Technical Support Document (TSD)
for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500

Allowance Allocation
Final Rule TSD

U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
August 2016

1


-------
Allowance Allocation to Existing and New Units under the Transport Rule Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP)

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides information that supports EPA's
determination of unit-level allocations for existing and new units under the final Transport Rule. Section
VI of the preamble discusses state budgets, and section VII.E discusses how the budgets are apportioned
(i.e., allocated) to existing and new units under FIP program structure. This TSD provides additional
information in support of unit level allocations and elaborates on the data and methodology used to arrive
at the final allocations. The TSD is organized as follows:

1)	Overview

2)	New Unit Set-Asides and Allocations

3)	Allocation Methodology for Existing Units

a.	List of Existing Units

b.	Data and Calculations

c.	States with state-approved allocation methodologies

EPA anticipates that some states will submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) with revised unit-level
allocations to existing units that will replace those defined in the FIP. Section VII.F of the final CSAPR
Update preamble explains when and how states may replace the FIP allocations for vintage year 2018 or
later through specific SIP procedures.

1. Overview

As discussed in preamble section VI, each state's budget is comprised of the emissions that EPA
estimates remain after the state has made the reductions required to eliminate, or make progress towards
the elimination of, its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states in an average year. EPA
finalized the CSAPR Update with a limited interstate trading program. Emission allowances are used in
the implementation of this program. Specifically, EPA creates one allowance for each ton of emissions
allowed in each year under each state's budget. Each allowance has a "vintage" year, which is the year
for which the allowance is issued. Covered sources are required to submit such an allowance for each ton
of the relevant pollutant emitted during the compliance year. To implement the programs, allowances are
initially allocated among covered sources within a state.

As discussed in the preamble, under the FIP, EPA allocates allowances to sources in the state equal to
that state's total budget. The methodology used to determine states' budgets is independent of and not
affected by the methodology used to determine initial allowance allocations. In other words, initial
allowance allocations in no way impact the state budget. The state budgets are determined independently
through the multi-factor analysis outlined in sections V and VI of the CSAPR Update preamble.
Regardless of the methodology used by EPA or a state to allocate allowances to sources within the state,
emissions in each covered state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state will be prohibited. In sum, the allocation methodology has no impact on the

2


-------
rule's ability to satisfy the statutory mandate of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to eliminate significant
contribution and interference with maintenance in downwind states.

As discussed in section VII.D of the preamble, under the FIPs, EPA will distribute the entire
budget to units located in the state subject to the FIP. However, this budget would first be divided into
three different subgroups listed below (note, amounts vary by state):

1)	New unit set-aside (NUSA)

2)	Indian Country new unit set-aside (Indian country NUSA)

3)	Existing unit budget

An initial amount of the state budget (91% to 98%, depending on the state) would be distributed to
existing units (i.e., units online before January 1, 2015) in advance of the vintage year for which they are
issued. The remaining amount would be held back for new units in NUSA and Indian country NUSA
accounts. If any of the NUSA or Indian country NUSA allowances remain unclaimed two weeks prior to
the allowance transfer deadline, then they would be allocated to existing units on the same basis as the
initial existing unit budget so they will be available to existing units for compliance.

The final CSAPR Update identifies potentially covered existing CSAPR Update units and allocations
for each of those units under the FIP. This TSD details how the list of existing units was determined, how
allocations were calculated, and how the quantity of allowance set-asides for new units and Indian
Country new units were determined. Following these descriptions, an appendix showing each affected
EGU's allocation under the final CSAPR Update FIP along with the underlying data and calculations
used to derive the allocation comprises most of the document.

2) New Unit Set Asides and Allocations

As explained in section VII.E, the final CSAPR Update uses January 1, 2015 as the cut-off date
used to distinguish "new units" from "existing units" for purposes of allowance allocation. Allocations to
existing units are based on historic heat input over a five-year baseline as well as historic emissions data
over an eight-year baseline. To allocate using this methodology, EPA needs at least one full year of heat
input and emissions data from an "existing unit" to determine its allocation. If a unit did not come online
prior to January 1, 2015, it cannot have provided a full year of data at the time of the CSAPR Update's
finalization. For this reason, EPA could not use a date later than January 1, 2015 for the cut-off date.
Units that came online after January 1, 2015 are considered "new units" for purposes of allocation under
the final CSAPR Update FIPs and will receive their allocations from the NUSA or Indian country NUSA
for their states.

The new unit set-aside for ozone season NOx for each state is a percentage of the state's total
budget. This percentage is the sum of a "base" percentage that all states receive for "potential" new units
and a state-specific percentage reflecting emissions from "planned" units. For purposes of this document,
the "potential" units on which the new source set-aside base percentage relies are those units that are
projected new builds in the IPM modeling of the CSAPR Update. In other words, they are units that do
not show up in the modeling input, but do show up in the modeling output. "Planned" units, on which the
state-specific percentage of the new source set-aside is based, are those units that are already identified in
the modeling input because they are specific plants that are already built or are under construction, but
that commence commercial operation on or after January 1, 2015. Because the location of these
"planned" units is already known and identified in the modeling input, the portion of the new unit set-
aside corresponding to these units is state-specific.

3


-------
Both at proposal and final, EPA utilizes the base percentage of the new unit set-aside of 2 percent
established in the original Cross State Air Pollution Rule finalized in 2011. In the original CSAPR, EPA
had identified the 2 percent value as a reasonable set-aside for potential new units as it reflected the high
end of state-level emissions from projected - or potential - new units. EPA determined that this 2 percent
level was reasonable for the CSAPR Update as well and received little comment suggesting otherwise.
Moreover, EPA replicated the analysis used to identify the initial 2 percent value, but using the latest EPA
power sector base case and found that 2 percent still reflected a reasonable upper bound of state-level
share of emissions from new units. By selecting the high-end percentage, EPA chose a conservative
envelope that would provide a pool of new unit set-aside allowances large enough to cover emissions
from "potential" new units in states.1 EPA chose this basis in order to preserve a reasonable amount of
allowances for new unit allocations in every state, as new units may not be sited in the same locations that
EPA's modeling assumes for analytical purposes.

The "state-specific" percentage represents the share of each state budget that EPA projects to be
emitted from "planned" units in 2020. As discussed previously, determining the state-specific percentage
is necessary given the new unit definition used in the final rule. EPA is determining a state-specific
percentage for projected emissions from "planned" units because unlike the location of new capacity that
the model projects to be built, the location of planned units is already known.

The base and state-specific percentages were added for each state to determine the size of that
state's new-unit set asides, which are shown in Table 1 below.2

Table 1: New Unit Set-Asides (NUSA) and Indian Country Ni

USAs

State

$1,400 per-ton

Emission
Budgets (tons)

Variability
Limit (tons)

Portion set
aside for
new units

(%) «

NUSA for
new units
not in Indian
country
(tons)2

Indian
country
NUSA
(tons)

Alabama

13,211

2,774

2

255

13

Arkansas

12,048/9,210

2,530/1,934

111

240/185



Georgia3

8,481

1,781

2

168



Illinois

14,601

3,066

2

302



Indiana

23,303

4,894

2

468



Iowa

11,272

2,367

3

324

11

Kansas

8,027

1,686

2

148

8

Kentucky

21,115

4,434

2

426



Louisiana

18,639

3,914

2

352

19

1	As explained in the preamble for the final CSAPR Update, after 5 years of non-operation, the allocation for
existing units is redirected to the new unit set asides, thereby offsetting the need for additional allowances to be
withheld from existing unit allocations for purposes of the new unit set asides.

2	Three states (Alabama, Missouri, and New York) have provided EPA with SIP submittals regarding the allocation
of ozone season NOx allowances under the original CSAPR before the CSAPR Update. In order to honor the
allocation methodologies reflected in these SIP submittals, for these three states EPA's FIP unit level allocations
utilized the methodology submitted by the state. This is reflected in total portion of the state budget set-aside for
new units as well as the portion for new units not in Indian country. The amount of the Indian country NUSA is
unaffected.

3	The amounts shown in the table for Georgia apply only if Georgia elects to participate in the CSAPR NOx Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program through a SIP revision as provided in 40 CFR 52.38(b)(6).

4


-------
Maryland

3,828

804

4

152



Michigan

17,023

3,575

4

665

17

Mississippi

6,315

1,326

2

120

6

Missouri

15,780

3,314

2

324



New Jersey

2,062

433

9

192



New York

5,135

1,078

5

252

5

Ohio

19,522

4,100

2

401



Oklahoma

11,641

2,445

2

221

12

Pennsylvania

17,952

3,770

3

541



Tennessee

7,736

1,625

2

156



Texas

52,301

10,983

2

998

52

Virginia

9,223

1,937

6

562



West Virginia

17,815

3,741

2

356



Wisconsin

7,915

1,662

2

151

8

For each control period, any allowances remaining in a state's new unit set-aside (after
allocations are made to new units in accordance with the CSAPR regulations) are distributed to the
existing units in that state in proportion to the existing units' original allocations. This ensures that total
allocations to units in the state are equal to the state budget in that year.

Each Indian country new unit set-aside equals a proportion of the "base" new unit set-aside
included in this final CSAPR Update (the base percentage, as described above, is 2 percent of the state
budget). EPA is reserving allowances for the Indian country new unit set-aside only from each state's
"base" percentage of the new unit set-aside. EPA is not reserving these allowances from the state-specific
percentage of each state's new unit set-aside because that percentage is specifically calculated on the
basis of projected emissions from "planned" units, none of which are located in Indian country. EPA is
creating Indian country set-asides in each state as a share of that state's base percentage portion of the
new unit set-aside, i.e., as a share of the 2 percent portion of the total budget in that state. EPA is
determining the size of the Indian country set-aside (within that 2 percent portion of the state budget) on
the basis of the percentage of Indian country relative to the entire state. EPA calculates the maximum
percentage of Indian country in any state within the CSAPR Update region equal to 5 percent, and is
using that level as a basis for establishing Indian country set-asides for all states whose geographic
boundaries encompass Indian country. Therefore, the Indian country set-aside is 5 percent of the base
percentage new unit set-aside, which is equivalent to 0.1 percent of the total state budget (i.e., 5 percent of
2 percent is 0.1 percent). EPA assessed the share of Indian country within each state using the American
Indian Reservations/Federally Recognized Tribal Entities dataset, which contains data for the 562
federally recognized Tribal entities in the contiguous U.S. and Alaska. EPA analyzed the share of square
miles of Indian country within the total square miles of a state whose geographic boundaries encompass
that Indian country. As explained above, EPA then took the highest percentage as the number to be
applied across all states with Indian Country to determine the Indian Country new unit set-aside. The
Indian country new unit set-asides in the following CSAPR Update states with Indian country are shown
in Table 1.

New units are allocated allowances from the set-aside accounts described above. The final rule
provides that a unit's new unit set-aside allocation initially equals that unit's emissions for the control
period in the preceding year. EPA determines whether the total amount of initial allowance allocations
for all units in a state for a control period exceeds the amount in the state's new unit set-aside for the
control period. If the amount in the new unit set-aside is exceeded, EPA allocates each unit a
proportionate share of the new unit set-aside based on the unit's initial allocation amount. If allowances

5


-------
remain in the new unit set-aside, EPA then allocates additional allowances to each new unit that
commenced commercial operation during the year of the control period or the prior year in order to bring
the unit's total allocation up to the amount of the unit's emissions in the control period, if sufficient
allowances are available. Any unallocated allowances in the new unit set-aside are allocated to existing
units in proportion to their share of the current existing-unit allocations. Unused allowances in the Indian
country new unit set-aside are first transferred to the respective state's new unit set-aside. If allowances
remain unused in the state's new unit set-aside, they are then proportionally distributed, as previously
described, to existing units in that state.

3) Allocation Methodology for Existing Units

The allocation methodology bases a unit's allocation on the unit's historical heat input but limits any
unit's allocation to its historical maximum emissions. Implementation of this methodology involves
identifying potentially covered units and determining appropriate data baselines for each unit. EPA first
identified the list of potential covered units. Next, EPA compiled reported data on each unit and
calculated its share of heat input. Both stages are described below.

a)	List of Potential Existing CSAPR Update Units

The list of units to which allocations are made in the final rule is based on final applicability
criteria discussed in section VII.E of the preamble and Section 97.804 of the final CSAPR Update
regulations. Existing units are units that are covered under these criteria and that commenced commercial
operation prior to January 1, 2015. This cutoff date is used in the definition of existing unit because it
assures that at least one full year of historical data is available to determine each existing unit's
allocation. The baseline years used in the proposal ended in 2014 for similar reasons. Since publishing
the proposal, the 2015 data has been reported and verified. Because an additional year of data is
available, EPA updated the cut-off date for existing units to January 1, 2015, the heat input baseline from
2010-2014 to 2011-2015, and the historical emission baseline to 2008-2015. These final allocation tables
contain a list of units that EPA believes, based on best available data, meet the covered and existing unit
criteria. As described above, the percent of the state budgets allocated to existing units varies between
91% and 98% for each state depending on the number of planned units in each state.

To identify the potential existing CSAPR Update units, EPA relied largely on data reported to
EPA. The great majority of units are units that were already identified and reporting as subject to CSAPR
trading programs and other trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or the Acid Rain
Program (ARP). A small number of additional units are also included that may meet the CSAPR
applicability criteria, but which were not already reporting under other trading programs.

b)	Data and Calculations

For the units identified through the process in section 3a) above. EPA used reported heat-input
and emissions data from the EPA database for the years 2008-2015 because they were already reporting
under the CSAPR, CAIR, and/or ARP programs. For units included in the list of potential existing
CSAPR Update units that were not reporting under one of these ongoing EPA trading programs, EPA
used historical heat input and emissions data from Energy Information Administration (EIA) forms, 860,
906, 920, and 923. These data are publicly available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricitv/page/data.html. The heat input-based allocation method
finalized and described below is used to allocate the existing unit portion of the state's budget (i.e., the
state budget less the state's new unit set-aside and, if applicable, the Indian country new unit set-aside for
the state).

6


-------
Specifically, the heat input approach with the historical maximum emissions upper bound
establishes a baseline historical heat input value for each potential existing unit and sets a unit's share of
available allowances under the CSAPR Update trading program equal to the unit's percentage share of the
total baseline historical heat input for all potential existing CSAPR Update units in the state. This
approach is applied to each state separately, using the portion of that state's budget available for potential
existing CSAPR Update units in that state. In instances where the heat input-based allocation to a given
unit exceeds the unit's historical maximum emissions over the baseline period, this historical maximum
emissions is used as an upper bound on the allocation and the unit's allocation is set equal to this emission
level.

Allocations under this approach for each existing unit are determined by applying the following

steps.

1.	For each unit in the list of potential existing CSAPR Update units, ozone season heat input values
for the baseline period of 2011 through 2015 are identified using data reported to EPA or, where
EPA data are unavailable, EIA. For a baseline year for which a unit has no data on heat input
(e.g., for a baseline year before the year when a unit started operating), the units is assigned a zero
value. (Step 2 explains how such zero values are treated in the calculations.) The allocation
method uses a five-year baseline in order to improve representation of a unit's normal operating
conditions overtime.

2.	For each unit, the three highest, non-zero ozone season heat input values within the 5 year
baseline are selected and averaged. Selecting the three highest, non-zero ozone season heat input
values within the five-year baseline reduces the likelihood that any particular single year's
operations (which might be negatively affected by outages or other unusual events) determine a
unit's allocation. If a unit does not have three non-zero heat input values during the five-year
baseline period, EPA averages only those years for which a unit does have non-zero heat input
values. For example, if a unit has only reported data for 2013and 2014 among the baseline years
and the reported heat input values are 2 and 4 mmBtus respectively, then the unit's average heat
input used to determine its pro-rata share of the state budget is (2+4)/2 = 3.

3.	Each unit is assigned a baseline heat input value calculated as described in step 2 above. This
baseline heat input value is referred to in the data tables in the rulemaking docket, and on the
website referenced previously, as the "three-year average heat input."

4.	The three-year average heat inputs of all potential existing units in a state are summed to obtain
that state's total "three-year average heat input."

5.	Each unit's three-year average heat input is divided by the state's total three-year average heat
input to determine that unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat input.

6.	Each unit's share of the state's total three-year average heat input is multiplied by the existing-
unit portion of the state budget (i.e., the state budget less the state's new unit set-aside and, if
applicable, the Indian country new unit set-aside for the state) to determine that unit's initial
allocation.

7.	An eight-year (2008-2015) historical emissions baseline is established for ozone season NOx
based on data reported to EPA or, where EPA data are unavailable, EIA data. This eight-year
historical emissions baseline is used in order to capture the unit-level emissions before and after
the promulgation of the original CSAPR.

8.	For each unit, the maximum ozone season NOx emissions from the eight-year baseline for each
unit is identified. These values are referred to as the "maximum historical baseline emissions" for
each unit.

7


-------
9.	If a unit has a historical heat-input based allocation (as determined in step 6) that exceeds its
maximum historical baseline emissions (as determined in step 8), then its allocation equals the
maximum historical baseline emission for that unit.

10.	The difference (if positive) under step 9 between a unit's historical heat-input-based allocation
and its "maximum historical baseline emissions" would be reapportioned on the same basis as
described in steps 1 through 6 to units whose historical-heat-input-based allocation does not
exceed its maximum historical baseline emissions. Steps 7, 8, and 9 are repeated with each
revised allocation distribution until the entire existing-unit portion of the state budget is allocated.
The resulting allocation value is rounded to the nearest whole number using conventional
rounding. The table below provides an example application of the steps 1-10 in a hypothetical
state.

Source data can be found at ampd.epa.gov/ampd and www2.epa.gov/energy/egrid

Table 2: Demonstration of Allocations Using Final Allocation Methodology in a Three-Unit State



Step 1-6

Step 7,8,9

Step 10



Historical Heat-input-based Initial
Allocation

Maximum Historical
Baseline Emissions

Final
Allocation

Unit A

20

16

16

Unit B

30

50

32

Unit C

30

50

32

Where can I find this data?

The unit level allocations can be found in the separate file titled "Unit Level Allocations and Underlying
Data for the CSAPR for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS" published as an Excel file and available in the docket
and on the website at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The file
contains six worksheets. The first, titled "Final Allocations", identifies each unit and its final 2017 and
2018 allocations under the trading program. The second worksheet, titled "Underlying Data for 2017
FIP", shows all the data and calculations that are enumerated above. Each of the ten steps is color coded
and displayed in sequential order moving from left to right across the spreadsheet. The formulas to derive
any calculated values are explained directly beneath the column header. The third through fifth
worksheets show data and calculations described in section 3c) (States with state-approved allocation
methodologies) for states where state-approved allocation methodologies from SIP submittals were used
in place of EPA's default allocation methodology described above. The sixth worksheet shows all data
and calculations for the 2018 Arkansas unit level allocation; this is identical to the second worksheet but
with Arkansas's 2018 state budget.

Rounding

EPA uses conventional rounding for its allocation purposes and applies rounding at the unit level for
existing unit allocations. For example, if State A has a 500 ton budget with a 5% new unit set-aside, than
its existing unit allocation would be 475 tons. If there are only two covered existing units in the state with
equal heat inputs and a historic maximum emissions above 500 tons, than the steps described above
would result in an allocation of 237.5 tons for each unit. This unit level allocation for each of these units
would round to 238 allowances, which would sum to 476 allowances. The difference between the sum of
the rounded existing unit level allocations and the state budget (i.e., 500-476), would be the actual new

8


-------
unit set-aside amount for the state. EPA notes that, because of rounding, the actual number of allowances
in the new unit set-aside will sometimes be a percentage of the state budget marginally greater or less than
the percentage identified in the tables above. In other words, the percentage approximated for the new
unit set aside in the tables above may be 5%, but the actual total allowances in the new unit set-aside may
equal 5.01% or 4.99% of the state budget. Because EPA does not issue allowances or allow surrender of
allowances for compliance using fractional tons, this type of rounding is necessary.

Consent Decrees

EPA's consent decrees with coal-fired power plants were examined to evaluate if these impact unit level
allocations, (https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/coal-fired-power-plant-enforcement')

Tonnage limits were first evaluated. There are no ozone season tonnage limits, only annual tonnage
limits. The annual tonnage limits were each checked and are not close to binding on the unit-level
allocations of ozone season allowances under this rule. In other words, no ozone season unit-level
allocation exceeds the annual limitation established in the consent decrees. Therefore, tonnage limits in
the consent decrees are not relevant to the ozone season unit level allocation process in the CSAPR
Update.

EPA also looked at N0X emission rate limits in these consent decrees (Table 3). When the emission rate
limits are applied with an assumption of average heat input, EPA found that collectively, across all units
with emission rate limits under the consent decrees, the amount of allowances allocated to the units could
exceed the estimated emissions allowed under the units' rate limits by a total of 1,296 tons per year in
2017 through 2019 and a total of 1,855 tons per year starting in 2020. This analysis included 130 units
with consent decree NOx emission rate limits. Moreover, EPA determined that if maximum allowable
heat inputs were assumed instead of average heat inputs, no unit would have an allowance allocation
exceeding its emission rate limit and only one unit would have an allowance allocation exceeding its
emission rate limit starting in 2020 (by 63 tons). Therefore, EPA concluded that the emission rate limits
in the consent decrees would affect few allowances in the CSAPR Update trading programs, if any. Any
effort to reallocate the allowances potentially made unusable by emission rate limits would require EPA
to make assumptions about individual units' future utilization and heat input. Because this would require
the use of unit-level projections whose application in setting unit-level allocations would be difficult to
support and because few allowances are potentially at risk, EPA chose not to adjust allocations to reflect
emission rate limits defined in the consent decrees.

Table 3: Potential Impact of Consent Decree NOx Maximum Emission Mates on CSAPR Update















Average of
3 Highest
Non-Zero
Ozone
Season



Potential
constraint
from NOx
emission
rate limit

Possible
surplus



Utility consent decree

Plant Name

State

ORIS

Boiler
ID

Allocation
(tons)

NOx

emission
rate limit
(Ib/mmBtu)

allocation
based on
NOx
emission
rate limit
(tons)











Heat Inputs
from 2011
to 2015

and

average
heat input

Duke Energy Corpora lion

Allen

IX

3393

1

226

6,540,274

0.25

818

None

Before 1-

(9/10/15)



















May-17

Duke Energy Corporation

Allen

TN

3393

2

242

6,997,024

0.25

875

None

Before 1-

(9/10/15)



















May-17

Interstate Power and

Lansing

IA

1047

4

419

6,182,103

0.08

247

172

Before 1-

Light Company (7/15/15)



















May-17

Interstate Power and

Ottumwa

IA

6254

1

1,361

20,055,390

0.16

1,604

None

Before 1-

Light Company (7/15/15)



















May-17

9


-------
3C-

19

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦19

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

¦17

Ottumwa

IA

6254

1,361

20,055,390

0.08

Milton L
Kapp

IA

1048

316

4,655,237

0.15

Burlington

IA

1104

456

6,725,614

0.18

Prairie Creek

IA

1073

0.60

Prairie Creek

IA

1073

0.60

Prairie Creek

IA

1073

76

1,113,556

0.40

Prairie Creek

IA

1073

207

3,057,137

0.40

JH

Campbell

MI

1710

386

7,891,273

0.22

JH

Campbell

MI

1710

411

8,401,460

0.08

JH

Campbell

MI

1710

1,306

26,694,588

Dan E Karn

MI

1702

258

5,272,626

Dan E Karn

MI

1702

327

6,816,420

0.08

B C Cobb

MI

1695

199

4,058,289

0.20

B C Cobb

MI

1695

204

4,175,533

0.20

J C Weadock

MI

1720

181

3,699,938

0.34

J C Weadock

MI

1720

211

4,317,949

0.34

J R Whiting

MI

1723

126

2,584,332

0.28

J R Whiting

MI

1723

136

2,772,142

0.28

J R Whiting

MI

1723

168

3,438,652

0.28

Columbia

WI

8023

677

19,461,143

0.15

Columbia

WI

8023

561

16,124,618

0.15

Columbia

WI

8023

561

16,124,618

0.07

Edgewater
(4050)

WI

4050

401

11,523,916

0.07

Edgewater
(4050)

WI

4050

282

8,117,051

0.15

Nelson
Dewey

WI

4054

112

3,218,145

0.30

Nelson
Dewey

WI

4054

117

3,363,298

0.30

Kincaid

Generating

Station

IL

876

373

12,418,890

Kincaid

Generating

Station

IL

876

426

14,192,621

0.08

Pulliam

WI

4072

47

1,338,159

0.25

Pulliam

WI

4072

92

2,643,588

0.25

Weston

WI

4078

23

656,088

0.25

10


-------
Wisconsin Public Service

Weston

WI

4078

2

43

1,249,552

0.28

175

None

Before 1-

Corporation
Settlement (01/04/13)



















May-17

Wisconsin Public Service

Weston

WI

4078

3

303

8,726,361

0.10

436

None

Before 1-

Corporation
Settlement (01/04/13)



















May-17

Wisconsin Public Service

Weston

WI

4078

4

442

14,460,068

0.06

434

8

Before 1-

Corporation
Settlement (01/04/13)



















May-17

Louisiana Generating
Settlement (11/21/12)

Big Cajun 2

LA

6055

2B1

1,266

17,780,730

0.15

1,334

None

Before 1-
May-17

Louisiana Generating
Settlement (11/21/12)

Big Cajun 2

LA

6055

2B2

1,296

18,207,469

0.15

1,366

None

Before 1-
May-17

Louisiana Generating
Settlement (11/21/12)

Big Cajun 2

LA

6055

2B3

1,252

17,581,508

0.135

1,187

65

Before 1-
May-17

Dairyland Power

J P Madgett

WI

4271

B1

339

9,748,792

0.08

390

None

Before 1-

Cooperative
Settlement (06/29/12)



















May-17

Dairyland Power

Genoa

WI

4143

1

239

6,881,108

0.14

482

None

Before 1-

Cooperative
Settlement (06/29/12)



















May-17

Dairyland Power

Alma

WI

4140

B4

7

199,690

0.35

35

None

Before 1-

Cooperative
Settlement (06/29/12)



















May-17

Dairyland Power

Alma

WI

4140

B5

14

414,168

0.35

72

None

Before 1-

Cooperative
Settlement (06/29/12)



















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

Bailly

IN

995

7

223

4,768,394

0.12

286

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Generating
Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

Bailly

IN

995

8

424

9,088,284

0.12

545

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Generating
Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

Michigan

IN

997

12

547

11,701,375

0.10

585

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

City

Generating
Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

RM

IN

6085

14

507

10,847,120

0.10

542

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Schahfer

Generating

Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

RM

IN

6085

15

633

13,553,531

0.15

1,017

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Schahfer

Generating

Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

RM

IN

6085

17

451

9,656,523

0.20

966

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Schahfer

Generating

Station

















May-17

Northern Indiana Public

RM

IN

6085

18

472

10,108,331

0.20

1,011

None

Before 1-

Service Company Air Act
Settlement (01/13/11)

Schahfer

Generating

Station

















May-17

Hoosier Energy Rural

Frank E

IN

1043

1SG1

65

1,383,344

0.23

159

None

Before 1-

Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (07/23/10)

Ratts

















May-17

Hoosier Energy Rural

Frank E

IN

1043

2SG1

76

1,635,114

0.23

188

None

Before 1-

Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (07/23/10)

Ratts

















May-17

Hoosier Energy Rural

Merom

IN

6213

1SG1

708

15,155,770

0.08

606

102

Before 1-

Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (07/23/10)



















May-17

Hoosier Energy Rural

Merom

IN

6213

2SG1

676

14,473,958

0.08

579

97

Before 1-

Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (07/23/10)



















May-17

American Municipal

Richard

OH

7253

1





0

0

None

Before 1-

Power (05/18/10)

Gorsuch

















May-17

American Municipal

Richard

OH

7253

2





0

0

None

Before 1-

Power (05/18/10)

Gorsuch

















May-17

11


-------
American Municipal

Richard

OH

7253

3





0

0

None

Before 1-

Power (05/18/10)

Gorsuch

















May-17

American Municipal

Richard

OH

7253

4





0

0

None

Before 1-

Power (05/18/10)

Gorsuch

















May-17

Westar Energy, Inc.

Jeffrey

KS

6068

1

1,037

23,523,349

0.18

2,117

None

Before 1-

Settlement (01/25/10)

Energy
Center

















May-17

Westar Energy, Inc.

Jeffrey

KS

6068

3

1,031

23,375,064

0.18

2,104

None

Before 1-

Settlement (01/25/10)

Energy
Center

















May-17

Westar Energy, Inc.

Jeffrey

KS

6068

2

997

22,605,595

0.18

2,035

None

Before 1-

Settlement (01/25/10)

Energy
Center

















May-17

Ohio Edison Company,

R E Burger

OH

2864

4





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

R E Burger

OH

2864

5





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

6

623

16,200,033

0.10

810

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

7

576

14,956,774

0.10

748

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

2

132

3,426,566

0.25

428

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

1

144

3,731,434

0.25

466

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

3

157

4,072,021

0.25

509

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

4

152

3,961,549

0.25

495

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Ohio Edison Company,

W H Sammis

OH

2866

5

224

5,831,200

0.29

846

None

Before 1-

W.H. Sammis Power



















May-17

Station, Clean Air Act





















Settlement (08/11/09)





















Kentucky Utilities

E W Brown

KY

1355

3

460

9,177,220

0.08

367

93

Before 1-

Company (02/03/09)



















May-17

American Electric Power

John E Amos

WV

3935

1

655

19,551,141

0.10

978

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

John E Amos

wv

3935

2

606

18,982,002

0.10

949

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

John E Amos

WV

3935

3

1,374

25,930,979

0.10

1,297

77

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Big Sandy

KY

1353

BSU2

758

15,105,748

0.10

755

3

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Cardinal

OH

2828

1

504

15,372,937

0.10

769

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Cardinal

OH

2828

2

530

16,657,297

0.10

833

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

12


-------
American Electric Power

Cardinal

OH

2828

3

627

16,291,878

0.10

815

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Conesville

OH

2840

1





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Conesville

OH

2840

2





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Conesville

OH

2840

3

40

1,048,004

0.10

52

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Conesville

OH

2840

4

574

14,914,002

0.10

746

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Gen JM

OH

8102

1

1,517

39,408,534

0.10

1,970

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

Gavin

















May-17

American Electric Power

Gen JM

OH

8102

2

1,323

34,385,737

0.10

1,719

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

Gavin

















May-17

American Electric Power

Mitchell

PA

3181

1

0

1,581

0.10

0

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

Power
Station

















May-17

American Electric Power

Mitchell

PA

3181

2





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

Power
Station

















May-17

American Electric Power

Mountaineer

WV

6264

1

1,979

38,163,967

0.10

1,908

71

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

American Electric Power

Muskingum

OH

2872

1

63

1,647,429

0.10

82

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

River

















May-17

American Electric Power

Muskingum

OH

2872

2

71

1,846,282

0.10

92

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

River

















May-17

American Electric Power

Muskingum

OH

2872

3

97

2,530,370

0.10

127

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

River

















May-17

American Electric Power

Muskingum

OH

2872

4

94

2,437,073

0.10

122

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

River

















May-17

American Electric Power

Muskingum

OH

2872

5

433

11,260,455

0.10

563

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)

River

















May-17

American Electric Power

Rockport

IN

6166

MB1

1,823

39,026,726

0.10

1,951

None

31-Dec-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















17

American Electric Power

Rockport

IN

6166

MB2

1,858

39,771,225

0.10

1,989

None

31-Dec-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















19

American Electric Power

Phil Sporn

WV

3938

51





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

Service Corporation
Settlement (10/09/07)



















May-17

East Kentucky Power

HL

KY

6041

1

369

7,352,760

0.10

368

1

Before 1-

Cooperative (07/2/07)

Spurlock

















May-17

East Kentucky Power

HL

KY

6041

2

712

16,098,179

0.10

805

None

Before 1-

Cooperative (07/2/07)

Spurlock

















May-17

East Kentucky Power

John S.

KY

1384

2

164

3,274,994

0.08

131

33

Before 1-

Cooperative (07/2/07)

Cooper

















May-17

Alabama Power

Gorgas

AL

8

10

945

21,628,898

0.10

1,081

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)



















May-17

Alabama Power

Barry

AL

3

1

44

1,017,636

0.20

102

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)



















May-17

Alabama Power

Barry

AL

3

2

29

673,071

0.20

67

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)



















May-17

13


-------
Alabama Power

Greene

AL

10

1

287

6,574,151

0.28

920

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)

County

















May-17

Alabama Power

Greene

AL

10

2

294

6,732,791

0.28

943

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)

County

















May-17

Alabama Power

James H

AL

6002

3

906

25,206,952

0.10

1,260

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)

Miller Jr

















May-17

Alabama Power

James H

AL

6002

4

976

27,778,156

0.10

1,389

None

Before 1-

Company

Settlement (04/25/06)

Miller Jr

















May-17

Illinois Power Company

Baldwin

IL

889

1

497

16,547,073

0.10

827

None

Before 1-

and Dynegy Midwest
Generation
Settlement (03/07/05)

Energy
Complex

















May-17

Illinois Power Company

Baldwin

IL

889

2

569

18,936,116

0.10

947

None

Before 1-

and Dynegy Midwest
Generation
Settlement (03/07/05)

Energy
Complex

















May-17

Illinois Power Company

Havana

IL

891

6





0.10

0

None

Before 1-

and Dynegy Midwest



















May-17

Generation





















Settlement (03/07/05)





















Illinois Power Company

Baldwin

IL

889

3

597

19,887,239

0.10

994

None

Before 1-

and Dynegy Midwest
Generation
Settlement (03/07/05)

Energy
Complex

















May-17

Southern Indiana Gas and

F B Culley

IN

1012

3

395

8,466,982

0.10

423

None

Before 1-

Electric Company
(SIGECO)

Settlement (06/06/03)

Generating
Station

















May-17

Wisconsin Electric Power

Pleasant

WI

6170

1

596

17,153,789

0.10

858

None

Before 1-

Company (WEPCO)
Settlement (04/29/03)

Prairie

















May-17

Wisconsin Electric Power

Pleasant

WI

6170

2

621

17,872,433

0.10

894

None

Before 1-

Company (WEPCO)
Settlement (04/29/03)

Prairie

















May-17

Wisconsin Electric Power

South Oak

WI

4041

7

248

7,148,129

0.10

357

None

Before 1-

Company (WEPCO)
Settlement (04/29/03)

Creek

















May-17

Wisconsin Electric Power

South Oak

WI

4041

8

305

8,776,720

0.10

439

None

Before 1-

Company (WEPCO)
Settlement (04/29/03)

Creek

















May-17

Virginia Electric and

Mount Storm

wv

3954

1

625

15,792,523

0.11

869

None

Before 1-

Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Power
Station

















May-17

Virginia Electric and

Mount Storm

wv

3954

2

697

15,265,286

0.11

840

None

Before 1-

Power Company

Power

















May-17

(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Station



















Virginia Electric and

Mount Storm

wv

3954

3

695

15,438,672

0.11

849

None

Before 1-

Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Power
Station

















May-17

Virginia Electric and

Chesterfield

VA

3797

4

205

3,518,956

0.10

176

29

Before 1-

Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Power
Station

















May-17

Virginia Electric and

Chesterfield

VA

3797

5

514

8,826,208

0.10

441

73

Before 1-

Power Company

Power

















May-17

(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Station



















Virginia Electric and

Chesterfield

VA

3797

6

762

17,250,776

0.10

863

None

Before 1-

Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Power
Station

















May-17

14


-------
Virginia Electric and
Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Chesapeake

Energy

Center

VA

3803

3

198

3,407,323

0.10

170

28

Before 1-
May-17

Virginia Electric and
Power Company
(VEPCO)

Settlement (04/17/03)

Chesapeake

Energy

Center

VA

3803

4

223

3,831,473

0.10

192

31

Before 1-
May-17

ALCOA, Inc.
Settlement (03/27/03)

Alcoa
Allowance
Management
Inc

IN

6705

1





0.10

0

None

Before 1-
May-17

ALCOA, Inc.
Settlement (03/27/03)

Alcoa
Allowance
Management
Inc

IN

6705

2





0.10

0

None

Before 1-
May-17

ALCOA, Inc.
Settlement (03/27/03)

Alcoa
Allowance
Management
Inc

IN

6705

3





0.10

0

None

Before 1-
May-17

PSEG Fossil LLC. Civil
Judicial

Settlement (01/24/02)

Hudson

Generating

Station

NJ

2403

2

198

9,704,047

0.10

485

None

Before 1-
May-17

PSEG Fossil LLC. Civil
Judicial

Settlement (01/24/02)

Mercer

Generating

Station

NJ

2408

1

51

2,513,306

0.13

163

None

Before 1-
May-17

PSEG Fossil LLC. Civil
Judicial

Settlement (01/24/02)

Mercer

Generating

Station

NJ

2408

2

41

2,021,125

0.13

131

None

Before 1-
May-17

c) States with state-approved allocation methodologies

In the CSAPR Update proposal, EPA proposed that if, at the time the rule was finalized, EPA had already
approved a SIP revision addressing the allocation of CSAPR ozone season NOx allowances among the
units in the state, and if the SIP's allocation provisions could be applied to an updated budget, the
approved SIP revision would govern the allocation of allowances among that state's units under the final
CSAPR Update. EPA received no adverse comments on that aspect of the proposal.

Three states - Alabama, Missouri, and New York - have provided EPA with SIP submittals reflecting
state-approved methodologies for allocating ozone season NOx allowances among their units. Because
EPA has not approved these SIP submittals, there are no approved SIP provisions in place to allocate the
allowances reflecting the budgets established under the final CSAPR Update. However, EPA is carrying
out the intent of the proposal by allocating allowances to existing units under the FIPs for these three
states using the allocation methodologies already adopted by the states, applied to the budgets established
in the final CSAPR Update.

The allocation methodologies used for existing units in the three states are described below. In each case,
the state's methodology determines the allocations to existing units as well as the portion of the state
budget set aside for new units, subject to a minimum set-aside of 2% consistent with EPA's default FIP
allocation methodology. Allocations from the NUSAs and Indian Country NUSAs for these states will be
computed according to the CSAPR new-unit allocation provisions in 40 CFR 97.811(b) and 97.812.

Alabama

1)	Units in Alabama that are retired (Table 5) are removed from the list of existing units eligible to
receive unit level allocations.

2)	Standard unit level allocation methodology and standard NUSA methodology are utilized.

15


-------
Table 5: Retired Units in Alabama







Barry

3

3

Colbert

47

1

Colbert

47

2

Colbert

47

3

Colbert

47

4

Colbert

47

5

Gorgas

8

6

Gorgas

8

7

Widows Creek

50

1

Widows Creek

50

2

Widows Creek

50

3

Widows Creek

50

4

Widows Creek

50

5

Widows Creek

50

6

Widows Creek

50

7

Widows Creek

50

8

Missouri

1)	Standard unit level allocation methodology and standard NUSA methodology are utilized.

2)	Allocations to Chillicothe (2122/GT1A) and Higginsville Municipal Power Plant (2131/4A) are
manually increased from 0 tons to 1 ton, if they are at 0 tons. Any resulting increase in existing
unit allocation is offset by a reduction in the NUSA.

New York

1)	Preliminary allocation for each unit is computed as the average of the unit's ozone season NOx
emissions for the years 2013 to 2015, with zero data years included as zeroes.

2)	All preliminary unit allocations at the end of step 1) are summed. If the sum is no more than 85%
of the state budget, proceed to step 4). If the sum exceeds 85% of the state budget, first do step 3).

3)	Apply an equivalent ratio to all preliminary unit allocations from step 1) to reduce the sum of all
unit allocations to 85% of the state budget.

4)	The preliminary unit allocation value is rounded to the nearest whole number using conventional
rounding.

5)	The total portion of the state budget set aside for new units is 5.0%; this includes 0.1% as an
Indian country NUSA and 4.9% as a NUSA for units in the state other than Indian country within
the state's borders.

6)	The difference between the sum of all unit allocations and the total NUSA portion is allocated to
NYSERDA. By definition this must be at least 10% of the state budget, though it could be higher.

16


-------