rules are expected to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2 and direct PM2.5 nationally throughout the year. Because NOX and SO2 are also precursors to secondary formation of ambient PM2.5, reducing these emissions would reduce human exposure to ambient PM2.5 throughout the year and would reduce the incidence of PM2.5-attributable health effects. These proposed rules are also expected to reduce ozone season NOX emissions nationally. In the presence of sunlight, NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can undergo a chemical reaction in the atmosphere to form ozone. Reducing NOX emissions in most locations reduces human exposure to ozone and the incidence of ozone-related health effects, though the degree to which ozone is reduced will depend in part on local concentration levels of VOCs. The RIA reports estimates of the health benefits of changes in PM2.5 and ozone concentrations. The health effect endpoints, effect estimates, benefit unit-values, and how they were selected, are described in the TSD titled Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits, which is referenced in the RIA for these actions. Our approach for updating the endpoints and to identify suitable epidemiologic studies, baseline incidence rates, population demographics, and valuation estimates is summarized in Section 4 of the RIA.
The following PV and EAV estimates reflect projected benefits over the 2024 - 2042 period, discounted to 2024 in 2019 dollars. We monetize benefits of the proposed standards and evaluate other costs in part to enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to EO 12866, but we recognize there are substantial uncertainties and limitations in monetizing benefits, including benefits that have not been quantified. The projected PV of monetized climate benefits is about $30 billion, with an EAV of about $2.1 billion using the SC-CO2 discounted at 3 percent. The projected PV of monetized health benefits is about $77 billion, with an EAV of about $5.3 billion discounted at 3 percent. Combining the projected monetized climate and health benefits yields a total PV estimate of about $110 billion and EAV estimate of $7.5 billion.
At a 7 percent discount rate, this proposed rule is expected to generate projected PV of monetized health benefits of about $50 billion, with an EAV of about $4.8 billion discounted at 7 percent. Climate benefits remain discounted at 3 percent in this benefits analysis. Thus, this proposed rule would generate a PV of total monetized benefits of $80 billion, with an EAV of $6.9 billion discounted at a 7 percent rate.
The results presented in this section provide an incomplete overview of the effects of the proposals. The monetized benefits estimates do not include important climate benefits that were not monetized in the RIA. In addition, important health, welfare, and water quality benefits anticipated under these proposed rules are not quantified. We anticipate that taking non-monetized effects into account would show the proposals to be more beneficial than the tables in this section reflect. Discussion of the non-monetized health, climate, welfare, and water quality benefits is found in section 4 of the RIA.
Environmental Justice Analytical Considerations and Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has analyzed the impacts of these proposed rules on communities with potential environmental justice concerns and engaged with stakeholders representing these communities to seek input and feedback. While these proposed rules are targeted at reducing CO2, a global pollutant, the EPA evaluates, to the extent practicable, whether proposed GHG reductions are accompanied by changes in other health-harming pollutants that may place further burdens on these communities.
Executive Order 12898 is discussed in Section XV.J of this preamble and analytical results are available in section 6 of the RIA.
Introduction
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through federal government actions. The EPA defines environmental justice 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 further defines the term fair treatment to mean that "no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies". In recognizing that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution.
Analytical Considerations
EJ concerns for each rulemaking are unique and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the EPA's EJ Technical Guidance states that "[t]he analysis of potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three questions:
 Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern in the baseline?
 Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory option(s) under consideration?
 For the regulatory option(s) under consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared to the baseline?"
To address these questions, the EPA developed an analytical approach that considers the purpose and specifics of the rulemaking, as well as the nature of known and potential exposures and impacts. For the rules, the EPA quantitatively evaluates 1) the proximity of existing affected facilities to potentially vulnerable and/or overburdened populations for consideration of local pollutants impacted by these rules but not modeled here (RIA section 6.4) the distribution of ozone and PM2.5 concentrations in the baseline and changes due to the proposed rulemakings across different demographic groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, poverty status, employment status, health insurance status, age, sex, educational attainment, and degree of linguistic isolation (RIA section 6.5). The EPA also qualitatively discusses potential EJ climate impacts (RIA section 6.3). Each of these analyses depends on mutually exclusive assumptions, was performed to answer separate questions, and is associated with unique limitations and uncertainties.
Baseline demographic proximity analyses provide information as to whether there may be potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors emitted from sources affected by the regulatory actions for certain population groups of concern. The baseline demographic proximity analyses examined the demographics of populations living within 5 km and 10 km of the following three sets of sources: 1) all 140 coal plants with units potentially subject to the proposed rules, 2) three coal plants retiring by January 1, 2032 with units potentially subject to the proposed rules, and 3) 19 coal plants retiring between January 1, 2032 to January 1, 2040 with units potentially subject to the proposed rules. The proximity analysis of the full population of potentially affected units greater than 25 MW indicated that the demographic percentages of the population within 10 km and 50 km of the facilities are relatively similar to the national averages. The proximity analysis of the 19 units that will retire from 1/1/32 to 1/1/40 (a subset of the total 140 units) found that the percent of the population within 10 km that is African American is higher than the national average. The proximity analysis for the 3 units that will retire by 1/1/32 (a subset of the total 140 units) found that for both the 10 km and 50 km populations the percent of the population that is Native American for one facility is significantly above the national average, the percent of the population that is Hispanic/Latino for another facility is significantly above the national average, and all three facilities were well above the national average for both the percent below the poverty level and the percent below two times the poverty level.
Because the pollution impacts that are the focus of these rules may occur downwind from affected facilities, ozone and PM2.5 exposure analyses that evaluate demographic variables are better able to evaluate any potentially disproportionate pollution impacts of these rulemakings. The baseline PM2.5 and ozone exposure analyses respond to question 1 from EPA's EJ Technical Guidance document more directly than the proximity analyses, as they evaluate a form of the environmental stressor primarily affected by the regulatory actions (RIA section 6.5). Baseline ozone and PM2.5 exposure analyses show that certain populations, such as Hispanics, Asians, those linguistically isolated, and those less educated may experience disproportionately higher ozone and PM2.5 exposures as compared to the national average. Black populations may also experience disproportionately higher PM2.5 concentrations than the reference group, and American Indian populations and children may also experience disproportionately higher ozone concentrations than the reference group. Therefore, there likely are potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory actions for population groups of concern in the baseline (question 1).
Finally, the EPA evaluates how post-policy regulatory alternatives of these proposed rulemakings are expected to differentially impact demographic populations, informing questions 2 and 3 from EPA's EJ Technical Guidance with regard to ozone and PM2.5 exposure changes. We infer that baseline disparities in the ozone and PM2.5 concentration burdens are likely to remain after implementation of the regulatory action or alternatives under consideration. This is due to the small magnitude of the concentration changes associated with these rulemakings across population demographic groups, relative to the magnitude of the baseline disparities (question 2). This EJ assessment also suggests that these actions are unlikely to mitigate or exacerbate PM2.5 exposures disparities across populations of EJ concern analyzed. Regarding ozone exposures, while most policy options and future years analyzed will not likely mitigate or exacerbate ozone exposure disparities for the population groups evaluated, ozone exposure disparities may be exacerbated for some population groups analyzed in 2030 under all regulatory options. However, the extent to which disparities may be exacerbated is likely modest, due to the small magnitude of the ozone concentration changes. (question 3).
Outreach and Engagement
In outreach with potentially vulnerable communities, residents have voiced two primary concerns. First, there is the concern that their communities have experienced historically disproportionate burdens from the environmental impacts of energy production, and second, that as the sector evolves to use new technologies such as CCS and hydrogen, they may continue to face disproportionate burden.
With regards to CCS, the EPA is proposing that CCS is a component of the BSER for both new base load stationary combustion turbine EGUs and existing coal-fired steam generating units that intend to operate after 2040. We are aware of various concerns that potentially vulnerable communities have raised with regards to the use of CCS.
One concern is that adding CCS to EGUs can extend the life of an existing coal-fired steam generating unit, subjecting local residents who have already been negatively impacted by the operation of the coal-fired steam generating unit to additional harmful pollution. Recognizing the important stake that local residents have in this issue, the EPA is proposing that if a state intends to have an EGU retrofitted with CCS as its BSER, the state should go through an enhanced public engagement process. This is discussed more in section XI.F.1.b of the preamble. There are several important factors to consider when evaluating the emission impact of an upgraded EGU. First, CCS is the most effective add-on pollution control available for mitigation of GHG emissions from affected sources. Second, most CCS technologies work much more effectively when emitting the lowest levels of SO2 as possible, therefore it is likely that as part of a CCS installation, companies will improve their EGUs' SO2 control. Third, it is likely that a CCS retrofit will trigger preconstruction permitting requirements under the major NSR program because there is the potential for an emission increase of one or more pollutants due to the increased energy needed for CO2 capture. Major NSR permits provide for the public to comment on the draft permit, which is another avenue for affected residents to have input in the decision to install CCS.
Communities have also expressed concerns about CO2 pipeline safety and geologic sequestration. As discussed in section VII.F.3.b.iii of the preamble, CO2 pipeline safety is regulated by PHMSA. These regulations protect against environmental release during transport and PHMSA is developing new measures to further strengthen its safety oversight of CO2 pipelines. Geologic sequestration of CO2 is regulated by the EPA through the UIC Program and the GHGRP, which work in combination to ensure security and transparency.
The final concern is about the lack of opportunity to voice opinions about projects like this that affect their communities. As noted above, the major NSR permitting program already provides an opportunity for public input on a draft permit, in which the public could raise concerns specific to the pollution impact of a proposed CCS project at a new or existing source, and the EPA is proposing further community engagement requirements related to state plans under CAA section 111(d). States should have a plan that specifically ensures that community members have an opportunity to share their input if they reside near a coal-fired steam generating unit that plans to install CCS to meet the requirements of these proposed rules.
With regards to the decision to construct a new combustion turbine, most of the safeguards outlined above apply. The only exception is that the community engagement would be done as part of the major NSR permitting provisions. The major NSR provisions would likely also apply to most combustion turbines that co-fire with hydrogen, although there may be cases in which major NSR would not be triggered, specifically: (1) if the new combustion turbine is proposed on the site of an existing facility and the existing facility reduces its pollution more than the combustion turbine would increase it (e.g., if the combustion turbine replaces an existing coal-fired EGU and the facility has emission reduction credits from the shutdown unit), or (2) if the new combustion turbine's emissions are low enough to not trigger major NSR requirements.
The EPA further notes that hydrogen production presents a unique set of potential issues for vulnerable communities. For example, during the February 27th National Tribal Energy Roundtable Webinar, one of the primary concerns articulated was the potential for fossil-derived hydrogen to essentially extend the life of petrochemical industries already creating localized pollution loading. Perceived community risks with hydrogen related to storage and transportation include its combustibility and propensity to leak due to extremely low molecular weight. Water scarcity could be exacerbated in some areas by the freshwater demands of electrolytic hydrogen production which is particularly vexing for vulnerable communities.
Reliability Considerations
The requirements for sources and states set forth in these proposed actions were developed cognizant of concerns about an electric grid under transition, and related reliability considerations. As previously stated, a variety of important influences have led to notable changes in the generation mix and expectations of how the power sector will evolve. These trends have generally put existing fossil fuel-fired generators under greater economic pressure and will continue to do so even absent any EPA action pursuant to CAA section 111, and that is manifest in various economic projections and modeling of the electric power system. Recent legislation, including the IIJA, the IRA, and state policies have amplified these trends, with continued change expected for the existing fleet of EGUs. Moreover, many regions of the country have experienced a significant increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events -- events that are notably projected to worsen if GHG emissions are not adequately controlled. These events have impacted energy infrastructure and both the demand for and supply of electricity. A wide range of stakeholders including power generators, grid operators and state and federal regulators are actively engaged in ensuring the reliability of the electric power system is maintained and enhanced in the face of these changes.
As explained in this preamble, these proposed actions take account of the rapidly evolving power sector and extensive input received from power companies and other stakeholders on the future of these regulated sources, while ensuring that new natural gas-fired combustion turbines and existing steam EGUs achieve significant and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions through the application of adequately demonstrated control technologies, Preserving the ability of power companies and grid operators to maintain system reliability has been a paramount consideration in the development of these proposed actions. Accordingly, these proposed rules include significant design elements that are intended to allow the power sector continued resource and operational flexibility, and to facilitate long-term planning during this dynamic period. Among other things, these elements include subcategories of new natural gas-fired combustion turbines that allow for the stringency of GHG emission standards to vary by capacity factor; subcategories for existing steam EGUs that are based on operating horizons and fuel, and that accommodate the plans of many power companies to transition away from these sources; compliance deadlines for both new and existing EGUs that provide ample lead time to plan; and proposed state plan flexibilities  -  As such, these proposed rules provide the flexibility needed to avoid reliability concerns while still securing the pollution reductions required.
To support these proposed actions, the EPA has conducted an analysis of resource adequacy based upon power sector modeling and projections that can be found in the RIA. Any potential impact of these proposed actions is dependent upon a myriad of decisions and compliance choices source owners and operators may pursue. It is important to recognize that the proposed rules provide multiple flexibilities that preserve the ability of responsible authorities to maintain electric reliability. The results presented in the Resource Adequacy and Reliability Assessment TSD, which is available in the docket, show that the projected impacts of the proposed rules on power system operations, under conditions preserving resource adequacy, are modest and manageable. For the specific scenarios analyzed in the RIA, the implementation of the proposed rules can be achieved without undermining resources adequacy or reliability even as shifts in existing and new capacity occur. Retirements are offset by additions, along with reserve transfers where/when needed, which demonstrates that ample compliance pathways exist for sources while preserving reliability.
The EPA routinely consults with the DOE and FERC on electric reliability, and intends to continue to do so as it develops and implements a final rule. This ongoing engagement will be strengthened with routine and comprehensive communication between the agencies under the Joint Memorandum of Understanding on Interagency Communication and Consultation on Electric Reliability signed on March 8, 2023. The memorandum will provide greater interagency engagement on electric reliability issues at a time of significant dynamism in the power sector, allowing the EPA, FERC, and the DOE to use their considerable expertise in various aspects of grid reliability to support the ability of Federal and state regulators, grid operators, regional reliability entities, and power companies to continue to deliver a high standard of reliable electric service. As the power sector continues to change and as the agencies carry out their respective authorities, the agencies intend to continue to engage and collectively monitor, share information, and consult on policy and program decisions to assure the continued reliability of the bulk power system.
In addition, EPA observes that power companies, grid operators, and state public utility commissions have well-established procedures in place to preserve electric reliability in response to changes in the generating portfolio, and expects that those procedures will continue to be effective in addressing compliance decisions that power companies may make over the extended time period for implementation of these proposed rules. In response to any regulatory requirement, affected sources will have to take some type of action to reduce emissions, which will generally have costs. Some EGU owners may conclude that, all else being equal, retiring a particular EGU is likely to be the more economic option from the perspective of the unit's customers and/or owners because there are better opportunities for using the capital than investing it in new emissions controls at the unit. Such a retirement decision will require the unit's owner to follow the processes put in place by the relevant RTO, balancing authority, or state regulator to protect electric system reliability. These processes typically include analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed EGU retirement on electrical system reliability, identification of options for mitigating any identified adverse impacts, and, in some cases, temporary provision of additional revenues to support the EGU's continued operation until longer-term mitigation measures can be put in place. In some rare instances where the reliability of the system is jeopardized due to extreme weather events or other unforeseen emergencies, authorities can request a temporary reprieve from environmental requirements and constraints (through DOE) in order to meet electric demand and maintain reliability. This proposed action does not interfere with these already available provisions, but rather provides a long-term pathway for sources to develop and implement a proper plan to reduce emissions while maintaining adequate supplies of electricity.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
These actions are economically significant regulatory actions that were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with these actions. This analysis, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule," is available in the docket.
Table 7 presents the estimated present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values (EAV) of the projected climate benefits, health benefits, compliance costs, and net benefits of the proposed rule in 2019 dollars discounted to 2024. The estimated monetized net benefits are the projected monetized benefits minus the projected monetized costs of the proposed rules.
The projected climate benefits in table 7 are based on estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) at a 3 percent discount rate and are discounted using a 3 percent discount rate to obtain the PV and EAV estimates in the table. Under EO 12866, the EPA is directed to consider all of the costs and benefits of its actions, not just those that stem from the regulated pollutant. Accordingly, in addition to the projected climate benefits of the proposal from anticipated reductions in CO2 emissions, the projected monetized health benefits include those related to public health associated with projected reductions in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone concentrations. The projected health benefits are associated with several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The power industry's compliance costs are represented in this analysis as the change in electric power generation costs between the baseline and policy scenarios. In simple terms, these costs are an estimate of the increased power industry expenditures required to implement the proposed requirements.
These results present an incomplete overview of the potential effects of the proposals because important categories of benefits -- including benefits from reducing HAP emissions  -- were not monetized and are therefore not reflected in the benefit-cost tables. The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects into account would show the proposals to have a greater net benefit than this table reflects.
Table 7 -- Projected Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposed Rules, 2024 through 2042
                    [Billions 2019$, Discounted to 2024][a]

                               3% Discount Rate
                               7% Discount Rate
                                 Present Value
                              Climate Benefits[c]
                                      $30
                                      $30

                              Health Benefits[d]
                                      $77
                                      $50

                               Compliance Costs
                                      $14
                                      $10

                                Net Benefits[e]
                                      $93
                                      $70
                        Equivalent Annualized Value[b]
                              Climate Benefits[c]
                                     $2.1
                                     $2.1

                              Health Benefits[d]
                                     $5.3
                                     $4.8

                               Compliance Costs
                                     $0.95
                                     $0.98

                                Net Benefits[e]
                                     $6.5
                                     $5.9
[a] Values have been rounded to two significant figures. Rows may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
[b] The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over the 20-year period from 2024 to 2042.
[c] Climate benefits are based on changes (reductions) in CO2 emissions. Climate benefits in this table are based on estimates of the SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate and are discounted using a 3 percent discount rate to obtain the PV and EAV estimates in the table. The EPA does not have a single central SC-CO2 point estimate. We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-CO2 estimates. As discussed in Section 4 of the RIA, consideration of climate benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts.
[d] The projected monetized health benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in PM2.5 and ozone concentrations. The projected health benefits are associated with several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
[e] Several categories of benefits remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table. Non-monetized benefits include important climate, health, welfare, and water quality benefits.

As shown in table 7, the proposed rules are projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the form of CO2, producing a projected PV of monetized climate benefits of about $30 billion, with an EAV of about $2.1 billion using the SC-CO2 discounted at 3 percent. The proposed rules are also projected to reduce PM2.5 and ozone concentrations, producing a projected PV of monetized health benefits of about $77 billion, with an EAV of about $5.3 billion discounted at 3 percent.
The PV of the projected compliance costs are $14 billion, with an EAV of about $0.95 billion discounted at 3 percent. Combining the projected benefits with the projected compliance costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of about $93 billion and EAV of about $6.5 billion.
At a 7 percent discount rate, the proposed rules are expected to generate projected PV of monetized health benefits of about $50 billion, with an EAV of about $4.8 billion. Climate benefits remain discounted at 3 percent in this net benefits analysis. Thus, the proposed rules would generate a PV of monetized benefits of about $80 billion, with an EAV of about $6.9 billion discounted at a 7 percent rate. The PV of the projected compliance costs are about $10 billion, with an EAV of $0.98 billion discounted at 7 percent. Combining the projected benefits with the projected compliance costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of about $70 billion and an EAV of about $5.9 billion.
As discussed in section XIV of this preamble, the monetized benefits estimates provide an incomplete overview of the beneficial impacts of the proposals. The monetized benefits estimates do not include important climate benefits that were not monetized in the RIA. In addition, important health, welfare, and water quality benefits anticipated under these proposed rules are not quantified or monetized. The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects into account would show the proposals to be more net beneficial than the tables in this section reflect.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number [placeholder]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Respondents/affected entities: [placeholder]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
Estimated number of respondents: [placeholder]
Frequency of response: [placeholder]
Total estimated burden: [placeholder] hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $ [placeholder] (per year), includes $ [placeholder]annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
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. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting "Currently under Review -- Open for Public Comments" or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number [placeholder]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Respondents/affected entities: [placeholder]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
Estimated number of respondents: [placeholder]
Frequency of response: [placeholder]
Total estimated burden: [placeholder] hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $ [placeholder] (per year), includes $ [placeholder]annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
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. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting "Currently under Review -- Open for Public Comments" or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUb
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number [placeholder]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This rule imposes specific requirements on state governments with existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. The information collection requirements are based on the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with developing, implementing, and enforcing a plan to limit GHG emissions from existing EGUs. These 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.
The annual burden for this collection of information for the states (averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated to be 95,680 hours at a total annual labor cost of $12.1 million. The annual burden for the Federal government associated with the state collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated to be 25,659 hours at a total annual labor cost of $991,451. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Respondents/affected entities: States with one or more designated facilities covered under subpart UUUUb.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
Estimated number of respondents: 50.
Frequency of response: Once.
Total estimated burden: 95,680 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $12,110,762, includes $36,750 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
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. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting "Currently under Review -- Open for Public Comments" or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUa
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that these actions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of the NSPS are private companies, investor-owned utilities, cooperatives, municipalities, and sub-divisions, that would seek to build and operate stationary combustion turbines in the future. The Agency has determined that seven small entities may be so impacted, and may experience an impact of 0 percent to 0.9 percent of revenues in 2035. Details of this analysis are presented in section 5.3 of the RIA.
The EPA started the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel process prior to determining if the NSPS would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The EPA conducted an initial outreach meeting with small entity representatives on December 14, 2022. The EPA sought input from representatives of small entities while developing the proposed NSPS which enabled the EPA to hear directly from these representatives about the regulation of GHG emissions from EGUs. The purpose of the meeting was to provide general background on the NSPS rulemaking, answer questions, and solicit input. Fifteen various small entities that potentially would be affected by the NSPS attended the meeting. The representatives included small entity municipalities, cooperatives, and industry professional organizations. When the EPA determined the NSPS would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, the EPA did not proceed with convening the SBAR panel.
Emission guidelines will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, emission guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. After emission guidelines are promulgated, states establish standards on existing sources, and it is those state requirements that could potentially impact small entities.
The analysis in the accompanying RIA is consistent with the analysis of the analogous situation arising when the EPA establishes NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take subsequent action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043 - 45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon small entities).
The EPA is aware that there is substantial interest in the proposed rules among small entities and invites comments on all aspects of the proposals and their impacts, including potential impacts on small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
The proposed NSPS contain a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector in any one year. The proposed NSPS do not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538 for state, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate. Accordingly, the EPA prepared, under section 202 of UMRA, a written statement of the benefit-cost analysis, which is in Section XIV and in the RIA.
The proposed repeal of the ACE Rule and emission guidelines do not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed emission guidelines do not impose any direct compliance requirements on regulated entities, apart from the requirement for states to develop plans to implement the guidelines under CAA section 111(d) for designated EGUs. The burden for states to develop CAA section 111(d) plans in the 24-month period following promulgation of the emission guidelines was estimated and is listed in section XV.B, but this burden is estimated to be below $100 million in any one year. As explained in section XI.F.6, the proposed emission guidelines do not impose specific requirements on tribal governments that have designated EGUs located in their area of Indian country.
The proposed actions are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because they contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
In light of the interest in these rules among governmental entities, the EPA initiated consultation with governmental entities. The EPA invited the following 10 national organizations representing state and local elected officials to a virtual meeting on September 22, 2022: (1) National Governors Association, (2) National Conference of State Legislatures, (3) Council of State Governments, (4) National League of Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National Association of Counties, (7) International City/County Management Association, (8) National Association of Towns and Townships, (9) County Executives of America, and (10) Environmental Council of States. These 10 organizations representing elected state and local officials have been identified by the EPA as the "Big 10" organizations appropriate to contact for purpose of consultation with elected officials. Also, the EPA invited air and utility professional groups who may have state and local government members, including the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and American Public Power Association, Large Public Power Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to participate in the meeting. The purpose of the consultation was to provide general background on these rulemakings, answer questions, and solicit input from state and local governments. Subsequent to the September 22, 2022, meeting, the EPA received letters from five organizations. These letters were submitted to the pre-proposal non-rulemaking docket. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0016, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0017, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0020, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0021. For summary of the UMRA consultation see the memorandum in the docket titled, Federalism Pre-Proposal Consultation Summary.
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed NSPS and the proposed repeal of the ACE Rule do not have federalism implications. These actions will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The EPA has concluded that the proposed emission guidelines may have federalism implications, because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, and the federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay these costs. As discussed in the Supporting Statement found in the docket for this rulemaking, the development of state plans will entail many hours of staff time to develop and coordinate programs for compliance with the proposed emission guidelines, as well as time to work with state legislatures as appropriate, and develop a plan submittal.
The EPA consulted with representatives of state and local governments in the process of developing these actions to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into their development. The EPA's consultation regarded planned actions for the NSPS and emission guidelines. The EPA invited the following 10 national organizations representing state and local elected officials to a virtual meeting on September 22, 2022: (1) National Governors Association, (2) National Conference of State Legislatures, (3) Council of State Governments, (4) National League of Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National Association of Counties, (7) International City/County Management Association, (8) National Association of Towns and Townships, (9) County Executives of America, and (10) Environmental Council of States. These 10 organizations representing elected state and local officials have been identified by the EPA as the "Big 10" organizations appropriate to contact for purpose of consultation with elected officials. Also, the EPA invited air and utility professional groups who may have state and local government members, including the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and American Public Power Association, Large Public Power Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to participate in the meeting. The purpose of the consultation was to provide general background on these rulemakings, answer questions, and solicit input from state and local governments. Subsequent to the September 22, 2022, meeting, the EPA received letters from five organizations. These letters were submitted to the pre-proposal non-rulemaking docket. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0016, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0017, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0020, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0021. For a summary of the Federalism consultation see the memorandum in the docket titled Federalism Pre-Proposal Consultation Summary. 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 emission guidelines, as required by section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132. In the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on these proposed actions from state and local officials.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
These actions do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed NSPS would impose requirements on owners and operators of new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines and emission guidelines would not impose direct requirements on tribal governments. Tribes are not required to develop plans to implement the emission guidelines developed under CAA section 111(d) for designated EGUs. The EPA is aware of six fossil fuel-fired steam generating units located in Indian country but is not aware of any fossil fuel-fired steam generating units owned or operated by tribal entities. The EPA notes that the proposed emission guidelines do not directly impose specific requirements on EGU sources, including those located in Indian country, but before developing any standards for sources on tribal land, the EPA would consult with leaders from affected tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these actions.
Because the EPA is aware of tribal interest in these proposed rules and consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered government-to-government consultation with tribes and conducted stakeholder engagement.
The EPA will hold additional meetings with tribal environmental staff to inform them of the content of these proposed rules as well as offer government-to-government consultation with tribes. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on these proposed rules from tribal officials.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Populations and Low-Income Populations
These actions are subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are economically significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that these rule will reduce emissions of CO2, ozone and PM2.5. The EPA evaluated the health benefits of these emissions reductions and the results of this evaluation are contained in the RIA and are available in the docket. The EPA believes that the PM2.5-related, ozone-related, and CO2-related benefits projected under these proposed rules will improve children's health. Additionally, the PM2.5 and ozone EJ exposure analyses in section 6 of the RIA suggests that nationally, children (ages 0-17) will experience at least as great a reduction in PM2.5 and ozone exposures as adults (ages 18-64) in 2028, 2030, 2035 and 2040 under all regulatory alternatives of these rulemakings.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
These actions, which are significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866, are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for these action as follows. The EPA estimates a 0.2 percent increase in retail electricity prices on average, across the contiguous U.S. in 2035, and a 28 percent reduction in coal-fired electricity generation in 2035 as a result of these actions. The EPA projects that utility power sector delivered natural gas prices will decrease 2.4 percent in 2035. For more information on the estimated energy effects, please refer to the economic impact analysis for this action. The analysis is available in the RIA, which is in the public docket.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51
 These proposed actions involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Searches were conducted for EPA Methods [placeholder]. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods [placeholder]. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the voluntary consensus standards (VCS) for these rules. [placeholder] VCS were identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test methods for the purpose of these proposed rules. The search identified [placeholder] VCS that were potentially applicable for these proposed rules in lieu of EPA reference methods. However, these have been determined to not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation of data and other important technical and policy considerations. For additional information, please see the March [placeholder], 2023, memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in final rule regulatory text for 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, TTTTa, and UUUUb that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR part 51, the EPA is proposing to incorporate the following [placeholder] standards by reference.
 [placeholder]
 [placeholder]
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemakings and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in these regulations.
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) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice 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 (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations.
For new sources constructed after the date of publication of this proposed action under CAA section 111(b), the EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples, because the location and number of new sources is unknown.
For existing sources of this proposed action under CAA section 111(d), the EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples. The EPA believes that this proposed action is not likely to change disproportionate and adverse PM2.5 exposure impacts on people of color, low-income populations, Indigenous peoples, and/or other potential populations of concern evaluated in the future analytical years. The EPA also believes that this proposed action is not likely to change disproportionate and adverse ozone exposure impacts on people of color, low-income populations, Indigenous peoples, and/or other potential populations of concern evaluated in 2028, 2035, and 2040. However, in the analytical year of 2030, this action is likely to slightly increase existing national level disproportionate and adverse ozone exposure impacts on Asian populations, Hispanic populations, and those linguistically isolated.
The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the GHG impacts associated with this action are likely to result in a change in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. However, the EPA believes that the projected total cumulative power sector reduction of 617 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2028 and 2042 will have a beneficial effect on populations at risk of climate change effects/impacts. Research indicates that some communities of color, specifically populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location, may be uniquely vulnerable to climate change health impacts in the U.S. See sections VII, X, and XIV of this preamble for further information regarding GHG controls and emission reductions.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.


08-21-08

SC3 Pre-Service Teacher Training Script

{We will start by introducing ourselves and state briefly the purpose of
the focus group}

As you all know, the goals of the Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign
(SC3) program are to:

Remove accumulations of potentially dangerous chemicals from K-12
schools;

Prevent future accumulations through improved chemical management; and,

Raise national awareness of the issue.

To help us reach these goals, the EPA SC3 team is calling on your
expertise as we embark on our outreach to pre-service and student
teachers.

Your passion for and knowledge of the importance of training pre-service
 teachers before they enter the classroom about responsible chemical
management will lend great credibly in reaching this audience.

Background/Context

{We will ask a background/contextual question to gauge the level of
familiarity each person has with the issue of pre-service teacher
training}

Briefly describe your background and why you are interested in
pre-service teacher training in responsible chemical management.

 In your experience, how do pre-service teachers generally learn about
responsible chemical management?

Are you aware of existing pre-service teacher trainings in responsible
chemical management?

Curriculum-Specific Questions

Have we identified the all the various elements included in existing
responsible chemical management training with which you are familiar?
[Existing training will be identified ahead of time]

Briefly discuss additional elements that should be added or deleted.

Briefly discuss whether existing elements should be modified.

What do you think would be the best way to present pre-service teacher
training [Existing ways to present training (e.g., classroom course;
part of an existing classroom course; on the Internet.) will be
identified ahead of time]

What, if any, modifications to existing pre-service training should be
based on the  type of school that the student will eventually teach in [
identified ahead of time, e.g.,  public, private, charter, magnet,
vocational] or subject that the pre-service student will eventually
teach [identified ahead of time, e.g., science, art, vocational, etc.)?
 What about for programs such as "Teach for America?"

Have we identified typical state policies [identified ahead of time]
that would support pre-service teacher training in responsible chemical
management?  Do you think we should add or delete any of the identified
policies?

Barriers to Developing, Improving, and/or Instituting Pre-service
Teacher Training

How would you rank barriers to adding responsible chemical management
training to pre-service teacher course work?

Cost?

Lack of knowledgeable personnel?

University procedures?

Lack of accreditation?

Other?

Are you aware of strategies that have been tried to overcome barriers to
instituting pre-service teacher training in responsible chemical
management?

Were they successful?

How could they have been improved?

Where have these strategies been implemented?

Promotion of Curriculum

Do you know of approaches that have successfully resulted in responsible
chemical management training being added to teacher course work?

Do you know of policies that would help create a mandate for colleges
and universities to provide pre-service teacher training on responsible
chemical management?

Who do you think would best promote pre-service teacher training within
a state?

What agencies or persons might serve as champions for instituting
pre-service teacher training in colleges and universities?

To you knowledge, what are the critical factors and steps to
successfully incorporating a new concept into teacher
certification/licensure?

Do you know of any training or licensure programs for teachers of which
we should be aware?

What do you think is the role of the SC3 partners in promoting
pre-service teacher training?

Can you suggest an approach to pilot any curriculum we may develop or
modify?

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


From: < Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov> To: Lance Stapleton < L. Stapleton@ geo processors. com. au> Date: 1/ 16/ 2004 9: 01: 15 AM Subject: Re: Geo Processors Tech Brief for US Energy Sector Dear Mr. Stapleton:

I am very interested in learning more about your produced water treatment technology. As you can see from the following document:

http:// epa. gov/ guide/ 304m/ rationalememo_ final. pdf ... we are interested in learning more about produced water treatment technologies for both conventional O& G extraction as well as for coalbed methane operations. Please send me your expanded technical brief and let me know when ( if) you are in Washington, DC. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water ph: ( 202) 566 1014 fx: ( 202) 566 1053 johnston. carey@ epa. gov Lance Stapleton < L. Stapleton@ geo process To: admin@ geo processors. com. au ors. com. au> cc:

Subject: Geo Processors Tech Brief for US Energy Sector 01/ 15/ 2004 08: 31 PM Dear Sir/ Madam,

In view of your personal interest or your organization's involvement in sustainable management of produced water in U. S. energy sectors attached I am forwarding a PDF file which reviews the current produced water management issues experienced in US energy sector, provides a brief introduction to our treatment technologies and briefly discusses their potential application for sustainable management of such waters in USA and elsewhere. The PowerPoint version of this slides as well as an expanded version of our Technology Brief are also available on request.

As indicated in the attached document, Dr. Aharon Arakel, Director of Geo Processors is expected to make another trip to USA within the next few months during which he would be happy to meet interested groups with the view of giving presentations on our technologies and discussing the opportunities for collaboration.

Meanwhile please feel free to contact myself or Dr. Arakel ( a. arakel@ geo processors. com. au ) for a copy of our expanded Tech Brief or for any enquiry that you may have with regard to our technologies and services.

Yours faithfully,

Lance Stapleton Senior Process Engineer Geo Processors Pty Limited Email: L. Stapleton@ geo processors. com. au P. S. This document may have been sent to you earlier from Dr Arakel  s office in which case we apologize for the duplication.( See attached file: GeoTechBrief EnergySectorUS. pdf)

CC: < a. arakel@ geo processors. com. au>, < Wilson. Js@ epamail. epa. gov>