View Rule

The EPA has proposed amendments to the rulemaking titled Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (EGUs),” which was promulgated on October 23, 2015. Specifically, the EPA has proposed to amend its previous determination that the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for newly constructed coal-fired steam generating units (i.e., EGUs) is partial carbon capture and storage (CCS). Instead, the EPA has proposed to find that the BSER for this source category is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with the best operating practices. The EPA further proposed to revise the standard of performance for newly constructed steam generating units as separate standards of performance for large and small steam generating units that reflect the Agency's amended BSER determination. The EPA also proposed to revise the standard of performance for reconstructed steam generating units to be consistent with the proposed revised standards for newly constructed steam generating units. In addition, the EPA proposed to revise the maximally stringent standards for large modifications of steam generating units to be consistent with the standards for reconstructed large and small steam generating units. The EPA did not propose to amend the standards of performance for newly constructed or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines.

Statement of Need:

Executive Order 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth) directed all executive departments and agencies, including the EPA, to ‘‘immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.’’ Moreover, the Executive Order explicitly directed the EPA to undertake this process of review with regard to the New Source Rule issued under CAA section 111(b).  The EPA completed its initial review of the CAA section 111(b) New Source Rule and proposed to revise the rule accordingly (83 FR 65242, December 20, 2018).

Summary of the Legal Basis:

This action is governed by CAA section 111, which authorizes and directs the EPA to prescribe NSPS applicable to certain new stationary sources (including newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed sources).  The EPA’s authority for this proposed rule is CAA section 111(b)(1). Executive Order 13783 explicitly directed the EPA to undertake this process of review with regard to the New Source Rule issued under CAA section 111(b).

Alternatives:

In the December 20, 2018 proposal, the EPA solicited comment its revised determination of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for newly constructed coal-fired EGUs. The EPA previously found that the BSER for such sources is partial carbon capture and storage (CCS). Instead, the EPA proposed to find that the BSER for this source category is the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with the best operating practices. After consideration of public comments, the EPA will issue an action that finalizes decisions and revisions for the rule.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

As explained in the proposal, recent EPA and EIA analyses project there to be, at most, few new, reconstructed, or modified sources that will trigger the new, reconstructed, or modified standards and projected that the proposed rule will not result in any significant carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) emission changes or costs within the projection period. However, future realizations could deviate from these expectations as a result of changes in wholesale electricity markets, federal policy intervention, or substantial shifts in energy prices or fuel costs.

Risks:

No anticipated risks.