[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34829-34958]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13726]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 117

June 18, 2014

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602; FRL-9911-86-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR33

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans
to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired
electric generating units. Specifically, the EPA is proposing state-
specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the power
sector, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing plans
to achieve the state-specific goals. This rule, as proposed, would
continue progress already underway to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule. Comments must be received on or
before October 16, 2014. Comments on the information collection
request. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), since the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a decision concerning
the information collection request between 30 and 60 days after June
18, 2014, a comment to the OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if the OMB receives it by July 18, 2014.
    Public Hearing. Four public hearings will be convened. On July 29,
2014, one public hearing will be held in Atlanta, Georgia, at the Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center Main Tower Bridge Conference Area,
Conference Room B, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, and one
will be held in Denver, Colorado, at the EPA's Region 8 Building, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. On July 30, 2014, a public
hearing will be held in Washington, DC, at the William Jefferson
Clinton East Building, Room 1152, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. On July 31, 2014, a public hearing will be held
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at the William S. Moorhead Federal
Building, Room 1310, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15222. The hearings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Atlanta, Georgia, and
Washington, DC, will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern
Standard Time). The hearing in Denver, Colorado, will convene at 9:00
a.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Daylight Time). For all hearings
there will be a lunch break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. and a dinner
break from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at
919-541-7966 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to register to speak at one
of the hearings. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at
the hearings will be Friday, July 25, 2014. Additionally, requests to
speak will be taken the day of the hearings at the hearing registration
desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be
fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or special
accommodations such as audio description, please let us know at the
time of registration.
    The hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The
EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and
register. Because these hearings are being held at U.S. government
facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be
prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in
order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID
Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for
entering federal facilities. These requirements will take effect July
21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa,
Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you must present an
additional form of identification to enter the federal buildings where
the public hearings will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of
identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced
driver's licenses and military identification cards. We will list any
additional acceptable forms of identification at: http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass
for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the
building, you will be required to return this property pass to the
security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras
may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be
allowed on federal property for security reasons.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters
should notify Ms. Garrett if they will need specific equipment, or if
there are other special needs related to providing comments at the
hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements
will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day
of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either
ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Additionally, more information
regarding the hearings will be available at: http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0602 in the subject line of the message.
    Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0602 on the cover page.
    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mail code 28221T, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer
for the EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attn:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Such deliveries are accepted only
during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays), and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket ID number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602). The EPA's policy is to include
all comments received without change, including any personal
information provided, in the public docket, available online at http://www.regulations.gov, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
Part 2.
    The EPA requests that you also submit a separate copy of your
comments to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). If the comment includes information you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected, you should send a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information claimed as CBI or otherwise
protected.
    The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742. Visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for additional information about the EPA's public
docket.
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed rule will be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW).
Following signature, a copy of this proposed rule will be posted at the
following address: http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Vasu, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919) 541-
4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Marguerite McLamb, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919)
541-4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms. A number of acronyms and chemical symbols are used in
this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the
reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following
terms and acronyms are defined as follows:

ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
AEO Annual Energy Outlook
AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations
ASTM American Society for Testing of Materials
BSER Best System of Emission Reduction
Btu/kWh British Thermal Units per Kilowatt-hour
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration)
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
ECMPS Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
EERS Energy Efficiency Resource Standard
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EIA Energy Information Administration
EM&V Evaluation, Measurement and Verification
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GW Gigawatt
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPM Integrated Planning Model
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ISO Independent System Operator
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
lb CO2/MWh Pounds of CO2 per Megawatt-hour
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
MMBtu Million British Thermal Units
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System Commissioners
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NRC National Research Council
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSB Public Service Board
PUC Public Utilities Commission
REC Renewable Energy Credit
RES Renewable Energy Standard
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTO Regional Transmission Operator
SBA Small Business Administration
SBC System Benefits Charge
SCC Social Cost of Carbon
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
Tg Teragram (one trillion (10 \12\) grams)
TSD Technical Support Document
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standard

    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Organization and Approach for This Proposed Rule
II. Background
    A. Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions
    B. GHG Emissions From Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs
    C. The Utility Power Sector
    D. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
III. Stakeholder Outreach and Conclusions
    A. Stakeholder Outreach
    B. Key Messages From Stakeholders
    C. Key Stakeholder Proposals
    D. Consideration of the Existing Range of Policies and Programs
    E. Conclusions
IV. Rule Requirements and Legal Basis
    A. Summary of Rule Requirements
    B. Summary of Legal Basis
V. Authority To Regulate Carbon Dioxide and EGUs, Affected Sources,
and Treatment of Categories
    A. Authority To Regulate Carbon Dioxide
    B. Authority To Regulate EGUs
    C. Affected Sources
    D. Implications for Tribes and U.S. Territories
    E. Combined Categories and Codification in the Code of Federal
Regulations
VI. Building Blocks for Setting State Goals and the Best System of
Emission Reduction
    A. Introduction
    B. Building Blocks for Setting State Goals
    C. Detailed Discussion of Building Blocks and Other Options
Considered
    D. Potential Combinations of the Building Blocks as Components
of the Best System of Emission Reduction
    E. Determination of the Best System of Emission Reduction
VII. State Goals
    A. Overview
    B. Form of Goals
    C. Proposed Goals and Computation Procedure
    D. State Flexibilities
    E. Alternate Goals and Other Approaches Considered
    F. Reliable Affordable Electricity
VIII. State Plans
    A. Overview
    B. Approach
    C. Criteria for Approving State Plans
    D. State Plan Components
    E. Process for State Plan Submittal and Review
    F. State Plan Considerations
    G. Additional Factors That Can Help States Meet Their
CO2 Emission Performance Goals
    H. Resources for States To Consider in Developing Plans
IX. Implications for Other EPA Programs and Rules
    A. Implications for NSR Program
    B. Implications for Title V Program
    C. Interactions With Other EPA Rules
X. Impacts of the Proposed Action
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. Comparison of Building Block Approaches
    C. Endangered Species Act
    D. What are the energy impacts?
    E. What are the compliance costs?
    F. What are the economic and employment impacts?
    G. What are the benefits of the proposed action?
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
XII. Statutory Authority

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    Under the authority of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d), the EPA
is proposing emission guidelines for states to follow in developing
plans to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing fossil
fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). In this summary, we
outline the proposal; discuss its purpose; summarize its major
provisions, including the EPA's approach to determining goals; describe
the broad range of options available to states, including flexibility
in timing requirements both for plan submission and compliance
deadlines under those plans; and briefly describe the estimated
CO2 emission reductions, costs and benefits expected to
result from full implementation of the proposal.
    This rule, as proposed, would continue progress already underway to
lower the carbon intensity of power generation in the United States
(U.S.). Lower carbon intensity means fewer emissions of CO2,
a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. This
proposal is a significant step forward in the EPA and states partnering
to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. The proposal incorporates critical
elements that reflect the information and views shared during the
unprecedented effort that the EPA has undertaken, beginning in the
summer of 2013, to interact directly with, and solicit input from, a
wide range of states and stakeholders. This effort encompassed several
hundred meetings across the country with state environmental and energy
officials, public utility commissioners, system operators, utilities
and public interest advocates, as well as members of the public. Many
participants submitted written material and data to the EPA as well.
    Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would achieve CO2
emission reductions from the power sector of approximately 30 percent
from CO2 emission levels in 2005. This goal is achievable
because innovations in the production, distribution and use of
electricity are already making the power sector more efficient and
sustainable while maintaining an affordable, reliable and diverse
energy mix. This proposed rule would reinforce and continue this
progress. The EPA projects that, in 2030, the significant reductions in
the harmful carbon pollution and in other air pollution, to which this
rule would lead, would result in net climate and health benefits of $48
billion to $82 billion. At the same time, coal and natural gas would
remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S.,
with each providing more than 30 percent of the projected generation.
    Based on evidence from programs already being implemented by many
states as well as input received from stakeholders, the agency
recognizes that the most cost-effective system of emission reduction
for GHG emissions from the power sector under CAA section 111(d)
entails not only improving the efficiency of fossil fuel-fired EGUs,
but also addressing their utilization by taking advantage of
opportunities for lower-emitting generation and reduced electricity
demand across the electricity system's interconnecting network or grid.
    The proposed guidelines are based on and would reinforce the
actions already being taken by states and utilities to upgrade aging
electricity infrastructure with 21st century technologies. The
guidelines would ensure that these trends continue in ways that are
consistent with the long-term planning and investment processes already
used in this sector, to meet both region- and state-specific needs. The
proposal provides flexibility for states to build upon their progress,
and the progress of cities and towns, in addressing GHGs. It also
allows states to pursue policies to reduce carbon pollution that: (1)

Continue to rely on a diverse set of energy resources, (2) ensure
electric system reliability, (3) provide affordable electricity, (4)
recognize investments that states and power companies are already
making, and (5) can be tailored to meet the specific energy,
environmental and economic needs and goals of each state. Thus, the
proposed guidelines would achieve meaningful CO2 emission
reduction while maintaining the reliability and affordability of
electricity in the U.S.
a. Proposal Elements
    The proposal has two main elements: (1) State-specific emission
rate-based CO2 goals and (2) guidelines for the development,
submission and implementation of state plans. To set the state-specific
CO2 goals, the EPA analyzed the practical and affordable
strategies that states and utilities are already using to lower carbon
pollution from the power sector. These strategies include improvements
in efficiency at carbon-intensive power plants, programs that enhance
the dispatch priority of, and spur private investments in, low emitting
and renewable power sources, as well as programs that help homes and
businesses use electricity more efficiently. In addition, in
calculating each state's CO2 goal, the EPA took into
consideration the state's fuel mix, its electricity market and numerous
other factors. Thus, each state's goal reflects its unique conditions.
    While this proposal lays out state-specific CO2 goals
that each state is required to meet, it does not prescribe how a state
should meet its goal. CAA section 111(d) creates a partnership between
the EPA and the states under which the EPA sets these goals and the
states take the lead on meeting them by creating plans that are
consistent with the EPA guidelines. Each state will have the
flexibility to design a program to meet its goal in a manner that
reflects its particular circumstances and energy and environmental
policy objectives. Each state can do so alone or can collaborate with
other states on multi-state plans that may provide additional
opportunities for cost savings and flexibility.
    To facilitate the state planning process, this proposal lays out
guidelines for the development and implementation of state plans. The
proposal describes the components of a state plan, the latitude states
have in developing compliance strategies, the flexibility they have in
the timing for submittal of their plans and the flexibility they have
in determining the schedule by which their sources must achieve the
required CO2 reductions. The EPA recognizes that each state
has differing policy considerations--including varying emission
reduction opportunities and existing state programs and measures--and
that the characteristics of the electricity system in each state (e.g.,
utility regulatory structure, generation mix and electricity demand)
also differ. Therefore, the proposed guidelines provide states with
options for meeting the state-specific goals established by the EPA in
a manner that accommodates a diverse range of state approaches. This
proposal also gives states considerable flexibility with respect to the
timeframes for plan development and implementation, providing up to two
or three years for submission of final plans and providing up to
fifteen years for full implementation of all emission reduction
measures, after the proposal is finalized.
    Addressing a concern raised by both utilities and states, the EPA
is proposing that states could choose approaches in their compliance
plans under which full responsibility for actions achieving reductions
is not placed entirely upon emitting EGUs; instead, state plans could
include measures and policies (e.g., demand-side energy efficiency
programs and renewable portfolio standards) for which the state itself
is responsible. Of course, individual states would also have the option
of structuring programs (e.g., allowance-trading programs) under which
full responsibility rests on the affected EGUs.
    The EPA believes that, using the flexibilities inherent in CAA
section 111(d), this proposal would result in significant reductions of
GHG emissions that cause harmful climate change, while providing states
with ample opportunity to design plans that use innovative, cost-
effective strategies that take advantage of investments already being
made in programs and measures that lower the carbon intensity of the
power sector and reduce GHG emissions.
b. Policy Context and Industry Conditions
    This proposal is an important step toward achieving the GHG
emission reductions needed to address the serious threat of climate
change. GHG pollution threatens the American public by leading to
potentially rapid, damaging and long-lasting changes in our climate
that can have a range of severe negative effects on human health and
the environment. CO2 is the primary GHG pollutant,
accounting for nearly three-quarters of global GHG emissions \1\ and 82
percent of U.S. GHG emissions.\2\ The May 2014 report of the National
Climate Assessment \3\ concluded that climate change impacts are
already manifesting themselves and imposing losses and costs. The
report documents increases in extreme weather and climate events in
recent decades, damage and disruption to infrastructure and
agriculture, and projects continued increases in impacts across a wide
range of communities, sectors, and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report,
``Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,'' 2007. Available at
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html.
    \2\ Table ES-2 ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2012'', Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.
    \3\ U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, May
2014. Available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The President's Climate Action Plan,\4\ issued in June 2013,
recognizes that climate change has far-reaching harmful consequences
and real economic costs. The Climate Action Plan details a broad array
of actions to reduce GHG emissions that contribute to climate change
and affect public health and the environment. One of the plan's goals
is to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. This is
because fossil fuel-fired EGUs are, by far, the largest emitters of
GHGs, primarily in the form of CO2, among stationary sources
in the U.S. To accomplish this goal, President Obama issued a
Presidential Memorandum \5\ that recognized the importance of
significant and prompt action. The Memorandum directed the EPA to
complete carbon pollution standards, regulations or guidelines, as
appropriate, for modified, reconstructed and existing power plants by
June 1, 2015, and in doing so to build on state leadership in moving
toward a cleaner power sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The President's Climate Action Plan, June 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
    \5\ Presidential Memorandum--Power Sector Carbon Pollution
Standards, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The way that power is produced, distributed and used is already
changing due to advancements in innovative power sector technologies
and in the availability and cost of low carbon fuel, renewable energy
and energy efficient demand-side technologies, as well as economic
conditions. In addition, the average age of the coal-fired generating
fleet is increasing. In 2025, the average age of the coal-fired
generating fleet is

projected to be 49 years old, and 20 percent of units would be more
than 60 years old if they remained in operation at that time.
Therefore, even in the absence of additional environmental regulation,
states and utilities can be expected to be, and already are, making
plans to address the changes necessitated by the aging of current
assets and infrastructure. With change inevitably underway between now
and 2030, a CAA section 111(d) rulemaking for CO2 emissions
is timely and can inform current and ongoing decision making by states
and utilities, as well as private sector business and technology
investments. As states develop their plans, they will make key
decisions that will stimulate private sector investment and innovation
associated with reducing GHG emissions. We expect that many states will
consider the opportunities offered for their respective economies as a
result of this investment.
    The proposed guidelines are designed to build on and reinforce
progress by states, cities and towns, and companies on a growing
variety of sustainable strategies to reduce power sector CO2
emissions. At the same time, the EPA believes that this proposal
provides flexibility for states to develop plans that align with their
unique circumstances, as well as their other environmental policy,
energy and economic goals. All states will have the opportunity to
shape their plans as they believe appropriate for meeting the proposed
CO2 goals. This includes states with long-established
reliance on coal-fired generation, as well as states with a commitment
to promoting renewable energy (including through sustainable forestry
initiatives). It also includes states that are already participating in
or implementing CO2 reduction programs, such as the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), California's ``Global Warming
Solutions Act'' and Colorado's ``Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act''.
    States would be able to rely on and extend programs they may
already have created to address the power sector. Those states
committed to Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) would be able to
establish their CO2 reduction plans within that framework,
while states with a more deregulated power sector system could develop
CO2 reduction plans within that specific framework. Each
state, including states without an existing program, would have the
opportunity to take advantage of a wide variety of strategies for
reducing CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. The EPA and other
federal entities, including the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, among others, are committed to sharing expertise with
interested states as they develop and implement their plans.
    States would be able to address the economic interests of their
utilities and ratepayers by using the flexibilities in this proposed
action to: (1) Reduce costs to consumers, minimize stranded assets, and
spur private investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies and businesses; and (2) if they choose, work with other
states on multi-state approaches that reflect the regional structure of
electricity operating systems that exists in most parts of the country
and is critical to ensuring a reliable supply of affordable energy. The
proposed rule gives states the flexibility to provide a broad range of
compliance options that recognize that the power sector is made up of a
diverse range of companies that own and operate fossil fuel-fired EGUs,
including vertically integrated companies in regulated markets,
independent power producers, rural cooperatives and municipally-owned
utilities, all of which are likely to have different ranges of
opportunities to reduce GHG emissions while facing different challenges
in meeting these reductions.
    Both existing state programs (such as RGGI, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act program and the Colorado Clean Air, Clean Jobs
Act program) and ideas suggested by stakeholders show that there are a
number of different ways that states can design programs that achieve
required reductions while working within existing market mechanisms
used to dispatch power effectively in the short term and to ensure
adequate capacity in the long term. These programs and programs for
conventional pollutants, such as the Acid Rain Program under Title IV
of the CAA, have demonstrated that compliance with environmental
programs can be monetized such that it is factored into power sector
economic decision making in ways that reduce the cost of controlling
pollution, maintain electricity system reliability and work within the
least cost dispatching principles that are key to operation of our
electric power grid. The proposal would also allow states to work
together with individual companies on potential specific challenges.
These and other flexibilities are discussed further in Section VIII of
the preamble.
a. CAA Section 111(d) Requirements
    Under CAA section 111(d),\6\ state plans must establish standards
of performance that reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the ``best system of emission
reduction'' that, taking into account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements, the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated (BSER).\7\ Consistent with CAA section 111(d), the EPA is
proposing state-specific goals that reflect the EPA's calculation of
the emission limitation that each state can achieve through the
application of the BSER. This calculation reflects the degree of
emission limitation that the state plan must achieve in order to
implement the BSER that the EPA has determined has been adequately
demonstrated and that, in turn, would be required to be, and via the
calculation, has been, applied for the affected EGUs in each state. A
CAA section 111(d) state plan will differ from a state implementation
plan (SIP) for a criteria air pollutant national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) in several respects, reflecting the significant
differences between CAA sections 110 and 111. A CAA section 110 SIP
must be designed to meet the NAAQS for a criteria air pollutant for a
particular area--not for a source category--within a timeframe
specified in the CAA. The NAAQS itself is based on the current body of
scientific evidence and, by law, does not reflect consideration of
cost. By contrast, a CAA section 111(d) state plan must be designed to
achieve a specific level of emission performance that has been
established for a particular source category within a timeframe
determined by the Administrator and, to some extent, by each state.
Moreover, the emission levels for the source category reflect a
determination of the BSER, which incorporates consideration of cost,
technical feasibility and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also 40 CFR 60.22(b)(5).
    \7\ Under CAA section 111(a)(1) and (d), the EPA is authorized
to determine the BSER and to calculate the amount of emission
reduction achievable through applying the BSER. The state is
authorized to identify the standard or standards of performance that
reflects that amount of emission reduction. In addition, the state
is required to include in its state plan the standards of
performance and measures to implement and enforce those standards.
The state must submit the plan to the EPA, and the EPA must approve
the plan if the standards of performance and implementing and
enforcing measures are satisfactory. This is discussed in more
detail in Sections IV, VI, VII and VIII of this preamble, as well as
in the Legal Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the BSER for reducing CO2 emissions at
affected EGUs, the EPA considered numerous measures that are already
being implemented and can be implemented more broadly to

improve emission rates and to reduce overall CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Overall, the BSER proposed here is based
on a range of measures that fall into four main categories, or
``building blocks,'' which comprise improved operations at EGUs,
dispatching lower-emitting EGUs and zero-emitting energy sources, and
end-use energy efficiency. All of these measures have been amply
demonstrated via their current widespread use by utilities and states.
    The proposed guidelines are structured so that states would not be
required to use each and every one of the measures that the EPA
determines constitute the BSER or to apply any one of those measures to
the same extent that the EPA determines is achievable at reasonable
cost. Instead, in developing its plan, each state will have the
flexibility to select the measure or combination of measures it prefers
in order to achieve its CO2 emission reduction goal. Thus, a
state could choose to achieve more reductions from one measure
encompassed by the BSER and less from another, or it could choose to
include measures that were not part of the EPA's BSER determination, as
long as the state achieves the CO2 reductions at affected
EGUs necessary to meet the goal that the EPA has defined as
representing the BSER.
    As explained in further detail in Sections VI, VII and VIII of this
preamble regarding the agency's determination of the BSER, the EPA is
offering the opportunity via this proposal to comment on the proposed
BSER, the proposed methodology for computing state goals based on
application of the BSER, and the state-specific data used in the
computations. Once the final goals have been promulgated, a state would
no longer have an opportunity to request that the EPA adjust its
CO2 goal. The final state-specific CO2 goals
would reflect any adjustments as appropriate based on comments provided
to the EPA to address any data errors in the analysis for the proposed
goals. We expect that states will be able to meet the CO2
goals because they will represent the application of the BSER for the
states' affected sources.
    This proposed rule sets forth the state goals that reflect the BSER
and guidelines for states to use in developing their plans to reduce
CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The preamble describes the
proposed expectations for state plans and discusses options that the
EPA has considered. It also explains the EPA's authority to define the
BSER, as well as state goals, and each state's responsibility to
develop and implement standards of performance that will achieve its
CO2 goal. Additional detail on various aspects of the
proposal is included in several technical support documents (TSDs) and
memoranda, which are available in the rulemaking docket.
    The proposal was substantially informed by the extensive input from
states and a wide range of stakeholders that the EPA sought and has
received since the summer of 2013. The EPA invites further input
through public comment on all aspects of this proposal.
2. Summary of the Proposal's Major Provisions
a. Approach
    In developing this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is implementing
statutory provisions that have been in place since Congress first
enacted the CAA in 1970 and that have been implemented pursuant to
regulations promulgated in 1975 and followed in subsequent CAA section
111(d) rulemakings. These provisions ensure that, in concert with the
provisions of CAA sections 110 and 112, new and existing major
stationary sources operate in ways that address their emissions of
significant air pollutants that are harmful to public health and the
environment. These requirements call on the EPA to develop emission
guidelines, which reflect the EPA's determination of the BSER, for
states to follow in formulating compliance plans to implement standards
of performance to achieve emission reductions consistent with the BSER.
In following these provisions, the EPA is proposing a BSER based on
strategies currently being used by states and companies to reduce
CO2 emissions from EGUs.
    The CAA, as interpreted by the courts, identifies several factors
for the EPA to consider in a BSER determination. These include
technical feasibility, costs, size of emission reductions and
technology (e.g., whether the system promotes the implementation and
further development of technology). In determining the BSER, the EPA
considered the reductions achievable through measures that reduce
CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs either by
(1) reducing the CO2 emission rate at those units or (2)
reducing the units' CO2 emission total to the extent that
generation can be shifted from higher-emitting fossil fuel-fired EGUs
to lower- or zero-emitting options.
    As the EPA has done in making BSER determinations in previous CAA
section 111(d) rulemakings, the agency considered the types of
strategies that states and owners and operators of EGUs are already
employing to reduce the covered pollutant (in this case,
CO2) from affected sources (in this case, fossil fuel-fired
EGUs).\8\ Across the nation, many states, cities and towns, and owners
and operators of EGUs have shown leadership in creating and
implementing policies and programs that reduce CO2 emissions
from the power sector while achieving other economic, environmental and
energy benefits. Some of these activities, such as market-based
programs and GHG performance standards, directly require CO2
emission reductions from EGUs. Others reduce CO2 emissions
by reducing utilization of fossil fuel-fired EGUs through, for example,
renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and energy efficiency resource
standards (EERS). For example, currently 10 states have market-based
GHG emission programs, 38 states have renewable portfolio standards or
goals, and utilities in 47 states run demand-side energy efficiency
programs. Many individual companies also have significant voluntary
CO2 emission reduction programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The final emission guidelines for landfill gas emissions
from municipal solid waste landfills, published on March 12, 1996
and amended on June 16, 1998 (61 FR 9905 and 63 FR 32743,
respectively) are one example, as they allow either of two
approaches for controlling landfill gas--by recovering the gas as a
fuel, for sale, and removing from the premises, or by destroying the
organic content of the gas on the premises using a control device.
Recovering the gas as a fuel source was a practice already being
used by some affected sources prior to promulgation of the
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such strategies--and the proposed BSER determination--reflect the
fact that, in almost all states, the production, distribution and use
of electricity can be, and is, undertaken in ways that accommodate
reductions in both pollution emission rates and total emissions.
Specifically, electricity production, at least to some extent, takes
place interchangeably between and among multiple generation facilities
and different types of generation, a fact that Congress, the EPA and
the states have long relied on in enacting or promulgating pollution
reduction programs, such as Title IV of the CAA, the NOX SIP
Call, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and RGGI.
    As a result, the agency, in quantifying state goals, assessed what
combination of electricity production or energy demand reduction across
generation facilities can offer a reasonable-cost, technically feasible
approach to achieving CO2 emission reductions. States, in
turn, will be able to look broadly at opportunities across their

electricity system in devising plans to meet their goals. Importantly,
states may rely on measures that they already have in place, including
renewable energy standards and demand-side energy efficiency programs,
and the proposal details how such existing state programs can be
incorporated into state plans. States will also be able to participate
in multi-state programs that already exist or may create new ones.
    Thus, to determine the BSER for reducing CO2 emissions
at affected EGUs and to establish the numerical goals that reflect the
BSER, the EPA considered numerous measures that can and are being
implemented to improve emission rates and to reduce or limit mass
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. These measures
encompass two basic approaches: (1) Reducing the carbon intensity of
certain affected EGUs by improving the efficiency of their operations,
and (2) addressing affected EGUs' mass emissions by varying their
utilization levels. For purposes of expressing the BSER as an emission
limitation, in this case in the form of state-level goals, we propose
to base these two approaches on measures grouped into four main
categories, or ``building blocks.'' These building blocks can also be
used as a guide to states for constructing broad-based, cost-effective,
long-term strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. The EPA
believes that the application of measures from each of the building
blocks can achieve CO2 emission reductions at fossil fuel-
fired EGUs such that, when combined with measures from other building
blocks, the measures represent the ``best system of emission reduction
. . . adequately demonstrated'' for fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The
building blocks are:
    1. Reducing the carbon intensity of generation at individual
affected EGUs through heat rate improvements.
    2. Reducing emissions from the most carbon-intensive affected EGUs
in the amount that results from substituting generation at those EGUs
with generation from less carbon-intensive affected EGUs (including
NGCC units under construction).
    3. Reducing emissions from affected EGUs in the amount that results
from substituting generation at those EGUs with expanded low- or zero-
carbon generation.
    4. Reducing emissions from affected EGUs in the amount that results
from the use of demand-side energy efficiency that reduces the amount
of generation required.
    The four building blocks are described in detail in Sections VI of
this preamble. As explained in that section, the EPA evaluated each of
the building blocks individually against the BSER criteria and found
that each of the building blocks independently merits consideration as
part of the BSER. The EPA also evaluated combinations of the building
blocks against the BSER criteria--in particular, a combination of all
four building blocks and a combination of building blocks 1 and 2.
    Based on that evaluation, the EPA proposes that the combination of
all four building blocks is the BSER. The combination of all four
blocks best represents the BSER because it achieves greater emission
reductions at a lower cost, takes better advantage of the wide range of
measures that states, cities, towns and utilities are already using to
reduce CO2 from EGUs and reflects the integrated nature of
the electricity system and the diversity of electricity generation
technology. Section VI of this preamble also explains how the EPA
considered more aggressive application of measures in each block. This
includes consideration of more extensive application of measures that
the EPA determined do represent a component of the BSER (such as more
extensive or accelerated application of demand-side measures), as well
as consideration of options in some blocks that the EPA determined
would not represent the BSER for existing sources (such as the
inclusion of retrofit carbon capture and storage or sequestration (CCS)
on existing EGUs).
    As part of the BSER determination, the EPA considered the impacts
that implementation of the emission reductions based on the combination
of the blocks would have on the cost of electricity and electricity
system reliability. As the preamble details, the EPA believes that,
both with respect to the overall proposed BSER and with respect to the
individual building blocks, the associated costs are reasonable.
Importantly, the proposed BSER, expressed as a numeric goal for each
state, provides states with the flexibility to determine how to achieve
the reductions (i.e., greater reductions from one building block and
less from another) and to adjust the timing in which reductions are
achieved, in order to address key issues such as cost to consumers,
electricity system reliability and the remaining useful life of
existing generation assets.
    In sum, the EPA proposes that the BSER for purposes of CAA section
111(d), as applied to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, is based on a
combination of measures that reduce CO2 emissions and
CO2 emission rates and encompass all four building
blocks.\9\ We are also soliciting comment on application of only the
first two building blocks as the basis for the BSER, while noting that
application of only the first two building blocks achieves fewer
CO2 reductions at a higher cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA notes that under the proposed BSER, some building
blocks would apply to some, but not all, affected sources.
Specifically, building block 1 would apply to affected coal-fired
steam EGUs, building block 2 would apply to all affected steam EGUs
(both coal-fired and oil/gas-fired), and building blocks 3 and 4
would apply to all affected EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the BSER, we have considered the ranges of
reductions that can be achieved by application of each building block,
and we have identified goals that we believe reflect a reasonable
degree of application of each building block consistent with the BSER
criteria. Relying on all four building blocks to characterize the
combination of measures that reduce CO2 emissions and
CO2 emission rates at affected EGUs as the basis for the
BSER is consistent with strategies, actions and measures that companies
and states are already undertaking to reduce GHG emissions and with
current trends in the electric power sector, driven by efforts to
reduce GHGs as well as by other factors, such as advancements in
technology. Reliance on all four building blocks in this way also
supports the goals of achieving significant and technically feasible
reductions of CO2 at a reasonable cost, while also promoting
technology and approaches that are important for achieving further
reductions. Finally, the EPA believes that the diverse range of
measures encompassed in the four building blocks allows states and
sources to take full advantage of the inherent flexibility of the
current regionally interconnected and integrated electricity system so
as to achieve the CO2 goals while continuing to meet the
demand for electricity services in a reliable and affordable manner.
    The EPA recognizes that states differ in important ways, including
in their mix of existing EGUs and in their policy priorities.
Consequently, opportunities and preferences for reducing emissions, as
reflected in each of the building blocks, vary across states. While the
state-specific goals that the EPA is proposing in this rule are based
on consistent application of a single goal-setting methodology across
all states, the goals account for these key differences. The state-
specific CO2 goals derived from application of the
methodology vary because, in setting the goals for a state, the EPA
used data specific to each state's EGUs and certain

other attributes of its electricity system (e.g., current mix of
generation resources).
    The proposed BSER and goal-setting methodology reflect information
provided and priorities expressed during the EPA's recent, extensive
public outreach process. The input we received ranged from the states'
desires for flexibility and recognition of varying state circumstances
to the success that states and companies have had in adopting a range
of pollution--and demand-reduction strategies. The state-specific
approach embodied in both CAA section 111(d) and this proposal
recognizes that ultimately states are the most knowledgeable about
their specific circumstances and are best positioned to evaluate and
leverage existing and new generation capacity and programs to reduce
CO2 emissions.
    To meet its goal, each state will be able to design programs that
use the measures it selects, and these may include the combination of
building blocks most relevant to its specific circumstances and policy
preferences. States may also identify technologies or strategies that
are not explicitly mentioned in any of the four building blocks and may
use those technologies or strategies as part of their overall plans
(e.g., market-based trading programs or construction of new natural
combined cycle units or nuclear plants). Further, the EPA's approach
allows multi-state compliance strategies.
    The agency also recognizes the important functional relationship
between the period of time over which measures are deployed and the
stringency of emission limitations those measures can achieve in a
practical and reasonable cost way. Because, for this proposal, the EPA
is proposing a 10-year period over which to achieve the full required
CO2 reductions, a period that begins more than five years
from the date of this proposal, a state could take advantage of this
relationship in the design of its program by using relevant
combinations of building blocks to achieve its state goal in a manner
that provides for electricity system reliability, avoids the creation
of stranded assets and has a reasonable cost.
b. State Goals and Flexibilities
    In this action, the EPA is proposing state-specific rate-based
goals that state plans must be designed to meet. These state-specific
goals are based on an assessment of the amount of emissions that can be
reduced at existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs through application of the
BSER, as required under CAA section 111(d). The agency is proposing
state-specific final goals that must be achieved by no later than the
year 2030. The proposed final goals reflect the EPA's quantification of
adjusted state-average emission rates from affected EGUs that could be
achieved at reasonable cost by 2030 through implementation of the four
building blocks described above.
    The EPA recognizes that, with many measures, states can achieve
emission reductions in the short-term, though the full effects of
implementation of other measures, such as demand-side energy efficiency
(EE) programs and the addition of renewable energy (RE) generating
capacity, can take longer. Thus, the EPA is proposing interim goals
that states must meet beginning in 2020. The proposed interim goals
would apply over a 2020-2029 phase-in period. They reflect the level of
reductions in CO2 emissions and emission rates and the
extent of the application of the building blocks that would be
presumptively approvable in a state plan during the ramp-up to
achieving the final goal.
    The EPA is proposing to allow each state flexibility with regard to
the form of the goal. A state could adopt the rate-based form of the
goal established by the EPA or an equivalent mass-based form of the
goal. A multi-state approach incorporating either a rate- or mass-based
goal would also be approvable based upon a demonstration that the
state's plan would achieve the equivalent in stringency, including
compliance timing, to the state-specific rate-based goal set by the
EPA.
    We believe that this approach to establishing requirements for
states in developing their plans responds both to the needs of an
effectively implemented program and to the range of viewpoints
expressed by stakeholders regarding the simultaneous need for both
flexibility and clear guidance on what would constitute an approvable
state plan. We likewise believe that this approach represents a
reasonable balance between two competing objectives grounded in CAA
section 111(d)--a need for rigor and consistency in calculating
emission reductions reflecting the BSER and a need to provide the
states with flexibility in establishing and implementing the standards
of performance that reflect those emission reductions. The importance
of this balance is heightened by the fact that the operations of the
electricity system itself rely on the flexibility made available and
achieved through dispatching between and among multiple interconnected
EGUs, demand management and end-use energy efficiency. We view the
proposed goals as providing rigor where required by the statute with
respect to the amount of emission reductions, while providing states
with flexibility where permitted by the statute, particularly with
respect to the range of measures that a state could include in its
plan. This approach recognizes that state plans for emission reductions
can, and must, be consistent with a vibrant and growing economy and
supply of reliable, affordable electricity to support that economy. It
further reflects the growing trend, as exemplified by many state and
local clean energy policies and programs, to shift energy production
away from carbon-intensive fuels to a modern, more sustainable system
that puts greater reliance on renewable energy, energy efficiency and
other low-carbon energy options.
c. State Plans
i. Plan Approach
    Each state will determine, and include in its plan, emission
performance levels for its affected EGUs that are equivalent to the
state-specific CO2 goal in the emission guidelines, as well
as the measures needed to achieve those levels and the overall goal. As
part of determining these levels, the state will decide whether it will
adopt the rate-based form of the goal established by the EPA or
translate the rate-based goal to a mass-based goal. The state must then
establish a standard, or set of standards, of performance, as well as
implementing and enforcing measures, to achieve the emission
performance level specified in the state plan. The state may choose the
measures it will include in its plan to achieve its goal. The state may
use the same set of measures as in the EPA's approach to setting the
goals, or the state may use other or additional measures to achieve the
required CO2 reductions.
    A state plan must include enforceable CO2 emission
limits that apply to affected EGUs. In doing so, a state plan may take
a portfolio approach, which could include enforceable CO2
emission limits that apply to affected EGUs as well as other
enforceable measures, such as RE and demand-side EE measures, that
avoid EGU CO2 emissions and are implemented by the state or
by another entity. The plan must also include a process for reporting
on plan implementation, progress toward achieving CO2 goals,
and implementation of corrective actions, if necessary. No less
frequently than every two rolling calendar years, beginning January 1,
2022, the state will be required to compare emission performance
achieved by affected EGUs

in the state with the emissions performance projected in the state
plan, and report that to the EPA.
    In this action, the EPA is also proposing guidelines for states to
follow in developing their plans. These guidelines include
approvability criteria, requirements for state plan components, the
process and timing for state plan submittal and the process and timing
for demonstrating achievement of the CO2 emission
performance level in the state plan. The proposed guidelines provide
states with options for meeting the state-specific goals established by
the EPA in a flexible manner that accommodates a diverse range of state
approaches. The plan guidelines provide the states with the ability to
achieve the full reductions over a multi-year period, through a variety
of reduction strategies, using state-specific or multi-state approaches
that can be achieved on either a rate or mass basis. They also address
several key policy considerations that states can be expected to
contemplate in developing their plans.
    With respect to the structure of the state plans, the EPA, in its
extensive outreach efforts, heard from a wide range of stakeholders
that the EPA should authorize state plans to include a portfolio of
actions that encompass a diverse set of programs and measures that
achieve either a rate-based or mass-based emission performance level
for affected EGUs but that do not place legal responsibility for
achieving the entire amount of the emission performance level on the
affected EGUs. In view of this strong sentiment from stakeholders, the
EPA is proposing that state plans that take this portfolio approach
would be approvable, provided that they meet other key requirements
such as achieving the required emission reductions over the appropriate
timeframes. Plans that do directly assure that affected EGUs achieve
all of the required emission reductions (such as the mass-based
programs being implemented in California and the RGGI states) would
also be approvable provided that they meet other key requirements, such
as achieving the required emission reductions over the appropriate
timeframes.
ii. State Plan Components
    The EPA is proposing to evaluate and approve state plans based on
four general criteria: (1) Enforceable measures that reduce EGU
CO2 emissions; (2) projected achievement of emission
performance equivalent to the goals established by the EPA, on a
timeline equivalent to that in the emission guidelines; (3)
quantifiable and verifiable emission reductions; and (4) a process for
reporting on plan implementation, progress toward achieving
CO2 goals, and implementation of corrective actions, if
necessary. In addition, each state plan must follow the EPA framework
regulations at 40 CFR 60.23. The proposed components of states plans
are:

 Identification of affected entities
 Description of plan approach and geographic scope
 Identification of state emission performance level
 Demonstration that plan is projected to achieve emission
performance level
 Identification of emission standards
 Demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable,
non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable
 Identification of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements
 Description of state reporting
 Identification of milestones
 Identification of backstop measures
 Certification of hearing on state plan
 Supporting material
iii. Process for State Plan Submittal and Review
    Recognizing the urgent need for actions to reduce GHG emissions,
and in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum,\10\ the EPA expects
to finalize this rulemaking by June 1, 2015. The Presidential
Memorandum also calls for a deadline of June 30, 2016, for states to
submit their state plans. The EPA is proposing that each state must
submit a plan to the EPA by June 30, 2016. However, the EPA recognizes
that some states may need more than one year to complete all of the
actions needed for their final state plans, including technical work,
state legislative and rulemaking activities, coordination with third
parties, and coordination among states involved in multi-state plans.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing an optional two-phased submittal
process for state plans. Each state would be required to submit a plan
by June 30, 2016, that contains certain required components. If a state
needs additional time to submit a complete plan, then the state must
submit an initial plan by June 30, 2016 that documents the reasons the
state needs more time and includes commitments to concrete steps that
will ensure that the state will submit a complete plan by June 30, 2017
or 2018, as appropriate. To be approvable, the initial plan must
include specific components, including a description of the plan
approach, initial quantification of the level of emission performance
that will be achieved in the plan, a commitment to maintain existing
measures that limit CO2 emissions, an explanation of the
path to completion, and a summary of the state's response to any
significant public comment on the approvability of the initial plan, as
described in Section VIII.E of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Presidential Memorandum--Power Sector Carbon Pollution
Standards, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the initial plan includes those components and if the EPA does
not notify the state that the initial plan does not contain the
required components, the extension of time to submit a complete plan
will be deemed granted and a state would have until June 30, 2017, to
submit a complete plan if the geographic scope of the plan is limited
to that state. If the state develops a plan that includes a multi-state
approach, it would have until June 30, 2018 to submit a complete plan.
Further, the EPA is proposing that states participating in a multi-
state plan may submit a single joint plan on behalf of all of the
participating states.
    Following submission of final plans, the EPA will review plan
submittals for approvability. Given the diverse approaches states may
take to meet the emission performance goals in the emission guidelines,
the EPA is proposing to extend the period for EPA review and approval
or disapproval of plans from the four-month period provided in the EPA
framework regulations to a twelve-month period.
iv. Timing of Compliance
    As states, industry groups and other stakeholders have made clear,
the EPA recognizes that the measures states have been and will be
taking to reduce CO2 emissions from existing EGUs can take
time to implement. Thus, we are proposing that, while states must begin
to make reductions by 2020, full compliance with the CO2
emission performance level in the state plan must be achieved by no
later than 2030. Under this proposed option, a state would need to meet
an interim CO2 emission performance level on average over
the 10-year period from 2020-2029, as well as achieve its final
CO2 emission performance level by 2030 and maintain that
level subsequently. This proposed option is based on the application of
a range of measures from all four building blocks, and the agency
believes that this approach for compliance timing is reasonable and
appropriate and would best support the optimization of overall

CO2 reductions. The agency is also requesting comment on an
alternative option, a 5-year period for compliance, in combination with
a less stringent set of CO2 emission performance levels.
These options are fully described in Section VIII of this preamble, and
the state goals associated with the alternative option are described in
Section VII.E of this preamble. The EPA is also seeking comment on
different combinations of building blocks and different levels of
stringency for each building block.
    The EPA is also proposing that measures that a state takes after
the date of this proposal, or programs already in place, which result
in CO2 emission reductions during the 2020-2030 period,
would apply toward achievement of the state's 2030 CO2
emission goal. Thus, states with currently existing programs and
policies, and states that put in place new programs and policies early,
will be better positioned to achieve the goals.
v. Resources for States
    To respond to requests from states for methodologies, tools and
information to assist them in designing and implementing their plans,
the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other
federal agencies, as well as states, is collecting and developing
available resources and is making those resources available to the
states via a dedicated Web site.\11\ As we and others continue to
develop tools, templates and other resources, we will update the Web
site. We intend, during the public comment period, to work actively
with the states on resources that will be helpful to them in both
developing and implementing their plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Projected National-Level Emission Reductions
    Under the proposed guidelines, the EPA projects annual
CO2 reductions of 26 to 30 percent below 2005 levels
depending upon the compliance year. These guidelines will also result
in important reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants,
including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and directly emitted fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). A thorough discussion of the EPA's analysis is
presented in Section X.A of this preamble and in Chapter 3 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
4. Costs and Benefits
    Actions taken to comply with the proposed guidelines will reduce
emissions of CO2 and other air pollutants, including
SO2, NOX and directly emitted PM2.5,
from the electric power industry. States will make the ultimate
determination as to how the emission guidelines are implemented. Thus,
all costs and benefits reported for this action are illustrative
estimates. The EPA has calculated illustrative costs and benefits in
two ways: One based on an assumption of individual state plans and
another based on an assumption that states will opt for multi-state
plans. The illustrative costs and benefits are based upon compliance
approaches that reflect a range of measures consisting of improved
operations at EGUs, dispatching lower-emitting EGUs and zero-emitting
energy sources, and increasing levels of end-use energy efficiency.
    Assuming that states comply with the guidelines collaboratively
(referred to as the regional compliance approach), the EPA estimates
that, in 2020, this proposal will yield monetized climate benefits of
approximately $17 billion (2011$) using a 3 percent discount rate
(model average) relative to the 2020 base case, as shown in Table
1.\12\ The air pollution health co-benefits associated with reducing
exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone through emission
reductions of precursor pollutants in 2020 are estimated to be $16
billion to $37 billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $15 billion
to $34 billion (2011$) using a 7 percent discount rate relative to the
2020 base case. The annual compliance costs are estimated using the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and include demand-side energy
efficiency program and participant costs as well as monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping costs. In 2020, total compliance costs of
this proposal are approximately $5.5 billion (2011$). The quantified
net benefits (the difference between monetized benefits and compliance
costs) in 2020 are estimated to be $28 billion to $49 billion (2011$)
using a 3 percent discount rate (model average). As reflected in Table
2, climate benefits are approximately $30 billion in 2030 using a 3
percent discount rate (model average, 2011$) relative to the 2030 base
case assuming a regional compliance approach for the proposal. Health
co-benefits are estimated to be approximately $25 to $59 billion (3
percent discount rate) and $23 to $54 billion (7 percent discount rate)
relative to the 2030 base case (2011$). In 2030, total compliance costs
for the proposed option regional approach are approximately $7.3
billion (2011$). The net benefits for this proposal increase to
approximately $48 billion to $82 billion (3 percent discount rate model
average, 2011$) in 2030 for the proposed option regional compliance
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA has used social cost of carbon (SCC) estimates--
i.e., the monetary value of impacts associated with a marginal
change in CO2 emissions in a given year--to analyze
CO2 climate impacts of this rulemaking. The four SCC
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 SCC value deemed to be central: The model
average at 3 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison, if states choose to comply with the guidelines on a
state-specific basis (referred to as state compliance approach), the
climate benefits in 2020 are expected to be approximately $18 billion
(3 percent discount rate, model average, 2011$), as Table 1 shows.
Health co-benefits are estimated to be $17 to $40 billion (3 percent
discount rate) and $15 to $36 billion (7 percent discount rate). Total
compliance costs are approximately $7.5 billion annually in 2020. Net
benefits in 2020 are estimated to be $27 to $50 billion (3 percent
model average discount rate, 2011$). In 2030, as shown on Table 2,
climate benefits are approximately $31 billion using a 3 percent
discount rate (model average, 2011$) relative to the 2030 base case
assuming a state compliance approach. Health co-benefits are estimated
to be approximately $27 to $62 billion (3 percent discount rate) and
$24 to $56 billion (7 percent discount rate) relative to the 2030 base
case (2011$). In 2030, total compliance costs for the state approach
are approximately $8.8 billion (2011$). In 2030, these net benefits are
estimated to be approximately $49 to $84 billion (3 percent discount
rate, 2011$) assuming a state compliance approach.

  Table 1--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net
            Benefits for the Proposed Guidelines in 2020 \a\
                           [Billions of 2011$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Proposed Guidelines Regional Compliance Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate benefits \b\............                   $17.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Air pollution health co-benefits  $16 to $37........  $15 to $34.
 \c\.
Total Compliance Costs \d\......  $5.5..............  $5.5.
Net Monetized Benefits \e\......  $28 to $49........  $26 to $45.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  Direct exposure to SO2 and NO2.
                                  1.3 tons of Hg.
                                  Ecosystem Effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Proposed Guidelines State Compliance Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate benefits \b\............                    $18
                                 ---------------------------------------
Air pollution health co-benefits  $17 to $40........  $15 to $36.
 \c\.
Total Compliance Costs \d\......  $7.5..............  $7.5.
Net Monetized Benefits \e\......  $27 to $50........  $26 to $46.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  Direct exposure to SO2 and NO2.
                                  1.5 tons.
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for 2020, and 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
  SCC 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 SCC estimated for a 3% discount
  rate, however we emphasize the importance and value of considering the
  full range of SCC values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are
  also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at
  2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile
  at 3 percent). The SCC 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 directly
  emitted PM2.5, SO2 and NOX. The range reflects the use of
  concentration-response functions from different epidemiology studies.
  The reduction in premature fatalities each year accounts for over 90
  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\ Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance costs
  estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the proposed
  guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5%. This estimate
  includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs and demand
  side energy efficiency program and participant costs.
\e\ The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated
  using the global social cost of carbon at a 3 percent discount rate
  (model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health
  estimates based on these additional discount rates.

  Table 2--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net
            Benefits for the Proposed Guidelines in 2030 \a\
                           [Billions of 2011$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Proposed Guidelines Regional Compliance Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate benefits \b\............                   $30.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Air pollution health co-benefits  $25 to $59........  $23 to $54.
 \c\.
Total Compliance Costs \d\......  $7.3..............  $7.3.
Net Monetized Benefits \e\......  $48 to $82........  $46 to $77.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  Direct exposure to SO2 and NO2.
                                  1.7 tons of Hg and 580 tons of HCl.
                                  Ecosystem Effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Proposed Guidelines State Compliance Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate benefits \b\............                   $31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution health co-benefits  $27 to $62........  $24 to $56.
 \c\.
Total Compliance Costs \d\......  $8.8..............  $8.8.
Net Monetized Benefits \e\......  $49 to $84........  $46 to $79.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-monetized Benefits..........  Direct exposure to SO2 and NO2.
                                  2.1 tons of Hg and 590 tons of HCl.
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for 2030, and 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
  SCC 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 SCC estimated for a 3% discount
  rate, however we emphasize the importance and value of considering the
  full range of SCC values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are
  also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at
  2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile
  at 3 percent). The SCC 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 directly
  emitted PM2.5, SO2 and NOX. The range reflects the use of
  concentration-response functions from different epidemiology studies.
  The reduction in premature fatalities each year accounts for over 90
  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\ Total costs are approximated by the illustrative compliance costs
  estimated using the Integrated Planning Model for the proposed
  guidelines and a discount rate of approximately 5%. This estimate
  includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs and demand
  side energy efficiency program and participant costs.
\e\ The estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated
  using the global social cost of carbon at a 3 percent discount rate
  (model average). The RIA includes combined climate and health
  estimates based on these additional discount rates.

    There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. These unquantified benefits include climate benefits from
reducing emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (e.g.,
nitrous oxide and methane) \13\ and co-benefits from reducing direct
exposure to SO2, NOX and hazardous air pollutants
(e.g., mercury and hydrogen chloride), as well as from reducing
ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas
released by the power sector, electricity generating units also emit
small amounts of nitrous oxide and methane. See RIA Chapter 2 for
more detail about power sector emissions and the U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program's power sector summary, http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/powerplants.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost and benefits of the rule, the EPA projects
the employment impacts of the guidelines. We project job gains and
losses relative to base case for the electric generation, coal and
natural gas production, and demand side energy efficiency sectors. In
2020, we project job growth of 25,900 to 28,000 job-years \14\ in the
power production and fuel extraction sectors, and we project an
increase of 78,800 jobs in the demand-side energy efficiency sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A job-year is not an individual job; rather, a job-year is
the amount of work performed by the equivalent of one full-time
individual for one year. For example, 20 job-years in 2020 may
represent 20 full-time jobs or 40 half-time jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the monetized benefits
of this proposal are substantial and far outweigh the costs.

B. Organization and Approach for This Proposed Rule

    This action presents the EPA's proposed emission guidelines for
states to consider in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from the
electric power sector. Section II provides background on climate change
impacts from GHG emissions, GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs
and the utility power sector and CAA section 111(d) requirements.
Section III presents a summary of the EPA's stakeholder outreach
efforts, key messages provided by stakeholders, state policies and
programs that reduce GHG emissions, and conclusions. In Section IV of
the preamble, we present a summary of the rule requirements and the
legal basis for these. Section V explains the EPA authority to regulate
CO2 and EGUs, identifies affected sources, and describes the
proposed treatment of source categories. Section VI describes the use
of building blocks for setting state goals and key considerations in
doing so. Sections VII and VIII provide explanations of the proposed
state-specific goals and the proposed requirements for state plans,
respectively. Implications for the new source review and Title V
programs and potential interactions with other EPA rules are described
in Section IX. Impacts of the proposed action are then described in
Section X, followed by a discussion of statutory and executive order
reviews in Section XI and the statutory authority for this action in
Section XII.
    We note that this rulemaking overlaps in certain respects with two
other related rulemakings: The January 2014 proposed rulemaking that
the EPA published on January 8, 2014 for CO2 emissions from
newly constructed affected sources,\15\ and the rulemaking for modified
and reconstructed sources that the EPA is proposing at the same time as
this rulemaking. Each of these three rulemakings is independent of the
other two, and each has its own rulemaking docket. Accordingly,
commenters who wish to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking,
including a topic that overlaps an aspect of one or both of the other
two related rulemakings, should make those comments on this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 79 FR 1430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    In this section, we discuss climate change impacts from GHG
emissions, both on public health and public welfare, present
information about GHG emissions from fossil fuel fired EGUs, and
summarize the statutory and regulatory requirements relevant to this
rulemaking.

A. Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions

    In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the
Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).\16\ In the
Endangerment Finding, which focused on public health and public welfare
impacts within the United States, the Administrator found that elevated
concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health and welfare of current and future
generations. We summarize these adverse effects on public health and
welfare briefly here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR
66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (``Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Public Health Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
    Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public
health in multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate
change

increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with
increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the
likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates
that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases
in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without
climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution
over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan
areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of
morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem from
projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme weather
associated with climate change, such as increased hurricane intensity,
increased frequency of intense storms, and heavy precipitation.
Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising sea levels are
expected to cause increased drownings and other health impacts.
Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to
these climate-related health effects.
2. Public Welfare Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
    Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens
public welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place
large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies,
increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events
such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face
increased risks from storm and flooding damage to property, as well as
adverse impacts from rising sea level, such as land loss due to
inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. Climate
change is expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand,
and extreme weather from climate change threatens energy,
transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may
exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements,
particularly in Alaskan indigenous communities. Climate change also is
very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st
century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on
agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence
points towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food
production, agriculture and forest productivity as temperature
continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems
outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security
issues for the U.S.
3. New Scientific Assessments
    As outlined in Section VIII.A. of the 2009 Endangerment Finding,
the EPA's approach to providing the technical and scientific
information to inform the Administrator's judgment regarding the
question of whether GHGs endanger public health and welfare was to rely
primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academies. These assessments addressed the scientific issues that the
EPA was required to examine, were comprehensive in their coverage of
the GHG and climate change issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting
peer review by the expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S.
government review. Since the administrative record concerning the
Endangerment Finding closed following the EPA's 2010 Reconsideration
Denial, a number of such assessments have been released. These
assessments include the IPCC's 2012 ``Special Report on Managing the
Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation'' (SREX) and the 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),
the USGCRP's 2014 ``Climate Change Impacts in the United States''
(Climate Change Impacts), and the NRC's 2010 ``Ocean Acidification: A
National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean'' (Ocean
Acidification), 2011 ``Report on Climate Stabilization Targets:
Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia''
(Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 ``National Security Implications
for U.S. Naval Forces'' (National Security Implications), 2011
``Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future''
(Understanding Earth's Deep Past), 2012 ``Sea Level Rise for the Coasts
of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future'',
2012 ``Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis''
(Climate and Social Stress), and 2013 ``Abrupt Impacts of Climate
Change'' (Abrupt Impacts) assessments.
    The EPA has reviewed these new assessments and finds that the
improved understanding of the climate system they present strengthens
the case that GHGs endanger public health and welfare.
    In addition, these assessments highlight the urgency of the
situation as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
continues to rise. Absent a reduction in emissions, a recent National
Research Council of the National Academies assessment projected that
concentrations by the end of the century would increase to levels that
the Earth has not experienced for millions of years.\17\ In fact, that
assessment stated that ``the magnitude and rate of the present
greenhouse gas increase place the climate system in what could be one
of the most severe increases in radiative forcing of the global climate
system in Earth history.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ National Research Council, Understanding Earth's Deep Past,
p. 1.
    \18\ Id., p.138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What this means, as stated in another NRC assessment, is that:

    Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels
have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely
determine the evolution of Earth's climate. Because carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock Earth and
future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could
become very severe. Therefore, emission reductions choices made
today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the
next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ National Research Council, Climate Stabilization Targets,
p. 3.

    Moreover, due to the time-lags inherent in the Earth's climate, the
Climate Stabilization Targets assessment notes that the full warming
from any given concentration of CO2 reached will not be
realized for several centuries.
    The recently released USGCRP ``Climate Change Impacts'' assessment
\20\ emphasizes that climate change is already happening now and it is
happening in the United States. The assessment documents the increases
in some extreme weather and climate events in recent decades, the
damage and disruption to infrastructure and agriculture, and projects
continued increases in impacts across a wide range of peoples, sectors,
and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts
in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, May
2014 Available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These assessments underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now:
Today's emissions will otherwise lead to raised atmospheric
concentrations for thousands of years, and raised Earth system
temperatures for even longer. Emission reductions today will benefit
the public health and public welfare of current and future generations.
    Finally, it should be noted that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise dramatically. In 2009, the
year of the Endangerment Finding, the average concentration of carbon
dioxide as

measured on top of Mauna Loa was 387 parts per million.\21\ The average
concentration in 2013 was 396 parts per million. And the monthly
concentration in April of 2014 was 401 parts per million, the first
time a monthly average has exceeded 400 parts per million since record
keeping began at Mauna Loa in 1958, and for at least the past 800,000
years according to ice core records.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt.
    \22\ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. GHG Emissions From Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs

    Fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs) are by
far the largest emitters of GHGs, primarily in the form of
CO2, among stationary sources in the U.S., and among fossil
fuel-fired units, coal-fired units are by far the largest emitters.
This section describes the amounts of those emissions and places those
amounts in the context of the national inventory of GHGs.
    The EPA prepares the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks \23\ (the U.S. GHG Inventory) to comply with
commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). This inventory, which includes recent trends, is
organized by industrial sectors. It provides the information in Table 3
below, which presents total U.S. anthropogenic emissions and sinks \24\
of GHGs, including CO2 emissions, for the years 1990, 2005
and 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2012'', Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.
    \24\ Sinks are a physical unit or process that stores GHGs, such
as forests or underground or deep sea reservoirs of carbon dioxide.

                                 Table 3--U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks by Sector
                             [Teragram carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq.)] \25\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sector                                    1990            2005            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy..........................................................         5,260.1         6,243.5         5,498.9
Industrial Processes............................................           316.1           334.9           334.4
Solvent and Other Product Use...................................             4.4             4.4             4.4
Agriculture.....................................................           473.9           512.2           526.3
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry..........................            13.7            25.5            37.8
Waste...........................................................           165.0           133.2           124.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Total Emissions.................................................         6,233.2         7,253.8         6,525.6
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Sinks)..................         (831.3)       (1,030.7)         (979.3)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks)...............................         5,402.1         6,223.1         5,546.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ From Table ES-4 of ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012, Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total fossil energy-related CO2 emissions (including
both stationary and mobile sources) are the largest contributor to
total U.S. GHG emissions, representing 77.7 percent of total 2012 GHG
emissions.\26\ In 2012, fossil fuel combustion by the electric power
sector--entities that burn fossil fuel and whose primary business is
the generation of electricity--accounted for 38.7 percent of all
energy-related CO2 emissions.\27\ Table 4 below presents
total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, for years
1990, 2005 and 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ From Table ES-2 ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012'', Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.
    \27\ From Table 3-1 ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2012'', Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.

           Table 4--U.S. GHG Emissions From Generation of Electricity From Combustion of Fossil Fuels
                                                  [Tg CO2] \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          GHG emissions                                1990            2005            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CO2 from fossil fuel combustion EGUs......................         1,820.8         2,402.1         2,022.7
    --from coal.................................................         1,547.6         1,983.8         1,511.2
    --from natural gas..........................................           175.3           318.8           492.2
    --from petroleum............................................            97.5            99.2            18.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ From Table 3-5 ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2012'', Report EPA 430-R-14-003, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Utility Power Sector

    Electricity in the United States is generated by a range of
sources--from power plants that use fossil fuels like coal, oil, and
natural gas, to non-fossil sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind and
hydroelectric power. In 2013, over 67 percent of power in the U.S. was
generated from the combustion of coal, natural gas, and other fossil
fuels, over 40 percent from coal and over 26 percent from natural
gas.\29\ In recent years, though, the proportion of new renewable
generation coming on line has increased dramatically. For instance,
over 38 percent of new generating capacity (over 5 GW out of 13.5 GW)
built in 2013 used renewable power generation technologies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), ``Table 7.2b
Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector Electric Power
Sector,'' data from April 2014 Monthly Energy Review, release date
April 25, 2014. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/xls.cfm?tbl=T07.02B&freq=m.
    \30\ Based on Table 6.3 (New Utility Scale Generating Units by
Operating Company, Plant, Month, and Year) of the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) Electric Power Monthly, data for
December 2013, for the following renewable energy sources: solar,
wind, hydro, geothermal, landfill gas, and biomass. Available at:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_03.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This range of different power plants generates electricity that is
transmitted and distributed through a complex system of interconnected
components to industrial, business, and residential consumers.
    The utility power sector is unique in that, unlike other sectors
where the sources operate independently and on a local scale, power
sources operate in a complex, interconnected grid system that typically
is regional in scale. In addition, the U.S. economy depends on this
sector for a reliable supply of power at a reasonable cost.
    In the U.S., much of the existing power generation fleet in the
infrastructure is aging. There has been, and continues to be,
technological advancement in many areas, including energy efficiency,
solar power generation, and wind power generation. Advancements and
innovation in power sector technologies provide the opportunity to
address CO2 emission levels at affected power plants while
at the same time improving the overall power system in the U.S. by
lowering the carbon intensity of power generation, and ensuring a
continued reliable supply of power at a reasonable cost.

D. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Clean Air Act section 111, which Congress enacted as part of the
1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, establishes mechanisms for controlling
emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. This provision
requires the EPA to promulgate a list of categories of stationary
sources that the Administrator, in his or her judgment, finds ``causes,
or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' \31\ The EPA has
listed more than 60 stationary source categories under this
provision.\32\ Once the EPA lists a source category, the EPA must,
under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), establish ``standards of performance''
for emissions of air pollutants from new sources in the source
categories.\33\ These standards are known as new source performance
standards (NSPS), and they are national requirements that apply
directly to the sources subject to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA Sec.  111(b)(1)(A).
    \32\ See 40 CFR 60 subparts Cb-OOOO.
    \33\ CAA Sec.  111(b)(1)(B), 111(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the EPA establishes NSPS for new sources in a particular
source category, the EPA is also required, under CAA section 111(d)(1),
to prescribe regulations for states to submit plans regulating existing
sources in that source category for any air pollutant that, in general,
is not regulated under the CAA section 109 requirements for the NAAQS
or regulated under the CAA section 112 requirements for hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). CAA section 111(d)'s mechanism for regulating
existing sources differs from the one that CAA section 111(b) provides
for new sources because CAA section 111(d) contemplates states
submitting plans that establish ``standards of performance'' for the
affected sources and that contain other measures to implement and
enforce those standards.
    ``Standards of performance'' are defined under CAA section
111(a)(1) as standards for emissions that reflect the emission
limitation achievable from the ``best system of emission reduction,''
considering costs and other factors, that ``the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' CAA section 111(d)(1)
grants states the authority, in applying a standard of performance to
particular sources, to take into account the source's remaining useful
life or other factors.
    Under CAA section 111(d), a state must submit its plan to the EPA
for approval, and the EPA must approve the state plan if it is
``satisfactory.'' \34\ If a state does not submit a plan, or if the EPA
does not approve a state's plan, then the EPA must establish a plan for
that state.\35\ Once a state receives the EPA's approval for its plan,
the provisions in the plan become federally enforceable against the
entity responsible for noncompliance, in the same manner as the
provisions of an approved SIP under CAA section 110. Although affected
EGUs located in Indian country operate as part of the interconnected
system of electricity production and distribution, those EGUs would not
be encompassed within a state's CAA section 111(d) plan. Instead, a
tribe that has one or more affected EGUs located in its area of Indian
country \36\ would have the opportunity, but not the obligation, to
establish a plan that establishes standards of performance for
CO2 emissions from affected EGUs for its tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ CAA section 111(d)(2)(A).
    \35\ CAA section 111(d)(2)(A).
    \36\ The EPA is aware of at least four affected sources located
in Indian Country: Two on Navajo lands--the Navajo Generating
Station and the Four Corners Generating Station; one on Ute lands--
the Bonanza Generating Station; and one on Fort Mojave lands, the
South Point Energy Center. The affected EGUs at the first three
plants are coal-fired EGUs. The fourth affected EGU is an NGCC
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA issued regulations implementing CAA section 111(d) in
1975,\37\ and has revised them in the years since.\38\ (We refer to the
regulations generally as the implementing regulations, and we refer to
the 1975 rulemaking as the framework regulations.) These regulations
provide that, in promulgating requirements for sources under CAA
section 111(d), the EPA first develops regulations known as ``emission
guidelines,'' which establish binding requirements that states must
address when they develop their plans.\39\ The implementing regulations
also establish timetables for state and EPA action: States must submit
state plans within 9 months of the EPA's issuance of the
guidelines,\40\ and the EPA must take final action on the state plans
within 4 months of the due date for those plans,\41\ although the EPA
has authority to extend those deadlines.\42\ In the present rulemaking,
the EPA is following the requirements of the implementing regulations,
and is not re-opening them, except that the EPA is extending the
timetables, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ``State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From
Existing Facilities,'' 40 FR 53,340 (Nov. 17, 1975).
    \38\ The most recent amendment was in 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16,
2012).
    \39\ 40 CFR 60.22. In the 1975 rulemaking, the EPA explained
that it used the term ``emissions guidelines''--instead of emissions
limitations--to make clear that guidelines would not be binding
requirements applicable to the sources, but instead are ``criteria
for judging the adequacy of State plans.'' 40 FR at 53,343.
    \40\ 40 CFR 60.23(a)(1).
    \41\ 40 CFR 60.27(b).
    \42\ See 40 CFR 60.27(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the last forty years, under CAA section 111(d), the agency has
regulated four pollutants from five source categories (i.e., sulfuric
acid plants (acid mist), phosphate fertilizer plants (fluorides),
primary aluminum plants (fluorides), Kraft pulp plants (total reduced
sulfur), and municipal solid waste landfills (landfill gases)).\43\ In
addition, the agency has regulated additional pollutants under CAA
section 111(d) in conjunction with CAA

section 129.\44\ The agency has not previously regulated CO2
or any other greenhouse gas under CAA section 111(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See ``Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document
Availability,'' 42 Fed. Reg. 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977); ``Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for
Sulfuric Acid Mist,'' 42 FR 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977); ``Kraft Pulp
Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,'' 44 FR
29,828 (May 22, 1979); ``Primary Aluminum Plants; Availability of
Final Guideline Document,'' 45 FR 26,294 (Apr. 17, 1980);
``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines
for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
Final Rule,'' 61 FR 9905 (Mar. 12, 1996).
    \44\ See, e.g., ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units, Final Rule,'' 76 FR 15,372 (Mar. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's previous CAA section 111(d) actions were necessarily
geared toward the pollutants and industries regulated. Similarly, in
this proposed rulemaking, in defining CAA section 111(d) emission
guidelines for the states and determining the BSER, the EPA believes
that taking into account the particular characteristics of carbon
pollution, the interconnected nature of the power sector and the manner
in which EGUs are currently operated is warranted. Specifically, the
operators themselves treat increments of generation as interchangeable
between and among sources in a way that creates options for relying on
varying utilization levels, lowering carbon generation, and reducing
demand as components of the overall method for reducing CO2
emissions. Doing so results in a broader, forward-thinking approach to
the design of programs to yield critical CO2 reductions that
improve the overall power system by lowering the carbon intensity of
power generation, while offering continued reliability and cost-
effectiveness. These opportunities exist in the power sector in ways
that were not relevant or available for other industries for which the
EPA has established CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See ``Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document
Availability,'' 42 FR 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977); ``Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for
Sulfuric Acid Mist,'' 42 FR 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977); ``Kraft Pulp
Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,'' 44 FR
29,828 (May 22, 1979); ``Primary Aluminum Plants; Availability of
Final Guideline Document,'' 45 FR 26,294 (Apr. 17, 1980);
``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines
for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
Final Rule,'' 61 F R 9905 (Mar. 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is proposing emission guidelines for states
to follow in developing their plans to reduce emissions of
CO2 from the electric power sector.

III. Stakeholder Outreach and Conclusions

A. Stakeholder Outreach

1. The President's Call for Engagement
    Following the direction of the Presidential Memorandum to the
Administrator (June 25, 2013),\46\ this proposed rule was developed
after extensive and vigorous outreach to stakeholders and the general
public. The Presidential Memorandum instructed the Administrator to
inaugurate the process for developing standards through direct
engagement with the states and a full range of stakeholders:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Presidential Memorandum--Power Sector Carbon Pollution
Standards, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards.

    Launch this effort through direct engagement with States, as
they will play a central role in establishing and implementing
standards for existing power plants, and, at the same time, with
leaders in the power sector, labor leaders, non-governmental
organizations, other experts, tribal officials, other stakeholders,
and members of the public, on issues informing the design of the
program.
2. Educating the Public and Stakeholder Outreach
    To carry out this stakeholder outreach, the EPA embarked on an
unprecedented pre-proposal outreach effort. From consumer groups to
states to power plant owner/operators to technology innovators, the EPA
sought input from all perspectives.
    The EPA began the outreach efforts with a webinar and associated
teleconferences to establish a common understanding of the basic
requirements and process of CAA section 111(d). The August 27, 2013
overview presentation was offered as a webinar for state and tribal
officials, ``Building a Common Understanding: Clean Air Act and
Upcoming Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants.''
    The EPA followed up on the presentation by offering four national
teleconference calls with representatives from states, tribes,
industry, environmental justice organizations, community organizations
and environmental representatives. The teleconferences offered a venue
for stakeholders to ask questions of the EPA about the overview
presentation and for the EPA to gather initial reactions from
stakeholders. Stakeholders and members of the public continued to view
and refer to the overview presentation throughout the outreach process.
By May 2014, the presentation had been viewed more than 5,600 times.
    The agency also provided mechanisms for anyone from the public to
provide input during the pre-proposal development of this action. The
EPA set up two user-friendly options to accept input during the pre-
proposal period--email and a web-based form. The EPA has received more
than 2,000 emails offering input into the development of these
guidelines.
    These emails and other materials provided to the EPA are posted on
line as part of a non-regulatory docket, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0020, at www.regulations.gov. All of the documents on which this
proposal is based are available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602,
at www.regulations.gov. However, while the information collected
through extensive outreach helped the agency formulate this proposal,
we are not relying on all of the documents, emails, and other
information included in the informational docket that was established
as a part of that outreach effort, nor will the EPA be responding to
specific comments or issues raised during the outreach effort. Rather,
we have included in the docket for this proposal all of the information
we relied on for this action.
    The agency has encouraged, organized, and participated in hundreds
of meetings about CAA section 111(d) and reducing carbon pollution from
existing power plants. Attendees at these various meetings have
included states and tribes, members of the public, and representatives
from multiple industries, labor leaders, environmental groups and other
non-governmental organizations. The direct engagement has brought
together a variety of states and stakeholders to discuss a wide range
of issues related to the electricity sector and the development of
emission guidelines under CAA section 111(d). The meetings occurred in
Washington, DC, and at locations across the country. The meetings were
attended by the EPA Regional Administrators, managers and staff and who
are playing or will play key roles in developing and implementing the
rule.
    Part of this effort included the agency's holding of 11 public
listening sessions; one national listening session in Washington, DC
and 10 listening sessions in locations in the EPA regional offices
across the country. All of the outreach meetings were designed to
solicit policy ideas, concerns and technical information from
stakeholders about using CAA section 111(d).
    This outreach process has produced a wealth of information which
has informed this proposal significantly. The pre-proposal outreach
efforts far exceeded what is required of the agency in the normal
course of a rulemaking process, and the EPA expects that the dialog
with states and stakeholders will continue throughout the process and
even after the rule is finalized. The EPA recognizes the importance of
working with all stakeholders, and in particular with the states, to
ensure a clear and common understanding of the role the

states will play in addressing carbon pollution from power plants.
3. Public Listening Sessions
    More than 3,300 people attended the public listening sessions held
in 11 cities across the country. Holding the listening sessions at the
EPA's regional offices offered thousands of people from different parts
of the country the opportunity to provide input to EPA officials in
accessible venues. In addition to being well located, holding the
sessions in regional offices also allowed the agency to use resources
prudently and enabled a variety of the EPA staff involved in the
development and ultimate implementation of this upcoming rule to attend
and learn from the views expressed.
    More than 1,600 people spoke at the 11 listening sessions. Speakers
included Members of Congress, other public officials, industry
representatives, faith-based organizations, unions, environmental
groups, community groups, students, public health groups, energy
groups, academia and concerned citizens. Participants shared a range of
perspectives. Many were concerned by the impacts of climate change on
their health and on future generations, others worried about the impact
of regulations on the economy. Their support for the agency's efforts
varied.
    Summaries of these 11 public listening sessions are available at
www.regulations.gov at EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0020.
4. State Officials
    Since fall 2013, the agency provided multiple opportunities for the
states to inform this proposal. In addition, the EPA organized,
encouraged and attended meetings to discuss multi-state planning
efforts. Because of the interconnectedness of the power sector, and the
fact that electricity generated at power plants crosses state lines,
states, utilities and ratepayers may benefit from states working
together to address the requirements of this rulemaking implementation.
The meetings provided state leaders, including governors, environmental
commissioners, energy officers, public utility commissioners, and air
directors, opportunities to engage with the EPA officials.
    Agency officials listened to ideas, concerns and details from
states, including from states with a wide range of experience in
reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The agency has collected
policy papers from states with overarching energy goals and technical
details on the states' electricity sector. The agency has engaged, and
will continue to engage with, all of the 50 states throughout the
rulemaking process.
5. Tribal Officials
    The EPA conducted significant outreach to tribes, who are not
required to--but may--develop or adopt Clean Air Act programs. The EPA
is aware of three coal-fired power plants and one natural gas-fired EGU
located in Indian country but is not aware of any EGUs that are owned
or operated by tribal entities.
    The EPA conducted outreach to tribal environmental staff and
offered consultation with tribal officials in developing this action.
Because the EPA is aware of tribal interest in this proposed rule, the
EPA offered consultation with tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation to permit tribes to have meaningful
and timely input into its development.
    The EPA sent consultation letters to 584 tribal leaders. The
letters provided information regarding the EPA's development of
emission guidelines for existing power plants and offered consultation.
None have requested consultation. Tribes were invited to participate in
the national informational webinar held August 27, 2013. In addition, a
consultation/outreach meeting was held on September 9, 2013, with
tribal representatives from some of the 584 tribes. The EPA
representatives also met with tribal environmental staff with the
National Tribal Air Association, by teleconference, on December 19,
2013. In those teleconferences, the EPA provided background information
on the GHG emission guidelines to be developed and a summary of issues
being explored by the agency.
    In addition, the EPA held a series of listening sessions prior to
development of this proposed action. Tribes participated in a session
on September 9, 2013 with the state agencies, as well as in a separate
session with tribes on September 26, 2013.
6. Industry Representatives
    Agency officials have engaged with industry leaders and
representatives from trade associations in scores of one-on-one and
national meetings. Many meetings occurred at the EPA headquarters and
in the EPA's Regional Offices and some were sponsored by stakeholder
groups. Because the focus of the standard is on the electricity sector,
many of the meetings with industry have been with utilities and
industry representatives directly related to the electricity sector.
The agency has also met with energy industries such as coal and natural
gas interests, as well as companies that offer new technology to